I have tried to submit editorial work to them several times in the past and have yet to hear back from anyone.  The photos I've used to try to gain access can be seen here...  http://www.mathaywardphoto.com/MatHaywardPhotos/

I think it is tricky at best to get accepted there these days but good luck just the same!

Mat

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/

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. 

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.

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?).

interesting thanks for sharing.. ..anyone else get into getty recently?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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%.

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 I�ve decided I�ll 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 wouldn�t be dissapointed but embrace it and give it a go.

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.

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  ). 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

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

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.

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.

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

as for my initial question it also says :
"If your test submission is successful, we�ll 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.

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.

Quote from: grp_photo on August 08, 2012, 03:51

Quote from: Mopic on August 08, 2012, 03:35

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.

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.

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).

I hope you're right.
And yes. Everything I do is CGI.

Congratulations and good luck!

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Mopic on September 27, 2012, 11:12

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 .

Why not try Nat Geo directly? Why give G/C a commission for nothing?

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.

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...