pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Mobile Photography in Stock  (Read 13587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 31, 2012, 11:20 »
0
There was a recent thread about iStock accepting iphone photos, I see that PocketStock has it's own dedicated mobile stock app, Foap is a new agency dedicated entirely to mobile shots, Jack Hollingsworth stated that the iPhone was his favorite piece of photography gear and

Is mobile photography, and using it for stock, as huge as it sounds?


« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2012, 11:23 »
0
tons of mobile pictures flooding my FB feed, http://instacanv.as/


« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2012, 12:11 »
+1
Is mobile photography, and using it for stock, as huge as it sounds?

My iPhone shots at Getty sell nicely. I know there are some who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that a mobile phone's camera could possibly produce a quality image, but they're dead wrong. Just like any other tool, not every photo is a keeper and just like every other photo you can keep it raw or filter . out of it. Which aesthetic you prefer doesn't matter and one isn't more valid than the other. But the fact is, there's a market for these images and it would be silly to not take advantage of it.  Personally, I think much of the backlash against this type of photo is the years of "over filtered" rejections and being resentful of a new standard. Times change, people - if you've been doing this for any amount of time that's one lesson you should have already learned.

« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2012, 12:23 »
0
Times change, people - if you've been doing this for any amount of time that's one lesson you should have already learned.

is that why you only have 3 new pictures on the latest year? sorry for the OT

regarding the mobile era I dont have anything against but please (agencies) make a separate category for them, we arent editing carefully files after files to have mobile pictures next to the regular collection, I dont even care about the trademark or copyright issues because I am not planning to join anytime soon

« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2012, 12:31 »
0
is that why you only have 3 new pictures on the latest year? sorry for the OT

I don't see what that has to do with anything but I do a lot better with Getty, so thats where all my photos go these days.

« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2012, 12:34 »
0
make a separate category for them, we arent editing carefully files after files to have mobile pictures next to the regular collection

Why is this? Nervous about competition? If yes, then don't be - images are images and the better one should sell. If no, then why would you care?

« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2012, 12:43 »
0
chill out :)

I was just asking a question and I have appreciated your answer, I was questioning that because you talked about the fact we should adapt to changes etc, I was wondering if you were going to drop istock exclusivity, just that

I am not afraid of competition and again that wasnt my point, you can read it again if you wish, mainly I want them to show up on a separate search, I believe it makes sense, actually it would be nice for mobile phones contributors no? considering there is such a huge market etc

« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2012, 12:47 »
0
I want them to show up on a separate search, I believe it makes sense, actually it would be nice for mobile phones contributors no? considering there is such a huge market etc

Well, if iStock keeps the "mobilestock" keyword, then a search for that term alone would produce the same result, so no need for an extra collection. Personally, I'm against the idea of various collections and price-points in general, but that's a whole other thing.

« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2012, 12:52 »
0
Is mobile photography, and using it for stock, as huge as it sounds?

My iPhone shots at Getty sell nicely. I know there are some who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that a mobile phone's camera could possibly produce a quality image, but they're dead wrong. Just like any other tool, not every photo is a keeper and just like every other photo you can keep it raw or filter . out of it. Which aesthetic you prefer doesn't matter and one isn't more valid than the other. But the fact is, there's a market for these images and it would be silly to not take advantage of it.  Personally, I think much of the backlash against this type of photo is the years of "over filtered" rejections and being resentful of a new standard. Times change, people - if you've been doing this for any amount of time that's one lesson you should have already learned.

I enjoy the challenge of taking pictures with my phone and like that it is starting to be accepted as a valid 'art form'.  If the image is good enough, then it's good enough depsite the camera it was taken with.

But on the flip side, I find it odd that now instead of an image being required to be taken on an SLR it's beint requiredto be shot on a smart phone.  I don't think either camp is correct.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2012, 12:58 »
0
But on the flip side, I find it odd that now instead of an image being required to be taken on an SLR it's beint requiredto be shot on a smart phone.  I don't think either camp is correct.
I don't think it's ever been required for photos to have been taken on an SLR - certainly not on iStock, where my top seller was taken with a G9 (and almost everything I took on it subsequently was rejected!). I guess I need to steal my sister's iPhone to see if the quality is better than the G9.


« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2012, 13:07 »
+1
I agree that mobile or whatever is a silly way of describing it. I am pretty mobile with my slr - and my point and shoot but my phone camera is pathetic. They ought to just go with the style of the shot no matter what it was taken with. Really the only thing that isn't mobile is a large telescope.

A shame about all those images with overfiltered, noise, and snapshot rejections in the past though.

« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2012, 13:25 »
0
But on the flip side, I find it odd that now instead of an image being required to be taken on an SLR it's beint requiredto be shot on a smart phone.  I don't think either camp is correct.

I think its a bit like how iStock (I don't know anything about other agencies) has a separate film based image inspection. The difference here being that the mobile thing is a response to a global trend and they're actively soliciting the images, rather than just taking them as they're submitted.


velocicarpo

« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2012, 14:29 »
+1
IMHO all this is too about a certain, very "spontanous" style of Photography. current comemrcial image databases are stuck through their own intolerance with a certain image style and accepting shots from a new device (Phones etc.) which is not capable of producing the known style is sort of a workaround for the own incapacity of stimulating and accepting true creativity. As Leaf said in the istock thread, it would be easy to reassemble a phone-style with a DSLR and cropping it down, reducing the res or quality, or just applying the style and keep the good technical quality. As I already said in the istock thread, I tried that and most of the Agencies did not accept them, now trying to be inventive and accepting phone shot.

As a buyer it means for me that I have to select much more carefully what image I license and if the quality is useful for me and the project. There is always the danger of making a mistake and mobile shots would need to be clearly labeled as such.
As a Photographer my first reflex is rejecting the idea, but this I identify just as a defense mechanism because I love my gear and try to improve with all the $$ I spend my work. So, having suddenly said that all this is not necessary anymore is like a emotional punch in the face. Also, it opens the door for virtually unlimited competition for us photoqs. But thinking further, I like the Idea. Finally, creativity and - further down the road - the business side, are and will be always good filters to reduce competition.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 14:31 by velocicarpo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2012, 15:07 »
0
Maybe their spies have discovered that there really are plenty of sales being made in these phonecam pic selling sites and they want a slice of it.

The stock phone images will be fake 'spontaneous' because of the IP issues, unless the established stock agencies embrace 'incidental' use (and like I said in the other thread, I don't know if 'incidental' use is internationally accepted.)

Have e.g. iStock said they'd accept editorial pics taken on a phone? I've had older editorial shots taken a few years back on a Fuji 5300 (2560x1920 sized down to M) rejected for noise, though I had a couple accepted.

velocicarpo

« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2012, 15:24 »
0
Maybe their spies have discovered that there really are plenty of sales being made in these phonecam pic selling sites and they want a slice of it.


Are there plenty of sales? I always thought there is not much movement until now...


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2012, 15:29 »
0
Maybe their spies have discovered that there really are plenty of sales being made in these phonecam pic selling sites and they want a slice of it.


Are there plenty of sales? I always thought there is not much movement until now...

I have no idea. It was just a suggestion as to why iStock is actively pushing people to submit mobile phone pics when they've been accepting them for ages. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense.

« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2012, 16:43 »
0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pxq1tbh5y46rj/Flowers.jpg

I was messing around recently with my Iphone.  A little more stable and this might make a saleable image.

« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2012, 16:48 »
0
its more than good, I am sure all mobile agencies would approve it, take a look at them ;D

I believe it needs to be a square crop

« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2012, 16:50 »
0
I think it's the latest, hip, cool "trending now" thing. Hopefully there are still companies out there that value regular, good stock photography, without a bunch of filters and low lighting. I can't imagine using an image of a taco in any type of publication that wants to show their food as being appetizing and delicious. Low, yellow lighting with harsh shadows and an instagram filter doesn't seem to me to be the best way to present any kind of food.  :o

Again, look at the big picture. The market for stock photos just opened up to another "billion" contributors. Where do you think that's going to send commissions? You think the agencies treat contributors badly now, just wait. It will be like the news stations and newspapers. They will have the general public sending in photos for free, just for "maybe" the chance of some recognition. Yikes. Contributors at istock should be up in arms, instead, looks like maybe they are embracing it. After all, you MUST change with the market, right?

Quote
I have no idea. It was just a suggestion as to why iStock is actively pushing people to submit mobile phone pics when they've been accepting them for ages. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense.

It makes perfect sense. They can justify lowering commissions even further, because after all, you didn't have to go out and buy any extra equipment. You had a phone anyway, so getting paid $.02 per image is better than nothing, right?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2012, 16:59 »
0
It makes perfect sense. They can justify lowering commissions even further, because after all, you didn't have to go out and buy any extra equipment. You had a phone anyway, so getting paid $.02 per image is better than nothing, right?
Ha, never thought about it that way, probably because I don't 'have a phone anyway' (my phone cam is perhaps 1mb with a following wind, but I've never put a pic onto the computer, so I don't know)!
But yeah, it could be a way of them paying out a much higher percentage of 15% commissions.
 I was a bit shocked when I read in the iStock thread a 'badge' saying that people might like to submit phone pics because they don't own a camera. I wonder if they're out in the interwebs trying to get phone-only people in. Will phone-only instagram people want to be bothered with all that IP stuff?

« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2012, 18:07 »
0
It makes perfect sense. They can justify lowering commissions even further, because after all, you didn't have to go out and buy any extra equipment. You had a phone anyway, so getting paid $.02 per image is better than nothing, right?
Ha, never thought about it that way, probably because I don't 'have a phone anyway' (my phone cam is perhaps 1mb with a following wind, but I've never put a pic onto the computer, so I don't know)!
But yeah, it could be a way of them paying out a much higher percentage of 15% commissions.
 I was a bit shocked when I read in the iStock thread a 'badge' saying that people might like to submit phone pics because they don't own a camera. I wonder if they're out in the interwebs trying to get phone-only people in. Will phone-only instagram people want to be bothered with all that IP stuff?

I had a smartphone but traded it in for a stupid phone and a Galaxy Tab. I hardly ever take pics with either. I sunk a ton of money into photo equipment, why would I. Sometimes I take a picture with my phone of the parking level I'm on so when I come back out to find my car, I know the color and number of the area it's parked in. Those parking garage levels all look alike.  :D

red

« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2012, 18:17 »
0
I had a smartphone but traded it in for a stupid phone and a Galaxy Tab. I hardly ever take pics with either. I sunk a ton of money into photo equipment, why would I. Sometimes I take a picture with my phone of the parking level I'm on so when I come back out to find my car, I know the color and number of the area it's parked in. Those parking garage levels all look alike.

What a great idea!

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2012, 00:03 »
0
Anyone have a phone pic to share?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5426 Views
Last post April 30, 2012, 22:05
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
2154 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 19:00
by Smithore
0 Replies
3457 Views
Last post February 20, 2013, 18:57
by THP Creative
5 Replies
3550 Views
Last post October 01, 2015, 08:03
by Rage
1 Replies
2899 Views
Last post January 17, 2016, 04:36
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle