MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: submitting to Getty  (Read 29080 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2012, 04:39 »
0
I think its been blown out of proportion really. Submitting to the original Getty its not what it used to be anyway. I have been there for 11 years and its really changed and not for the better. Sure there are some photographers doing exeptionally well but they also have extremely special portfolios almost impossible to obtain for the ordinary photographer.

Besides Tony Stone and the image Bank have always been a closed door for the ordinary photographer, even back in the 80s it was impossible to join them if images were not of a special caliber.


« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2012, 11:12 »
0
I was actually hoping that my CG illustrations would fit well with macro. When I look at the stuff that they currently have it's usually a bit outdated and just looks bad in purely technical terms. It's like comparing the original Tron with the Tron Legacy CGI ;) On the other hand things that take more time to create (let's say a few days for a single image) are just too risky for micro. I would love to do a couple of scientific illustrations for example, for some very rare subjects. I'm sure buyers would be willing to pay even a couple of hundred dollars for it, but with unusual subjects micro can't make up the low commission with bigger download numbers. I tried that and for some images which I know are the only ones available (so not much competition) I get 10 subs on Shutterstock. Not worth spending even a couple of hours on it. 

« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2012, 11:33 »
0
I was actually hoping that my CG illustrations would fit well with macro. When I look at the stuff that they currently have it's usually a bit outdated and just looks bad in purely technical terms. It's like comparing the original Tron with the Tron Legacy CGI ;) On the other hand things that take more time to create (let's say a few days for a single image) are just too risky for micro. I would love to do a couple of scientific illustrations for example, for some very rare subjects. I'm sure buyers would be willing to pay even a couple of hundred dollars for it, but with unusual subjects micro can't make up the low commission with bigger download numbers. I tried that and for some images which I know are the only ones available (so not much competition) I get 10 subs on Shutterstock. Not worth spending even a couple of hours on it.

The one thing I have learnt is. For macro, RM, work hard at it. For micro just keep it very simple, not insulting the buyers intelligence.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #53 on: September 28, 2012, 09:30 »
0
I would love to do a couple of scientific illustrations for example, for some very rare subjects. I'm sure buyers would be willing to pay even a couple of hundred dollars for it, but with unusual subjects micro can't make up the low commission with bigger download numbers. I tried that and for some images which I know are the only ones available (so not much competition) I get 10 subs on Shutterstock. Not worth spending even a couple of hours on it.


Try SPL (Science Photo Library), it's a Getty partner, RF and RM, mostly illustrations, 3D, CGI, photoshopping.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/

I see their images used every day on BBC for instance.
No idea if you can get rich with SPL but it's probably the only agency doing sales in that field.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: September 28, 2012, 09:34 »
0
newbielink ???

Admin, SPL is a top tier niche agency.

RT


« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2012, 12:00 »
0
newbielink ???

Admin, SPL is a top tier niche agency.

It means you're a newbie not the site you're linking to, Leaf (the admin here) implemented that to stop spammers posting links to all kinds of dubious sites, once you've made a certain number of posts I think your 'newbielink' status gets lifted.

« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2012, 12:23 »
0
http://imagery.gettyimages.com/AboutGettyImages/contributors/index.en-us.html

i submitted, they were kind enough to inform me to go to a different category.  i have stuff suitable for archive.  Not sure if theytll accept it, but i have a unique story noboy else in the world has done.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2012, 04:12 »
0
http://imagery.gettyimages.com/AboutGettyImages/contributors/index.en-us.html

i submitted, they were kind enough to inform me to go to a different category.  i have stuff suitable for archive.  Not sure if theytll accept it, but i have a unique story noboy else in the world has done.


I think REX is a better agency for celebrities and archives.

« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2012, 19:01 »
0
Getty's PC's RF pays you 20% of the sale AND you have to be exclusive. It's worse than Istock. I am getting 19% on Istock but then I am free to sell everywhere else. So Getty's PC's RF is the worst deal ever, I rarely bother fulfilling my quota. Really I don't see a point even trying to get in at this point - if you want to be exclusive, join Istock and get more sales and  better royalties.

« Reply #59 on: October 01, 2012, 15:23 »
0
I would love to do a couple of scientific illustrations for example, for some very rare subjects. I'm sure buyers would be willing to pay even a couple of hundred dollars for it, but with unusual subjects micro can't make up the low commission with bigger download numbers. I tried that and for some images which I know are the only ones available (so not much competition) I get 10 subs on Shutterstock. Not worth spending even a couple of hours on it.


Try SPL (Science Photo Library), it's a Getty partner, RF and RM, mostly illustrations, 3D, CGI, photoshopping.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/

I see their images used every day on BBC for instance.
No idea if you can get rich with SPL but it's probably the only agency doing sales in that field.


Thanks a lot. Looks very promising and more or less what I'm looking for. I just hope they're better at responding to e-mails than Getty ;).

« Reply #60 on: October 02, 2012, 03:08 »
0
I had a look at REX, it seems to be all the hollywood stuff, glam news.

I have a unique archive of photos of me taking my Mini across the real Australian Desert, 6000km's of dirt in a small car.  Some really cool photos, but none of them have been published online before. 

Getty & Corbis seemed to be the ones, i would love to get a story in Nat Geo.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #61 on: October 02, 2012, 05:26 »
0
Why not try Nat Geo directly? Why give G/C a commission for nothing?

« Reply #62 on: October 02, 2012, 05:38 »
0
I had a look at REX, it seems to be all the hollywood stuff, glam news.

I have a unique archive of photos of me taking my Mini across the real Australian Desert, 6000km's of dirt in a small car.  Some really cool photos, but none of them have been published online before. 

Getty & Corbis seemed to be the ones, i would love to get a story in Nat Geo.

Nat Geo is great and an honor. Unless its an assignment they dont pay very much. As they know that you know its an honor. Very often this is the way to go, especially if you want to make yourself a name.

« Reply #63 on: October 02, 2012, 12:39 »
0

Try SPL (Science Photo Library), it's a Getty partner, RF and RM, mostly illustrations, 3D, CGI, photoshopping.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/

I see their images used every day on BBC for instance.
No idea if you can get rich with SPL but it's probably the only agency doing sales in that field.

They got back pretty quickly and seam very nice, but the deal is to get into a 5 years long exclusive agreement with them. Deal breaker for me I'm afraid.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2012, 11:13 »
0

Try SPL (Science Photo Library), it's a Getty partner, RF and RM, mostly illustrations, 3D, CGI, photoshopping.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/

I see their images used every day on BBC for instance.
No idea if you can get rich with SPL but it's probably the only agency doing sales in that field.

They got back pretty quickly and seam very nice, but the deal is to get into a 5 years long exclusive agreement with them. Deal breaker for me I'm afraid.


Well, up to you but i can't see a better place for scientific images than SPL.
No idea if they ever sell on SPL site, most of their sales probably come from Getty and distribution deals.

« Reply #65 on: March 16, 2013, 07:30 »
0
Just my little experience, I tried several times to become an "external" Getty contributor, they never got back to me, but then asked my pictures through flickr....

That's somehow unfair... but unless you have a good "channel" to contact them they will try to have your material (if is worthy) in some cheaper way...

Ron

« Reply #66 on: March 07, 2014, 09:01 »
+4
How things change in a short time.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
14918 Views
Last post February 03, 2006, 04:04
by leaf
6 Replies
3739 Views
Last post March 04, 2007, 17:22
by a.k.a.-tom
29 Replies
9876 Views
Last post September 30, 2007, 08:55
by Phil
31 Replies
11158 Views
Last post December 27, 2007, 18:46
by vphoto
53 Replies
13832 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