MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty sold a 65K $ image !  (Read 26664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« on: February 28, 2010, 16:25 »
0
here's the photo sold on Getty for 65K $, the author also sells on Alamy :






original Alamy thread :
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=7519


« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2010, 16:34 »
0
great :)

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2010, 16:44 »
0
great :)

in the old alamy thread the author said he hired real elephants for this set, must have been a pricey shoot
but definetely paid off !

take that, microstocks !

« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2010, 16:45 »
0
great :)

in the old alamy thread the author said he hired real elephants for this set, must have been a pricey shoot
but definetely paid off !

take that, microstocks !

huge :)

« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2010, 16:46 »
0
the thread would really make more sense if we could see the photo you are talking about. The link from the alamy forum, for me anyway, says I don't have permission to see.

RacePhoto

« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2010, 16:48 »
0
Can't see it.

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /files/2010/01/accenturephant1.jpg on this server
.

« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2010, 16:50 »
0
the thread would really make more sense if we could see the photo you are talking about. The link from the alamy forum, for me anyway, says I don't have permission to see.
Same here. I think you have to be logged in that forum to see it. I also don't see it here since I adblocked all images on the MSG since Leaf really overdid it with the blinking banners. Horrible, I get a headache from it.  :-[

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2010, 16:54 »
0
strange !
it was working 2 minutes ago.

here's a mirror :




or just search "accenture elephant" in Google Images, there's a dozen sites with it.

« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2010, 17:04 »
0
strange !
it was working 2 minutes ago.
They probably reconfigured the server against deep links since you can lose a lot of bandwidth by deeplinkers.
I assume the image is photoshopped.  ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything

« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2010, 17:35 »
0
That has to tick off John Lund who has a TON of great elephant shots! lol

OM

« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2010, 17:36 »
0
Good on the guy. Bob Elsdale's "behind the camera" link.

http://www.wild-side-online.com/#/public/about/

« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2010, 17:43 »
0
That has to tick off John Lund who has a TON of great elephant shots! lol

lol John is a great artist! :)

« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2010, 17:47 »
0
Wow, 65K. Sweet!

Great link, OM. Love Rosie the Piglet!

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2010, 18:04 »
0
That has to tick off John Lund who has a TON of great elephant shots! lol

lol John is a great artist! :)

That's the point and the lesson to learn from that elephant photo.

Artists are able to produce unique images, no matter the competition or the agency or the budget
involved.

« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2010, 18:11 »
0
That's the point and the lesson to learn from that elephant photo.

Fine. End next week I'll go to Cloud 9, the surfing paradise on Siargao Island not too far away and take some background shots of surfers and waves. Next, I'll shoot everything I find on 4 legs, photoshop it in and sell it for 0.65$.  ;D
Welcome to stock. (this is no joke)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 18:16 by FD-amateur »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2010, 18:20 »
0
That's the point and the lesson to learn from that elephant photo.

Fine. End next week I'll go to Cloud 9, the surfing paradise on Siargao Island not too far away and take some background shots of surfers and waves. Next, I'll shoot everything I find on 4 legs, photoshop it in and sell it for 0.65$.  ;D
Welcome to stock. (this is no joke)

Exactly.....that .65 would not possible without photoshop and the digital camera and vacation time..


« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2010, 18:35 »
0
Exactly.....that .65 would not possible without photoshop and the digital camera and vacation time..

My most recent EL on SS (last friday) was a shot of a house I took from my kitchen window. I figure the cost of that shoot is slightly less than what Yuri Arcurs spends.  :P
Of course, I only have one kitchen window, but you can shoot very salable stock just on the way. My favorites are airports and airplanes. They just cost the clicks of the cam, and they are very difficult to copy.
Everything you shoot in studio can and will be copied, if it sells, and they will steal your title and keywords too.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 18:40 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2010, 18:38 »
0
Exactly.....that .65 would not possible without photoshop and the digital camera and vacation time..

My most recent EL on SS (last friday) was a shot of a house I took from my kitchen window. I figure the cost of that shoot is slightly less than what Yuri Arcurs spends.  :P
Of course, I only have one kitchen window, but you can shoot very salable stock just on the way. My favorites are airports and airplanes. They just cost the clicks of the cam.


is this a pimping thread?? eheheh

« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2010, 18:54 »
0
Compared with this, we are working for free!!!  :P

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2010, 19:13 »
0
Compared with this, we are working for free!!!  :P

hahaha  ;D

« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2010, 19:35 »
0
That's the point and the lesson to learn from that elephant photo.
Artists are able to produce unique images, no matter the competition or the agency or the budget
involved.

I thought what I was saying is that I immediately thought this was Lund's photo - he did the elephants thing but this isn't his = it's not unique. He has a ton of great elephant shots they could have had (and he could have scored with!)

« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2010, 20:48 »
0
Somebody will win the lottery every week.  No different here.

« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2010, 22:55 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2010, 05:19 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

I 'll be satisfied with 6.500 $... :P :-\

« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2010, 05:42 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

As usual on Getty - 20% ;-)

For example on Alamy he'd get 60% of $65000...

Anyway, regarding 'lottery' it is not enough paid to photographer in this case and it is obvious how Getty earns money.

« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2010, 05:44 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

I 'll be satisfied with 6.500 $... :P :-\

So borg, you're saying you'd work for 10% of sales price?
Ok, that would be 10 cents on subs in the future... Good Luck with that!


« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2010, 06:07 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

I 'll be satisfied with 6.500 $... :P :-\

So borg, you're saying you'd work for 10% of sales price?
Ok, that would be 10 cents on subs in the future... Good Luck with that!

Noo! Noo! No!

My mistake, sorry!
 
I wanted to say that I was pleased with sales of $ 6.500

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2010, 06:39 »
0
i don't know if 65K is getty's price or the photographer's 20%.

i should find the old thread on Alamy forum but if i'm not wrong the 65K was the photographer's cut so
the image can easily having been sold for 3-400K $.

it's not surprising as the licence must have been for worldiwde distribution, commercial, any media, any size, etc

still cheaper than hiring a bunch of elephants at your local zoo and pay an artist to come up with some ideas.

in my opinion it's just crazy, no one in the IT industry gives a rat's ass about Accenture anyway but hey
these guys have deep pockets in their marketing department...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 06:41 by macrosaur »

« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2010, 09:26 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

As usual on Getty - 20% ;-)

For example on Alamy he'd get 60% of $65000...

Anyway, regarding 'lottery' it is not enough paid to photographer in this case and it is obvious how Getty earns money.

An RF image wouldn't sell for $65k, so it was RM, and that's either 30% or 40%.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2010, 09:37 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

As usual on Getty - 20% ;-)

For example on Alamy he'd get 60% of $65000...

Anyway, regarding 'lottery' it is not enough paid to photographer in this case and it is obvious how Getty earns money.

An RF image wouldn't sell for $65k, so it was RM, and that's either 30% or 40%.

of course it's RM but not just because of the price but because the buyer needs worldwide exclusivity.

« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2010, 17:17 »
0
Just curious, how much did the photographer take from the $65.000?

As usual on Getty - 20% ;-)

For example on Alamy he'd get 60% of $65000...

I think in both cases it depends on who sold the image.  If it's sold by a partner, you always lose a good bite.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2010, 17:21 »
0

As usual on Getty - 20% ;-)

For example on Alamy he'd get 60% of $65000...

[/quote]

yes but i've never heard of alamy selling anything above 10K.

big buyers only go to Getty.

RT


« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2010, 17:53 »
0
yes but i've never heard of alamy selling anything above 10K.

big buyers only go to Getty.

Not that it matters much, but by memory Alamy have had a couple of 'infamous' sales for lets say dubious quality images in the last couple of years that were over that amount, I can't remember the exact figures but an image of a fish market stall sold for something like 35k to an American merchant bank and recently somebody sold one of Windsor castle for 11k I think it was that had a few people gasping over. If you bring this up on the Alamy forum someone will point the images out plus plenty more I'd imagine.

I've heard of big sales on Corbis and other independants so big buyers don't only go to Getty, big buyers go to where the image they want is featured. Getty are big without a doubt but they are certainly not the 'mecca' that you make them out to be, I've read of some very successful photographers that won't go near them because of their commission rates and lets say 'attitude'

And I think you'll find Bob and Chris got 20% of the 65k

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2010, 18:22 »
0
the price is never related to the image beauty of quality.

it's all about the exclusivity, duration, geographic area, and much more.

anyone can shoot that Windsor Castle, and you can probably find it on IS as well for 1$,
but what they're paying goes much further than the image itself.

i would never ever pay so much for a photo, but hey i'm a photographer not an accountant !  :D

RT


« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2010, 18:42 »
0
You're nearly right, in both the cases I mentioned it was obvious quality wasn't the deciding factor by a long way, it came down to the simple fact that a buyer wanted an image of something and these were the only ones available, it wasn't so much about exclusivity either the image is (or was I had a quick look and can't find it now amongst the wash of similars!) still for sale.The fish market example has a story behind it, mention the big 'tuna' sale to anyone that's been with Alamy a while and they'll remember, at a contributor event a few years ago Alamy showed the image in question, everybody initially thought it would be in relation to examples of the type of quality they're looking for i.e. we don't want crap like this, but instead they announced it had sold for 35k ish and it was to point out that sometimes the subject matter is more important than the technical quality.

The windsor castle prompted the usual debate of how everyone else could have taken a better shot, but guess what - nobody had. Believe me it was not a good shot, but amongst the thousands available it was the only one from that angle and the client (a travel company I think) obviously needed that angle.

You can learn at least two things from this, technical quality isn't always the most important factor to a buyer, and you never know what will sell.

« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2010, 23:09 »
0
Nonetheless - this is an excellent shot. Well worth the money!


macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2010, 07:14 »
0
You're nearly right, in both the cases I mentioned it was obvious quality wasn't the deciding factor by a long way, it came down to the simple fact that a buyer wanted an image of something and these were the only ones available, it wasn't so much about exclusivity either the image is (or was I had a quick look and can't find it now amongst the wash of similars!) still for sale.The fish market example has a story behind it, mention the big 'tuna' sale to anyone that's been with Alamy a while and they'll remember, at a contributor event a few years ago Alamy showed the image in question, everybody initially thought it would be in relation to examples of the type of quality they're looking for i.e. we don't want crap like this, but instead they announced it had sold for 35k ish and it was to point out that sometimes the subject matter is more important than the technical quality.

The windsor castle prompted the usual debate of how everyone else could have taken a better shot, but guess what - nobody had. Believe me it was not a good shot, but amongst the thousands available it was the only one from that angle and the client (a travel company I think) obviously needed that angle.

You can learn at least two things from this, technical quality isn't always the most important factor to a buyer, and you never know what will sell.


yeah i remember that one with the tuna (or was it a shark ?)
and if you look at the images spotted in the forum and published in magazine
they're mostly mediocre if not crappy shots.

and yet, they sell, as that's what the customers need.
it's harder and harder to grasp what's hot selling on RM.

i've never sold my favourite images on RM, and often
i sell the ones i didn't even wanted to upload.

micros are much more informative regarding sales, views, zoom,
trends, if we had something similar for RM i could have a bigger
picture of the market and shoot consequentially.

RT


« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2010, 19:08 »
0
Yeah a lot of the editorial (by which I mean the 'I was there so I took a photo') type of shots that sell are bizarre.

I'm not sure I agree about having the same info available for RM as you get on the micros, given a choice I'd have choose to not have my download figures available for all to see.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6912 Views
Last post February 26, 2008, 01:03
by litifeta
1 Replies
3645 Views
Last post October 27, 2008, 18:12
by leaf
2 Replies
8078 Views
Last post April 24, 2018, 00:53
by PaulieWalnuts
2 Replies
3862 Views
Last post October 21, 2017, 11:41
by Caleb
7 Replies
5045 Views
Last post January 07, 2019, 18:22
by grejak

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors