I liked this comment from adage:
"Like every producer, I'm all for more and varied stock imagery, but it seems to me like this is a solution in search of a problem. My company does many projects incorporating lifestyle stock, and we've never yet had to settle for an image of a woman in high heels climbing a ladder while going 12 rounds with Ronda Rousey. Seriously, has anyone else encountered a dearth of "empowered" female images in the stock universe? (Beyond the usual "There's just not images of X available at a reasonable price.") "

I found it depressing that she would consider the marketing question as "�Do we partner into sexism or do we partner against sexism?�

As a few people have commented on the Times' website, it's nice to see she's concentrating on the really big issues. 

over 120 comments so far, some of which pointing out what you just noticed.

And one comment from "ugh" in NJ which makes note of the situation stock photographers are in producing what sells for the people who do the buying

"Sorry, but they're picking on the wrong people. Freelance stock photographers�who only get 20% or less of the amount of the sale, with Getty or its other company, iStock, keeping the lion's share�are just shooting these images because they sell.
Go to the source instead�the white male fashion designers and white male advertising execs who set the trends and determine how women are portrayed in their advertising, and who make these stock photos best-sellers.
The advertising industry is one of the most misogynistic in the country. Women and people of color are barely represented in top management anywhere.
It's all these white men who determine which photos will appear in their ads. Talk to them, Sandberg."

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.

And I see Chelsea Clinton is jumping on the bandwagon...

https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/432958471474933760

.

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.

These look pretty "authentic" for the most part � newbielink:http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/ [nonactive]

Add 1 more to the media entities looking for few more pennies by riding the lowbrow bullscheisse women-this&that  movement.

Quote from: SamIAm on February 21, 2014, 07:26

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 10, 2014, 14:19

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.

These look pretty "authentic" for the most part � http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/

I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

Yep. Any ideal becomes a contradictory, dumb dogma by the time it's filtered thru the plebs, it's inevitable.... f.e. the  the style stocksy&co are pushing for is about as authentic as a north korean poster about pyongyang city life.

Quote from: Ron on February 21, 2014, 08:08

I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

Well, there's an obvious reason.  "Real" and "authentic" images are the images we take of the life around us.  More and more people are using their convenient phones to capture these "real" moments, and those phones make images with less exposure range and more noise, and the apps commonly used to share them have all the nifty filters.  So, "real", now, isn't just content, but also a product of the thing used to capture the image.  Of course, we can't walk around family and friends events all the times handing out releases, so sure, things are going to be set up.  But the feeling of "real" - the visual style - can be overlaid on that to enforce the sense even when maybe the content doesn't scream "I was taken without the subject's knowledge" or whatever.

According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Btw I'm starting to see filters that are rudimentary implementations of extreme retouching, they usually seem to be derived from noise filtering on super high settings smoothing everything over to a plastic look. How the people of this 'get real' movement gonna digest this demand coming back from exactly the people that are said to be targeted by it? ohh I know... these people have already been victimized, so they need to be re-educated by an onslaught of ugly showed down their throat. Lenin is smiling in his grave. Am I exaggerating? Just look at the how moron-hubs like huffpo proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...

... proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...

What's wrong with that?
We've had fake beauty shoved down our throats for so long, we've been indoctrinated to regard anything else as 'unacceptable'.

Quote from: topol on February 21, 2014, 10:04

According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.

You take an aggregate, so can see that this is the most prevalent form of it. By far.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 21, 2014, 10:17

Quote from: topol on February 21, 2014, 10:04

According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.

You take an aggregate, so can see that this is the most prevalent form of it. By far.

Well, at least I got to learn a new term from this exchange.  Am I the only one who didn't know what "duck face" is? (Thank you Google...)

Culture is about ideals.

Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.