MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: OhGodHepMe! iStock is accepting Mobile Photography.  (Read 23447 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 29, 2012, 16:30 »
0
Mobile Photography
Social media defines the trends in imagery right now. People want images that look and feel like those streaming past second-by-second online. We think the best way to deliver that is to encourage mobile photography submissions from our contributors.


Dunno if this is a good thing...or not. But expect the floodgate opening from everybody with a mobile camera. And  then there will be the blog posts "YOU CAN MAKE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AT ISTOCKPHOTO WITH YOUR IPHONE CAMERA!"



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2012, 16:31 »
0
This isn't news. They've been accepting images from iPhones for at least six months.

« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2012, 16:40 »
0
This isn't news. They've been accepting images from iPhones for at least six months.

Today's iStock Fuel Newsletter just made it official

« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2012, 16:44 »
0
I just got it too and was going to start a thread.  You beat me to it.  Here's a link to the brief
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16811508/iStock_MobileBrief_2012.pdf

Personally I like phone photography and think it has it's place in stock as just that - phone photography stock, when the buyer wants an image from a phone.  But agreed, I'm sure it'll start a new way of 'make millions with your phone' blog posts and new reports.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2012, 16:45 »
0
This isn't news. They've been accepting images from iPhones for at least six months.

Today's iStock Fuel Newsletter just made it official

I didn't know it was previously unofficial.
I was more concerned that two fonts on that brief they'd used didn't show up on my computer, and the photos only half-showed with an 'insufficient data' error message. Not very professional-looking.

« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2012, 17:10 »
+2
Yes, after years of torturing photographers over nonexistent 'artifacts', and demanding edge-to-edge focus and infinite DOF - now they want cell phone photos.  Excuse me, 'mobile photography'.

It's the biggest "never mind" that was ever issued.

Get set for new rejection reasons: "Your photo is too sharp, and includes the entire subject. Try holding the camera at arm's length while framing the shot in the LCD."

« Last Edit: August 29, 2012, 17:13 by stockastic »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2012, 17:26 »
0
OK I did read this in the thread: "about mobile photography: we can use some of these filters for editorial too? would be great!!"

It drives me mad not being able to clone out little bits of litter (removing it beforehand would breach "Interfering with an event as it unfolds. When youre shooting an event for the purpose of informing viewers about it, you cannot direct people, rearrange objects, or otherwise stage or dress the scene". or bird poo. It would drive me nuts if people started filtering mobile phone editorial.

BTW, I see someone has mentioned small digicams, which was something I also wondered about in this context.

« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2012, 17:28 »
0
Yes, after years of torturing photographers over nonexistent 'artifacts', and demanding edge-to-edge focus and infinite DOF - now they want cell phone photos.  Excuse me, 'mobile photography'.

It's the biggest "never mind" that was ever issued.

Get set for new rejection reasons: "Your photo is too sharp, and includes the entire subject. Try holding the camera at arm's length while framing the shot in the LCD."

And don't forget...
Your lighting is too professional looking. Try turning some lights out or just using your phone's flash so you get either yellowish photos or images with very harsh shadows.  ::)

It's like having secretaries do graphic design stuff in Word. Some will do it because they are cheap and don't care about their image, but there will be many more (hopefully) who still value the word "professional".

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2012, 17:51 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 06:13 by stan »

« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2012, 20:38 »
0
No need to spend money on a Mark III.  How convenient. 

« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2012, 22:09 »
0
Let's just share some pics and see what really interests us (not what we think will sell).

Let's not and say we did. This isn't facebook.  ::)

« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2012, 22:19 »
+1
I'd love to hear from a buyer/designer about how these mobile images would be used. First Pocketstock and now iStock saying that this is something buyers are after.

I think it's probably true that microstock has morphed into something much more polished and slick than it was at the beginning and probably buyers have mentioned wanting more "authentic" images. Does that translate into wanting images created on an iPhone? It seems highly arbitrary unless you start tracking the camera with which all images are made - why tag an iPhone image as MobileStock but not something from a slim point and shoot? The image quality is very similar.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but where are all the web sites or print materials using this sort of imagery? And if there is a market for casual-looking work that appears like walk around snaps, why not make that the category regardless of how it was created?

signed,

Confused in Washington

EmberMike

« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2012, 22:34 »
0
...It's the biggest "never mind" that was ever issued...

istock is good at that. Us vector folks have been getting those neverminds often lately. First it was "No EPS10 files, buyers can't use them", switched to "Nevermind, EPS10 is fine". Last week it was "No text in images, it's a copyright issue," becoming "Nevermind, text is fine."


RacePhoto

« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2012, 23:38 »
0
Let's just share some pics and see what really interests us (not what we think will sell).

Let's not and say we did. This isn't facebook.  ::)


Oh no, we need these. I found my shot for the new IS program. (my phone only does 640x480) Guess I need a new camera phone?


pizza cook

It's a pants thing in case you can't see it. He's studying to be a plumber.

Can I send it in as Editorial / fashion?

Why are people saying it has to be square?

« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 11:37 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2012, 02:14 »
0
This is going to be fun to see how it develops.

It may very well be a case of the buyer thinking they know what they want but not really knowing.  They think they want 'casual real photos' taken on a phone, but when it comes to purchasing and getting an image fit for their spread - what they want is a more 'artistic' looking professional shot from an SLR. 

I think people are getting tired of the stocky stock photos and want real.  Often things go from one ditch into the other - perhaps this is the other.

Poncke

« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2012, 02:32 »
0
What are the requirements for phone photos? Will they be dinged for noise and focus as well? Or is that now the old 'empty your SD card' philisophy and everything will be accepted?

Wim

« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2012, 02:56 »
0
Finally some images that are worth every penny ;)


rubyroo

« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2012, 03:09 »
0
I wonder if these will be priced and rewarded at the same rates?  Doesn't seem right as they'd be so much cheaper to produce and so inferior in quality.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 03:12 by rubyroo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2012, 04:50 »
0
"Quality" is subjective, and if the end user doesn't want a posed, sterile setup, the expensive 'quality' of that shot is no use to them.
From blackwaterimages at the bottom of the first page in the iStock thread:
"There's a small bunch of us who have been invited to submit mobile-generated images to Getty for a while now. They sell well. Hipstamatic/Instagram/Snapseed effects and all - so yes, there are buyers for these images."
So maybe iStock were wrong all along with their overfiltered rejections and thinking that the end user would not want 'completed' work. Or maybe it's just a new craze arising with the ability for the public to use these effects making it a current aesthetic until the Next Big Thing comes along. Whatever, it wouldn't be smart to miss out on even a temporary market.
Conversely, however, I don't see how you can get a spontaneous phone shot for main collection use, as you'd have to go over the scene with a fine toothcomb looking for IP issues before taking the image (as people seem to be talking about uploading directly), so any spontaneity will be gone, and very soon we'll have 'stocky' studio setups being taken on a tripod with a mobile phone. (I have no idea can they easily be fixed to tripods? Or would it be a Heath Robinson affair?)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 04:54 by ShadySue »

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2012, 05:22 »
0
I was a bit loose with my choice of words there... I meant 'quality' in terms of quality of resolution.

Perhaps you're right in that they've been too strict in terms of their assumptions - but at the same time, it makes some sense to always ensure that an image can work in all markets, including print.  Surely that maximises the potential sales of any image.

I just read their creative brief on the subject, and it's interesting that they are immediately talking about setting at max resolution, adding lenses to your mobile... apps that help the shot, and also using continuous lights etc.

Not quite what I thought they were asking for initially.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2012, 05:26 »
+1
Quoting myself:
I don't see how you can get a spontaneous phone shot for main collection use, as you'd have to go over the scene with a fine toothcomb looking for IP issues before taking the image (as people seem to be talking about uploading directly), so any spontaneity will be gone, and very soon we'll have 'stocky' studio setups being taken on a tripod with a mobile phone. (I have no idea can they easily be fixed to tripods? Or would it be a Heath Robinson affair?)
from cloudytronics, an iStock admin:
"I think one of the advantages of a mobile phone camera is that in certain situations, it will appear less intimidating than a DSLR. Like friends in the pub for example. They may be at the time, more open and spontaneous if you bring out your iphone as it will appear your not in business mode. Your in "Facebook " mode or personal mode.  Worry about the MR's later when you see you've got some great shots".
I'm guessing the MRs won't actually be a "worry", as you're likely to know already whether or not your friends would sign. (a total non-issue for me, of course!)
But no mention whatsoever of PRs. Do you tell your friends in advance to make sure they are not wearing or carrying anything which might be an IP issue and inspect them at the pub door ('not in business mode'?), and go early to the pub to scout out areas with no IP issues, remove/replace non-generic beermats, artwork, artifacts etc and ask the bar attendant to serve your group with only plain glasses? Does that not totally remove all veneer of reality? H*ll, we're talking about an agency which has takes no cognisance of 'incidental use' and rejects files where YKK could be arguably possibly distinguished on a zip at 400% zoom.
As s/he mentioned MRs specifically, s/he's clearly not talking about files intended as editorial-use only.
It's going to be set-up 'spontaneous' shots in studios taken with mobile phones before the week is out.

Still don't understand why you can't use little digicams instead.
And are they going to accept on-camera flash e.g. in the pub scenario? Or 'poor light'?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2012, 05:29 »
0

I just read their creative brief on the subject, and it's interesting that they are immediately talking about setting at max resolution, adding lenses to your mobile... apps that help the shot, and also using continuous lights etc.

Not quite what I thought they were asking for initially.

Oh, right: I didn't read it as I don't have that sort of phone.
That certainly doesn't seem to be what's being discussed in the forum thread, and totally negates what cloudytronics said that I quoted above about you 'not being in business mode' - "Here were are on a casual friends night out at the pub, so what are all these lights for, and what's that thing stuck on your iPhone?"

Back to the studio, folks. As you were. Take your normal dSLR shots, then take some more on your mobile.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 08:13 by ShadySue »

rubyroo

« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2012, 05:43 »
0
They're not saying these are compulsory, but the fact that they're suggested in the brief seemed to hint at some concerns that a mobile 'as is' isn't necessarily going to be enough.  Looks to me as though the big model shooters can just add some mobile shots while the models relax on their tea breaks, and they'll dominate this market too.

Glad I got that sorted... now I don't have to buy a bleedin' iPhone.  ;D 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2012, 06:03 »
0
Glad I got that sorted... now I don't have to buy a bleedin' iPhone.  ;D
;D ;D ;D
There's always an upside.   ;D
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 06:15 by ShadySue »

« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2012, 07:54 »
+1
I don't see why we can't take the photo at 21MP with an DSLR, reduce the size if they want it like that, add some grain and make a square crop.  If it looks like a 'real life' photo who cares what camera or phone it was shot with.

I'm waffling a little back and forth on this.  I think it's smart to accept images from phones if they are good enough quality or fill a need but to require all photos from that niche (real life shots) to be only from phones seems a little shallow.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4914 Views
Last post April 30, 2012, 22:05
by RacePhoto
46 Replies
11949 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 23:14
by RacePhoto
3 Replies
2684 Views
Last post November 12, 2012, 23:00
by gillian vann
0 Replies
1930 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 19:00
by Smithore
5 Replies
4135 Views
Last post April 02, 2014, 20:35
by michey

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle