I believe that some sites introduced the ability to upload mobile phone shots in order to build up their inventory of photos with the �look� of photos taken on the spur of the moment with a phone. Similar to the old black and white, shoot from the hip street photography shot with rangefinder cameras.

Some sites started accepting these types of phone photos to compete with those found on instagram, snapspeed, pixlr-o-matic, flickr, etc. Some might even say that photos on stocksy have a mobile phone look to them. They may have been taken with a dslr and then altered to achieve that look with programs like VSCO Film and other filter apps that were created specifically for mobile phones.

The look of those photos is a trend that may or may not continue but the sites wanted to be able to offer images with that trendy look. Buyers searching for those types of photos would not expect to find them taken with a Canon full frame. They may need larger sizes but when searching they would buy photos with the mobile phone look and wouldn�t care if they were actually taken with a cell phone or taken with another camera and altered or filtered to look like they were taken with a phone.

The problem is, the microsites aren�t able to offer an easy way for those photos to be found. Some have mobile categories, some rely on having the right keywords in the images so those photos can be easily found. It�s a result of the micros trying to jump on the mobile phone look bandwagon but not thinking it through well enough in order to be able to market them to those buyers who truly want them.

The problem is, the microsites aren�t able to offer an easy way for those photos to be found. Some have mobile categories, some rely on having the right keywords in the images so those photos can be easily found.

iS has the keyword 'mobilestock'; but whether buyers know about it, I couldn't say.

There are various free apps which make the trendy filters pretty easy.

Fotolia Instant is a good mobile photo specific way to sell them.  https://en.fotolia.com/partner/201985193

Do your photos taken with mobile phones sell well? For the most part, mine do not. They are shot well with my iPhone but are offered in Small, Medium and Large sizes, and I believe buyers may know they are iPhone shots or are expecting the XL, 2XL and 3XL from my Canon Full frame.

I wonder if there is a trend for buyers at iStock to mostly buy photos that come in the larger sizes.

Size is not the problem.   Sales at iStock are just bad in general.

Do your photos taken with mobile phones sell well? For the most part, mine do not. They are shot well with my iPhone but are offered in Small, Medium and Large sizes, and I believe buyers may know they are iPhone shots or are expecting the XL, 2XL and 3XL from my Canon Full frame.

I wonder if there is a trend for buyers at iStock to mostly buy photos that come in the larger sizes.

Apparently Getty doesn't seem to see a problem with the smaller resolutions or the filtering, they have added more than 600,000 files through their partnership with EyeEm so far: http://www.gettyimages.de/search/2/image?collections=eym&excludenudity=false&family=creative&license=rf&sort=best

I have very few smartphone images in microstock but they pop up every now and then in sales notifications.

I also sold images shot with my iPhone through Stocksy and in macrostock for good money. One of them is being used as part of a book cover next year. So customers seem not to have big issues with using those images they like, even if they "only" come in 8 megapixels instead of 20 or 50 MP (in fact some of my images were shot/processed with Hipstamatic which only provides 2,400 x 2,400 = less than 6 MP).

What I have found a problem with some contributors, though, is the way of thinking: Customers will not license images just because they were shot with an iPhone (or Android). They still look for the image that works best for their purpose. Sometimes they look specifically for an Instagram style images but the content still needs to be what they need. An Instagram image of a random flower in your backyard is still not going to become a best seller just because it's a smart phone image.

Why would anyone purchase photos taken with mobile phone? People can snap them them themselves!

 What every buyer cant have is access to is quality images taken with quality gear, THAT is what they should be offered.

Stock agencies should not sell these low quality phone snaps in the first place.

A decent smartphone should be as good as a compact from a few years ago and I have seen posters from my old compact.  Just started with Stockimo, like the look of that collection.

Isn't that the app by Alamy where they only pay you 20% of the license fees whereas you get 50% when uploading with them through their website? This was something that had me confused when I had a look at it. Honestly asking for your experience and why you made that decision to supply them with images through the app.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 31, 2015, 04:40

A decent smartphone should be as good as a compact from a few years ago and I have seen posters from my old compact.  Just started with Stockimo, like the look of that collection.

Isn't that the app by Alamy where they only pay you 20% of the license fees whereas you get 50% when uploading with them through their website? This was something that had me confused when I had a look at it. Honestly asking for your experience and why you made that decision to supply them with images through the app.

I get 50%, I think the 20% is for people that weren't already alamy contributors when Stockimo started.  If it puts new contributors off, that's less competition, so a good thing if you can get the 50%.

I do get 50% too from Stockimo I think it's now 40% for Alamy contributors so still okay. Stockimo has a different look and afaik they advertise differently/separately to buyers, what I heard it's quite successful. Most of my mobile shots are with Eyeem though because I prefer their submission process. I did sell some mobile shots but so far nothing great.

Up until recently I only had one photo taken with a phone. (iphone 5). I took it to try the Getty Moments app. It never went to Getty and after about 6 months it showed up on iStock editorial. It sold once but is very seasonal. It makes no sense for me to use that app now.

I took some photos last week with my iphone 6+ that could not have been taken with a DSLR. They were accepted right away. I didn't use the keyword "mobilestock" because I really didn't remember to use it. It does not have a mobile look to it. Camera phones have different capabilities than DSLRs because of their small size. Of course I am going to take of advantage that.

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on September 02, 2015, 02:14

Quote from: ravens on September 02, 2015, 01:39

Why would anyone purchase photos taken with mobile phone? People can snap them them themselves!

You must shoot very, very boring images of things that are easy to shoot then.

That's all I shoot with my phone.  I wouldn't trust the focus and quality to anything I thought was really important.  Get home later and find the shutter was too slow, too much noise, or focus was somewhere?  No thanks...

Sometimes I take a photo with my camera and then use the phone to get something a bit different.  The depth of focus is usually huge, so not easy to get subjects out of focus.  Can be useful for some situations.  If you really need fast focus, this could be worth a look
http://petapixel.com/2015/09/02/sonys-xperia-z5-premium-phone-first-4k-display-and-fastest-autofocus/

In fotolia instant there are photos that uploaded by smartphone and got 400 sales(i guess it worth 150$) for an image!!!
But you cant know if the photographer just transfer the photo from his DSLR to his smartphone through wifi


Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk