[Shocking] Getty licenses Nick Laham Photographs Of NY Yankees Taken With iPhone

[Shocking] Getty licenses Nick Laham Photographs Of NY Yankees Taken With iPhone

Now this is pretty wild. Commercial sports photographer Nick Laham was forced to photograph New York Yankees baseball players in the in a bathroom stall instead of a proper studio. Instead of using a proper medium format or flagship DSLR camera and making due, Nick went with the next obvious choice: the Apple iPhone. What's even crazier is Getty Images, one of the largest stock agencies in the world, is licensing Nick's instagram style photos directly on their website! We still get a lot of flack for our iPhone Fashion Shoot but it looks like iPhone Photography is here to stay. I personally love the photographs; what do you guys think?

View the full series on Nick Laham's blog here.

Here is a photo of Nick in action:

Log in or register to post comments


Scott Hartman's picture

I can't believe the photos lived up to the standards on sharpness and resolution for them.  I think the little cam is great but they are known for being psycho about this stuff.

What's better is that I never get over how instagram turns me into someone that loves square crop. Loveit.

Robert Catto's picture

Erm, but, when you go through to his site, he says the opposite: "This was not my choice, I wasn’t given the option of studio or bathroom stall and decided on the later [sic]."

Patrick Hall's picture

ha yeah, I totally misread that....strange way to write that you didn't have a choice but thanks for pointing out my mistake

Matt Fitzgerald's picture

Personally I think the images should be a little sharper, but otherwise I dig the way they came out!  Bravo for Nick Laham thinking outside the box.

Brian Carlson's picture

The pictures aren't bad but they are probably only good for web. They only measure 4.8 x 4.8 inches at 300 dpi. That being said, who prints things now a days? Personally, I'm not a big fan. I think it's more of a gimmick to get attention, not that it's a bad thing. Heck, you saw them and licensed them (I'm assuming).


<a href="http://www.briancarlsonphoto.com" rel="nofollow">Website</a>
<a href="http://www.briancarlsonphoto.com/blog" rel="nofollow">Blog</a>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/briancarlsonphoto" rel="nofollow">Facebook</a>
<a href="http://www.twitter.com/bcarlsonphoto" rel="nofollow">Twitter</a>

henryck's picture

resolution seems good enough for baseball card though.. :P

E.M. Davis's picture

They're for media guides and programs most likely. Not cards. 

staceynewmanphotography's picture

I agree with this post. but it seems the market is bent on 'harnessing" the most accessible technology in order to make money off the millions of cell phone images produced daily. if anyone else had taken these shots, and they weren't of the Yankees.....no one would have noticed.
Don't get me wrong, portraits of the Yankees in a bathroom stall would be super cool. if they weren't shot on an iPhone and subsequently licensed as professional photographs.

Terrence Jerod's picture

This has nothing to do with a iphone photo shoot...this is about having shots of the Yankee's players for sale. No way these would be up for licensing if these were normal models .

Golgo Thirteen's picture

They totally look like they were shot with a phone. Their eyes and A-Rod's mouth look soft and blurred. I think people like the Instagram look of these shots but other than that, they reek of phone photography.  Fine Artist print their work and many big shooters still print their work so its important to have a good capture because later in your career you may be approached to do a gallery showing.  People like Jill Greenberg, Annie Liebovitz, and Mario Testino are not fine art photographers but they have all had major gallery showings with large prints. So I feel that shooting stuff with a phone like this is only shooting yourself in the foot for future uses of the photo.

Simon Ouellet's picture

 Yeah, totally agree with you on that one.

Shoot the Yankees with an iPhone in a bathroom stall, get good pictures (probably better than your pictures or my pictures of Derek Jeter, right ?), get licensed by Getty and get the buzz and the exposure everyone is wishing for. Totally shooting yourself in the foot.

Golgo Thirteen's picture

I think you are missing the point. You can't go back and print these large print. The decision to use an Iphone was shooting yourself in the foot, not shooting the Yankees in a bathroom. 

Jeremy Montgomery's picture

Yeah totally shooting yourself in the foot... I mean now we'll never be able to blow them up into a billboard and actually get thousands of people that the internet can't to look at them.

Golgo Thirteen's picture

I see your point. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Quality is poor,subjects and poses are fine but the resolution is never gonna make these small images anything else but that. They lack sharpness. 

David Cox's picture

Personally I think the medium has nothing to do with it.  I personally envy lots of photographers who make amazing images with a point and shoot. And ok, RAW gives you more flexibility when it comes to post-processing, but if the image is good from the start, all the adjustments aren't needed. I certainly like it.

ennuipoet's picture

So, now Getty is licensing photographs suitable for your Facebook profile pic?  A whole generations of teenage girls will swamp the Stock Photography world!

Michael's picture

If soft focus and small files are your thing, then yeah I guess these work. iPhone's are the new Dianas I guess huh? 

Seriously, if these weren't celebrity sports figures they never would have made it into Getty. 

Nathan Hamler's picture
Philip Ball's picture

He needs to watch the Peter Hurley Video.  Jeter has a double chin.  Poke your chin out Derek.   Regardless the images are blurred from motion, and look like iphone instagrams which I imagine is what they wanted them to look like.  Generating buzz?  Check - mission accomplished.   Terry Richardson your time is up, instagrams are the new on camera flash snapshots.

writersbloc's picture

Agree with Philip Ball, Jeter looks terrible. I like 'em, but never used Getty editorial so not sure how they stand up.

Golgo Thirteen's picture

I also would not have hurt him to use a tripod if he was going to used a gimped camera like that.

Michael Kormos's picture

It is indeed quite odd.  Getty is amongst the top names in the stock photo industry, and they've been known to turn away submissions left and right, for reasons often quite frivolous reasons.  I admit, I like these images, if even for that vintage polaroid mugshot feeling they embody, but to think they've lived up to the standards of a major stock agency...

IPBrian's picture

Not surprised someone would do this...it works for what it works for.  Lomo photography isn't as sharp or clean as a Hassy digital back either...its called creative license, or its the camera he had or he just wanted to use the darn iPhone camera.  UGH...get over it!

I don't care about the images so much, but the fact that Getty images accepted them seems like BS to me.  I used to submit to Istockphoto and the rejections for the most minute and sometimes uncontrollable reasons stopped me dead in my tracks. Something seems off about that part of the story.

E.M. Davis's picture

You didn't shoot the New York Yankees in a bathroom stall, though.

That's the rub. 

btdown's picture

What kind of light is that?

Renee's picture

it's a kinoflo, one of the diva-lites

dtribby photography's picture

sick of articles about the latest gimmick that someone got away with..

More comments