Getty Images

granitepeaker

New Member

« on: June 11, 2009, 10:07 »

#link

Alrighty ... so a few months ago I finally upgraded from my old Canon 20D up to a Canon 5dm2.
I really want to merge out of "micro" stock and make more money for my photos. So I've slowly been researching the major stock players.
Does anyone have any experience with Getty or Corbis?
I went to Getty and filled out their application. You have to list a website... and have to have the website on flickr or another site.
I'm wondering if this is really the way to get accepted on Getty? I've had nearly all my photos on flickr, a few thousand. Should I narrow it down to my best 50?? Will Getty really make their decisions on all my photos?
After Getty looks through my photos will they only tell me which certain ones they want. Will I never have the free will to upload to them whatever photo I want. If that's the case I better do a super job having all my flickr photos keyworded well.
Another questions, so I just got back from Asia being there for 3 months and have loads of great photos. Many unique ones, etc. I'm wondering what happens if I start uploading these photos to micro, does that void any chance they will have of ever being on Getty or any of the big ones??


	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2009, 10:28 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 10:07

I really want to merge out of "micro" stock and make more money for my photos.

You may make more money PER photo, but not necessarily more money overall.


	Ignore \| Logged

granitepeaker

New Member

« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2009, 10:43 »

#link

I make about $500/month right now doing micro. So it would only take a couple sales. I haven't spent much time with istock lately as I was getting the worst rejections there with my old 20d. I knew at first they were offering up getty uploads for their diamonds, but it looks like now they are offering it up to golds and silvers as well. That is all of course if you're exclusive with them. hmm, i've always been a little afraid of that 'exlusive' word.


« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 11:05 by granitepeaker »	Ignore \| Logged

sjlocke

« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2009, 10:45 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 10:43

What about photos of yours that are already online with istock, can those be reuploaded to their getty portal and be taken off the istock site?

Absolutely, no.


	Ignore \| Logged

dunsmore

« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2009, 10:55 »

#link

I'm thinking you are trying to swim before you can walk!


	Ignore \| Logged

granitepeaker

New Member

« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2009, 11:02 »

#link

Ok, well teach me how to walk oh wise one


	Ignore \| Logged

willie

« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2009, 11:11 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 11:02

Ok, well teach me how to walk oh wise one

rofl, that's funny GP !


	Ignore \| Logged

granitepeaker

New Member

« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2009, 11:16 »

#link

well clearly dunsmore knows more then me... but that still doesn't answer my questions.

Are the only/main two ways to get accepted on Getty:
1. Be exclusive and at least Silver in IS
2. Register on Getty and give them the link to your Flickr website (in this case, make sure to only have your best photos on flickr?)


	Ignore \| Logged

massman

« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2009, 11:40 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 11:16

I believe they have a pay per image scheme, you pay Getty $50 for every accepted image or something along those lines.


	Ignore \| Logged

granitepeaker

New Member

« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2009, 11:43 »

#link

Quote from: massman on June 11, 2009, 11:40

I believe they have a pay per image scheme, you pay Getty $50 for every accepted image or something along those lines.

Yes, I have heard this too, but you still need to get appoved to Getty somehow to do this.


	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2009, 12:06 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 11:16

Essentially, yes.


	Ignore \| Logged

Jonathan Ross

« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2009, 12:32 »

#link

Hi GC,

I can help a bit on the Getty Corbis questions. I would only show the very best of your work. These days Macro is about stelar imagery not numbers. Keep it to 10-20 images. Take a few dollars to build a web site there are cheap templates these days. The trick is to get through the first door as there will be a few to pass through to getting accepted. You might find it is the best thing in the world on the other hand you may feel that Micro is a good fit. Either way you will not know without trying. If rejected do not go away discouraged learn from the first try and then rework your material and try again. The large agencies have always gone through shifts in when they are accepting photographers and what their collections are in need of. Timing is a good part of it.
The other option is to do some research on the two big sites and see some of their third party collections they represent. If you go to the partners section at Getty and Corbis it will link you to a list of all the separate agencies you can contact to shoot for and work your way up to getting recognition in the Macro business helping to make the transition to a direct contract down the road. This doesn't happen over night and will take a great deal of dedication. The more diversification through out the industry the stronger your business model will be in the long haul.

Good Luck,
Jonathan


	Ignore \| Logged

click_click

« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2009, 12:42 »

#link

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on June 11, 2009, 12:32

...This doesn't happen over night and will take a great deal of dedication. The more diversification through out the industry the stronger your business model will be in the long haul.

Good Luck,
Jonathan

Well put.

I can't speak for Getty or Corbis but when I knocked on Jupiter's and Acclaim's doors they wanted some samples of my work.
I sent them the stuff and they were happy with my work and said I could come on board.
A day later I got two emails stating that they googled my name and found out that I'm on the micros and therefore refused to represent me.

OF COURSE, the images I sent them were absolutely exclusive. I didn't even send them anything that was remotely similar to what I had on the micros.

Go figure.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2009, 13:30 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 11:16

With regards to getting into Getty via iStock, it's not an automatic 'in': being an exclusive Silver, Gold, or Diamond only allows you to apply to Getty, and even then it's only as a contributor to their RF Photodisc collection - getting accepted is another matter. The images you submit cannot already have been on iStock, nor can they be similar to anything you have on iStock.

As far as the Flickr route goes, it's more-or-less a 'canned' deal: editors at Getty will look over your Flickr images and decide which ones they want, and how they will be listed (i.e. Getty chooses RF or RM, not you). Last month they gave people the one-time option of submitting five images, but this was only for those who already had images accepted into the Getty Flickr collection.

You can also apply to Getty by going here: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/index.asp

Also, your keywording concerns aren't valid: at Getty it's done by the collection editors, not the contibutors.


« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 13:40 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2009, 14:00 »

#link

Quote from: click_click on June 11, 2009, 12:42

Weird. I used to be on Acclaim and at that time they didn't exclude micro photographers as long as they didn't submit the same or similar images.

Of course there were a number of high-profile micro photographers who DID have the same (or nearly identical) images on Acclaim as they had on micros, so maybe they poisoned the well for the rest.


	Ignore \| Logged

granitepeaker

New Member

« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2009, 14:03 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on June 11, 2009, 13:30

Also, your keywording concerns aren't valid: at Getty it's done by the collection editors, not the contibutors.

Well how do you think Getty goes about Flickr for images? Do they say, ok we don't have many photos of Tibet. Let's search Flickr for some photos of Tibet and if they are good enough in concept ask the photographer to put them on Getty. If that is the process they find the photos they want and if you don't have any keywords for your Flickr photos then you'll never get contacted by Getty


	Ignore \| Logged

MichaelJay

« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2009, 15:27 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on June 11, 2009, 13:30

Not quite true. With Silver members, they do an approval process which you can't influence (you don't have to send in additional images, they evaluate your existing iStock portfolio). Gold and Diamond members are accepted at Getty for Photodisc and the new iStock Exclusive collections automatically.


	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

Sergey

« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2009, 15:45 »

#link

from a business perspective Getty is not worth it in my opinion.

you better shoot more pics that sell on the cheap rather than waste hours on each image with Getty.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2009, 16:07 »

#link

Quote from: granitepeaker on June 11, 2009, 14:03

Well how do you think Getty goes about Flickr for images? ...

Given that a lot of Flickr people don't use keywords (they're called 'tags' on Flickr), and that a lot of the keywords used are nonsensical, I'd venture a guess that Getty searches by 'interestingness'. If you're on Flickr and want to get noticed (by Getty or anyone else), you need to work the 'interestingness' algorithm. Just ask Jeff Clow - he'll tell ya!


« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 16:11 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

Zeus

« Reply #19 on: June 11, 2009, 16:37 »

#link

Quote from: Sergey on June 11, 2009, 15:45

from a business perspective Getty is not worth it in my opinion.

you better shoot more pics that sell on the cheap rather than waste hours on each image with Getty.

For sure Sergey, why would you want to include images in the portion of a company that generates 80% or more of that income when you could get way less? Is this some kind parallel universe I woke up in?


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2009, 20:23 »

#link

just some thoughts, I am really not trying to have a shot at you so Please do not take it that way, take in context of the mild observations of someone who reads but doesn't do

)

Somewhere on Yuri's blog he mentions micro shooters still being knocked back from macro because they are not showing their diversity and capabilites (or somethign along similar lines). I've also seen comments a while back about micro shooters just sending micro style images to the macros and there not interested and I just watched Jonathon's PACA video and I can see the difference in style between his macro and his micro shots. Are your images orientated towards which market?

Also 250 images isnt a big portfolio, some macros expect this monthly (I haven't looked but they are brilliant) I also, perhaps totally wrongly get the impression of trying to run before walking, basically micro is the easiest to get into, getty is considered one of the hardest, there are a number of steps inbetween. perhaps look at some of the others, there are a number of threads about finding macro agencies in the macro section of this forum. There may be a couple of good macro agencies suited to your needs/style/content that could be the next step?

Phil


	Ignore \| Logged

jeffclow

« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2009, 22:33 »

#link

The Flickr Getty deal is a great way for someone to get "noticed" by Getty - and I'm sure the fact that one rates high on "interestingness" (Flickr's supposedly secret formula that decides which photos are featured on Flickr's front page) helps get a photographer's work noticed by the Getty editors.

I have no idea what the secret formula is for "interestingness"......but the photos of mine that make the front page usually have a high number of comments and and high percentage of those people make the photo a "favorite".

And has already been mentioned, I personally tag (keyword) all my photos on Flickr with appropriate words and terms - which has led to several sales outside of the macro and micro stock worlds.

Many people shy away from Flickr - but for me it truly has been a showcase for my photo work - and has led to several projects that have produced collectively several thousand dollars a year.


	Ignore \| Logged

stock shooter

« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2009, 08:09 »

#link

One and a half years ago I joined Getty under their pay to play scheme, the collection at the time was called "Lifesize" now it's "Photographer's choice." Unless something has changed since I joined, what they will do is either like your work enough to ask you to submit images under one of their collections, where each image will then go through a rigorous editing process or, the more likely option, they invite you to submit images to their "Photographer's Choice" collection, the pay to play scheme. You submit images, they have to pass quality control but they are not selected / edited on content. You pay $50 per image and you make 20% to 30% on each license. They may have a introductory deal going on where your first 10 selected are free, or half price $250. Every image you license within the first year of submission you will be able to submit another for free. My profit per image from Getty is more than the micros however, I only have 20 images on Getty and only about half have been licensed, so it wold be easy (for me at least) to submit images that don't sell and eat up profits in placement fees, so I'm hesitant to send in a lot of images. At $50 per image it's gets pricey fast. But I know a guy who has placed over 200 images under this scheme and he insists that he is in the black.