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.

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.

But on the flip side, I find it odd that now instead of an image being required to be taken on an SLR it's beint requiredto be shot on a smart phone.  I don't think either camp is correct.

I think its a bit like how iStock (I don't know anything about other agencies) has a separate film based image inspection. The difference here being that the mobile thing is a response to a global trend and they're actively soliciting the images, rather than just taking them as they're submitted.

make a separate category for them, we arent editing carefully files after files to have mobile pictures next to the regular collection

Why is this? Nervous about competition? If yes, then don't be - images are images and the better one should sell. If no, then why would you care?

Is mobile photography, and using it for stock, as huge as it sounds?

My iPhone shots at Getty sell nicely. I know there are some who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that a mobile phone's camera could possibly produce a quality image, but they're dead wrong. Just like any other tool, not every photo is a keeper and just like every other photo you can keep it raw or filter . out of it. Which aesthetic you prefer doesn't matter and one isn't more valid than the other. But the fact is, there's a market for these images and it would be silly to not take advantage of it.  Personally, I think much of the backlash against this type of photo is the years of "over filtered" rejections and being resentful of a new standard. Times change, people - if you've been doing this for any amount of time that's one lesson you should have already learned.

It's not that new - it must be a year since they told me something similar (though it might have been 18 months or 24 months or almost anything, really)

Yep... I received a reply saying "Unfortunately I don't think it has been officially been announced however it has been a policy for a long time."  It just seemed weird - is it a new policy or an old one? Doesn't really matter either way, but you'd think that might be something they'd announce.

Quote from: lagereek on February 28, 2012, 14:18

Jeez!  not one single true to life medical shot, all posed and with terrible models,

Well, congratulations if you can get genuine medical staff to sign MRs.
For the rest, welcome to the wacky world of stock photos.

My wife's entire medical and support staff of about 40 signed releases for me (with the blessing of the major NYC hospital where she works), so it CAN be done.

Why should the photographer identify his model just because a paper wants to do a grubby article like this?

He shouldn't, but he shouldn't lie either. Simply saying "I'm not willing to share the model's name." would be a truthful answer. He makes himself look bad by saying he didn't know who the guy was. I've shot thousands of models going back a decade and can pull a release for every single one within a couple minutes. Anyone who can't do the same should re-examine their organizational skills and business policy.

I've was following this story elsewhere for a bit at the beginning, but its just such crap all around. The photographer definitely knew who the guys was and lied about it. It should simply be labeled as an illustration and left at that - isn't that what stock photography is all about... using images as source material???  All I can imagine is that the photographer didn't adequately explain where the photos would be going to the model.

What's this saying to amputees, by the way? The model's disgust seems to say a lot.... although one look tells me he could've been depicted in MUCH more unflattering terms. Maybe surrounded by a mound of cheesburgers? Sitting on a crushed treadmill?

Well, I guess it looks like my speculation back on page 4 is looking more like truth. Crazy times in iStock world. Can't say I'm even slightly sorry to see KKT or JJRD go though.

conjecture aside, it's such bad business they have kept contributors, seemingly intentionally, in the dark. particularly exclusives. I don't really care if it is Getty, iStock, H&F anymore. as far as I'm concerned, it's all the same selfish and stymied machine these days.

I totally agree, however its been so long since they've been upfront and open about virtually anything, that I've long since given up hope for any sort of transparency.

Also - my other thought on the full merger with Getty is that it'll be a clean and easy way to knock ALL contributors down to 20% royalties if they move all the content to Getty proper.

There's an 800lb gorilla on Getty's back called H&F and it wants more now.

Absolutely - I think people (including istock admin) seem to have forgotten about H&F. They didn't buy Getty (and by extension, iStock) because they're passionate about running a stock agency. They bought it to turn a profit through resale - Getty and iStock will be on the market before long, I think... and who knows what mess that could/will lead to.