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!"

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

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.

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.

.

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. 

...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."

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.

Finally some images that are worth every penny

"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?)

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'?

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.   

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.