Quoted Message: Back in 2004-2006 most of the cameras our photographers used were worse (in terms of image quality) than most of the phone cameras available now. DSLRs are not going to be replaced soon, we`re just trying to be open to this new smartphone and image taking/sharing era.Also, as you should know or realize, a good photograph is not about noise and technical quality. Do you remember film and analog cameras? :)
Are you talking serious??? Let´s see, 2004-2006 ( canon 10D - 1D Mark I - 1D markII - nikon D100 ) And before canon just have the 30D...Are compare this to phones camera´s ??? Even the today cameras? compare sensor sizes, lenses....Just in that time professional market upload with Bronika , Pentax 67 and other 4,5x6 cm film with high quality. The RAW from a 10D made in studio was pretty good to the time and even today this camera is able to produce high quality images.
Just the sensor size in mobiles and the shutter delay made them devices very limited and they will be always limitied. Only in day light ambient and with good quality light they can produce something visible. The really and good use is for press and editorial were the image is more important than quality "quality - versus - have an image to show" and to pick sound in interviews.
In the field of quality and professional use to photographers the only use i see is to replace the polaroid shoots in 21 century.....nothing else!
Nikon D7000 , Multiblitz studio light, Bowens studio light,
Does that mean, the "over filtered" rejection criteria is off the table for mobile photos since we are expected to use filters like instagram for this assignment? I agreed with most members on this topic. I.e. that the impact of a photo is not about the noise and sharpness but about composition and subject and conveying a message. But I also agree that microstock is about quality and noise and acceptance ratios. I think it's this disjoint that makes us hard to wrap our heads around this assignment.
If it is about adding filters to make it look like instagram type photos, even a lot of cameras have in camera filters that can give that look. If it's about getting the perfect editorial content with our smartphone cameras just because it's readily available, I always carry my micro 4/3s with me so probably in most cases won't use my smartphone camera. If it's just about using your smartphone camera for this assignment, then I think the assignment should say use only cell phone cameras with EXIF from cell phones instead of also including using your camera to capture cell phone like photos. That just makes it more confusing.
For a bit more inspiring, dpreview also has a similar assignment going on. Below the video can give you a bit more inspiration.
Quoted Message: If it`s just about using your smartphone camera for this assignment, then I think the assignment should say use only cell phone cameras with EXIF from cell phones instead of also including using your camera to capture cell phone like photos. That just makes it more confusing.
I absolutely agree with you.
IS USM ● Previous images: Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-H5. Softwares: Inksca...
I submit 4 images to this assignment until now and have 3 refused with the message that are good stock images but not for this assignment. Can i submit again to RF stock collection , even that have been made with a phone ?
Nikon D7000 , Multiblitz studio light, Bowens studio light,
I have a question about what you are looking for. Do you want images that have some tweaking done to them? You mentioned using Photoshop Express and Pixlr-o-matic, so you want us to change an ordinary phone pic into something unique by using one of those apps? Or just candid shots? Thank you
I think this is really interesting! This summer my hubby and I were offroading waaay, way out in the mid of nowhere (with full camera gear, of course), and we came across a wildfire starting (we live in dry, dusty high desert Nevada). We were able to get it under somewhat control, I called 911, he drove the truck out to meet the fire trucks to show them where to go. I stayed behind and kept the fire at bay. Unfortunately, we were both so distracted, I forgot to grab my camera gear! All I had was my cell phone. So, I took pics of the entire process, including the arrival of all the fire trucks and then the firemen putting out the rest of the fire, digging a trench, etc., while waiting for my husband to make it back to get me.
This month, Nevada Magazine bought one of the pics as a half page opener for one of their wildfire features. It's a whole new world, for sure.
I have a similar question to Starlet. I apologize if it has already been answered and I missed it. Since you mention cell phone apps for editing these photos, does that mean we are not supposed/allowed to manipulate/fix them in Photoshop on our computers before submitting?
Thanks in advance.
IS. Polarizer, ND, close-up filters. Lens Baby. Studio backdrops, hot...
I do all of my picture editing on my mobile phone. Many of my pictures were shot with mobile phone camera. So far not many of those pictures has full fill requirements on Dreamstime. Most of them because of pure optical performance...low lens quality...low light... As far I can see...it's hard to reach the standards on Dreamstime with mobile phone camera and mobile phone editing.
Whilst I appreciate that from time to time mobiles can be used to capture the moment & produce a good newsworthy image and that it might make sense to include mobile images in the editorial category, I too am sceptical about the quality & content of the images that will be produced by inexperienced photographers using mobile phones. Tangie mentions the "mobile style" - we all know that 99% of mobile images are blurry, grainy and, as a general rule, pretty crap. Fine for showing your mates, but not suitable for sale on a self-respecting stock agency site.
What also concerns me is the impact that selling these types of images will have on DT's rep as a quality microstock agency. I'm not sure that buyers come here to purchase mobile quality images, especially when they can already download for free from a score of online sites.
DT has for a long time had issues with reducing the images that are waiting for approval & that's only gonna get worse when they're swamped with "mobile style" snapshot images that are more than likely going to be rejected as they don't meet the quality/content required. Anyone, teenage or not, with a mobile phone who hasn't got a clue about photography will think they can now submit to DT. Is that gonna benefit us?
Retina's point is a good one. The current policy is that images of high quality are already rejected because of "similars" (well, depending on who you are) so what's the policy going to be when there are 10 lower quality mobile shots online & a "good quality" similar image is submitted?
I usually support DT in site development as I am (usually) able to see the possible benefits for both DT & the contributor but I'm really struggling here.
The grainy, over-filtered, sloppy, casual pics from phones are in vogue now. Why not capitalize on that? Nothing wrong with providing content for new, young modern designers with pics for their websites and print adverts. Advertising to teens is more relevant if they see pics that represent their lifestyle and we all know every teen has a phone that can take photos and they do it all the time. We need to relate to the advertisers that sell to them too. Each cell phone pic is labeled as such, as being from a mobile phone, so buyers will know the difference. Other agencies have been selling these for months, DT just got on board. Nothing wrong with that. It's not mis-representation, DT is just supplying what the consumer (designers) want. I'm all for that.