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.

... 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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

2... if you want a picture of the Metheor hitting the Yucat�n 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?