pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Getty's new "Lean In" collection  (Read 6729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 10, 2014, 12:54 »
0
Perhaps this is just a recent example of trying to take advantage of a trendy thing to sell more stuff, but apparently Getty and Sheryl Sandberg's LeanIn.org foundation have teamed up on a 2,500 image LeanIn collection and and Getty will be sharing 10% of the revenue from sales in this new collection with the non profilt. No word on whether that's 10% of Getty's take or 10% of the gross, but based on Getty's track record, I'm betting that the contributor is sharing in this "donation". The New York Times article says ten percent; the other articles say an undisclosed percentage.

There's nothing on GettyImages front page or on their press release page or blog

The NY Times article had a slideshow of 6 images in the collection and I checked on the price of two of them

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/first-grade-school-children-learn-on-high-res-stock-photography/187480288

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/studio-portrait-of-business-woman-high-res-stock-photography/143699172

Both are RM so I priced them for a home page banner on an Education web site for the US only (not really sure how that makes any sense for web uses) for one year and that'll cost $955!! I guess this LeanIn collection will only be for very wealthy corporations :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/business/leaninorg-and-getty-aim-to-change-womens-portrayal-in-stock-photos.html?hp
http://mashable.com/2014/02/09/lean-in-getty-women/
http://adage.com/article/media/lean-teams-getty-make-stock-photos-sexist/291578/
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/lean-in-getty-stock-photos/
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 13:20 by Jo Ann Snover »


« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2014, 12:59 »
+2
I liked this comment from adage:
"Like every producer, I'm all for more and varied stock imagery, but it seems to me like this is a solution in search of a problem. My company does many projects incorporating lifestyle stock, and we've never yet had to settle for an image of a woman in high heels climbing a ladder while going 12 rounds with Ronda Rousey. Seriously, has anyone else encountered a dearth of "empowered" female images in the stock universe? (Beyond the usual "There's just not images of X available at a reasonable price.") "

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2014, 13:07 »
0
I think Ms. Sandberg is a self promoter par excellence, so overpriced images that aren't really all that different from many others that would fit the bill doesn't surprise me - but it's good to see someone point it out in the coverage.

Getty and some other organizations did tweet about this and then it got re-tweeted a bit so I guess it'll get them the attention they're after :)

https://twitter.com/GettyImages/status/432918500290486272

https://twitter.com/Slate/status/432926979588096001

Amy Poehler has room for a salad too

https://twitter.com/smrtgrls/status/432928016402886656

A lot of the content in the Irish Times article appears to be from the NY Times (or whatever press release they received) but there's a great paragraph at the end:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/please-no-more-women-laughing-alone-with-salad-1.1686397?page=1

"The partnership is a way for Lean In to broaden its reach after criticism that Sandbergs advice is relevant only to women in corporate America and that she places the burden of breaking through stereotypes on individual women, instead of on workplaces and society."

Except that the comment isn't broad enough, I agree with that - I'd say that Ms. Sandberg's advice applies to Ms. Sandberg and the small number of others at the very top of the corporate ladder and income bracket, not anything like all women in corporate America, let alone all women in America.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 13:14 by Jo Ann Snover »

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2014, 13:11 »
0
I found it depressing that she would consider the marketing question as "Do we partner into sexism or do we partner against sexism?

Shelma1

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2014, 13:53 »
0
As a few people have commented on the Times' website, it's nice to see she's concentrating on the really big issues.  ::)

« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2014, 14:19 »
+5
As a few people have commented on the Times' website, it's nice to see she's concentrating on the really big issues.  ::)

over 120 comments so far, some of which pointing out what you just noticed.

And one comment from "ugh" in NJ which makes note of the situation stock photographers are in producing what sells for the people who do the buying

"Sorry, but they're picking on the wrong people. Freelance stock photographerswho only get 20% or less of the amount of the sale, with Getty or its other company, iStock, keeping the lion's shareare just shooting these images because they sell.
Go to the source insteadthe white male fashion designers and white male advertising execs who set the trends and determine how women are portrayed in their advertising, and who make these stock photos best-sellers.
The advertising industry is one of the most misogynistic in the country. Women and people of color are barely represented in top management anywhere.
It's all these white men who determine which photos will appear in their ads. Talk to them, Sandberg."

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.

And I see Chelsea Clinton is jumping on the bandwagon...

https://twitter.com/ChelseaClinton/status/432958471474933760
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 14:27 by Jo Ann Snover »

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2014, 15:27 »
+2
Those are pretty large unwatermarked images they're giving away in that slideshow. Wonder if the photographers who took them know?

« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2014, 20:21 »
0
.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 20:18 by onepointfour »

« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2014, 21:06 »
+1
I have 2 photos added to this collection. Let's see how this goes.

I do hope this brings you lots of new sales - as the old saying goes, "It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good" :)

« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2014, 07:26 »
0

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.


These look pretty "authentic" for the most part newbielink:http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/ [nonactive]

Ron

« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2014, 08:08 »
+2

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.


These look pretty "authentic" for the most part http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2014, 09:34 »
-2
Add 1 more to the media entities looking for few more pennies by riding the lowbrow bullscheisse women-this&that  movement.

« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2014, 09:41 »
+6
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

Well, there's an obvious reason.  "Real" and "authentic" images are the images we take of the life around us.  More and more people are using their convenient phones to capture these "real" moments, and those phones make images with less exposure range and more noise, and the apps commonly used to share them have all the nifty filters.  So, "real", now, isn't just content, but also a product of the thing used to capture the image.  Of course, we can't walk around family and friends events all the times handing out releases, so sure, things are going to be set up.  But the feeling of "real" - the visual style - can be overlaid on that to enforce the sense even when maybe the content doesn't scream "I was taken without the subject's knowledge" or whatever.

« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2014, 09:49 »
+2

There are also a number of posts that mention Shutterstock and Bigstock as well as iStock and Getty commenting on the cookie cutter and unreal aspects of stock photography. Should be good news for Stocksy and the push for more "authentic" images. I put that in quotes, because the authenticity is still a long way from, and much more visually stylish than, reality, IMO.


These look pretty "authentic" for the most part http://www.jengrantham.com/2014/02/13/stock-photography-of-real-women/
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.


Yep. Any ideal becomes a contradictory, dumb dogma by the time it's filtered thru the plebs, it's inevitable.... f.e. the  the style stocksy&co are pushing for is about as authentic as a north korean poster about pyongyang city life.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2014, 10:04 »
+5
"Style" is a moving target defined by what people are buying and what they like to look at. The challenge is tapping into the market as styles change. Saying that you disagree with what is popular at the time results in fewer sales for you and more for the other guys.

« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2014, 10:04 »
-3
I really get the idea people these days think that authentic means slapping on an Instagram-esque filter. Every time when I am pointed to authentic images, I see staged images with cross processed faded colors and vignetting.

Well, there's an obvious reason.  "Real" and "authentic" images are the images we take of the life around us.  More and more people are using their convenient phones to capture these "real" moments, and those phones make images with less exposure range and more noise, and the apps commonly used to share them have all the nifty filters.  So, "real", now, isn't just content, but also a product of the thing used to capture the image.  Of course, we can't walk around family and friends events all the times handing out releases, so sure, things are going to be set up.  But the feeling of "real" - the visual style - can be overlaid on that to enforce the sense even when maybe the content doesn't scream "I was taken without the subject's knowledge" or whatever.

According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Btw I'm starting to see filters that are rudimentary implementations of extreme retouching, they usually seem to be derived from noise filtering on super high settings smoothing everything over to a plastic look. How the people of this 'get real' movement gonna digest this demand coming back from exactly the people that are said to be targeted by it? :) ohh I know... these people have already been victimized, so they need to be re-educated by an onslaught of ugly showed down their throat. Lenin is smiling in his grave. Am I exaggerating? Just look at the how moron-hubs like huffpo proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...

« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2014, 10:17 »
0
According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2014, 10:30 »
+3
... proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...
What's wrong with that?
We've had fake beauty shoved down our throats for so long, we've been indoctrinated to regard anything else as 'unacceptable'.

« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2014, 10:51 »
-5
... proudly display series of people showing of deformities, obesity, etc...
What's wrong with that?
We've had fake beauty shoved down our throats for so long, we've been indoctrinated to regard anything else as 'unacceptable'.

Everything. Culture is about ideals. Ideals are above average reality not under it. Setting example by repeatedly showing&glamourizing the "under part" is amputating ideals off the culture / people. It's lobotomy. The result is a degenerate jerry springer crowd, which is the real purpose, not the supposed 'acceptance & equality'. The fact that I'm right about the phoney nature of it, shows perfectly in the results. They show around an anorexics as a huge social problem... while obesity is epidemic. The result: even more & more extreme obesity, because people take the fake message and run away with it to the extremes, or just use it as excuse to perform a defiant act of eating themselves to death. So while people are gasping about some anorexic girl or hooraying some plus-size model, doctors have to invent new phrases for people who are so morbidly, unnatrurally obese they just can't x-ray them. Facepalm society.

« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2014, 10:53 »
-1
According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.

You take an aggregate, so can see that this is the most prevalent form of it. By far.

« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2014, 11:11 »
0
Marketing hype is always a pathetic read and exploitative no matter what anyone says.

Besides, the whole idea has been nicked from documentary/art photographers....Rineke Dijkstra, Nan Goldin and Alec Soth amongst many others.

lisafx

« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2014, 13:47 »
+3
According to that, the pinnacle of  'real' is the duckface in the toilet mirror.

Not really.  I was talking in the aggregate, not just one theme, although that does contribute.

You take an aggregate, so can see that this is the most prevalent form of it. By far.

Well, at least I got to learn a new term from this exchange.  Am I the only one who didn't know what "duck face" is? (Thank you Google...)

« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2014, 14:03 »
+1

Well, at least I got to learn a new term from this exchange.  Am I the only one who didn't know what "duck face" is? (Thank you Google...)

+1 I just learned a new term too  8)

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2014, 14:10 »
+4
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

lisafx

« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2014, 16:07 »
0
Culture is about ideals.
Nah, that's advertising - tries to make us feel bad so we might buy the stuff to make us conform to whatever they want to sell us this week.

So true!!

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
60 Replies
15370 Views
Last post November 28, 2009, 06:11
by iclick
2 Replies
2232 Views
Last post July 22, 2011, 14:07
by Jo Ann Snover
0 Replies
1619 Views
Last post August 08, 2012, 16:47
by joshsprague
5 Replies
1917 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
2 Replies
1858 Views
Last post June 25, 2015, 10:16
by MarcvsTvllivs

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements