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

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.

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."

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.

Sorting this crime would be never-ending.

LOL

(How I miss the little laughing smiley!)

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. 

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?

I wonder what's next, Acrobatography?

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

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.