Author Topic: Mobile Photography in Stock (Read 18421 times)

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #26 on:** September 01, 2012, 00:43 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on September 01, 2012, 00:13

And what does the 100% crop look like? Can we see?

And then compare that to your 100% crop from your DSLR!

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** September 01, 2012, 02:28 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 01, 2012, 00:03

Anyone have a phone pic to share?

Not mine:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/MobileStock/source/basic#34b401a

OM · « **Reply #28 on:** September 01, 2012, 04:20 »

Interestingly, if you filter for most downloads on that 'mobilestock' page:

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/MobileStock/source/basic#17d14615

The most sold seem to be anything but 'trendy/social media-type' shots. The only one that fits that description is the one of the '4 girlfriends' and that's a 12Mp pic and sold once. Hmmm bizarre!

Found this via FT Facebook link:

http://www.fotolia.com/p/202869477?order=nb_downloads

Deviantart collection at FT. Also got that 'trendy/edgy' type image and all on subscription.

disorderly · « **Reply #29 on:** September 01, 2012, 11:36 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 31, 2012, 13:05

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 28, 2012, 22:20
http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/

Not at all sure I trust that comparison. The first Canon shot looks like it was oversharpened. Look at the halos around the letters. Some funky processing on the JPEG, in camera I suspect.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #30 on:** September 02, 2012, 10:53 »

So is there a separate review process for phone pics?

Phone pics 100% crops are iffy at best in even thinking about getting past a reviewer for the focus being good!

And if there are two standards then that is unfair to all!

aluxum · « **Reply #31 on:** September 02, 2012, 14:15 »

I think it a great initiative. Would I use my phone to do food photography. Hell no, unless I would be in an exotic restaurant and had a tarantula served on my plate and I had no other camera with me....

But I fully agree with those that think that a great image is a great image independently of whatever tool was used. You can take the most boring image with a PHASE ONE and the most spectacular one with a mobile phone even if it's full of noise,artifacts,unsharp,....

Don't believe me. Just look at the next photo essay and tell me if this is not the case:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** September 02, 2012, 16:44 »

" You can take the most boring image with a PHASE ONE and the most spectacular one with a mobile phone even if it's full of noise,artifacts,unsharp,...."

Unfortunately, our IS buyers are accomstomed to quality images, without noise or artifacts that are sharp. Killing off that rep is risky.

aluxum · « **Reply #33 on:** September 02, 2012, 16:57 »

Unfortunately, our IS buyers are accomstomed to quality images, without noise or artifacts that are sharp. Killing off that rep is risky.
[/quote]

Not if they are marked some way that inform buyers about their nature. I think it is much riskier to loose potential or established buyers searching for this kind of images to go and shop elsewhere. I would bet that the Flickr collection has been very successful and that might be one of the reasons they want to explore new territories at Istockphoto.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** September 02, 2012, 16:59 »

They aren't going to be marked in any way, so....

OM · « **Reply #35 on:** September 02, 2012, 17:05 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 02, 2012, 10:53

So is there a separate review process for phone pics?

Phone pics 100% crops are iffy at best in even thinking about getting past a reviewer for the focus being good!

And if there are two standards then that is unfair to all!

Has to be a different selection procedure. Found a food photo. Google Pizza Surrana and I think you'll catch my drift.

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** September 02, 2012, 17:31 »

Quote from: aluxum on September 02, 2012, 16:57

I would bet that the Flickr collection has been very successful ...

So successful that they've changed the way it's done?
(I'm not in it, but I heard they've changed it but paid no attention to the details.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** September 02, 2012, 17:33 »

Quote from: aluxum on September 02, 2012, 14:15

I think it a great initiative. Would I use my phone to do food photography. Hell no, unless I would be in an exotic restaurant and had a tarantula served on my plate and I had no other camera with me....

But I fully agree with those that think that a great image is a great image independently of whatever tool was used. You can take the most boring image with a PHASE ONE and the most spectacular one with a mobile phone even if it's full of noise,artifacts,unsharp,....

Don't believe me. Just look at the next photo essay and tell me if this is not the case:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1

The photos are very interesting and it's possible that a 'real' camera wouldn't have got access to some/many of them. I'd want them converted to monochrome (black and white), but maybe a cyan cast is the new black and white.

raclro · « **Reply #38 on:** September 02, 2012, 22:46 »

Quote from: aluxum on September 02, 2012, 14:15

I think it a great initiative. Would I use my phone to do food photography. Hell no, unless I would be in an exotic restaurant and had a tarantula served on my plate and I had no other camera with me....

But I fully agree with those that think that a great image is a great image independently of whatever tool was used. You can take the most boring image with a PHASE ONE and the most spectacular one with a mobile phone even if it's full of noise,artifacts,unsharp,....

Don't believe me. Just look at the next photo essay and tell me if this is not the case:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1

I am seeing this trend nearly every day. They are using many "quaility" photos and adding noise, artifacting, vingetting, etc. I think iStock is learning that there is a significant market for photos like these.

Mantis · « **Reply #39 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:46 »

Those are some very cool images indeed. Obvious post processing on some but when do we not post process anyway? Especially good for web based content where high REZ needs aren't an issue.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #40 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:39 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 08:46

Those are some very cool images indeed. Obvious post processing on some but when do we not post process anyway? Especially good for web based content where high REZ needs aren't an issue.

I dunno, most of them look like really bad HDR images.

leaf · « **Reply #41 on:** December 04, 2012, 04:00 »

I felt this video was relevant here

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6853117/look-at-this-instagram-nickelback-parody

rubyroo · « **Reply #42 on:** December 04, 2012, 05:43 »

LOL!

Nearly fell of my chair watching that. Brilliant!

ShadySue · « **Reply #43 on:** December 04, 2012, 05:50 »

Quote from: leaf on December 04, 2012, 04:00

I felt this video was relevant here
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6853117/look-at-this-instagram-nickelback-parody

Brilliant!
I'm impressed at the quality of their photos (lol, surely they're pasted in) - mine are all mega-cr*p.

gillian vann · « **Reply #44 on:** December 04, 2012, 06:11 »

there's a Coke ad on a phone booth that's on my school run every day, that's clearly an iPhone style shot of a "teen at rock festival" type image. ugh, it's soooo grainy and out of focus, it hurts my eyes to look at it. But I suspect I'm in the minority? Most ppl prob just glance at it and assume it's a cool pic.

madelaide · « **Reply #45 on:** December 06, 2012, 22:24 »

A comedian here made a video about the (ab)use of Instagram. It isn't funny if you don't understand the words, but some points are about people feeling they are artists by using those filters and about the amount of crappy shots posted at Instagram.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #46 on:** December 06, 2012, 23:14 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 01, 2012, 00:03

Anyone have a phone pic to share?

Dangerous question I suspect?

OK here's a good one from the 3GS, about as good as they get.

Sunset in the Fall

Here's the way I see it. Totally personal perspective. I have an iPhone 3GS. My pictures should never be accepted anywhere, no matter how well I light and stabilize the camera, They are grainy and fun, it's good for Twitter or Facebook.

Now I see what the Androids and newer phone cameras, oh excuse me "mobile devices" can do and I've had to say, some pretty nice photos.

So like most everything else, It Depends. Newer camera phones are very good, have LEDs that act as a flash, take 8MP photos, decent ISO. It's a photo fad because of the social spontaneous look of the images, just like some other trendy fads. If it sells and people make them, best wishes. I have other interests personally.

Nice video Leaf and they have the mandatory Duck shot in there!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Mobile Photography in Stock (Read 18421 times)

red

ruxpriencdiam

ShadySue

OM

disorderly

ruxpriencdiam

aluxum

Sean Locke Photography

aluxum

Sean Locke Photography

OM

ShadySue

ShadySue

raclro

Mantis

Sean Locke Photography

leaf

rubyroo

ShadySue

gillian vann

madelaide

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors