MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock now accepting cellphone pics.  (Read 19340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« on: April 07, 2012, 09:11 »
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? 


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2012, 09:17 »
0
I believe they are trying to embrace the 'Flickr aesthetic' as was mentioned in a thread months ago.
JJRD was one of the first I was aware of to have iPhone pics accepted, at the end of last year.

For me, it isn't at all the equipment that matters (we all know the Bert Hardy/Box Brownie example). So long as the usual standards are upheld, I don't care if the image was shot with a pinhole camera.

But if the usual standards aren't being upheld, that there should be a special collection for them, for buyers who might want that 'look'.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2012, 09:20 »
0
I feel obliged to point out that the Flickr aesthetic is a bit of a misnomer. Many of the photos in my Flickr groups are fantastic.

« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2012, 09:31 »
0
I believe they are trying to embrace the 'Flickr aesthetic' as was mentioned in a thread months ago.
JJRD was one of the first I was aware of to have iPhone pics accepted, at the end of last year.

For me, it isn't at all the equipment that matters (we all know the Bert Hardy/Box Brownie example). So long as the usual standards are upheld, I don't care if the image was shot with a pinhole camera.

But if the usual standards aren't being upheld, that there should be a special collection for them, for buyers who might want that 'look'.

I agree. I can see cellphone images being a certain look, but it's totally wrong to allow SOME from inspectors and then reject them from regular contributors. But then again, I am certainly not surprised that the "rules" don't apply to everyone on istock. Been that way since the Getty beginning. With them, it's not about the image itself, it's about who is submitting the image.  ::)

Microbius

« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2012, 09:37 »
0
looks like poopy is the new not poopy. I can't keep up with all these trends.

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2012, 09:39 »
0
So long as the usual standards are upheld, I don't care if the image was shot with a pinhole camera.

Well, that appears to be the rub.   Are standards being upheld?  With some members able to bypass inspection altogether, how can a consistent set of standards be adhered to?

Cellphone pictures are improving, but they are still no better than a point-and-shoot and it has been common knowledge that it is nearly impossible to get P&S photos that are clear, tack sharp, noise free, etc. enough to pass the normal inspection process.  

The pinhole comment provides a perfect example that image quality is necessarily limited by the technology that produces it.   You may be able to take a CREATIVE image with a cellphone camera (or pinhole camera!) but you aren't going to get one that is up to the technical standards that this industry has (up to now) aspired to.

Sorry, but this marks a dramatic change of direction from the image standards Istock used to set and enforce.  
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 09:41 by lisafx »

« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2012, 09:39 »
0
looks like poopy is the new not poopy. I can't keep up with all these trends.

Kind of like all the images that are getting posted from Instagram on FB...they all have that "retro" feel. The new not poopy.

« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2012, 14:21 »
0
I'm gobsmacked too, Lisa. But 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.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2012, 14:38 »
0
I'm not seeing this as such a big deal.  Isn't the cell phone/iPad/ whatever else has a camera being constantly improved -- increased pixel count, larger sensors?
At some point, I think the cell phone images will match a point and shoot, maybe?
I have several P&S images selling at several sites.

Progress!   :o ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2012, 14:59 »
0
IMO, it isn't the technology, it's some of the images produced and accepted that is the real issue.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-the-new-istock-standard-of-picture-quality/msg249996/?topicseen#new
And regarding the images referenced in that thread, I don't find Kelvin's answer remotely relevant:
"...it is important to offer the clients strong imagery and sometimes the demand for technical levels of perfection are matched or outweighed by the power of the picture to get a message across."

WarrenPrice

« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2012, 15:08 »
0
IMO, it isn't the technology, it's some of the images produced and accepted that is the real issue.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-the-new-istock-standard-of-picture-quality/msg249996/?topicseen#new
And regarding the images referenced in that thread, I don't find Kelvin's answer remotely relevant:
"...it is important to offer the clients strong imagery and sometimes the demand for technical levels of perfection are matched or outweighed by the power of the picture to get a message across."


Agreed ... the images suck.  I doubt, however, that it was caused by the equipment.

helix7

« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2012, 15:50 »
0

To be fair, SS also accepts iPhone images, and has for at least a few months now.

My issue with these images is that it seems as though technical imperfections are giving way to conceptual and compositional flaws that get overlooked because of the technical issues. It's like the reviewers can look at these images and overlook a compositional flaw because they've already got it in their mind that the image should be flawed.

I think the same standards need to be adhered to. In the right hands, someone can create an exceptional image with an iPhone camera. I follow Zack Arias and some of the stuff he shoots on his phone is disgustingly good. But mostly what I'm seeing accepted in microstock from iPhone cameras is stuff I probably could have shot. And I'm not a photographer. But really, I'm looking at that overhead teriyaki dinner shot and thinking, "I could go down the street, get the same meal, hold my phone over the table and get the same shot, get dinner for two, and still have paid less than the $15 istock would charge me."

That's the biggest problem, in my opinion. The technical considerations, sure that's an issue as well and I think it sends a bad message throughout the industry. But the conceptual and compositional oversights that seem to be overlooked just because of technical limitations is the more scary issue.

rinderart

« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2012, 16:43 »
0
One of my Favorite Photographers out there for creativity is Chase jarvis. I bought his book on Iphoneography Called "The best camera is the one with you" In my view about 90% of the Images in that book were Great and if I was still reviewing I would have accepted them  because there fresh, Great concepts of just stuff he sees. That 99% of all of us don't and one of the reasons he has the best clients going. His eye. This all has to change soon , This BS 100% Perfection rule in exchange for solid Unique work that tells a story. And he has that part nailed down IMHO. I think all the folks with there perfect Little overblown fake composites and stuff is way Old school very soon. Welcome back creativity....Best way I know to cull the herd. LOL

« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2012, 17:04 »
0
Tastes change, ideas about what people like or respond to in imagery change, too.  Now people want photos that seem spontaneous, taken on a phone by an unskilled person, without any forethought.  It's a fad, but to be fair, the whole concept of stock photography has been one of calculated phoniness since day one - plastic models with perfect teeth in fake-y setups.  Now, it's a different fad, a new kind of fake 'realism' - like the jerky hand-held camera work in a 'reality' show.

I have no doubt that IS has customers telling them they want photos "that look like they came from cell phones".   But  I get the distinct feeling that if we submitted  low-res, shaky, harshly lit, off-center DSLR photos that looked just like cell phone shots, but didn't actually come from a phone, they'd be rejected.  
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 17:27 by stockastic »

lisafx

« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2012, 18:50 »
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.

« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2012, 18:57 »
0
it would be non sense unless they are looking for immaculated pics which I am sure they arent.. sure the artsy look is so cool etc etc but come on it must have all the crap IS inspectors are so keen to find out lol.. will IS have an iphone category?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 19:01 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2012, 19:59 »
0
They will zoom at 10% for inspection ;D

rinderart

« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2012, 20:03 »
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.

« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2012, 20:09 »
0
they dont know? thats a great one sorry to tell you but that is an awesome statement, what are they selling everyday? sure agencies have tons of crap.. we all have pictures that have never sold, not even once but saying agencies dont know the usefulness of a pic its quite too much.. beside that happy birthday, seen the topic at SS

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2012, 21:00 »
0

Here's the thing.  If buyers want crappy spontaneous looking photos shot with cellphones, can't they do them for themselves? 


They don't want real spontaneity any more than they ever did - they want a new kind of fake spontaneity.  It's just as contrived as those happy seniors on bicycles ever were - but with a new and different cultural sensibility.   

« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2012, 21:00 »
0
They will zoom at 10% for inspection ;D

LOL

velocicarpo

« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2012, 00:04 »
0
I agree that the should be accepted. You can create great art and stock with phones.
Nevertheless, istock was the company who killed lots of creativity. No noise? No direct flashes? Many great art shots have that, including noise etc. So, finally, it marks them (istock) just another time as people who don`t know what they are talking about and approves one more time that we cannot take them seriously. Suddenly one thing is a trend and - tataaaa - they change their mind after punishing OUR creativity without any real understandment of Photography.

« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2012, 00:19 »
0
"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. "

... And they'll still likely be snapshots.  Limiting people to what is essentially a point and shoot is no way to free the creativity within.  It's aim and snap and you get whatever was in front of you.  Might as well hire a monkey.

« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2012, 01:00 »
0
So , now I can sell all my Canon "L" glass and dump my 5D Mk2. There is no need to even contemplate a Mk3 any more.
Oh happy day! I just need to upgrade my iPhone 4 to the 5 when it comes out and I'll be all set :D

« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2012, 01:10 »
0
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.

Yes, for sure there are geniuses who could shoot us all into a cocked hat with a camera obscura, a pencil and some tracing paper.

But, in general, the microstock revolution can be put down to one thing -- the rise of the cheap DSLR with spectacular image quality. And in fact the improvement began nearing an asymptote about eight years ago: my old 20D puts out a file that, resolution aside, is not markedly inferior to one from a 5D Mark II.

So, for all this time, you've been getting a great bedrock image. Later, you can warp the colour balance, contrast etc to suit your tastes. You can even do a fake cross-process and add a vignetta. You can be "artistic" (if that's what artistic means), but at the end you still have a file of very high quality that will not behave badly on a printing press.

Sometimes, it's true, art is served by working under constraints, i.e. with lousy equipment. Here are some of the constraints on phone photography, which are so extreme that true art must be guaranteed:

1. Low-light shooting is impossible because the tiny sensor erupts in a fireworks display of chroma noise.

2. You can't sync a flash to your phone, so you're stuck with whatever light you have. See above.

3. Action shots (loosely defined) are difficult because of abysmal shutter lag.

4. Depth of field is practically infinite because of the very short focal length of the lens. Goodbye to subject isolation with background blur.

5. No manual control of aperture and shutter speed on any phone I've heard of. Okay, never mind aperture because of (4) above, but it is useful to know what shutter speed you're dealing with.

6. Handholding a cellphone is challenging because, like a P&S, it has no viewfinder and must be held out at arms length. This exacerbates the problems raised in (3) and (5) above.

7. The lens is not very good. Flare and particularly veiling flare are ever-present dangers in cellphone photography because the plastic lenses aren't properly coated (that would be expensive. But any minute now, some enterprising Gary Fong type will be offering stick-on lens hoods for cellphones. Imagine.) Sharpness is actually not too bad, but that's because the tiny sensor (see (1) above) can be in the sweet spot of a not-quite-so-tiny lens.

8. The sensor in a cellphone is pretty poor quite apart from its pigmy dimensions. Dynamic range is seriously lacking and, moreover, you can't shoot RAW.

« 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!

« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2012, 13:48 »
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.

That's all nonsense and nothing about phones "hurts".  Giving the artist options allows them the ability to create what they envision.  Giving someone a phone (at this point) allows them to capture what is in front of them, only.  If they want to mess with it afterwards with hipster, or all those filters, that doesn't make them a good "photographer".  "Penny stock"?  That is the "cost", not the content.  Are cameras going to get smaller?  Possibly, sure.  But there's a limit - it needs to be held in the average human hand, in a way that controls are easy to access and that the thing is balanced.

Until we have retina cameras.

grp_photo

« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2012, 14:43 »
0
I will buy the Nokia pureview 808 but I don't care what iStock accepts I don't submit to them anyway.

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2012, 16:14 »
0

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?

Bingo!  That's the point, IMO.  There are people trying to set up a false dichotomy between creativity and technical quality, when in fact the two should go hand in hand, particularly if you are attempting to sell images commercially. 

lisafx

« Reply #53 on: April 09, 2012, 16:29 »
0

Sometimes, it's true, art is served by working under constraints, i.e. with lousy equipment. Here are some of the constraints on phone photography, which are so extreme that true art must be guaranteed:

1. Low-light shooting is impossible because the tiny sensor erupts in a fireworks display of chroma noise.

2. You can't sync a flash to your phone, so you're stuck with whatever light you have. See above.

3. Action shots (loosely defined) are difficult because of abysmal shutter lag.

4. Depth of field is practically infinite because of the very short focal length of the lens. Goodbye to subject isolation with background blur.

5. No manual control of aperture and shutter speed on any phone I've heard of. Okay, never mind aperture because of (4) above, but it is useful to know what shutter speed you're dealing with.

6. Handholding a cellphone is challenging because, like a P&S, it has no viewfinder and must be held out at arms length. This exacerbates the problems raised in (3) and (5) above.

7. The lens is not very good. Flare and particularly veiling flare are ever-present dangers in cellphone photography because the plastic lenses aren't properly coated (that would be expensive. But any minute now, some enterprising Gary Fong type will be offering stick-on lens hoods for cellphones. Imagine.) Sharpness is actually not too bad, but that's because the tiny sensor (see (1) above) can be in the sweet spot of a not-quite-so-tiny lens.

8. The sensor in a cellphone is pretty poor quite apart from its pigmy dimensions. Dynamic range is seriously lacking and, moreover, you can't shoot RAW.

As far as I'm concerned, the above list perfectly illustrates the point of this argument.  Cellphone cameras, like the point-and-shoots most of us started with and quickly abandoned, are just too limited.  They don't enhance your creativity, they limit it.  Severely.  

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but until I had the proper equipment and learned how to use it, the pictures I took with inferior equipment never managed to match the creative vision I had in my mind.  

Some of my favorite pictures I took of my daughter growing up were taken with a 3mp Sony.   But when I look at them close up, or try and print above 5x7, the noise, artifacts, and loss of clarity are so severe.  It breaks my heart and I would give anything to have shot them on a DSLR instead. 

Sean's right, cellphones and point-and-shoot cameras are for taking snapshots of what's right in front of you.  And for the reasons above, not always so great even for that.

And no, that's not jealousy speaking, nor bitterness over the cost of my gear, nor anxiety that an army of cellphone snappers are going to eat my lunch.  My concerns about this are all based on what this will do to buyer perceptions of quality in microstock, and the long term effects that will have on the industry.  
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 16:33 by lisafx »

tab62

« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2012, 16:34 »
0
I just canceled my D800E order- going to hold out for the iPhone 5s now where can I find this Jarvis guy?

« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2012, 17:30 »
0
When eg the big fashion magazines were publishing SX70 spreads back in the 80s it didn't mean that everyone should throw away their Hasselblads. Sometimes a stylistically deliberately lofi look is going to be fashionable. Years ago iStock published an article about how much they liked the whole Lomography look. This is no different. It's a stylistic thing.

There are two slightly different things happening with cellphone images at the moment. On the one hand they are about the good enough camera which is always with you. That means that it goes places other camera probably don't. So it gets used to record things in a manner which either is or mimics a sort of objective snappy style.

On the other hand the retro stylistic apps like Instagram and Hipstamtic have reminded lots of people how much they like that sort of pretend retro look. That's partly about using filters and textures to make a fun image - and partly about using those stylistic devices to make up for the technical limitations of the original image. Whilst that look remains vogue there is going to be a demand for images which mimic it. Same as there has always been a demand for images which mimic the sort of images which ordinary people take.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2012, 17:33 by bhr »

« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2012, 02:35 »
0
Well it seems someone thinks that applying retro filters to cell phone photos and sharing them is worth a billion dollars.

Like it or not that sort of look is in the Zeitgeist for a while (again) so there is money to be made replicating it.

« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2012, 04:04 »
0
As far as I'm concerned, the above list perfectly illustrates the point of this argument.  Cellphone cameras, like the point-and-shoots most of us started with and quickly abandoned, are just too limited.  They don't enhance your creativity, they limit it.  Severely.  

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but until I had the proper equipment and learned how to use it, the pictures I took with inferior equipment never managed to match the creative vision I had in my mind.  

Some of my favorite pictures I took of my daughter growing up were taken with a 3mp Sony.   But when I look at them close up, or try and print above 5x7, the noise, artifacts, and loss of clarity are so severe.  It breaks my heart and I would give anything to have shot them on a DSLR instead. 

Sean's right, cellphones and point-and-shoot cameras are for taking snapshots of what's right in front of you.  And for the reasons above, not always so great even for that.

And no, that's not jealousy speaking, nor bitterness over the cost of my gear, nor anxiety that an army of cellphone snappers are going to eat my lunch.  My concerns about this are all based on what this will do to buyer perceptions of quality in microstock, and the long term effects that will have on the industry.  

Exactly. Very well put. By definition aren't 'technical standards' supposed to be just that anyway? 'Standards' that are applied universally, irrespective of the equipment used.

« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2012, 04:19 »
0
..Some of my favorite pictures I took of my daughter growing up were taken with a 3mp Sony.   But when I look at them close up, or try and print above 5x7, the noise, artifacts, and loss of clarity are so severe.  It breaks my heart and I would give anything to have shot them on a DSLR instead...
When I point my DSLR at my friends kids, they tend to either run away or pull a silly face.  I get my best photos of them with a cheap P&S.  We're used to closely examining prints and pixel peeping.  I try and think like an average person that doesn't make their living from photography when looking at prints.  An A4 print from my first 2mp compact looks dreadful when I have my technical head on but if I think like a non-photographer, it looks OK.

I still like using cheap compacts.  I don't think it's a fad because I've been doing it for years.  The Lomography site has been around for longer than most microstock sites and people were having fun with cheap plastic cameras many decades ago.  It's a bit like HDR, some of the photos look horrible but others are hard to replicate with a DSLR and will probably sell well on microstock sites.

« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2012, 04:27 »
0
please can anyone give me a link to a istock photo shot with cellphone camera? 

« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2012, 04:44 »
0
please can anyone give me a link to a istock photo shot with cellphone camera? 

You could always try a search for 'teriyaki'.

« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2012, 04:54 »
0
please can anyone give me a link to a istock photo shot with cellphone camera? 

You could always try a search for 'teriyaki'.

thanks.

can't believe my eyes though, the first one is accepted by IS, seriously?

« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2012, 06:22 »
0
When I point my DSLR at my friends kids, they tend to either run away or pull a silly face.  I get my best photos of them with a cheap P&S.  We're used to closely examining prints and pixel peeping.  I try and think like an average person that doesn't make their living from photography when looking at prints.  An A4 print from my first 2mp compact looks dreadful when I have my technical head on but if I think like a non-photographer, it looks OK.

I still like using cheap compacts.  I don't think it's a fad because I've been doing it for years.  The Lomography site has been around for longer than most microstock sites and people were having fun with cheap plastic cameras many decades ago.  It's a bit like HDR, some of the photos look horrible but others are hard to replicate with a DSLR and will probably sell well on microstock sites.

Very true and considering the end product is for Joe Public the pixel peeping seems over the top.  But, for a site where technical quality seems to be the be all and end all it is strange to have that image included - the real problem I have is the double standard.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2012, 06:43 »
0
Another point: aren't/weren't they always telling us not to supply a finished design, that was up to the buyer/designer to do, e.g. in most cases it's encouraged to supply a colour photo rather than a mono, because the designer can easily convert to mono.
In the specific cases under discussion in the other thread, couldn't someone with a rudimentary knowledge of PS just reduce contrast and add a cyan cast themselves, to any photo?

(That said, although GIS does seem to find images within 'compositions', by far most of my in-use finds have used the image 'as bought' - seldom with even a different crop.)

« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2012, 06:57 »
0
Well it seems someone thinks that applying retro filters to cell phone photos and sharing them is worth a billion dollars.

Like it or not that sort of look is in the Zeitgeist for a while (again) so there is money to be made replicating it.

I think it's in the Zeitgeist too. As long as it's in the zeitgeist for anyone who wants to submit that style and as long as istock approves them for everyone, not just for the "chosen" few.

By the way, I think that shot that the OP posted could have used the instagram filter...might have done it a world of good.

« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2012, 01:47 »
0
I agree about the technical quality aspect for the micros because that is central to their marketing strategy. No doubt, in the right conditions a cellphone can meet those requirements, too, despite being limited.

However, in the wider arena, theoretical technical perfection is not always the best solution. The important thing is to have mastered technique and to be able to control it to achieve what you want, even if that involves breaking rules to create deliberately imperfect results.

I like the results S Gayle Stevens gets from deliberately using worked-out developer to develop wet plates. What started as an accident she has taken control of and made a special effect. In terms of "technical standards" these images are all failures but in terms of the desired result and saleability within their target market, they are a success:

http://sgaylestevens.com/Portfolio.cfm?nK=15082

However, they are most definitely not stock.

lisafx

« Reply #66 on: April 11, 2012, 15:04 »
0
Oh, those are amazing!  Very cool effect.  Thanks for posting that link :)

From reading this and the other thread, it seems that the problem is not cellphone pics per se, but Istock's failure to enforce consistent (high) standards.  If the first cellphone pics I had seen on the micro were amazing, I probably wouldn't have had such a negative reaction to it. 

I do remember my uncle telling me in 2001, when I started shooting digital, that digital would never equal film quality, and that the publishing industry (of which we was a member) would never take digital seriously.  I definitely had the last laugh there.  I guess it's reasonable to imagine cellphone pics will one day be good enough to challenge DSLR pics.  But we aren't there yet, IMO

« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2012, 15:16 »
0
...  I guess it's reasonable to imagine cellphone pics will one day be good enough to challenge DSLR pics.  But we aren't there yet, IMO

I'm wondering how the cell phone manufacturers want to "emulate" high end glass and focal lengths of 6mm or let's say 500mm ?

Even the cell phone cameras will have their limits...

« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2012, 16:59 »
0
I think that the sites should make their decisions based on the image itself, not on if it was made by an inspector or member of the in crowd, not if it was made with a phone camera or dslr or medium format or anything camera. If the image works and meets the technical requirements (which in general are probably too high for microstock, but whatever they choose is what they choose as long as it is evenly applied) then it should be accepted.

Some of my best sellers are still P&S pics and low end dslr kit lens images - they just happen to be taken with appropriate settings and/or cleaned up properly in post.

I think that you could make saleable pics with really low end cameras, but it would be a lot more work than with high end gear - so that is why we use the "better" gear - so we can more easily make the image match our vision and also have it meet the low noise, proper color balance, focus, etc. the sites demand. If all the bells and whistles and shiny buttons and knobs just get in your way then you would be better off with a phone cam or a p&s.

« Reply #69 on: April 11, 2012, 17:05 »
0
Why are people apparently thrilled to watch "Lord Of The Rings" on a portable device with a screen the size of a commemorative stamp?  Why do they buy music as 128K MP3s and listen on cheap earbuds? Who is buying big high-end loudspeakers these days? I don't even see them in the stores.

   Ideas of "quality" change. Even the importance of "quality" changes.

antistock

« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2012, 10:58 »
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.

pure rubbish .. yeah .. but people seem to like it, that's THE problem, especially photo editors.

antistock

« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2012, 11:03 »
0
As far as I'm concerned, the above list perfectly illustrates the point of this argument.  Cellphone cameras, like the point-and-shoots most of us started with and quickly abandoned, are just too limited.  They don't enhance your creativity, they limit it.  Severely.    

exactly.
quality apart, they're just too slow and no fun and the lens are a bad joke.
Fuji X100 is the only "pocket" camera i would consider for fun.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2012, 19:34 »
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.
pure rubbish .. yeah .. but people seem to like it, that's THE problem, especially photo editors.
Why's that a problem?
It's a 'need'/want. Agencies choose whether or not to meet that need. Contributors choose whether or not to supply the agencies that choose that route.
It's a choice, not a problem. Unless you were an exclusive at a site which chose not to supply them, but you had the interest to supply these apparently in-demand images ...
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 19:38 by ShadySue »

« Reply #73 on: April 13, 2012, 18:21 »
0
This whole discussion reminds me of an old joke:

"A photographer and a writer have dinner together. The writer sees the photographers newest work and says "Lovely, I really like those pictures, what camera did you take them with?". Answers the photographer: "I really liked your last book. What typewriter did you write it on?".

As long as the result is right, it should not matter what equipment was used. Does an Iphone camera limit your possibilities? Yes, certainly. But if the picture you took with it is ok, why shouldn't it be accepted?

« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2012, 00:58 »
0

As long as the result is right, it should not matter what equipment was used.



I think pretty much everyone is on board with that.

I've actually got photos taken with folding cameras made in the 1930s and 40s on both iStock and SS and they sell reasonably well. In fact, of the last 20 images accepted on iStock, the only one to have any sales at all is from a folder.

I guess someone could start a thread "iStock now accepts photos for antique cameras".

I do quite a lot of retro stuff http://fotoblogzone.com/2012/04/13/six-weeks-with-film/

lisafx

« Reply #75 on: April 14, 2012, 08:58 »
0

As long as the result is right, it should not matter what equipment was used.


I think pretty much everyone is on board with that.


Absolutely.  It's the "as long as the result is right" part that is the issue. 

« Reply #76 on: April 14, 2012, 12:42 »
0
Both side have valid points.

IMO if an image is technical okay... why not acceptable.?. :)
How much different is a Ipod, iPAD, Iphone image from a point and shoot.?.. where is the line.?.

Patrick H.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 12:44 by patrick1958 »

« Reply #77 on: April 14, 2012, 13:41 »
0
Both side have valid points.

IMO if an image is technical okay... why not acceptable.?. :)
How much different is a Ipod, iPAD, Iphone image from a point and shoot.?.. where is the line.?.

Patrick H.

But that's the problem, they AREN'T technically OK. They might be compositionally OK, they might be creatively OK, but I don't see how cellphone pics can be technically as good as something taken from a high-end camera. If they are, then we are all fools for spending thousands of dollars on tripods, cameras, studio equipment, etc. etc.

« Reply #78 on: April 14, 2012, 13:55 »
0
Both side have valid points.

IMO if an image is technical okay... why not acceptable.?. :)
How much different is a Ipod, iPAD, Iphone image from a point and shoot.?.. where is the line.?.

Patrick H.

But that's the problem, they AREN'T technically OK. They might be compositionally OK, they might be creatively OK, but I don't see how cellphone pics can be technically as good as something taken from a high-end camera. If they are, then we are all fools for spending thousands of dollars on tripods, cameras, studio equipment, etc. etc.

There's a big different between "technically OK" and "as good as a high end dslr".  As has been pointed out, in favourable circumstances the best of the cellphone cameras can produce technically adequate photos.

We pay for high-end cameras because they are far more capable and perform well in tough circumstances. We can do lots of things with a good SLR that are simply impossible with a cellphone.

« Reply #79 on: April 14, 2012, 16:01 »
0
Both side have valid points.

IMO if an image is technical okay... why not acceptable.?. :)
How much different is a Ipod, iPAD, Iphone image from a point and shoot.?.. where is the line.?.

Patrick H.

But that's the problem, they AREN'T technically OK. They might be compositionally OK, they might be creatively OK, but I don't see how cellphone pics can be technically as good as something taken from a high-end camera. If they are, then we are all fools for spending thousands of dollars on tripods, cameras, studio equipment, etc. etc.

There's a big different between "technically OK" and "as good as a high end dslr".  As has been pointed out, in favourable circumstances the best of the cellphone cameras can produce technically adequate photos.

We pay for high-end cameras because they are far more capable and perform well in tough circumstances. We can do lots of things with a good SLR that are simply impossible with a cellphone.

let me comprehensive on a answer, being an inspector.
Maybe I can not,, but as an employee i do need to follow guidelines.................................  :o
sorry.....

« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2012, 20:20 »
0
^^  ??? Que  ???

rinderart

« Reply #81 on: April 15, 2012, 22:36 »
0
Both side have valid points.

IMO if an image is technical okay... why not acceptable.?. :)
How much different is a Ipod, iPAD, Iphone image from a point and shoot.?.. where is the line.?.

Patrick H.

But that's the problem, they AREN'T technically OK. They might be compositionally OK, they might be creatively OK, but I don't see how cellphone pics can be technically as good as something taken from a high-end camera. If they are, then we are all fools for spending thousands of dollars on tripods, cameras, studio equipment, etc. etc.


Hmmmm. wheres does the line start between High end and low end.? and where does technical stuff come into play.? thats pretty subjective.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
5486 Views
Last post September 16, 2006, 14:12
by pelmof
19 Replies
6702 Views
Last post July 14, 2012, 04:16
by Sheridan
95 Replies
23129 Views
Last post September 04, 2012, 16:34
by heywoody
4 Replies
2604 Views
Last post July 18, 2014, 07:13
by Ploink
15 Replies
4147 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