MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock now accepting cellphone pics.  (Read 19292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2012, 01:54 »
0
Yep.  +1


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2012, 05:15 »
0
6. Handholding a cellphone is challenging because, like a P&S, it has no viewfinder and must be held out at arms length.
I have no idea about any phone cams but I've seen the ones that you hold out at arm's length then push the screen. I'm really impressed if anyone can get an unblurred photo doing that.

« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2012, 06:44 »
0
I'm all for photos from lower quality cameras being accepted, as long as the same rules apply to all of us and buyers can easily filter out what they don't want.

The first photo I sold was from a 2mp digital compact.  The photo was printed quite big in a newspaper supplement and looked OK.  I like using all sorts of cameras, from the lowest to the highest quality.  I think it should always be about what they buyer wants and probably 90% of the time the camera isn't that important.  I also like the other end of the market, super high quality but I don't like the snobbery that a lot of photographers have about people that use their cellphones or cheap P&S cameras.  The photo is either good or bad, what it's taken with usually only matters if someone wants big prints and as long as they can filter out the lower technical quality images, it shouldn't be a problem.

« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2012, 08:38 »
0
6. Handholding a cellphone is challenging because, like a P&S, it has no viewfinder and must be held out at arms length.
I have no idea about any phone cams but I've seen the ones that you hold out at arm's length then push the screen. I'm really impressed if anyone can get an unblurred photo doing that.

+1

I can't, I must need more practice

rinderart

« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2012, 11:39 »
0
Do I detect a bit of denial. ya know...I look at a lot of ports..Always have and ya know what? I see very Little if any originality at all and yes including Mine. There was a time you could search and pretty much knew who took the shot by the style.  Thats what I see missing the last few years " Style" and One of the reasons I like "Good" Iphoneography in it's puriest form. if you guys would forget the "he shot this with a cellphone attitude and I spent a fortune therefore im a better photographer BS". You might understand this Principal here.

I used Chase Jarvis as an example, There are a ton of young Ones out there Like him now That have clients any one of us would drool Over. These shooters are simply not concerned with the stuff we do. To them it's stale,Boring and creatively dead. I had  a student a few years ago that came to a group workshop of mostly stock shooters, I tried to get her in and she refused because it killed what she wanted to do and saw. To her it was cookie cutter stuff with way to many rules. She said no and went on to win major awards in pro magazine contests and has a huge client list also.

 Everything she does would probably get rejected by all the sites for Lens flare,Exposure,Noise But.....She knows how to tell a story. And clients love that. She does Mobil oil,Starbucks, Virgin Airlines and many more and, In just 3 years from a total newb. Am I going to get a cellphone camera? No.
Im just saying. And when....  [probably sooner or later] we get wrist Cameras with 10/12 megapixels and the huge Asian markets join in submitting...Well .....Things are gonna change and I don't think it's gonna be about Over Processed Perfect, Fake,sterile work.

Just my 2 cents. But, All said I probably won't be doing this anymore by then anyway. I wanna start spending the years I have left going back to Fineart gallery work. And leave the pixel peeping behind.


« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2012, 12:35 »
0

The first photo I sold was from a 2mp digital compact.  The photo was printed quite big in a newspaper supplement and looked OK.

When I was a newspaper editor I sometimes had to tell people to stop sending us 1MP+ file attachments because they jammed our e-mail, so they should make photos for publication no bigger than 100kb. Yup, that is all a newspaper needs for most things.

BTW, I suspect the enthusiasm for this stems from the use of camera phones by news organisations in Libya and Syria. Someone realised that there are circumstances where content beats quality. What they failed to realise is that if quality is the key selling point for a product, you can't just abandon that without suffering the obvious penalties. Particularly when the content does not outweigh the quality.

Microstock is a certain kind of product. It comes with certain expectations and assurances. Trying to embrace the vogue for camera phones or pinhole cameras won't work even though there are undoubtedly some limited markets for both.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 13:57 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2012, 15:22 »
0
Nice assessment, Baldrick.

rinderart

« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2012, 16:23 »
0
And then theres next Month.LOL

rinderart


« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2012, 18:32 »
0
Really interesting thoughts in this thread so far.  Maybe I do have a prejudice.  If so, it's one that has been beaten into me for 7 years by the level of technical excellence that has been demanded (imo quite correctly) by the agencies up to this point. 

I agree with Liz that the quality of the accepted images (that we've seen) doesn't justify the policy at all. 

Here's the thing.  If buyers want crappy spontaneous looking photos shot with cellphones, can't they do them for themselves?  Why pay for a stock image?  Isn't the big advantage of the stock agencies that they offer higher quality than the average joe can get for himself? 

Mike, yes, absolutely, the compositional and conceptual aspects should still be there, ESPECIALLY if the technical quality isn't.

I just worry that if crappy cellphone shots start filling up the searches it's going to take buyer perception right back to the early days where microstock was seen as poor quality trash.  Having watched for years as the agencies and we contributors have worked to change that perception, it's very disheartening to watch things going back the other direction. 

Yes, I am sure that you can get a creative, well composed, even well lighted shot with a cellphone.  But you can get that with a DSLR too, along with technical quality. 

Rapideye probably got to the heart of it here:

...I have a theory. It's got to do with the Apple cult. The iPhone is so cool (because it's an Apple product) that whatever comes out of it has to be perfumed like angel's urine.

Lisa....Your forgetting the most important aspect. Yes the one posted was crap But, you Take a very good photographer that has a commercial Mind far greater than most and let him or her go to town with a cellphone camera. All the rest is moot. He will sell and the clients and buyers will buy.. In my 50+ years of taking Pics and teaching the past 12, I've seen people with $500 cameras that would blow away most of us with there Natural talent of seeing and....I've had students with $45,000 Hasselblads That couldn't shoot a flower in focus. It's the eye girlfriend and the commercial Mind. You wait and see. Give it a year. We ALL get hooked into the more the better when in reality it's not. it's the usefulness of an image and none of Us..NONE OF US including the sites know what that is.

Why must the very talented photographer have a crappy camera? Why can't they 'go to town' with a good camera? Will the photos then not be as good?

« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2012, 18:45 »
0
I used Chase Jarvis as an example, There are a ton of young Ones out there Like him now That have clients any one of us would drool Over.

Do they use iPhones?

« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2012, 21:28 »
0
This photo was taken with Nokia 808 (at 36+Mpixels):
http://press.nokia.com/wp-content/uploads/mediaplugin/photo/streetview-in-rio-captured-with-nokia-808-pureview.jpg
Soft? yes! But.. if you re-size at 5 Mp you got a pretty sharp image

And if are about to go there:  
http://press.nokia.com/wp-content/uploads/mediaplugin/photo/climbing-in-south-africa-2-captured-with-nokia-808-pureview.jpg
you would like to have something smaller and lighter than your Full Frame Camera and your excellent but heavy lens..

And in some cases makes an excellent camera for editorial..
(because the most important things usually happens when you don't carry your camera with you...)

My humble opinion is that we must accept the everyday miracles of technology. Otherwise we would still using Daguerreotype.
In other words, Istock maybe is not setting the standards of quality lower, but just accepting the fact of that the quality of images produced by mobiles is getting higher and higher..
 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 21:43 by Lambros Kazan »

rinderart

« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2012, 21:35 »
0
Agree. Match that with a Photographer that can see and bingo.

rinderart

« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2012, 21:39 »
0
I used Chase Jarvis as an example, There are a ton of young Ones out there Like him now That have clients any one of us would drool Over.


Do they use iPhones?


Who Knows and who cares. he has a book out using the Iphone and theres a ton of sites about the art of iphoneography. You tell me.

http://www.iphoneographycentral.com/

« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2012, 21:45 »
0
Who Knows and who cares. he has a book out using the Iphone and theres a ton of sites about the art of iphoneography. You tell me.
http://www.iphoneographycentral.com/


Looks like a collection of filter app tutorials  I didn't notice anything about exceptional photography using a P&S phone.  "Discover the apps and workflows that top iPhone artists and photographers have used to create these"

« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2012, 21:51 »
0
I used Chase Jarvis as an example, There are a ton of young Ones out there Like him now That have clients any one of us would drool Over.

Do they use iPhones?

Who Knows and who cares.

You should, since you're promoting them as being able to produce outstanding portfolios and land big clients with iphones.

antistock

« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2012, 22:30 »
0
iphones photos are RUBBISH.

i don't know where the industry is heading with all this, if they moved in this direction there's of course a justifiable demand for it, and this is scary as it clearly shows that buyers are getting even less picky than before about the overall quality.

what's next ? accepting billions of flickr holiday snaps ?

it's another symptom of the desperation of stock agencies.

« Reply #43 on: April 09, 2012, 02:18 »
0
No comment. (Don't know what is right or wrong)

Nokia 808
http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-amazing-science-behind-the-nokia-808s-mammoth-camera-sensor-explained/

sample images
http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_808_pureview_video_and_camera_samples-news-3905.php


Okay, I give in. That Nokia is no iPhone -- the samples are superb. They could do with some downsizing to make them look a bit more natural, but they'd be fine at 12MP. Incredible. Haven't found a sample still image shot in poor light so we're only seeing the phone's optimal performance, but still. In strong daylight this cellphone is the match of the best P&Ss.

If I were Canon, Nikon etc I'd be leaping from the 27th floor or getting into the cellphone business.

« Reply #44 on: April 09, 2012, 05:13 »
0
It's horses for courses. I've seen some very nice work being produced by someone who has developed a signature look using the colloidion process. It would undoubtedly sell if it was offered as stock but that is not its proper market. I think iStock is falling into the error of thinking that anything that might sell must be stock. It's a lack of focus - or maybe an accountant's decision that just one sale is enough to justify storage costs so it makes sense to have everything. That applies to vetta, standard and dollar bin concepts. It is trying to be everything to everyone and you can't do that.

But while microstock is undoubtedly a photographic supermarket, it has built its reputation around certain paradigms, one of which is low price but decent quality. Chuck that out, flood the site with 50 million weak images and you will end up with a dead site.

lagereek

« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2012, 05:19 »
0
I know this was brought up in another thread, but I really think it deserves its own thread. 

I am really shocked that after years of telling us all to improve our standards and produce more professional images, Istock is now telling its contributors its okay to shoot with cellphones.

It appears from examples posted that some of the folks submitting cellphone pics are eligible to bypass the normal inspection process.  I seriously doubt the average contributor could get them accepted.

More to the point, is this what we want to be offering buyers?  After so many years of trying to convince them that microstock shooters are not just a bunch of amateur hacks???

I read quite a lot here from people who claim Istock has the highest standards and has lifted the industry by example.  What does this do to that reputation?  Is image quality yet one more thing Istock was known for that Getty is willing to throw out the window? 

Yep!  thats what its coming to. Garbage in, garbage out. Soon you dont have to send any pictures at all, just a note telling them what it is, handwritten will do.

rinderart

« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2012, 11:33 »
0
Open up Guys. we all have invested heavily in equipment and thats what hurts the most But, as history tells us... It's not about the equipment, it's about us and mark my words. Things and stuff will get smaller and smaller, Give it a year or so, as we wouldn't even be having this discussion just a year ago. I've always been  a camera junkie and can afford to buy anything I want,  My last Camera was $5,000 Body only, I test a lot and get to Play with all the new stuff from all the manufactures because of where I live and how long I've been doing this and some good friends and camera reps. There are cameras in the  $1,000/$1,200 Range now that all being equal   [Talent/Lighting]   can rival the Image quality of my $5,000 camera of 2 years ago. Of course they don't have 12 FPS,10 pages of menus and all the other bells a whistles that 90% of us don't use anyway except the specialists like sports and wildlife. but in pure resolving Power There pretty darn good. I understand the "sore" spot it gives some but Change is coming and coming Much faster than we think it is and, Im talking about making Stock Images to sell, Not medium or Large format super Prints But  Penny stock because thats the forum were on. Im not buying a Nokia or a Iphone, Im just saying guys...For what "WE" do, The Uber 10 LB camera days are numbered, All the camera companies know it as do all the reps for these companies.  Photography in all it's forms is not a science, it is an artform and as such comes from the makers eye, Not the instrument, Nor the brush used nor the file format.

I do not support any camera, or style or individual. I support there vision and there ability to tell stories regardless of medium.  Stock Photography Is not art, But it is an art unto itself  if done commercially well and tells stories and that My friends comes not from the equipment used to do it, If your being honest with yourself.

Hell in a year or so, I'll probably dump all my crap, get a Mirrorless Lightweight Camera for stock and go Back to Large format film for my soul and my "Other" work, Like so many are returning to now. I'll let you guys get the next Canon MK5 or Nikon D6 or whatever you think will Make you see and capture better. I went digital in 1999 and Im so done and over  buying a camera and by the time I get to my car it's outdated....LOL Have fun.

Just my opinion.

lagereek

« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2012, 11:49 »
0
Many criteria right now speak for going back to film, at least to a certain extent. Thats the area where millions of weekend snappers cant get in. The RM, RF, agencies would not have any choice, if many prolific stock-photographers went back to film, Fuji and Kodak, would surface yet again and be only too happy to fund just about anything.
In England, Germany and here in Sweden, many pro-photographers are beginning to re-load their MF/LF, magazines and casettes, at the moment, maybe its just for certain areas of photography but it can get serious.

Photographers are by nature very involved with their cameras, gear-freaks and I think the biggest threat to us is exactly whats being described, smallish crappy gear, mobile-phone shots and all in all, pure rubbish.
Should that ever happen, its time to get off. There is no need to steep any lower and totally belittle ourselves.

« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2012, 12:04 »
0
Really interesting thoughts in this thread so far.  Maybe I do have a prejudice.  If so, it's one that has been beaten into me for 7 years by the level of technical excellence that has been demanded (imo quite correctly) by the agencies up to this point. 

I fully agree with you. I've never accepted the concept:"Only the concept matters, not the technique". You can have the best concept in the world, but if the image is completely black (wrong technique), you are not going to see it. So the technical side does matter. Why can't a very good image have an excellent concept with excellent technical execution? Why some people claim that one is more important than the other, when the two concept clearly can not be separated?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2012, 12:08 »
0
I went digital in 1999 and Im so done and over  buying a camera and by the time I get to my car it's outdated....LOL Have fun.
And in 2003, I was still protesting that digital quality wasn't good enough - and arrived pretty late to the party!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5469 Views
Last post September 16, 2006, 14:12
by pelmof
19 Replies
6680 Views
Last post July 14, 2012, 04:16
by Sheridan
95 Replies
23070 Views
Last post September 04, 2012, 16:34
by heywoody
4 Replies
2596 Views
Last post July 18, 2014, 07:13
by Ploink
15 Replies
4136 Views
Last post January 14, 2016, 04:17
by Stockmaan

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle