Author Topic: OhGodHepMe! iStock is accepting Mobile Photography. (Read 29581 times)

oxman · « **on:** August 29, 2012, 16:30 »

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 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:31 »

This isn't news. They've been accepting images from iPhones for at least six months.

oxman · « **Reply #2 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 29, 2012, 16:31

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

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:44 »

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 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 29, 2012, 16:45 »

Quote from: oxman on August 29, 2012, 16:40

Quote from: ShadySue on August 29, 2012, 16:31
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.

stockastic · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:10 »

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."

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:26 »

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 you’re 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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:28 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 29, 2012, 17:10

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 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 29, 2012, 17:51 »

trek · « **Reply #9 on:** August 29, 2012, 20:38 »

No need to spend money on a Mark III. How convenient.

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** August 29, 2012, 22:09 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** August 29, 2012, 22:19 »

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 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 29, 2012, 17:10

...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 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 29, 2012, 22:09

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?

leaf · « **Reply #14 on:** August 30, 2012, 02:14 »

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 »

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 »

Finally some images that are worth every penny

rubyroo · « **Reply #17 on:** August 30, 2012, 03:09 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2012, 04:50 »

"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?)

rubyroo · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2012, 05:22 »

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 · « **Reply #20 on:** August 30, 2012, 05:26 »

Quoting myself:

Quote from: ShadySue on August 30, 2012, 04:50

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 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 30, 2012, 05:29 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 30, 2012, 05:22

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2012, 05:43 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** August 30, 2012, 06:03 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 30, 2012, 05:43

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

There's always an upside.

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** August 30, 2012, 07:54 »

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.

rimglow · « **Reply #25 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:01 »

I always strip out the camera data anyway. Eliminates rejections claiming an image at such a big size couldn't come from whatever camera.

rubyroo · « **Reply #26 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:16 »

Quote from: leaf on August 30, 2012, 07:54

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.

Yes, I agree. I've been having exactly that discussion with my other half. It's just a few post-production tricks to add to our DSLR routine and repertoire.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:26 »

Quote from: leaf on August 30, 2012, 07:54

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.

You can, but according to Braddy, "The CV term mobilestock is for us to track these assets and we would prefer that they are created on a mobile device. Keyword spamming is a crime"

I wish they'd tell the inspectors that- a lot of recently images are appallingly keyworded.

rubyroo · « **Reply #28 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:39 »

Seriously, a crime? Every time I see keyword spam, I've witnessed a crime? First I've heard of it.

On that other point - if they're 'tracking assets' and we can't use 'mobilestock' on non-mobile captures, I suppose our images will fall outside of the range on searches. Sounds as if there's no point in trying to emulate mobile shots on a DSLR then. Boo hiss.

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:43 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 30, 2012, 08:39

Seriously, a crime? Every time I see keyword spam, I've witnessed a crime? First I've heard of it.

Top post on this page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346647&page=2
I'm sure he used it like I'd say, "Keyword properly: it's the Law."

rubyroo · « **Reply #30 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:45 »

Thnk God you stopped me before I called the boys in blue. I believe wasting police time actually IS a crime.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:49 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 30, 2012, 08:45

Thnk God you stopped me before I called the boys in blue. I believe wasting police time actually IS a crime.

Sorting this crime would be never-ending.

JPSDK · « **Reply #32 on:** August 30, 2012, 08:53 »

soon someone will produce an action, that can make a perfect dslr photo look like something from a nokia.

maybe I should do that?

I will use lens distortion filters and noise and blur in layers.
not to mention a strange desaturation.

rubyroo · « **Reply #33 on:** August 30, 2012, 09:15 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 30, 2012, 08:49

Sorting this crime would be never-ending.

LOL

(How I miss the little laughing smiley!)

rubyroo · « **Reply #34 on:** August 30, 2012, 09:16 »

Quote from: JPSDK on August 30, 2012, 08:53

soon someone will produce an action, that can make a perfect dslr photo look like something from a nokia.

maybe I should do that?

I will use lens distortion filters and noise and blur in layers.
not to mention a strange desaturation.

LOL

An action would be great! I guess we could still produce mobile-like images, as long as we don't use the 'mobilestock' keyword and enter that strange crime cycle...

stockastic · « **Reply #35 on:** August 30, 2012, 09:55 »

It's typical, when companies get sold, reorganize, sold again - and they end up being lashed to make impossible profit targets with a business model that's getting stale - that they start chasing new markets they don't really understand. In this case I think it's the idea that to sell products to kids and young people today, you need cell phone photos.

JPSDK · « **Reply #36 on:** August 30, 2012, 10:12 »

that is not right.
kids can always be bribed with candy and young adults with sex.

Its easy enough.

EmberMike · « **Reply #37 on:** August 30, 2012, 10:44 »

Quote from: leaf on August 30, 2012, 07:54

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...

That's my thought as well. The only thing that phones bring to the table that's new is on-the-spot accessibility and spontaneity. You might not be carrying a DSLR around with you everywhere, but you've got a phone and if it has a decent enough camera, it could be used to catch a great shot.

But I don't understand why that would preclude the same shot being taken with a DSLR and then given the grainy phone effect if that's the desired treatment.

I'm also not sure how you guys would work iPhone photography into your workflow without sacrificing better photos shot with a better camera. You've got your DSLR in one hand and your iPhone in the other, with time enough to just get the shot once. Which one are you going to use?

stockastic · « **Reply #38 on:** August 30, 2012, 11:13 »

What they want are photos that look like they were taken by young people enjoying their fabulous fast-paced social lives. So much fun, so much excitement, no time for even a thought of focus or framing.

If you can produce that elusive but unmistakable quality, or convincingly fake it, you're in.

Wim · « **Reply #39 on:** August 30, 2012, 11:34 »

I wonder what's next, Acrobatography?

Where one does a backflip or other acrobatics while pressing the shutter

leaf · « **Reply #40 on:** August 30, 2012, 11:55 »

On with the iphone trend - three of the top instagram photographers were given court side access at U.S. Open Tennis - simply to take their instagram photos and share it with the world.
http://fstoppers.com/top-instagram-users-receive-red-carpet-treatment-at-u-s-open

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** August 30, 2012, 12:00 »

Quote from: Wim on August 30, 2012, 11:34

I wonder what's next, Acrobatography?

Where one does a backflip or other acrobatics while pressing the shutter

There's a group on Flickr for photos taken while a camera is being tossed. Obviously, I think that's daft, though some of the photos are fairly interesting.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #42 on:** August 30, 2012, 12:51 »

Buyers simply want a manufactured, model released version of reality that looks like an amateur shot it. No need to use your iPhone, just relight, reframe, and rethink how the images are posed/composed. I don't think any real art buyers seriously want an iPhone quality shot when they can get the exact same look and feel shot on a pro camera. Photoshop can grunge it up if they want....

stockastic · « **Reply #43 on:** August 30, 2012, 13:37 »

So - photos of models that aren't models, taken by photographers that aren't photographers, on cameras that aren't cameras. Got it.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #44 on:** August 30, 2012, 14:00 »

Quote from: leaf on August 30, 2012, 02:14

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.

+1 Therefore since about two month I try different styles, copy a bit the various "phone" styles on my DSLR shots. Guess what? They all got rejected

velocicarpo · « **Reply #45 on:** August 30, 2012, 14:04 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 29, 2012, 22:19

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

Speaking as a Designer, the way I can use those Images is (still) very limited:
- Print Production: No way. Or maybe when it is something exceptional in good Quality. Artifacts of upscaling or as a result in retouching makes you instantly lose your customer. Ever checked out how nice screen res shot looks at 300DPI on shiny paper?

- Web: Yes, maybe. Although still depends a lot on the quality. Hoewever, within one or two years I think the shots are usable.
- PDF stuff: Yes, probably.

Please note that Noise is not always a critical point in quality. Sometimes it can be pretty appealing or even desired.

JPSDK · « **Reply #46 on:** August 30, 2012, 14:16 »

it is true enough.
I had some awakenings when I printed some jpg composites.
They were not what i thought.
there were lousy transitions, i could not see in photoshop.
Only in print.

LSD72 · « **Reply #47 on:** August 30, 2012, 15:39 »

Quote from: EmberMike on August 29, 2012, 22:34

Quote from: stockastic on August 29, 2012, 17:10
...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."

And on a side note: in 2 months you can submit from MS Paint for illustrations.

stockastic · « **Reply #48 on:** August 30, 2012, 16:14 »

Quote from: LSD72 on August 30, 2012, 15:39

Quote from: EmberMike on August 29, 2012, 22:34
Quote from: stockastic on August 29, 2012, 17:10
...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."

And on a side note: in 2 months you can submit from MS Paint for illustrations.

No way! Only illustrations actually done on iPhones, using a finger-paint app.

raclro · « **Reply #49 on:** August 30, 2012, 22:10 »

I like it, I really do. iStock is realizing that many or perhaps most of it's buyers are looking for a specific subject or concept for use on the web with little concern about the "quality" issues we strive so hard to produce. I have publicly joked that if I submitted a photo of Bigfoot, it would be rejected because of "use of on-camera flash". Sure there will always be a nice market for excellent studio/model shots, as well as other true quality photography,but-----take a look at the photos used on websites. Randomly brouse a wide variety of sites and it is clear that the vast majority of photos do not meet the historical iStock quality demands. I think this is a wise move, except for the fact it further dilutes my portfolio vs the collection.
The camera in my phone is better than the one I used early on to take photos that have earned me many thousands of iStock dollars ( some of them still sell very well)
Slightly off subject here, but I use my Canon S100 for lots of iStock work now, nearly as small as a cell phone and way easier to carry around than my 5D and my stable of L lenses. The real "for me" photography I love all my gear, but for stock I am going smaller, especially editorial.

RT · « **Reply #50 on:** August 31, 2012, 05:23 »

Lowers the value of the rest of the collection if you ask me, they should have started a independent site for phone pics.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #51 on:** September 02, 2012, 10:56 »

So is there a separate review process for phone pics?

Phone pics 100% crops are iffy at best in even thinking about getting past a reviewer for the focus being good!

And if there are two standards then that is unfair to all!

bad to the bone · « **Reply #52 on:** September 02, 2012, 19:17 »

I dont't think quality is the point. It's a question of look and stile ... nobody prefers definatly a phone picture ... but good pictures what look alike. That's a great differerence.

stockastic · « **Reply #53 on:** September 02, 2012, 20:09 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 02, 2012, 10:56

So is there a separate review process for phone pics?

Phone pics 100% crops are iffy at best in even thinking about getting past a reviewer for the focus being good!

And if there are two standards then that is unfair to all!

Don't be expecting this to make any sense. And it's only going to get crazier.

JPSDK · « **Reply #54 on:** September 02, 2012, 21:35 »

Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

vonkara · « **Reply #55 on:** September 02, 2012, 22:26 »

Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35

Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

Hahaha

raclro · « **Reply #56 on:** September 02, 2012, 22:39 »

Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35

Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

Exactly.

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #57 on:** September 03, 2012, 11:13 »

Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35

Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #58 on:** September 03, 2012, 11:25 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 11:13

Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really? I don't see that. What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content. If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

Poncke · « **Reply #59 on:** September 03, 2012, 12:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 11:25

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 11:13
Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really? I don't see that. What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content. If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat.

oxman · « **Reply #60 on:** September 03, 2012, 12:25 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 11:25

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 11:13
Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really? I don't see that. What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content. If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

+!

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #61 on:** September 03, 2012, 12:41 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 12:22

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 11:25
Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 11:13
Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really? I don't see that. What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content. If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat.

I don't really see why I'm being quoted here - but if you think for a second, perhaps you'll recall when digital photography rolled around and it was broadly badmouthed. Same deal with the early days of Microstock. Perhaps some of you haven't been shooting long enough to recall these things, I don't know. But, all this stuff about ruined reputations, separate collections, etc is all the same stuff. I get that people are resistant to change, but all this just seems to me to be gear snobbery and resentment about years of "over-filtering" rejections that are coming to the surface.

Poncke · « **Reply #62 on:** September 03, 2012, 13:03 »

No resentment here, I dont even submit to IS. You just cant have different standards for the same pile. I really dont care if someone shoots with a mobile phone. But if they have technically flawed photos (noise, OOF, underexposed) approved just because they are from a mobile phone, and added to the general database, then yes, I would be upset. If they add them to a different category and have adjusted pricing, I dont see the problem. If they accept them under the same quality control I dont have a problem either. If a photo is technically sound, it doesnt matter what equipments was used to get there.

stockastic · « **Reply #63 on:** September 03, 2012, 14:19 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 13:03

But if they have technically flawed photos (noise, OOF, underexposed) approved just because they are from a mobile phone...

So far, all we can assume from their statements is that this will be the case. There's the set of existing standards, and now there's the new rule that says those standards may not apply to cell phone photos. And what is a "cell phone photo", really? It doesn't matter if the camera was part of an actual phone and not just a P&S; what they really want is a certain "look" which is difficult if not impossible to specify or recognize in a consistent way. To paper over this weirdness they'll say that "cell phone photos" must actually come from phones, I guess, but how long can that distinction be enforced?

I don't see this as another film vs. digital thing. I never did film, but it seems like the issues were pretty clear. Composition, lighting, focus were still goals. Or were agencies really saying - in the early days of digital - "we'll take cr@ppy photos from digital cameras, because buyers just want that digital look"?

cathyslife · « **Reply #64 on:** September 03, 2012, 15:09 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 13:03

No resentment here, I dont even submit to IS. You just cant have different standards for the same pile. I really dont care if someone shoots with a mobile phone. But if they have technically flawed photos (noise, OOF, underexposed) approved just because they are from a mobile phone, and added to the general database, then yes, I would be upset. If they add them to a different category and have adjusted pricing, I dont see the problem. If they accept them under the same quality control I dont have a problem either. If a photo is technically sound, it doesnt matter what equipments was used to get there.

Same here. I don't submit to istock, so it doesn't matter one whit to me what you/they do. I just agree with the others before me that think this should be a whole different site for a whole different market. If anyone should be screaming, it should be the contributors at istock. After spending so much money on equipment to get the images to a professional quality, which is what istock USED to be about, it seems like this should be a slap in those istock contributors' faces. What Sean said...devaluing the quality, professional images on istock.

I agree that a quality image can be shot with ANYTHING...but most of the cellphone images I see could hardly qualify as a quality image. I just think this is the latest "trending now" thing...further diluting istock contributors' sales. How many more "millions" of contributors will jump in to sell their images for $.02 (or whatever istock is selling these images for now). Does this mean that the last "trending now" thing...HDR...is finally out?

red · « **Reply #65 on:** September 03, 2012, 15:54 »

I agree that a quality image can be shot with ANYTHING...

The problem in my mind is what constitutes a "quality" image these days. It is probably what the buyers will buy and has nothing to do with technical quality. Quality is defined as - Quality: The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something. If you then try to define excellence it gets even harder. Excellence: The quality of being outstanding or extremely good. What's "good?" A vicious circle.

I see nothing wrong with accepting these types of photos if that is what the buyer wants. Obviously they call them cellphone photos because the look started with iphones and their special filter apps and even add-on lenses, and there is no other term that applies. Perhaps cellphone-like photos would be better.

I do think that they should be marketed from a separate place for those who are looking for that type of image and that the actual cell phone or camera or filter that can create the cellphone-like look is irrelevant. Let them accept whatever of these types of photos they want and if they don't sell things will change. If they do, everyone will start submitting them.

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?

stockastic · « **Reply #66 on:** September 03, 2012, 16:02 »

Nikon is about to introduce a pocket-size camera running Android. I assume that means all those 'filter' apps can be used on it. But, it's not a phone. So... ?

It's IS's business and they can accept, reject, and sell whatever they want. Tastes change. I just think that - as was the case with all their pricing schemes and changes over the last year - they're going to get contributors, buyers, and reviewers hopelessly confused, as they chase this latest rainbow.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #67 on:** September 03, 2012, 16:46 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 12:41

Quote from: Poncke on September 03, 2012, 12:22
Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 11:25
Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 11:13
Quote from: JPSDK on September 02, 2012, 21:35
Wonder why this discussion reminds me of the one we had when digital photography was intruduced.

And then again when Microstock came along. Every new thing that broadens the audience/contributor base somehow seems to have legions of photographers screaming that "this will be the end of the industry! Woe is me!"

Is anyone crying an alarm, really? I don't see that. What I do see is concern that intermixing inferior technical content into the general collection will lower buyers' perceived value of IS content. If IS wants to segregate this into a separate collection or site, full steam ahead.

If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat.

I don't really see why I'm being quoted here - but if you think for a second, perhaps you'll recall when digital photography rolled around and it was broadly badmouthed. Same deal with the early days of Microstock. Perhaps some of you haven't been shooting long enough to recall these things, I don't know. But, all this stuff about ruined reputations, separate collections, etc is all the same stuff. I get that people are resistant to change, but all this just seems to me to be gear snobbery and resentment about years of "over-filtering" rejections that are coming to the surface.

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #68 on:** September 03, 2012, 16:49 »

"If the photos pass the same QC as is, then they are technically the same and then it shouldnt matter. If the QC for phone photos is different, than it should be a diff cat

Yes, the point is that they can't pass the same QC without modifying the standard.

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #69 on:** September 03, 2012, 16:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 16:46

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.

oxman · « **Reply #70 on:** September 03, 2012, 18:02 »

I took some photos with my new iPhone 4s using Camera+ in pretty good lighting and ISO etc...

Took them into LR and PS for post and... well, the composition was nice but I felt like I was cleaning a beautiful sculpture in dirty water. You just cannot compare a 5dMII sensor and L Glass to a freaking iPhone!!. The pop is just not there. It's like trying to polish a turd.

Poncke · « **Reply #71 on:** September 03, 2012, 18:21 »

Quote from: oxman on September 03, 2012, 18:02

I took some photos with my new iPhone 4s using Camera+ in pretty good lighting and ISO etc...

Took them into LR and PS for post and... well, the composition was nice but I felt like I was cleaning a beautiful sculpture in dirty water. You just cannot compare a 5dMII sensor and L Glass to a freaking iPhone!!. The pop is just not there. It's like trying to polish a turd.

http://mythbustersresults.com/end-with-a-bang

Quote

You can’t polish poop.
BUSTED
Adam and Jamie visited a zoo to obtain a variety of feces to try to polish. They tried to pick the most polishable candidates and baked them to remove the moisture. Adam tried to shine his poop with a buffing wheel, while Jamie reasoned that using a wax polish would result in a shine. Adam eventually sought the advice of an outside expert, who showed him that it was possible to apply a shine to dirt with a tedious technique. Applying this technique, Adam and Jamie were able to obtain very polished poop without using any foreign materials like polish.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #72 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:04 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 16:53

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 16:46

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.

And yet, you seem unable to post any argument against what I am saying, except thing like 'gear envy' and whatnot.

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #73 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 19:04

And yet, you seem unable to post any argument against what I am saying, except thing like 'gear envy' and whatnot.

Whatever. You've proven time and again that you MUST be right on all topics, so I'm not continuing this with you - you're just a troll. Just go on being the know-it-all, and I'll go on selling my iPhone images.

Mantis · « **Reply #74 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:14 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 19:12

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 19:04

And yet, you seem unable to post any argument against what I am saying, except thing like 'gear envy' and whatnot.

Whatever. You've proven time and again that you MUST be right on all topics, so I'm not continuing this with you - you're just a troll. Just go on being the know-it-all, and I'll go on selling my iPhone images.

Nevermind....this is really the good, the bad and the ugly.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #75 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:15 »

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 · « **Reply #76 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:17 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on September 03, 2012, 15:54

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.

Mantis · « **Reply #77 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 19:15

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 · « **Reply #78 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24

... 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!

Mantis · « **Reply #79 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 03, 2012, 19:33

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24
... 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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #80 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:39 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:35

Quote from: ShadySue on September 03, 2012, 19:33
Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24
... 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.

Mantis · « **Reply #81 on:** September 03, 2012, 19:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 03, 2012, 19:39

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:35
Quote from: ShadySue on September 03, 2012, 19:33
Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24
... 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)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #82 on:** September 03, 2012, 20:08 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 19:15
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.

Mantis · « **Reply #83 on:** September 03, 2012, 20:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 20:08

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24
Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 19:15
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

Mantis · « **Reply #84 on:** September 03, 2012, 20:29 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 03, 2012, 19:39

Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:35
Quote from: ShadySue on September 03, 2012, 19:33
Quote from: Mantis on September 03, 2012, 19:24
... 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.

oxman · « **Reply #85 on:** September 03, 2012, 21:02 »

HOW IT WILL PLAY OUT- IMO

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...

ShadySue · « **Reply #86 on:** September 04, 2012, 07:34 »

It looks like these 'of the moment' snaps weren't taken on mobiles, even if some might snipe at the TQ:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197643/Talk-gatecrashing-Tourist-snap-ruined-background-cyclist-slams-lamppost--amazing-photobombings.html?ICO=most_read_module

cmannphoto · « **Reply #87 on:** September 04, 2012, 09:12 »

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 · « **Reply #88 on:** September 04, 2012, 09:14 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on September 04, 2012, 09:12

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #89 on:** September 04, 2012, 11:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 04, 2012, 09:14

Quote from: cmannphoto on September 04, 2012, 09:12
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 »

Quote from: blackwaterimages on September 03, 2012, 16:53

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 16:46

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.

JPSDK · « **Reply #91 on:** September 04, 2012, 15:39 »

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 Yucatán 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...

heywoody · « **Reply #92 on:** September 04, 2012, 16:01 »

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 »

Quote from: heywoody on September 04, 2012, 16:01

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 · « **Reply #94 on:** September 04, 2012, 16:33 »

Quote from: JPSDK on September 04, 2012, 15:39

2... if you want a picture of the Metheor hitting the Yucatán 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?

heywoody · « **Reply #95 on:** September 04, 2012, 16:34 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 04, 2012, 16:31

Quote from: heywoody on September 04, 2012, 16:01
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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: OhGodHepMe! iStock is accepting Mobile Photography. (Read 29581 times)

EmberMike

RacePhoto

Poncke

Wim

rubyroo

rubyroo

rubyroo

rubyroo

rubyroo

rubyroo

rubyroo

rubyroo

EmberMike

Wim

velocicarpo

velocicarpo

vonkara

Poncke

Poncke

red

Poncke

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors