MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: submitting to Getty  (Read 29122 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?

« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2011, 04:14 »
0
You can process as much as you like out of an image as long as you keep the quality of the file. No artifacts.

If you look at the Vetta collection you see a lot of heavily processed files.

If this appeals to the RM buyers, I have no idea. I just keep hearing that there is less and less interest in RM.

« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2011, 19:32 »
0
If you haven't tried the Flickr Getty angle - and you're interested in being with Getty, then here's one former micro stocker saying "go for it"

I was contacted by a Getty editor almost three years ago through Flickr and my approved images show up in ALL Getty searches - so you get the benefit of buyers worldwide who might never have found your images elsewhere.  Annual RPI for my portfolio on Getty is running around $10 per image - which I consider pretty decent.

I know a lot of people are down on Getty - but my experience has been good there...

« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2012, 03:50 »
0
I have applied to Getty a couple of years ago by submitting a link to my portfolio and, 3 months later, they replied suggesting to participate to their flickr collection by submitting a wider portfolio. I did and 2 weeks later I passed successfully their test. Once you are in Flickr collection, you can upload till 100 photos per month for being reviewed and Getty decides which are the most appealing to be sold. Getty selects the single photo and decide if it has to be sold as RM or RF (or the miserable RF Flickr open in terms of money you get if sold!  :'(). You don't have the right to select how your photos can be put on sale. Also, they provide the sngle keywords for every image accepted (which is not bad in this case  ;D). You can always suggest more keywords to add anyway. Differently from Alamy, if your submitted photo contains one or more individuals, Getty is asking you for MR otherwise the photo is not accepted.

Stefano
www.stefanopolitimarkovina.com

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2012, 04:09 »
0
Differently from Alamy, if your submitted photo contains one or more individuals, Getty is asking you for MR otherwise the photo is not accepted.
That's because Getty aren't letting plebs upload editorial.

Have I got it wrong, or is it the case that if you apply for the Getty/Flickr route, all your Flickr photos have to be considered, you can't block out those you don't want there? (I guess unless you've restricted them to friends or family.)

BTW, if a pic is accepted by Getty, do you have to have a full-size, unwatermarked image on Flickr, or do you send the hi-res version to Getty directly?

« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2012, 04:36 »
0
Have I got it wrong, or is it the case that if you apply for the Getty/Flickr route, all your Flickr photos have to be considered, you can't block out those you don't want there? (I guess unless you've restricted them to friends or family.)


No, you just upload to Getty just the photos on Flickr you are interested to put on sale. Occasionally, you may receive an email from Getty where they ask for a photo of yours they noticed on your Flickr collection, even if you haven't sent to them. You may accept or refuse to give it to them.


BTW, if a pic is accepted by Getty, do you have to have a full-size, unwatermarked image on Flickr, or do you send the hi-res version to Getty directly?


In my case, I upload photos for being selected by Getty in a low resolution version and with watermark. If they select it, I upload the high-resolution version directly in their website.

Stefano
www.stefanopolitimarkovina.com

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2012, 04:45 »
0
@ stefano: Thanks for the info.

« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2012, 02:23 »
0
I send my contributor application to both Corbis and Getty and so far didn't get an answer. Been 5 weeks as far as I remember. Does anyone know if they answer only when one gets accepted, or do they send some "thx, but NO" e-mail :)
Funny thing is some of my images are licensed to Getty through Zoonar and other places.

Lagereek

« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2012, 02:46 »
0
I send my contributor application to both Corbis and Getty and so far didn't get an answer. Been 5 weeks as far as I remember. Does anyone know if they answer only when one gets accepted, or do they send some "thx, but NO" e-mail :)
Funny thing is some of my images are licensed to Getty through Zoonar and other places.

If you are reffering to the Getty house-collection?  you can forget it. Been a closed shop for 2 years, unless you have extremely special material, I mean really unique material.

« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2012, 02:52 »
0
FYI - The Getty Flickr submission program for RF and RM has been closed for months now and has been ended - the group pool thing. It's back to the system under which editors will contact you if they find something they want.

AFAIK there is no way of applying to input content.

grp_photo

« Reply #34 on: August 08, 2012, 03:02 »
0
I send my contributor application to both Corbis and Getty and so far didn't get an answer. Been 5 weeks as far as I remember. Does anyone know if they answer only when one gets accepted, or do they send some "thx, but NO" e-mail :)
Funny thing is some of my images are licensed to Getty through Zoonar and other places.

If you are reffering to the Getty house-collection?  you can forget it. Been a closed shop for 2 years, unless you have extremely special material, I mean really unique material.
dito, ditto, detto,
The door for getting direct to Getty via House-collections is closed now, I wouldn't waste my time...

« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2012, 03:35 »
0
Well .. I just clicked through their site and got to this page:
http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2373
No word about submissions being closed. "Email us now" ... so I did :D

as for my initial question it also says :
"If your test submission is successful, well contact you within 60 days. Due to the volume of test submissions we receive we will only be able to respond to successful candidates. "
So I'm more interested in Corbis approach. In case of Getty I'm just wondering is it just their disclaimer or does it really take up to 60 days.

grp_photo

« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2012, 03:51 »
0
In case of Getty I'm just wondering is it just their disclaimer or does it really take up to 60 days.
I think I already forgot about my application then I got the acceptance mail, but this was years ago I have no idea about today but I doubt they are faster now.

« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2012, 04:39 »
0
I never really understood why is it so difficult to just response with a semi-automated e-mail "thanks, but no". It's not that hard. Also a fully automated autoresponder that would confirm one's email got through properly isn't too much to ask.

« Reply #38 on: August 08, 2012, 09:32 »
0
In case of Getty I'm just wondering is it just their disclaimer or does it really take up to 60 days.
I think I already forgot about my application then I got the acceptance mail, but this was years ago I have no idea about today but I doubt they are faster now.
Probably, if they see something that is truly different and excites them they will respond in a timely manner. But understand they have bazzilions of images flooding them already. So the "stand up and be noticed" part is very difficult.

grp_photo

« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2012, 13:26 »
0
In case of Getty I'm just wondering is it just their disclaimer or does it really take up to 60 days.
I think I already forgot about my application then I got the acceptance mail, but this was years ago I have no idea about today but I doubt they are faster now.
Probably, if they see something that is truly different and excites them they will respond in a timely manner. But understand they have bazzilions of images flooding them already. So the "stand up and be noticed" part is very difficult.
Well I guess there are several steps/persons necessary to pass an application, but that is just a wild guess I have no insights.

« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2012, 04:44 »
0
Didn't get any response till now, so I guess I didn't qualify.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2012, 04:59 »
0
Didn't get any response till now, so I guess I didn't qualify.
AFAIK, no-one gets a response.
BTW, 'email us now' doesn't necessarily mean that they mean it.
On iStock, you can still apparently apply to be a logo contributor even though they aborted the programme weeks ago.

« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2012, 16:04 »
0
I've also contacted Getty video and what do you know ... they do answer quickly (within two days) AND they have an autoresponder as well ;).

As for images still no answer.  ::)

Maybe someone here could advise me where to go with my stuff:
http://mopic.eu/

I'd like to get a different distribution channel. I'm a bit tired of micros' total lack of real protection from people who steal ideas. With illustrations often the unique concept is key and unfortunately it's sometime easy to copy it.
Also I have to admit I'm a bit clueless where my illustrations fit .. RF, RM?. So far I've been selling, apart from micros, on Alamy (my 3rd best site actually) and Zoonar (not much success).

« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2012, 23:33 »
0
i think u will be in, since you got some very unique image, it seems mostly done by 3d software? are those small human figurines are 3d models too?


I've also contacted Getty video and what do you know ... they do answer quickly (within two days) AND they have an autoresponder as well ;).

As for images still no answer.  ::)

Maybe someone here could advise me where to go with my stuff:
http://mopic.eu/

I'd like to get a different distribution channel. I'm a bit tired of micros' total lack of real protection from people who steal ideas. With illustrations often the unique concept is key and unfortunately it's sometime easy to copy it.
Also I have to admit I'm a bit clueless where my illustrations fit .. RF, RM?. So far I've been selling, apart from micros, on Alamy (my 3rd best site actually) and Zoonar (not much success).

« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2012, 00:52 »
0
I hope you're right.
And yes. Everything I do is CGI.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2012, 05:30 »
0
I hope you're right.
And yes. Everything I do is CGI.
Congratulations and good luck!
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 05:37 by ShadySue »

« Reply #46 on: September 26, 2012, 03:57 »
0
Well .. both Corbis and Getty didn't answer.
Any suggestions what I should do now ? I sincerely think I could have a shot at doing RM and macro.  :-\

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: September 26, 2012, 21:51 »
0
Corbis never answers to inquieries, it seems they refuse people even if you phone call their offices.
Getty rarely answers unless it's about news or if you have a scoop.

I suggest you sneak into getty or corbis joining one of their partner agencies but not all your photos will be accepted,it will take a long time to get your photos appear on the main getty collection, and the earnings will be lower.


« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2012, 02:14 »
0
Well ... theoretically I am with Getty via Zoonar, but out of the 500 or so images I submitted there 8 got accepted and 1 rejected. All the other pictures are still pending (some over a year already). Maybe there are other partner sites that get accepted faster, but I get a feeling that artists from Getty partners get a totally different treatment than those lucky ones that submit directly to them.

« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2012, 03:45 »
0
Well .. both Corbis and Getty didn't answer.
Any suggestions what I should do now ? I sincerely think I could have a shot at doing RM and macro.  :-\

If you applied to Photographer's Choice with 40 unique images then I'm surprised. Perhaps they'll reply later.

« 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
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
13879 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