It's a question that often gets asked here, and AFAIK, the answer hasn't changed since this thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gettyimage/

Quote from: saschadueser on August 03, 2015, 09:09

Is it even possible to apply to gettyimages (the macrostock page)?
and what are they actually looking for ? is there any information ?

btw i think nature images they will NOT search for hm ?

++ is it even worth it? the macrostock ?
or is it much better to offer the images in microstock only
anyone here who got nearlier experience - comparison micro- to macrostock ?

Well, let me be straight forward: None of the images I am seeing in your portfolios would get you anywhere into premium collections. They look like a mix of random snap shots and a few of the typical microstock design things that are really hard to explain (yeah, they sell...). Have a look at Getty, Corbis, Stocksy, Offset, Masterfile, Plainpicture, Gallery Stock or any other premium site and see the images they offer on page 1 for any given topic.

For any premium collection, you will first have to learn to plan shoots - that includes market research, image styles, model/location/prop organization, lighting properly and post processing. No agency will allow you to do that at their expense.

I do make a better RPI at mid and macro stock these days but then again I get fewer images into them than I can get into microstock. Still it's much more fun and challenging.

But all microstock agencies will. This is a classic example of the so called "closed shop" theory.

Quote from: saschadueser on August 03, 2015, 09:09

Is it even possible to apply to gettyimages (the macrostock page)?
and what are they actually looking for ? is there any information ?

btw i think nature images they will NOT search for hm ?

++ is it even worth it? the macrostock ?
or is it much better to offer the images in microstock only
anyone here who got nearlier experience - comparison micro- to macrostock ?

Well, let me be straight forward: None of the images I am seeing in your portfolios would get you anywhere into premium collections. They look like a mix of random snap shots and a few of the typical microstock design things that are really hard to explain (yeah, they sell...). Have a look at Getty, Corbis, Stocksy, Offset, Masterfile, Plainpicture, Gallery Stock or any other premium site and see the images they offer on page 1 for any given topic.

For any premium collection, you will first have to learn to plan shoots - that includes market research, image styles, model/location/prop organization, lighting properly and post processing. No agency will allow you to do that at their expense.

I do make a better RPI at mid and macro stock these days but then again I get fewer images into them than I can get into microstock. Still it's much more fun and challenging.

Quote from: saschadueser on August 03, 2015, 09:09

Is it even possible to apply to gettyimages (the macrostock page)?
and what are they actually looking for ? is there any information ?

You first need to focus on learning photography.   

By the way:  Already know what white balance is?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/while-balance-how-and-how-important

Not all are perfect like you. If you don't want to help, at least don't discourage others.

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on August 03, 2015, 12:10

No agency will allow you to do that at their expense.

But all microstock agencies will. This is a classic example of the so called "closed shop" theory.

It happens to be like this because microstock agencies have found a way to make it mostly your expense by basically outsourcing the whole work to you, the photographer - from planning to keywording, you have to provide them with a finished product and they don't have any cost related to your images. They focus on storing the images, their search engines and marketing (which most photographers still underestimate). They focus on automatization, and they are pretty good at it.

I don't know what you understand as "closed shop theory". To me that term is related to an employment issue. As a stock photographer you are not employed by anyone. You are a business person providing a product. You deal with others businesses, and all of them are as free as you are to make their own business decisions at any time. You are not bound to any restrictions. You don't have to inherit something from someone else. You don't have to know someone who knows someone (though as with all businesses it helps). You don't have to buy in somewhere. If your product is good enough, other businesses will be willing (or even happy) to distribute them for you.

Yes, it's a difference between microstock and macrostock. Microstock agencies mostly don't care about the quality of your product. Their shop is big enough to place almost any product somewhere. If yours proves not to be popular enough, it will soon be hidden in a shelf in the back of the 3rd floor. The only thing they are looking for is that your product isn't so bad that customers will come back and demand their money back.

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 03, 2015, 12:52

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on August 03, 2015, 12:10

No agency will allow you to do that at their expense.

But all microstock agencies will. This is a classic example of the so called "closed shop" theory.

It happens to be like this because microstock agencies have found a way to make it mostly your expense by basically outsourcing the whole work to you, the photographer - from planning to keywording, you have to provide them with a finished product and they don't have any cost related to your images. They focus on storing the images, their search engines and marketing (which most photographers still underestimate). They focus on automatization, and they are pretty good at it.

I don't know what you understand as "closed shop theory". To me that term is related to an employment issue. As a stock photographer you are not employed by anyone. You are a business person providing a product. You deal with others businesses, and all of them are as free as you are to make their own business decisions at any time. You are not bound to any restrictions. You don't have to inherit something from someone else. You don't have to know someone who knows someone (though as with all businesses it helps). You don't have to buy in somewhere. If your product is good enough, other businesses will be willing (or even happy) to distribute them for you.

Yes, it's a difference between microstock and macrostock. Microstock agencies mostly don't care about the quality of your product. Their shop is big enough to place almost any product somewhere. If yours proves not to be popular enough, it will soon be hidden in a shelf in the back of the 3rd floor. The only thing they are looking for is that your product isn't so bad that customers will come back and demand their money back.

Microstock for the most part was founded on photographers who knew very little about the business, so yes, in that aspect most microstock sites allowed you to learn at their expense. There are a few respected photographers who post on this forum who are now good photographers, but their early work was mediocre at best and would have never qualified for any macro site. Let's just say that microstock sites are very forgiving in the quality arena.

Getty did not allow that and the common excuse I often hear on this forum is that all the macros were an old boys club and a closed shop, which simply was never true. The only barrier to entry was you really needed to do your learning ahead of time and have your A game on. This was never the case with microstock sites.

as i agree mostly with digital66 and michealjay about saschadueser portfolio i don't really agree on the fact that RM agencies sells only high quality pictures....you can find an enorumous amount of TERRIBLE/crappy pictures even on corbis,getty, and what else....

this is just to say that maybe, after the reaching the minimum decent level of photography knowledge, the next step (for the market) is not to improve your level but to organize your work properly in order to present it to these agencies

+100
best examples are those celebrity images where the photographs make even the best looking women look like (dogs). even a photography 101 attendant could have taken a better photograph...
except they were unable to stand in that box called "credential photographers" or whatever bs.

...i didnt think so "widely" before reading your post...well, explained like this i guess youre right