Duncan_Andison Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I totally agree Duncan. I might look at micros again for the appropriate work. I have a whole raft of concept illustration ideas. For the bulkof my photography I am targetting stuff that takes committment that the snapshotters will not have the patience for or even in some cases the access. Martin, Micros work for some imagery but it isn't a magic bullet. I prefer RM but Micro can produce good income if targeted right. I'd never place anything that is hard to get or unique there I really like Alamy and just want them to be a little more like Corbis and less like Thinkstock in their approach. I want to have 2 separate portfolios, RM & Micro RF but Alamy are in danger of becoming an RM Micro..... an unedited one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alamy Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I also don't have an iPhone, using an Android but I may use this route to get my SoLD RX100 images up for license The spirit of Stockimo is to encapsulate mobile imagery and iPhoneography. Images are rated before being approved and if anything is spotted coming in that has not been taken on a mobile device, it'll be rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Because that policy isn't consistent with the policy of accepting phone images. why have a restricted camera list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihai Popa Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 iPhone 5S has 8mp camera with max 3264 x 2448 pixels so S002HP (3456 x 5184 pixels) might be from other camera. DOF is unusual for an iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Duncan, Iunderstand your point about micros - if I do go that route it will be stuff that is easy for me and inexpensive to produce. My in depth, long term stuff will use other routes to market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I also don't have an iPhone, using an Android but I may use this route to get my SoLD RX100 images up for license The spirit of Stockimo is to encapsulate mobile imagery and iPhoneography. Images are rated before being approved and if anything is spotted coming in that has not been taken on a mobile device, it'll be rejected. +1. But if you are looking that closely, at every image, then surely it would be worth while deciding whether the image adds value to the collection before approving it. Also, as someone has pointed out, why do some iPhone images have higher resolution than is possible for the device. If you are checking the EXIF data only for the camera details, you've got problems. I could easily submit an image taken by a different camera and submit it with iPhone EXIF data. If you don't have the same QC policy for all images, you will have successfully created a loophole to submit images that would normally fail QC, I also worry about the logic of "iPhoneography", only allowing iPhone images. What next, restricting the main collection to Canon & Nikon users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 a loophole to submit images that would normally fail QC, None could pass QC on size for a start. Most of what I've seen would fail for SoLD, dynamic range, artefacts, interpolation, posterisation- you name it. Just about the only thing they're immune from is sensor dust. It makes a bit of a joke of the rigorous QC we have to submit to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeRay Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I also don't have an iPhone, using an Android but I may use this route to get my SoLD RX100 images up for license The spirit of Stockimo is to encapsulate mobile imagery and iPhoneography. Images are rated before being approved and if anything is spotted coming in that has not been taken on a mobile device, it'll be rejected. +1. But if you are looking that closely, at every image, then surely it would be worth while deciding whether the image adds value to the collection before approving it. Also, as someone has pointed out, why do some iPhone images have higher resolution than is possible for the device. If you are checking the EXIF data only for the camera details, you've got problems. I could easily submit an image taken by a different camera and submit it with iPhone EXIF data. If you don't have the same QC policy for all images, you will have successfully created a loophole to submit images that would normally fail QC, I also worry about the logic of "iPhoneography", only allowing iPhone images. What next, restricting the main collection to Canon & Nikon users? Should have named it Phone(y)stock. Ticks all the boxes re medium used and expected IQ. (caveat emptor) Could then have prefixed all images with a capital "P" which again ticks all the boxes as surely someone is taking the "P". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I also don't have an iPhone, using an Android but I may use this route to get my SoLD RX100 images up for license The spirit of Stockimo is to encapsulate mobile imagery and iPhoneography. Images are rated before being approved and if anything is spotted coming in that has not been taken on a mobile device, it'll be rejected. It was toungue in cheek and I used the smiley to try and convey that but my opinion is that my RX100 shots were better that the iPhone ones I've seen so far in terms of sharpness and noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Personally, I'm not in favor of lowering quality in order to add speed. I would not be happy with that. Most of my reasons for doing what I do in stock these days have to do with me moving towards the exit of of this confused, confusing "industry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Personally, I'm not in favor of lowering quality in order to add speed. I would not be happy with that. Most of my reasons for doing what I do in stock these days have to do with me moving towards the exit of of this confused, confusing "industry." Me too! I write on slow travel, slow food and slow living generally - it is all about taking time to appreciate life, people and places. My photography is increasingly being part of that - long term projects where I properly get inside the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 It was toungue in cheek and I used the smiley to try and convey that but my opinion is that my RX100 shots were better that the iPhone ones I've seen so far in terms of sharpness and noise. Of course they are. It's a camera, not a phone. It's got a sensor you can see and a lens m\de of glass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 It was toungue in cheek and I used the smiley to try and convey that but my opinion is that my RX100 shots were better that the iPhone ones I've seen so far in terms of sharpness and noise. Of course they are. It's a camera, not a phone. It's got a sensor you can see and a lens m\de of glass I spend 28 days in the sin bin for SoLD (which is fair enough if QC decide they aren't up to scratch) but meanwhile people are free to upload those crappy iPhone images, which are rated and approved by Alamy, and the worst that can happen is they are deleted. No sin bin for the iPhoners !! The ones that have been pointed out already in the thread are terrible but must have been through the process of being rated and approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 As someone who spent 3 days at a dog show taking 1400 shots, then about 16 hours going through them worrying about noise as I had to use 1600ISO, yeah, it ticks me that the guy sitting next to me could have taken the same photos, gone home, then uploaded and be done. Me, I just ended up uploading 51 of 1400 cause I was so borderline on many of the shots. Agreed. If you and the hypothetical guy both took the same shots: same viewpoint, same-ish focal length, same time, what differences in QC would you both experience? The images could look very similar, but because his are smaller, he breezes through submission while you're still fiddling around to meet your QC . . . something isn't adding up here . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latent Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Hmm. I think it is a downward spiral for photographers trying to generate income from stock. Unless you are a photographer doing something fairly specilaised, once enough of these images appear, they will start to affect stock prices. It's already tough enough as it is. This week I saw one of my images sold for a double page spread, worldwide, unlimited print run, 20 year licence on a preferred vendor agreement for a pathetic sum of $90. Somewhat adrift of the four figure calcualtor sum!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbolton Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Blimey, sometimes you lot sound like a right bunch of old f**** ! moan moan moan... the customer isnt stupid, they can tell when an images isn't high enough quality for the usage they want. And guess what? they wont use it. They can also sift the wheat from the chaff, if an image is basically rubbish, they wont use it. Alamy has always been an unedited stock site, it does what it says on the tin (sorry for the cliche).... if you want a tightly edited agency, go to Corbis or Getty...this is a great idea, and there are some lovely images being taken on camera phones these days (YES, they're not just for making calls!)... get with it chaps, and instead of sitting round moaning on the forum, go take some pics! and use your camera phone if you want to! (tongue a bit in cheek...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 You cannot serve the top and bottom of the market from the same outlet. You wouldn't go Poundland or Dollar Store to buy your Cartier watch or Hermes scarf. Alamy may have effectively (finally?) abandoned the top end of the market with this move. If I was looking for high end images for an Ad camapign I would not want to trawl through pages of low-end images. With 40million hoh-hum images (including 3100 of mine) Alamy has probably lost most of that market anyway. Certainly prices people are seeing suggests they have. If I was a customer and was going to pay the same price for all imagery, I would want it to be made obvious, or given the opportunity to exclude, mobile phone images. It's a good idea but it should be a separate portfolio. They seem to be throwing ideas randomly into the arena and seeing which ones stick.... I really cannot believe they thought they could lump them all together without a way for the customer to exclude/include them in searches. All Stockimo images start with an S prefix and customers can specify file sizes in their searches to be over a certain size if smaller images will be a problem. We’ve recognised that there’s a market for mobile phone photography and customers will have the option to filter at a later stage if they wish to do so. We've already had an advertising customer download a high res image from the Stockimo collection and request clearences for advertising use. We appreciate this new avenue will not be suited to all but the market is changing / has changed and there is a huge opportunity to be a part of it. Alamy I wonder how many customers know about the "S" prefix? Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Just because some question the disparity (apparent) in QC requirements and question the QC requirements of the new collection doesn't mean they're not scurrying around, making preparations to join in . . . I've unplugged the pinhole in my parlour wall for example, and dug out the large sheets of light-sensitive paper . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Just because some question the disparity (apparent) in QC requirements and question the QC requirements of the new collection doesn't mean they're not scurrying around, making preparations to join in . . . I've unplugged the pinhole in my parlour wall for example, and dug out the large sheets of light-sensitive paper . . . dd Do you still have the one-way mirror as well??... @Mark - I'm actually quite with it, despite my outward appearance . I think one of the points is the customer will get fed up sifting the wheat from the chaff and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeatherG Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Blimey, sometimes you lot sound like a right bunch of old f**** ! moan moan moan... the customer isnt stupid, they can tell when an images isn't high enough quality for the usage they want. And guess what? they wont use it. They can also sift the wheat from the chaff, if an image is basically rubbish, they wont use it. Alamy has always been an unedited stock site, it does what it says on the tin (sorry for the cliche).... if you want a tightly edited agency, go to Corbis or Getty...this is a great idea, and there are some lovely images being taken on camera phones these days (YES, they're not just for making calls!)... get with it chaps, and instead of sitting round moaning on the forum, go take some pics! and use your camera phone if you want to! (tongue a bit in cheek...) It's not about the photographers or the old F****. Yes, its the customers who come here because they know what they are getting - now throw in millions of below standard images and the need for them (for the customers) to wade through millions of images to get to the "good stuff" - the customers will turn their back on Alamy and go to where they can trust the supplier. I certainly do not shop where I get irritated or where people are flogging anything to get my attention (regardless of the price). Beware of the tired, frustrated customer - they are not stupid, they do bite and it will hurt all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Blimey, sometimes you lot sound like a right bunch of old f**** ! moan moan moan... the customer isnt stupid, they can tell when an images isn't high enough quality for the usage they want. And guess what? they wont use it. They can also sift the wheat from the chaff, if an image is basically rubbish, they wont use it. Alamy has always been an unedited stock site, it does what it says on the tin (sorry for the cliche).... if you want a tightly edited agency, go to Corbis or Getty...this is a great idea, and there are some lovely images being taken on camera phones these days (YES, they're not just for making calls!)... get with it chaps, and instead of sitting round moaning on the forum, go take some pics! and use your camera phone if you want to! (tongue a bit in cheek...) I have and I do submit to Corbis. Main source of income The issue isn't about whether they should allow Phone Imagery, they should. It's about how they are accepting it and displaying it. And you're right, customers can look through the images but it has been said many times here, you need to be seen with X number of pages otherwise you will miss out. Hence the importance of rank. Now, if your search returns a load of images of the quality we are seeing over the last page or two, how long will they continue to look though before getting fed up. Even with small number of images submitted now we are seeing them appear at the top and while some are good, there are a lot that would have failed QC. Meanwhile, images that passed QC are being pushed further back. In fact, it could seriously be worth while getting an iPhone just so I can take images with it and submit them here instead of submitting normal images, send them to Corbis instead. I'm all for it, but a better way would be to apply matching QC standards, create a mobile category/collection and open to all mobile phone images and not just favouring one manufacture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Personally, I'm not in favor of lowering quality in order to add speed. I would not be happy with that. Most of my reasons for doing what I do in stock these days have to do with me moving towards the exit of of this confused, confusing "industry." Me too! I write on slow travel, slow food and slow living generally - it is all about taking time to appreciate life, people and places. My photography is increasingly being part of that - long term projects where I properly get inside the subject. Perhaps, with our matching white beards, Martin, we could put together a singing-and-dancing act, work the cruise ships? There was a nice metaphor I heard from a senior a few years ago: "I no longer run for buses." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Just because some question the disparity (apparent) in QC requirements and question the QC requirements of the new collection doesn't mean they're not scurrying around, making preparations to join in . . . I've unplugged the pinhole in my parlour wall for example, and dug out the large sheets of light-sensitive paper . . . dd Do you still have the one-way mirror as well??... Hmmm, last time I looked I'm sure my camera obscura setup didn't have any mirrors of any kind . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeRay Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Blimey, sometimes you lot sound like a right bunch of old f**** ! moan moan moan... the customer isnt stupid, they can tell when an images isn't high enough quality for the usage they want. And guess what? they wont use it. They can also sift the wheat from the chaff, if an image is basically rubbish, they wont use it. Alamy has always been an unedited stock site, it does what it says on the tin (sorry for the cliche).... if you want a tightly edited agency, go to Corbis or Getty...this is a great idea, and there are some lovely images being taken on camera phones these days (YES, they're not just for making calls!)... get with it chaps, and instead of sitting round moaning on the forum, go take some pics! and use your camera phone if you want to! (tongue a bit in cheek...) It's not about the photographers or the old F****. Yes, its the customers who come here because they know what they are getting - now throw in millions of below standard images and the need for them (for the customers) to wade through millions of images to get to the "good stuff" - the customers will turn their back on Alamy and go to where they can trust the supplier. I certainly do not shop where I get irritated or where people are flogging anything to get my attention (regardless of the price). Beware of the tired, frustrated customer - they are not stupid, they do bite and it will hurt all of us. Well said. One greeny to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 And here I was thinking all the development going on behind the scenes was to implement the long-long-long-long-long-ago promised refinements to the search function (brackets, quotation marks etc etc). dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.