Lowers the value of the rest of the collection if you ask me, they should have started a independent site for phone pics.

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 dont't think quality is the point. It's a question of look and stile ... nobody prefers definatly a phone picture ... but good pictures what look alike. That's a great differerence.

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 02, 2012, 16:56
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!

Don't be expecting this to make any sense.   And it's only going to get crazier.

Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

Hahaha

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

Exactly. 

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 17:13

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really?  I don't see that.  What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content.  If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 17:25

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 17:13

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really?  I don't see that.  What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content.  If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 17:25

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 17:13

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really?  I don't see that.  What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content.  If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

+!

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 18:22

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 17:25

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 17:13

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really?  I don't see that.  What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content.  If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat.

I don't really see why I'm being quoted here - but if you think for a second, perhaps you'll recall when digital photography rolled around and it was broadly badmouthed. Same deal with the early days of Microstock. Perhaps some of you haven't been shooting long enough to recall these things, I don't know.  But, all this stuff about ruined reputations, separate collections, etc is all the same stuff. I get that people are resistant to change, but all this just seems to me to be gear snobbery and resentment about years of "over-filtering" rejections that are coming to the surface.

No resentment here, I dont even submit to IS. You just cant have different standards for the same pile. I really dont care if someone shoots with a mobile phone. But if they have technically flawed photos (noise, OOF, underexposed) approved just because they are from a mobile phone, and added to the general database, then yes, I would be upset. If they add them to a different category and have adjusted pricing, I dont see the problem. If they accept them under the same quality control I dont have a problem either. If a photo is technically sound, it doesnt matter what equipments was used to get there.

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 19:03
But if they have technically flawed photos (noise, OOF, underexposed) approved just because they are from a mobile phone...

So far, all we can assume from their statements is that this will be the case.  There's the set of existing standards, and now there's the new rule that says those standards may not apply to cell phone photos.  And what is a "cell phone photo", really?  It doesn't  matter if the camera was part of an actual phone and not just a P&S; what they really want is a certain "look" which is difficult if not impossible to specify or recognize in a consistent way.  To paper over this weirdness they'll say that "cell phone photos" must actually come from phones, I guess, but how long can that distinction be enforced?   

I don't see this as another film vs. digital thing.  I never did film, but it seems like the issues were pretty clear. Composition, lighting, focus were still goals.  Or were agencies really saying - in the early days of digital - "we'll take cr@ppy photos from digital cameras, because buyers just want that digital look"? 

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 19:03
No resentment here, I dont even submit to IS. You just cant have different standards for the same pile. I really dont care if someone shoots with a mobile phone. But if they have technically flawed photos (noise, OOF, underexposed) approved just because they are from a mobile phone, and added to the general database, then yes, I would be upset. If they add them to a different category and have adjusted pricing, I dont see the problem. If they accept them under the same quality control I dont have a problem either. If a photo is technically sound, it doesnt matter what equipments was used to get there.

Same here. I don't submit to istock, so it doesn't matter one whit to me what you/they do. I just agree with the others before me that think this should be a whole different site for a whole different market. If anyone should be screaming, it should be the contributors at istock. After spending so much money on equipment to get the images to a professional quality, which is what istock USED to be about, it seems like this should be a slap in those istock contributors' faces. What Sean said...devaluing the quality, professional images on istock.

I agree that a quality image can be shot with ANYTHING...but most of the cellphone images I see could hardly qualify as a quality image. I just think this is the latest "trending now" thing...further diluting istock contributors' sales. How many more "millions" of contributors will jump in to sell their images for $.02 (or whatever istock is selling these images for now). Does this mean that the last "trending now" thing...HDR...is finally out? 

I agree that a quality image can be shot with ANYTHING...

The problem in my mind is what constitutes a "quality" image these days. It is probably what the buyers will buy and has nothing to do with technical quality. Quality is defined as - Quality: The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something. If you then try to define excellence it gets even harder. Excellence: The quality of being outstanding or extremely good. What's "good?" A vicious circle.

I see nothing wrong with accepting these types of photos if that is what the buyer wants. Obviously they call them cellphone photos because the look started with iphones and their special filter apps and even add-on lenses, and there is no other term that applies. Perhaps cellphone-like photos would be better.

I do think that they should be marketed from a separate place for those who are looking for that type of image and that the actual cell phone or camera or filter that can create the cellphone-like look is irrelevant. Let them accept whatever of these types of photos they want and if they don't sell things will change. If they do, everyone will start submitting them.

http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/Portfolios/iPhone_Artistry.html
This guy has made a name for himself with iphone images but I would classify them as fine art, not cellphone pics. Much different from what is being marketed as hip, trendy cell phone imagery. Should microstock include fine art images?

Nikon is about to introduce a pocket-size camera running Android.  I assume that means all those 'filter' apps can be used on it.  But, it's not a phone.   So...  ?   

It's IS's business and they can accept, reject, and sell whatever they want.  Tastes change.  I just think that - as was the case with all their pricing schemes and changes over the last year - they're going to get contributors, buyers, and reviewers hopelessly confused, as they chase this latest rainbow.

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 18:41

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 18:22

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 17:25

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 17:13

Quote from: JPSDK on September 03, 2012, 03:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really?  I don't see that.  What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content.  If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat.

I don't really see why I'm being quoted here - but if you think for a second, perhaps you'll recall when digital photography rolled around and it was broadly badmouthed. Same deal with the early days of Microstock. Perhaps some of you haven't been shooting long enough to recall these things, I don't know.  But, all this stuff about ruined reputations, separate collections, etc is all the same stuff. I get that people are resistant to change, but all this just seems to me to be gear snobbery and resentment about years of "over-filtering" rejections that are coming to the surface.

You're being quoted because I am responding to your post.  There is no alarm being sounded, and this isn't really at all like the earlier examples.  Read my post for clarity.

"If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat

Yes, the point is that they can't pass the same QC without modifying the standard.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 22:46

You're being quoted because I am responding to your post.  There is no alarm being sounded, and this isn't really at all like the earlier examples.  Read my post for clarity.

Yeah, I did - you're not clear and just plain wrong in pretty much everything you've posted on this topic.

I took some photos with my new iPhone 4s using Camera+ in pretty good lighting and ISO etc...

Took them into LR and PS for post and... well, the composition was nice but I felt like I was cleaning a beautiful sculpture in dirty water. You just cannot compare a 5dMII sensor and L Glass to a freaking iPhone!!. The pop is just not there. It's like trying to polish a turd.

Quote from: oxman on September 04, 2012, 00:02
I took some photos with my new iPhone 4s using Camera+ in pretty good lighting and ISO etc...

Took them into LR and PS for post and... well, the composition was nice but I felt like I was cleaning a beautiful sculpture in dirty water. You just cannot compare a 5dMII sensor and L Glass to a freaking iPhone!!. The pop is just not there. It's like trying to polish a turd.

http://mythbustersresults.com/end-with-a-bang

Quote
You can't polish poop.
BUSTED
Adam and Jamie visited a zoo to obtain a variety of feces to try to polish. They tried to pick the most polishable candidates and baked them to remove the moisture. Adam tried to shine his poop with a buffing wheel, while Jamie reasoned that using a wax polish would result in a shine. Adam eventually sought the advice of an outside expert, who showed him that it was possible to apply a shine to dirt with a tedious technique. Applying this technique, Adam and Jamie were able to obtain very polished poop without using any foreign materials like polish.

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 22:53

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 22:46

You're being quoted because I am responding to your post.  There is no alarm being sounded, and this isn't really at all like the earlier examples.  Read my post for clarity.

Yeah, I did - you're not clear and just plain wrong in pretty much everything you've posted on this topic.

And yet, you seem unable to post any argument against what I am saying, except thing like 'gear envy' and whatnot.

Quote from: sjlocke on September 04, 2012, 01:04

And yet, you seem unable to post any argument against what I am saying, except thing like 'gear envy' and whatnot.

Whatever. You've proven time and again that you MUST be right on all topics, so I'm not continuing this with you - you're just a troll. Just go on being the know-it-all, and I'll go on selling my iPhone images.

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 04, 2012, 01:12

Quote from: sjlocke on September 04, 2012, 01:04

And yet, you seem unable to post any argument against what I am saying, except thing like 'gear envy' and whatnot.

Whatever. You've proven time and again that you MUST be right on all topics, so I'm not continuing this with you - you're just a troll. Just go on being the know-it-all, and I'll go on selling my iPhone images.

Nevermind....this is really the good, the bad and the ugly.