MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: leaf on August 31, 2012, 11:20
-
There was a recent thread about iStock accepting iphone photos (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/ohgodhepme!-istock-is-accepting-mobile-photography/), I see that PocketStock has it's own dedicated mobile stock app (http://www.mystockphoto.org/pocketstock-launches-game-changing-new-iphone-app-and-rips-open-stock-photo-supply/), Foap is a new agency (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/app-lets-users-sell-iphone-pics-as-stock-images/) dedicated entirely to mobile shots, Jack Hollingsworth stated (http://www.togtech.com/15-of-the-worlds-top-photographers-reveal-their-favorite-gear/) that the iPhone was his favorite piece of photography gear and
Is mobile photography, and using it for stock, as huge as it sounds?
-
tons of mobile pictures flooding my FB feed, http://instacanv.as/ (http://instacanv.as/)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[url]http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/[/url] ([url]http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/[/url])
-
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.
-
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.
-
[url]http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/[/url] ([url]http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/[/url])
Looks like the G9 is better than the iPhone4S then, at least.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7pxq1tbh5y46rj/Flowers.jpg (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.
-
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
-
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?
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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!
-
Anyone have a phone pic to share?
-
(http://files.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2011/07/getarealcamera.jpg)
-
([url]http://files.petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2011/07/getarealcamera.jpg[/url])
And what does the 100% crop look like? Can we see?
And then compare that to your 100% crop from your DSLR!
-
Anyone have a phone pic to share?
Not mine:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/MobileStock/source/basic#34b401a (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/MobileStock/source/basic#34b401a)
-
Interestingly, if you filter for most downloads on that 'mobilestock' page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/MobileStock/source/basic#17d14615 (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 (http://www.fotolia.com/p/202869477?order=nb_downloads)
Deviantart collection at FT. Also got that 'trendy/edgy' type image and all on subscription.
-
[url]http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/[/url] ([url]http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/[/url])
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.
-
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!
-
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 (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1)
-
" 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.
-
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.
-
They aren't going to be marked in any way, so....
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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:
[url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1[/url] ([url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1[/url])
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.
-
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:
[url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1[/url] ([url]http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_war_in_hipstamatic#1[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I felt this video was relevant here :)
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6853117/look-at-this-instagram-nickelback-parody (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6853117/look-at-this-instagram-nickelback-parody)
-
LOL!
Nearly fell of my chair watching that. Brilliant!
-
I felt this video was relevant here :)
[url]http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6853117/look-at-this-instagram-nickelback-parody[/url] ([url]http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6853117/look-at-this-instagram-nickelback-parody[/url])
Brilliant!
I'm impressed at the quality of their photos (lol, surely they're pasted in) - mine are all mega-cr*p.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://s5.postimage.org/w90fbba07/iphone_sunset_sept_2012.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/wyj7noajn/full/)
Sunset in the Fall (http://postimage.org/)
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! ;)