MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: submitting to Getty  (Read 29123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 06, 2010, 08:56 »
0
Hi any getty contributors?

I would like to try submitting to getty, after reading through internet, it seems one can apply through their website, but it seems getty will decide what collection you will submit. According to what on their website, the Photographer's choice is most likely collection. This is the collection one need to pay us50 per file to upload?

from the website:
 There are also our Photographer's Choice Placement Fee Collections to which many of our photographers currently submit and are the most likely place well invite new contributors to license their images once they meet our basic technical and aesthetic requirements.

the other way is through the flickr collection. But if accepted through flickr collection, does it mean we can upload directly to getty? or we still have to go through flickr?

anyone can share their experience for this 2 ways? or there are other ways?

thanks!



« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2010, 09:26 »
0
Sorry, I do not mean to be rude but your current portfolio wouldn't justify the application at this point.

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2010, 10:59 »
0
Elenathewise is one of the top 30 or so microstockers in the business.  Here's her account of submitting to Getty.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/accepted-at-getty/

« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2010, 11:15 »
0
thanks for the link! so is most people will get the photographer's choice offer if applying through getty website?

how about flickr collection? do we have to submit through flickr everytime? after approval..


Elenathewise is one of the top 30 or so microstockers in the business.  Here's her account of submitting to Getty.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/accepted-at-getty/

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2010, 14:58 »
0
thanks for the link! so is most people will get the photographer's choice offer if applying through getty website?


Not sure.  I haven't bothered applying to Getty.  

I suspect if someone of Elena's experience and skill is getting relegated to Photographer's Choice then most people who apply are probably getting turned down flat.  

From what I hear Flikr is the fastest way for "the rest of us" to seek acceptance from Getty. 

« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2010, 01:29 »
0
anyone had more experience about flickr collection in getty?

getty choose form the photos you submitted to their 'group'? and if you are interested to license more, you have to submit to the flickr group again? or you have a channel to submit directly to getty?

lagereek

« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2010, 05:42 »
-1
Ive supplied them since 1993 and thats the main core RM section.  All these other avenues such as Photographers-Choice, their RM, etc, etc, are as far as I know pretty much a waste of time, further more I would never pay to get a pic into files, doesnt make sense.
The original RM, their main-core is the place where regular big buyers/spenders go, such as ad-agencies, large corps, pr-agencies, etc, you know, people who dont mind spending lots of money, rights, etc.

« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2010, 06:30 »
0
anyone that is active in flickr collection?

do you submit your subsequent shoots to flickr channel or you submit to a getty account?

1 thought that bother me is flickr is not a place safe for showing your pictures.

« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2010, 19:07 »
0
Once I had submitted my application to Getty (short mail, with a link to my website), it took them about 3 months to reply. I was offered a contract for their RF and RM 'house collections', i.e. not just 'Photographers Choice'. (In these times, I don't think I'd ever pay to place an image with any agency.)

So: yes it is still possible to get a standard contract with Getty. But it takes some time to get there. And in my case, I redesigned my website so it only showed relevant RM type content and allowed for a good viewing experience (flash-based player or similar). And my front home page showed the best 10 shots from the past 2 years of professional work. ("If in doubt take it out". That front page needs to have a real impact on whoever looks at it.)

Prior to being offered a contract, there was also a phone-interview during which we talked about my future plans in photography (lifestyle? illustration? travel?).

« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2010, 00:10 »
0
oic, i guess there is no way to turn good photographers away.

Once I had submitted my application to Getty (short mail, with a link to my website), it took them about 3 months to reply. I was offered a contract for their RF and RM 'house collections', i.e. not just 'Photographers Choice'. (In these times, I don't think I'd ever pay to place an image with any agency.)

So: yes it is still possible to get a standard contract with Getty. But it takes some time to get there. And in my case, I redesigned my website so it only showed relevant RM type content and allowed for a good viewing experience (flash-based player or similar). And my front home page showed the best 10 shots from the past 2 years of professional work. ("If in doubt take it out". That front page needs to have a real impact on whoever looks at it.)

Prior to being offered a contract, there was also a phone-interview during which we talked about my future plans in photography (lifestyle? illustration? travel?).

« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2011, 18:42 »
0
interesting thanks for sharing.. ..anyone else get into getty recently?

« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2011, 19:20 »
0
interesting thanks for sharing.. ..anyone else get into getty recently?


You're a little late to the party

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2011, 21:54 »
0
I have a modest number of files in various Getty collections, including PC. Despite attempts to get into other collections--I've received little to zero feedback from TPTB. At a certain point, the lack of response is a response in itself, but the greatest value in the exercise--it has forced me to do a good deal of research and re-evaluation of the future marketing and sale of my work. On one hand I feel there is always going to be serious resistance to change and a need to adapt or die. However, I also believe that photographers/artists in general must be a cohesive force that affects positive change within our industry and that involves more than anything else--valuing our work and the work of our peers. It's clear that as contributors, our value is being diminished. to what degree is anyone's guess. but the quote that continues to ring true and cause concern from my POV is the following:

"Getty Images' top priority is expanding its own market share by whatever means necessary, irrespective of the damage it causes to the rights and interests of contributing photographers and image partners." "

this sentiment continues to creep into the foreground...sigh. despite being optimistic by nature. the other great point raised in the article is the concept of self-marketing and--if necessary--finding alternative means of selling our photos without devaluing them.

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2011, 23:58 »
0
Stacey!!

Other collections are not selling anything worthwhile, so do yourself a favour and save yourself lots of work. Dont bother with Getty, not at this moment anyway. All RM contracts within Stones and Image-Bank, are signed away to Micro, probably TS??  Stones and Image-Bank, are the ONLY collections where you will earn any serious money and they have closed them, for micro reasons.
The entire place is a mess, feedback is zero, people are made up of some newcomers , thinking they are working for H&F, if you know what I mean.

Photographers-Choice?  well thats a place invented by Getty, they sell a shot once a week maybe but the main objective with PC, is to earn from poor contributors, 50 bucks per/shot, its a new Getty way of draining their members. Pretty clever hey?

I belong to Stones, since 92 but my latest submission was fobbed off to PC,  well I told them to delete the shots immediately, which they did, only a few weeks later I sold myself, 3 of them for RM and w-rights prices.

Seriously!!  dont even think about it, I mean just LOOK!! at what theyve done to poor IS.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 00:36 by lagereek »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 00:50 »
0
Christian, FWIW, I only used my ten free PC slots. I'll never pay an agency an upfront fee for representing my work. I gotta agree, it does seem an invention to garner funds from contributors. Thus far I've worked on the presumption that it was better to belong in one place, with one agency and its affiliates....but I continue to find much more value/interest connected to my work through other avenues of sale and direct marketing of my work. I admit that it truly surprises me.

I've met many wonderful people connected with iStock and Getty too. but as much as I might truly value those individual connections and friendships, I won't devalue my work (either directly, or by allowing an agency to devalue it) anymore than those of who have long been saying that things were underway that would be detrimental to contributors. golden handcuffs. I can't imagine the sense of a loss of control on the part of contributors who make far more than I do. anyways. que cera cera....

« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2011, 00:56 »
0
I can't believe anyone would be taken in by that scam to con contributors out of money like that. $50 PER IMAGE? For real? That would be like me paying my clients for the "privilege" of working for them. That anyone could even defend that has drunk deep of the corporate Kool-Aid. Hearing that makes me even more resolute to avoid buying images from iStock. Getty truly is a corporate monster.

grp_photo

« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 01:39 »
0
I'm a contributor to PC and their house collections. I personally think their house collections does suck more than PC. With their house collections you only get cutting edge stuff accepted nowadays but this stuff sells even on Getty rarely. Also you have to do all the work upfront retouching logos, making their stuff up to their specific standards (black- and whitepoint etc.), attaching model- and property- releases, adding five conceptual keywords, title and description in their specific framework etc. just to get them all rejected or even worse they just accept one single picture from a pretty big series but this means that all other pictures of the session are blocked forever because of their heavy-handed exclusive-policy. I rather pay 50,- Dollars and then I least know the stuff will get accepted as long as it meets their technical requirements but the RPI is sinking very very quickly on Getty so I don't think that PC will work in the near future even if you exactly know what you are doing. If you are unexperienced you won't see your 50,- bucks again let alone any profit.

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2011, 01:40 »
0
I can't believe anyone would be taken in by that scam to con contributors out of money like that. $50 PER IMAGE? For real? That would be like me paying my clients for the "privilege" of working for them. That anyone could even defend that has drunk deep of the corporate Kool-Aid. Hearing that makes me even more resolute to avoid buying images from iStock. Getty truly is a corporate monster.

Hi!

Well Stacey, only used her free slots, good, nothing lost, I didnt want to see her getting tangled up in all that lark.

You be surprised, in the beginning of this PC, oh! boy, there were many who fell for this, could call themselves a Getty-artist, and all that, you know, highly exclusive and so on.

Once upon a time Getty used to be run by people who knew their stuff, people who could actually help and direct photographers and artists and these were the Getty-days! today its run by preassurized people who are petrified of loosing their jobs and will do anything to keep it.

lagereek

« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2011, 01:47 »
0
I'm a contributor to PC and their house collections. I personally think their house collections does suck more than PC. With their house collections you only get cutting edge stuff accepted nowadays but this stuff sells even on Getty rarely. Also you have to do all the work upfront retouching logos, making their stuff up to their specific standards (black- and whitepoint etc.), attaching model- and property- releases, adding five conceptual keywords, title and description in their specific framework etc. just to get them all rejected or even worse they just accept one single picture from a pretty big series but this means that all other pictures of the session are blocked forever because of their heavy-handed exclusive-policy. I rather pay 50,- Dollars and then I least know the stuff will get accepted as long as it meets their technical requirements but the RPI is sinking very very quickly on Getty so I don't think that PC will work in the near future even if you exactly know what you are doing. If you are unexperienced you won't see your 50,- bucks again let alone any profit.


yes ofcourse! their house-collection, is supposed to be cutting-edge stuff, thats why its there! and nothing wrong with that!  only, that was yesterday.  Today their cutting edge stuff is no better then the best of Micro. They know that! and thats why they are gradually turning everything into micro.

Their cutting edge-stuff of today is no more then the everyday Lifestyle-images you can see on anyone of the big four micro sites. Just have a look at the Hot-shots from Getty/IS,  same old balha, blaha, every time.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2011, 10:52 »
0
well my thread with questions about editorial submissions was locked without any reply and I deleted my thread on the Getty forum. I don't typically share the cynicism, there are a lot of amazing people who continue to truly care about what they do at both iStock and Getty. it's not all corporate shills. but I'm frustrated. maybe the negativity is contagious. no answer is clearly the answer and that's fine, at least it provides some direction and as I said earlier, it's probably for the best if now is the wrong time to be soliciting entrance into more Getty collections. seems many of us are having the same experience, even shooters far more experienced than me have been sending comments.

« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2011, 15:00 »
0
Also you have to do all the work upfront retouching logos, making their stuff up to their specific standards (black- and whitepoint etc.), attaching model- and property- releases, adding five conceptual keywords, title and description in their specific framework etc. just to get them all rejected or even worse they just accept one single picture from a pretty big series

Sounds like your submission procedure is different to mine then. I'm submitting to house collections as well: I send out UNRETOUCHED lo-res images to my editor. Last submission they accepted 40% of the initial submission (though I do a tight pre-edit myself already). Releases, keywords, titles, descriptions I add AFTER uploading the hi-res file to the portal. Acceptance rate on the portal: 100%.

« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2011, 15:04 »
0
I can't believe anyone would be taken in by that scam to con contributors out of money like that. $50 PER IMAGE? For real? That would be like me paying my clients for the "privilege" of working for them. That anyone could even defend that has drunk deep of the corporate Kool-Aid. Hearing that makes me even more resolute to avoid buying images from iStock. Getty truly is a corporate monster.

I see Photographers Choice as a good OPTION you don't HAVE to submit there if you don't like it. But if you really feel like an image will sell & "hit the nerve", you can submit it for a fee. If they didn't charge, then Photographers Choice would be Getty's version of "Alamy" gazillions of images & similars...
Although I agree $50 is a bit too much. But now they 'opened' PC RF, it might be OK.

« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2011, 16:34 »
0
I came into getty through the old istock program and luckily i was given a House contract. However I also got burned by the heavy editing, especially because i thought they had rejected the more commercial part. So for now Ive decided Ill submit very few images to House, preferably single images. With PC we now get a lot more free slots per quarter and I hope to max out on that.

For me Getty is a good additional outlet, I find that I can submit a different style of images, more subdued colours, more European in style with good results. The monthly income is a lot less predictable because they have a big variation in prices, the traditional stock photographers have written all over about it.

On the whole I think it is a good experience, I can certainly recommend Getty.

Even if you get a PC contract I wouldnt be dissapointed but embrace it and give it a go.

« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2011, 00:34 »
0
do u guys think if submitting to agency like getty, a 'processed' images that looks visually stunning is better?

since most RF images are preferred to be 'less processed', that the designer can do more on that image. Do you think most RM buyers prefered a 'finished' image? or just same as RF buyers, prefer a 'less processed' image?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
14985 Views
Last post February 03, 2006, 04:04
by leaf
6 Replies
3740 Views
Last post March 04, 2007, 17:22
by a.k.a.-tom
29 Replies
9882 Views
Last post September 30, 2007, 08:55
by Phil
31 Replies
11170 Views
Last post December 27, 2007, 18:46
by vphoto
53 Replies
13881 Views
Last post June 10, 2015, 07:09
by Rage

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle