pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: OhGodHepMe! iStock is accepting Mobile Photography.  (Read 19298 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: September 03, 2012, 19:15 »
+1
Lol, so, you think your iPhone images are the same quality as my 1dsmk3, and have no issue with those bring stuffed into the general collection whose high quality has been curated over 10+ years?  Who's the troll?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #76 on: September 03, 2012, 19:17 »
0

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


I like some of these a lot, but I don't see why a cellphone was necessary to shoot them. They could have been taken on any camera and filtered.
In fact, that could have been said of any of the mobilestock photos that were on iStock at least until the recent request. None of them needed to be taken on an iPhone.
There are photos that would be very difficult to take on 'normal' dSLRs because they just draw far too much attention, but these would be seriously photojournalistic, not micro editorial stock - and they could often have been taken with a small p&s, some of which don't come with the same TQ issues.

It is also true that certain end users don't care about pixel perfect images, and that's a different branch of this argument.

« Reply #77 on: September 03, 2012, 19:24 »
0
Lol, so, you think your iPhone images are the same quality as my 1dsmk3, and have no issue with those bring stuffed into the general collection whose high quality has been curated over 10+ years?  Who's the troll?

I don't think he is saying that ( I could be completely wrong).  I think he is saying that there is a place for these kinds of images irrespective of the camera you use.  I don't think he is saying to replace a apple isolated on white with an IPHONE, but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.  The argument is simply how that image gets managed in the collections.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #78 on: September 03, 2012, 19:33 »
0
... but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.
Realistically, what would these be that would be suitable for microstock? By the time you've removed all IP considerations, you might as well be using your dSLR, and for editorial, you can get certain pj stuff, and maybe some pap stuff that iStock won't take. All of the stuff that's there already could easily be taken with a normal camera and degraded. Hey, I should add a cyan tint to my old 'flat light' rejections, flatten/decrease contrast a bit more and voila!

« Reply #79 on: September 03, 2012, 19:35 »
0
... but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.
Realistically, what would these be that would be suitable for microstock? By the time you've removed all IP considerations, you might as well be using your dSLR, and for editorial, you can get certain pj stuff, and maybe some pap stuff that iStock won't take. All of the stuff that's there already could easily be taken with a normal camera and degraded. Hey, I should add a cyan tint to my old 'flat light' rejections, flatten/decrease contrast a bit more and voila!

Liz, it would be broadening the menu of options, albeit quality down, but "right place right time" UP.  It ISN'T about replacing stock with what we do now given our high resolution solutions and all, it is about capturing stuff that we aren't prepared for that can be useful to buyers.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 19:41 by Mantis »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #80 on: September 03, 2012, 19:39 »
0
... but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.
Realistically, what would these be that would be suitable for microstock? By the time you've removed all IP considerations, you might as well be using your dSLR, and for editorial, you can get certain pj stuff, and maybe some pap stuff that iStock won't take. All of the stuff that's there already could easily be taken with a normal camera and degraded. Hey, I should add a cyan tint to my old 'flat light' rejections, flatten/decrease contrast a bit more and voila!

Liz, it would be broadening the menu of options, albeit quality down, but "right place right time" UP.

So you are talking about editorial shots? (I'm just trying to clarify.)
Also, none of what was up already, taken by 'badges' presumably under instruction as to what's wanted, have been 'right place, right time' spur of the moment photos.
I'm wondering why it has to be a mobile and not a P&S, which could also be slipped into a handbag/pocket to have available at times you can't really have your dSLR.  don't have a smartphone, but it's far quicker for me to get from off to click with my G9 (switch on, frame, focus, click) than it is with my mobile, which won't let me take a photo until it's spent a few minutes getting from switch on to getting connected. For some reason the camera won't let me take a photo until I'm connected. Maybe that's something which is smarter about smart phones. (?)
I don't care either way. I don't have a smartphone and wouldn't get one just for this. I am miffed about all my flat (i.e. 'normal for her') light rejections when I see these mobile pics. I just want to know what they seem to think can be taken with a phone but not with a P&S.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 19:47 by ShadySue »

« Reply #81 on: September 03, 2012, 19:44 »
0
... but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.
Realistically, what would these be that would be suitable for microstock? By the time you've removed all IP considerations, you might as well be using your dSLR, and for editorial, you can get certain pj stuff, and maybe some pap stuff that iStock won't take. All of the stuff that's there already could easily be taken with a normal camera and degraded. Hey, I should add a cyan tint to my old 'flat light' rejections, flatten/decrease contrast a bit more and voila!

Liz, it would be broadening the menu of options, albeit quality down, but "right place right time" UP.

So you are talking about editorial shots? (I'm just trying to clarify.)

No, yea, maybe. It's all situational.  It's not my call.  I am just saying that the images might fill a niche for which traditional MS offers opportunity and not repeatability (getting inspiration from.....if you know what I mean)
« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 19:46 by Mantis »

« Reply #82 on: September 03, 2012, 20:08 »
0
Lol, so, you think your iPhone images are the same quality as my 1dsmk3, and have no issue with those bring stuffed into the general collection whose high quality has been curated over 10+ years?  Who's the troll?

I don't think he is saying that ( I could be completely wrong).  I think he is saying that there is a place for these kinds of images irrespective of the camera you use.  I don't think he is saying to replace a apple isolated on white with an IPHONE, but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.  The argument is simply how that image gets managed in the collections.

Yes, well, I already said there is a market for them - there's a market for everything - but putting low quality images into the general IS collection just to say "Hey, we're hipsters!" defeats the intent of the last 10 years.  Besides, I haven't really seen any image that wouldn't have been possible without an phone.  Any camera can capture pixels and then be processed later.  The whole "mobile" thing is really a PR move, imo.

« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2012, 20:15 »
0
Lol, so, you think your iPhone images are the same quality as my 1dsmk3, and have no issue with those bring stuffed into the general collection whose high quality has been curated over 10+ years?  Who's the troll?

I don't think he is saying that ( I could be completely wrong).  I think he is saying that there is a place for these kinds of images irrespective of the camera you use.  I don't think he is saying to replace a apple isolated on white with an IPHONE, but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.  The argument is simply how that image gets managed in the collections.

Yes, well, I already said there is a market for them - there's a market for everything - but putting low quality images into the general IS collection just to say "Hey, we're hipsters!" defeats the intent of the last 10 years.  Besides, I haven't really seen any image that wouldn't have been possible without an phone.  Any camera can capture pixels and then be processed later.  The whole "mobile" thing is really a PR move, imo.

Not PR, RRofit

« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2012, 20:29 »
0
... but to offer a selective soup of images that aren't possible without an instant camera.
Realistically, what would these be that would be suitable for microstock? By the time you've removed all IP considerations, you might as well be using your dSLR, and for editorial, you can get certain pj stuff, and maybe some pap stuff that iStock won't take. All of the stuff that's there already could easily be taken with a normal camera and degraded. Hey, I should add a cyan tint to my old 'flat light' rejections, flatten/decrease contrast a bit more and voila!

Liz, it would be broadening the menu of options, albeit quality down, but "right place right time" UP.

So you are talking about editorial shots? (I'm just trying to clarify.)
Also, none of what was up already, taken by 'badges' presumably under instruction as to what's wanted, have been 'right place, right time' spur of the moment photos.
I'm wondering why it has to be a mobile and not a P&S, which could also be slipped into a handbag/pocket to have available at times you can't really have your dSLR.  don't have a smartphone, but it's far quicker for me to get from off to click with my G9 (switch on, frame, focus, click) than it is with my mobile, which won't let me take a photo until it's spent a few minutes getting from switch on to getting connected. For some reason the camera won't let me take a photo until I'm connected. Maybe that's something which is smarter about smart phones. (?)
I don't care either way. I don't have a smartphone and wouldn't get one just for this. I am miffed about all my flat (i.e. 'normal for her') light rejections when I see these mobile pics. I just want to know what they seem to think can be taken with a phone but not with a P&S.

Yes and no.

« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2012, 21:02 »
+1
HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT-  IMO  8)


1. I think the inspectors are going to get hammered with a flood of noise ridden, poorly focused, over-filtered mobile phone photos submitted by contributors thinking that the inspection bar has been lowered for their mobilestock tagged images.

2. And I am guessing that the inspectors will reject most of them for the above issues...

3. Then the PUSH BACK by contributors stating what did  you expect -- it from an iPhone and you asked for it.

4. That debate will heat up.

5. IS will kill the mobile phone photo initiative due to standards and expectation issues.

REVISED:
I now see there are many MobileStock images rolling into the database. So mebbe I am wrong about all this... would not be the first time. Carry on...

« Last Edit: September 03, 2012, 22:35 by oxman »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #86 on: September 04, 2012, 07:34 »
0

« Reply #87 on: September 04, 2012, 09:12 »
0
And the flood gates open, over 600 images and counting.

Question, why is the keyword "iPhoneS" allowed when there is no phone in the picture?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #88 on: September 04, 2012, 09:14 »
0
And the flood gates open, over 600 images and counting.

Question, why is the keyword "iPhoneS" allowed when there is no phone in the picture?

Excellent question.
Sadly, my sister had her iPhone too well 'hidden' when I met her last night, so I couldn't try it out.

« Reply #89 on: September 04, 2012, 11:58 »
0
And the flood gates open, over 600 images and counting.

Question, why is the keyword "iPhoneS" allowed when there is no phone in the picture?

Excellent question.
Sadly, my sister had her iPhone too well 'hidden' when I met her last night, so I couldn't try it out.

you have to call her # so her phone rings to find it.

lisafx

« Reply #90 on: September 04, 2012, 12:07 »
0

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

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

Oh, well if you say he's wrong, that's good enough for me.  Don't bother supporting that claim with any facts or examples.  :)

« Reply #91 on: September 04, 2012, 15:39 »
0
you guys dont see what it is all about.
it is time and relevancy.

1. ..If you want a picture of a red rose, there is one available. Due to the competition, that picture is very good. Someone had the time to produce that very good picture.
2... if you want a picture of the Metheor hitting the Yucatn peninsula you need someone there with some sort of image capturing device. A cellphone maybe. It doesnt matter.

if there is time enough, we compete by quality
if there is not enough time, quality doesnt matter.
Now, how it will affect us? That depends on the degree of newsworthyness the agencies are going for. The more the worse.
If they are really into news, they can crowdsource the whole crap from free facebook pictures.
If they can find them...




« Reply #92 on: September 04, 2012, 16:01 »
0
What makes a good photo - (a) the mind behind the camera or (b) the piece of technology pointed at the subject?  I'd like to think (a) but the reality is probably (b) for stock.

lisafx

« Reply #93 on: September 04, 2012, 16:31 »
0
What makes a good photo - (a) the mind behind the camera or (b) the piece of technology pointed at the subject? 

(c) both of the above :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #94 on: September 04, 2012, 16:33 »
0

2... if you want a picture of the Metheor hitting the Yucatn peninsula you need someone there with some sort of image capturing device. A cellphone maybe. It doesnt matter.


Would iStock be the best outlet for that photo?

« Reply #95 on: September 04, 2012, 16:34 »
0
What makes a good photo - (a) the mind behind the camera or (b) the piece of technology pointed at the subject? 

(c) both of the above :)

Couldn't argue with that.  It's a bit like Judo where skill not size is supposed to matter but competitions still have weight divisions  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3913 Views
Last post April 30, 2012, 22:05
by RacePhoto
46 Replies
9109 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 23:14
by RacePhoto
3 Replies
2085 Views
Last post November 12, 2012, 23:00
by gillian vann
0 Replies
1516 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 19:00
by Smithore
5 Replies
3336 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