Author Topic: Hot Shot Joke? (Read 22035 times)

click_click · « **on:** July 06, 2010, 13:24 »

I do respect when non-pros get a lucky shot and get their 5 minutes of fame when they have a sale at Getty through the Flickr collection.

This week's Hot Shots features 8 Getty images with only 2 of them coming from Getty.

6 featured images are from the Flickr collection.

A couple of questions: Are the images on Flickr better than the images that can be found in the Getty collection?

and: Why wouldn't Getty feature more "in-house" top sellers rather than images that used to linger around at Flickr?

Doesn't this make Getty look "cheap"? 5 of the 6 Flickr images are basically snapshot situations. Let's not argue about the execution of the images in terms of conceptual approach and technical quality but why even try to throw money into a photo shoot paying models, MUAs, assistant, props, location etc. if all it takes is snapping around outdoors?

I also understand that "snap shot" is not always the same. But 4 of the 6 didn't require months of planning. If you think otherwise, please elaborate.

The dog shot is the best IMO.

lagereek · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2010, 13:51 »

Oh man! is this what its come to? jeez, no pride in it anymore. Sad.

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2010, 13:56 »

What I don't understand is that the sites are all rejecting more and more, saying they want better quality, more studio pro shots, etc. (as an example, see the rejections in this thread from Veer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/2-weird-rejections-of-the-1st-10/msg151315/?topicseen#new

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

lagereek · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2010, 14:05 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 06, 2010, 13:56

What I don't understand is that the sites are all rejecting more and more, saying they want better quality, more studio pro shots, etc. (as an example, see the rejections in this thread from Veer:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/veer-marketplace/2-weird-rejections-of-the-1st-10/msg151315/?topicseen#new

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

To be honest, Im beginning to doubt most of these even have qualified personell to spot a professional shot anymore.

click_click · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2010, 14:30 »

Maybe the key is to look so ordinary that it's considered professional...?

At least I'm not the only seeing some "discrepancy" here.

I wonder if those Flickr images are free of noise and artifacts as well. Or is exactly that the justification why they are worth "more"?

Is the last image a panoramic image? 14457px x 9638 px? I'm just stunned.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/97840446/Flickr?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|97840446|0&esource=iStock_HotShotsWk67

cathyslife · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2010, 14:35 »

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 14:30

Is the last image a panoramic image? 14457px x 9638 px? I'm just stunned.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/97840446/Flickr?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|97840446|0&esource=iStock_HotShotsWk67

Wow, that is a HUGE image.

SIFD · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2010, 15:09 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 06, 2010, 13:56

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

maybe the day has finally arrived - if you have a camera then you are automatically a professional phonographer.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2010, 16:21 »

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 14:30

Maybe the key is to look so ordinary that it's considered professional...?

Not that I approve it, but I see it more and more often in tv ads as well: bad lighting, unprofessional cameras... just to look "natural"

so sad... good ads were the only thing I enjoyed watching on tv

VB inc · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2010, 17:19 »

y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.

KB · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2010, 17:26 »

I'm surprised the Glacier Bay image is ok for advertising without MRs. I know IS won't accept such images (I've had one where the people were even smaller within the frame, and it wasn't accepted).

I also like the last one (taken with a TS lens) the best.

vonkara · « **Reply #10 on:** July 06, 2010, 17:34 »

LOL a frog on a swing!!

LOL Getty Image

click_click · « **Reply #11 on:** July 06, 2010, 17:56 »

Quote from: VB inc on July 06, 2010, 17:19

y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.

Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.

FD · « **Reply #12 on:** July 06, 2010, 17:59 »

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 17:56

Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.

KB · « **Reply #13 on:** July 06, 2010, 18:05 »

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 17:56

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.

Yep, I have dozens of snaps of giant frogs on swings.

click_click · « **Reply #14 on:** July 06, 2010, 18:22 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 06, 2010, 17:59

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 17:56
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.
The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.

Just to set this straight - I'm not saying that this is the best dog shot I have ever seen. I said I like it best from those posted. There is a big leeway.

fullvalue · « **Reply #15 on:** July 06, 2010, 19:28 »

This week's Hot Shots is enough to make me consider the whole Fickr Getty thing.

Somehow the comment that if IStock rejected it then Getty wouldn't think it's good enough over on Flickr just doesn't ring true.

lefty · « **Reply #16 on:** July 06, 2010, 19:45 »

Quote from: SIFD on July 06, 2010, 15:09

Quote from: cclapper on July 06, 2010, 13:56

so then how does photo #1 and 2 rate having getty images on there?

It's getting kind of ridiculous/confusing/contradictory.

maybe the day has finally arrived - if you have a camera then you are automatically a professional phonographer.

Or maybe it is bigger chance to sell if you use Point and Shoot. Is it my eyes that none of the photo is sharp
... sharp and clean that IStock want our picture to be or else it is rejected.
But I cannot see any of the picture you put here that is sharp and clean.

Can someone confirm, maybe my eyes?

click_click · « **Reply #17 on:** July 06, 2010, 19:54 »

#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

VB inc · « **Reply #18 on:** July 06, 2010, 20:06 »

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 17:56

Quote from: VB inc on July 06, 2010, 17:19
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.

Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.

What matters is what the image conveys. It really doesnt matter how the image gets there whether its a snap shot, studio lit with props, or heavily processed. Your post makes it sound like you hate an orange for being an orange and not an apple.

click_click · « **Reply #19 on:** July 06, 2010, 21:56 »

Quote from: VB inc on July 06, 2010, 20:06

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 17:56
Quote from: VB inc on July 06, 2010, 17:19
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.

Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.
What matters is what the image conveys. It really doesnt matter how the image gets there whether its a snap shot, studio lit with props, or heavily processed. Your post makes it sound like you hate an orange for being an orange and not an apple.

I do admit that English is not my mother tongue but I don't know how you could read that between my lines.

Just because in image is taken without much thought or planning doesn't automatically mean that it's a bad image or that it doesn't convey a message.

My point was that the Flickr images in question don't appear to be taken with a concept in mind. I might be totally wrong, that's possible I admit.

To me it appeared that the dog shot had some thought process to it. I don't have wigs laying around, nor do I have access to someone owning a dog that doesn't freak out when a wig is placed on its head. I think this was some sort of concept well thought out and executed.

Just take the frog on the swing. Whichever way I would try to take an image of such a scene, I would not have taken it with the frogs legs cut off. In fact it takes more than a blink of the eye to recognize what this thing in the foreground even is. It's not super obvious that a frog is hanging around on a swing... Now is this some genius pro-shooter who knew exactly at the time of shooting that Getty would look for such an image? Was it a lucky shot in the dark? Would I dare spending my time submitting images like that one?

That's what I would like to hear from you.

Xalanx · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2010, 00:41 »

First 2 images are pathetic. The rest of them are really nice. Last one is a great example of how a tilt & shift lens can be used for interesting concepts.
I bet that in the 4th image with the sunset and the field some flash or strobe was used - very nice image too. And the dog is awesome

Artemis · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2010, 03:05 »

Merci for the compliment about my dogs mister FD

Imho the first 2 are a (bad) joke... there's something to say for the others though...(personally not a fan of the glacier one either, the flower meadow looks nice... but seen it before, many times. again, imho of course)
I agree VB it's all about what the image conveys and i've seen some super snapshots (who are super because of their spontanity and unexpected impact), but those first 2 are snapshots, point, no impact whatsoever for me.... if buyers really want to pay for that i think it might be time to go do something else; total waste of efforts.

lefty · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2010, 04:41 »

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 19:54

#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .

But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.

Then we see this example and we shake our head. You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers

Dreamframer · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2010, 06:01 »

I opened one thread about "hot shots" before. It was similar to this one.
The way of choosing these images for hot shots collection is a real mystery to me, because I think they needed to look just 2 minutes more to find tons of much better images. These images are obviously selected by just one person without any consultation with others. Maybe the person is important enough that no one has courage to tell him/her that images are bad. To me it looks like the person doesn't have any experience in photography, even tho he/she works in Getty....
I am not a pro, but I feel free to say that almost anyones portfolio contains better images than these.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #24 on:** July 07, 2010, 06:21 »

Quote from: lefty on July 07, 2010, 04:41

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2010, 19:54
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.

I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.

It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.

And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?

I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.

Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.

It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.

I don't get it.

I think everyone agree that microstock approval system bar is too high for the money they give .
Also, based on what you put here, or from others and my own experience too, the point and shoot pictures
sell more than the "dog" type (studio setting, many thoughtful time , composition, lighting,etc) .

But also, most will not go past the reviewer for "poor composition", "no focus point", "snapshot".etc..
all subjective.

Then we see this example and we shake our head. You are right, maybe so, buyers maybe want snapshots.
Only but first how we can get the snapshots point and shoot stuff pass the reviewers

Buyers aren't looking for P&S images they want images that have some emotions . Images with real impact are hard to find on the microstock sites. I know of at less four heavy buyers that don't buy microstock images anymore, the reason being all the images look the same. As for the Hot Shots I find them all ok, Better then another Businesswoman with headset image, or Apple on white.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #25 on:** July 07, 2010, 06:34 »

I completely agree with you Eyedesign, but there are much better images with emotions on microstock than these we see in hot shots collection. Not everyone is taking pictures of business people and apples over white.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #26 on:** July 07, 2010, 06:40 »

For example, for me this image is real life, and radiates emotions 10 times more than frog on the swing

Or this one. It's not "real life image" but emotions are obvious and very strong

Eyedesign · « **Reply #27 on:** July 07, 2010, 06:52 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on July 07, 2010, 06:34

I completely agree with you Eyedesign, but there are much better images with emotions on microstock than these we see in hot shots collection. Not everyone is taking pictures of business people and apples over white.

Agree Dreamframer that not everyone is shooting businesspeople or Apples on white, but to many people still are shooting these subjects. I like the first image from the above post but the other one looks way to fake and microstock like. Compare that one to the shot of the kid in Hot Shot and for me the hot shot image feels more real.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #28 on:** July 07, 2010, 07:23 »

Of course the image of a boy from the hot shots collection looks less like a stock image because it looks more like an ordinary images that we all have at home.
In my opinion, the picture of a boy from hot shots collection is just a snapshot of a cute boy who was about to say something, so he opened his mouth. My mom has tons of images like this with my son and my nephew as models... with very similar lighting and composition.
Maybe I could tell her to send her application to Getty.
The frog on the swing is not even funny (not to mention blue color cast that was obviously not intentional).
The dog is cute, because he made that funny confused face, but I've seen much better images of dogs dressed in a funny way....so, nothing special. Plus, it's not real life like image. The dog is in the studio over textured brownish background.

lagereek · « **Reply #29 on:** July 07, 2010, 07:34 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on July 07, 2010, 06:52

Quote from: Dreamframer on July 07, 2010, 06:34
I completely agree with you Eyedesign, but there are much better images with emotions on microstock than these we see in hot shots collection. Not everyone is taking pictures of business people and apples over white.

Agree Dreamframer that not everyone is shooting businesspeople or Apples on white, but to many people still are shooting these subjects. I like the first image from the above post but the other one looks way to fake and microstock like. Compare that one to the shot of the kid in Hot Shot and for me the hot shot image feels more real.

Yeah I agree with you Thomas, buyers dont want crap and they want images with emotions, images that convey some message, etc, I also know several buyers whos left Micro in favour of RM and RF simply because lack of creative stuff, one being an Art-buyer in one of Europes biggest AD-agencies.

To the other poster: No the bar isnt set too high at all, in fact the bar for acceptance into the files should be set even higher, getting rid of the riff-raff, etc, this easy way into the micro world is begining to give us all a bad name.

Gimmerton · « **Reply #30 on:** July 07, 2010, 09:09 »

Thanks to this post I can understand many things.

SIFD · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2010, 09:30 »

another thought, if a point and shoot snap can get sold for a couple hundred dollars (guessing), why should we be selling our carefully planned, styled and executed photos for $1 or less? we must be nuts!

lagereek · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2010, 10:03 »

Quote from: SIFD on July 07, 2010, 09:30

another thought, if a point and shoot snap can get sold for a couple hundred dollars (guessing), why should we be selling our carefully planned, styled and executed photos for $1 or less? we must be nuts!

Lets face it, for somebody who knows his stuff, can get great commercial images, the right equipment, etc, Micro is easy and good cash. This is why we sell our pics through micro, isnt it? I mean many of us easlily cash in 5K plus and much more per month. That aint too bad is it?
The problems creep in when the agencies cant handle it properly, when reviewing, keywording, etc, starts faulting and at the moment in my opinion they just accept anybody and everything as long as its generic, even dogs, cats and flowers seem to be a safer bet then a creative shot conveying a message.
Were back on the chocholate-box pics. Thats it. Its just far too much of just everything.
Only the other day I sent a client who was looking for a shot of a proper Engineer, what happens? first pages full of a guy in front of a computer and then with a silly hard-hat plonked on the head.i.e. a typical stereo model-shot which ofcourse was exactly what he didnt want, Civil-engineers do get dirty but these model guys are spotlessly clean as in a surgical theatre.

alias · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2010, 13:36 »

There are buyers for all different sorts of styles of pictures including informal snapshots. A buyer looking for a released snapshot style image wants that style.

Odd thing about the toad is that the copyright tag says 'creative commons'. I wonder whether that is a bit of legacy metadata.

ap · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2010, 15:00 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 06, 2010, 17:59

The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.

i just saw his dog's photo on one of the email newsletters i subscribe to. come to think of it, he's actually everywhere!

Artemis · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2010, 17:46 »

Quote from: ap on July 07, 2010, 15:00

Quote from: FD-regular on July 06, 2010, 17:59
The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.

i just saw his dog's photo on one of the email newsletters i subscribe to. come to think of it, he's actually everywhere!

*her*

My dog? That's neat!
I've found him back on 4 sites, but that's it.

ap · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2010, 17:49 »

he's on petplace.com's dr. jon's Dog Crazy Newsletter, advertising dr. jon's favorite pet products.

so, the dog's him and artemis is her?

Artemis · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2010, 18:11 »

Spot on

Thanks for letting me know (:

FD · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2010, 18:12 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on July 07, 2010, 06:21

Images with real impact are hard to find on the microstock sites.

iStock actively promotes those kind of shots lately. I just love the Smoked Salmon on the IS front page now... http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=13499189
If I would open a fish restaurant, this is definitively the type image I would put up framed at the entry. The impact is classy and original.

FD · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2010, 18:16 »

Quote from: ap on July 07, 2010, 17:49

so, the dog's him and artemis is her?

Artemis is a French perfume and a musketeer, one of the 3. I didn't know the stock Artemis was a she.

Artemis · « **Reply #40 on:** July 07, 2010, 19:20 »

Artemis is the greek godess of the moon and the hunt...
i think you're confused with "Aramis" from the 3 musketeers

Dreamframer · « **Reply #41 on:** July 08, 2010, 03:49 »

Yes, it's Actually Aρτεμις . She was a sister of Apollo, and a goddess of hunt, wilderness, virginity...etc.. Only later, she was recognized as "Selene", a Titaness and a goddess of Moon. In Rome she was called Diana. In other places she had different names.
There are some nice pictures of her holding a crescent moon as a bow.

click_click · « **Reply #42 on:** July 08, 2010, 07:11 »

This thread has been officially hijacked

Dreamframer · « **Reply #43 on:** July 08, 2010, 07:19 »

Quote from: click_click on July 08, 2010, 07:11

This thread has been officially hijacked

But in a nice and cute way, you have to admit

Artemis · « **Reply #44 on:** July 08, 2010, 09:19 »

Eep, sorry about that mister click_click

Back to bullfrogs on swings!

I really wonder what got into them with that one...i mean, the idea is there, but really...

click_click · « **Reply #45 on:** July 08, 2010, 11:51 »

Quote from: Artemis on July 08, 2010, 09:19

Eep, sorry about that mister click_click ...

No worries, it's ok

At least the conversation keeps going in an educational and friendly way which is rare to see in many forums these days.

Keep talking about Aramis, Artemis or Alamy if you like.

donding · « **Reply #46 on:** July 08, 2010, 11:57 »

Honestly what would a giant frog sitting on a swing with part of his legs cut off possibly be used for? Bad composition as well as commercial value. Hmmmm...maybe I need to be a reviewer..

FD · « **Reply #47 on:** July 08, 2010, 12:03 »

Quote from: Artemis on July 07, 2010, 19:20

i think you're confused with "Aramis" from the 3 musketeers

With old age, mind is the second thing to go. $:-\$

Kone · « **Reply #48 on:** July 08, 2010, 22:32 »

Hi all. I don’t want to be White Raven here but I don’t have problem with those images. Maybe boy is bit extreme.

@SIFD
Yes, we are nuts.

Suljo · « **Reply #49 on:** July 08, 2010, 23:12 »

iStock seams to be iStock anyhow.
I just waiting moment when Idiotic Lady Gaga lenses must be wannabee in iStock's vetta coljection.
Eh with they slow down rew process maybe they loose trendy crappy images like that

I think they have very very basic problems how to maintance basic site...

Dook · « **Reply #50 on:** July 09, 2010, 06:47 »

Quote from: Suljo on July 08, 2010, 23:12

iStock seams to be iStock anyhow.
I just waiting moment when Idiotic Lady Gaga lenses must be wannabee in iStock's vetta coljection.
Eh with they slow down rew process maybe they loose trendy crapty images like that
I think they have very very basic problems how to maintance basic site...

Coljection?

Is it from verb klati or what?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #51 on:** July 09, 2010, 08:00 »

Quote from: Dook on July 09, 2010, 06:47

Quote from: Suljo on July 08, 2010, 23:12
iStock seams to be iStock anyhow.
I just waiting moment when Idiotic Lady Gaga lenses must be wannabee in iStock's vetta coljection.
Eh with they slow down rew process maybe they loose trendy crapty images like that
I think they have very very basic problems how to maintance basic site...
Coljection?
Is it from verb klati or what?

lololol

Dook · « **Reply #52 on:** July 09, 2010, 12:32 »

I'm joking, of course. I love Suljo's humor a lot.

Red Dove · « **Reply #53 on:** August 17, 2010, 13:47 »

If you got the mail today my "joke" image is the hand with the number 13 lottery ticket - which I confess, was never submitted to any micro agencies because I didn't think it would make it ie technically okay but low commercial value.

I've been a slacker with Getty and only have a handful on there but this encourages me to give it more of a go....although this image hasn't sold yet.....

I know some have said they are doing nicely out of this collaboration with Flickr - would be interesting to hear any updates on recent experiences.

click_click · « **Reply #54 on:** August 17, 2010, 14:10 »

Quote from: Red Dove on August 17, 2010, 13:47

If you got the mail today my "joke" image is the hand with the number 13 lottery ticket - which I confess, was never submitted to any micro agencies because I didn't think it would make it ie technically okay but low commercial value.

I've been a slacker with Getty and only have a handful on there but this encourages me to give it more of a go....although this image hasn't sold yet.....

I know some have said they are doing nicely out of this collaboration with Flickr - would be interesting to hear any updates on recent experiences.

I wouldn't consider that image as a joke. There is a clear concept evident so no harsh judgment there.

I originally started this thread with images that I had a problem finding the conceptual approach.

Red Dove · « **Reply #55 on:** August 17, 2010, 14:19 »

Quote from: click_click on August 17, 2010, 14:10

Quote from: Red Dove on August 17, 2010, 13:47
If you got the mail today my "joke" image is the hand with the number 13 lottery ticket - which I confess, was never submitted to any micro agencies because I didn't think it would make it ie technically okay but low commercial value.

I've been a slacker with Getty and only have a handful on there but this encourages me to give it more of a go....although this image hasn't sold yet.....

I know some have said they are doing nicely out of this collaboration with Flickr - would be interesting to hear any updates on recent experiences.

I wouldn't consider that image as a joke. There is a clear concept evident so no harsh judgment there.

I originally started this thread with images that I had a problem finding the conceptual approach.

I don't consider it a joke either - but some might

I see what you're saying about some of the work on there (and agree with you) but you could apply that to any agency I guess.

click_click · « **Reply #56 on:** August 17, 2010, 14:36 »

Quote from: Red Dove on August 17, 2010, 14:19

...
I don't consider it a joke either - but some might

I see what you're saying about some of the work on there (and agree with you) but you could apply that to any agency I guess.

Well I have to admit that I'm not subscribing to any updates with other traditional agencies other than the "Hot Shots" from IS/Getty. However, it is a bit confusing to see so many "hand picked" shots from the Flickr collection while Getty itself has millions of images in their pool to pick from.

Previous Flickr "Hot Shots" had a bit of an "amateurish" touch that made me wonder about the Getty brand. Obviously Getty has reached (or surpassed) the point where it matters what content they have. Now it matters to have as much content as possible to squeeze out every penny of any image they can get their hands on.

Now the professional photographers are competing with people who (happen to take photos) didn't even plan on making money with them. It's like, why paying a plumbing company to fix my broken toilet if my neighbor who owns a wrench can also do it (for the same price)

Chadlatta · « **Reply #57 on:** September 02, 2011, 22:56 »

Quote

Now the professional photographers are competing with people who (happen to take photos) didn't even plan on making money with them. It's like, why paying a plumbing company to fix my broken toilet if my neighbor who owns a wrench can also do it (for the same price)Huh

What does it matter if a plumbing company or your neighbors fixes your pipe? The end result is that same?

Sorry for resurrecting such an old thread, but I happen to be one of the "hotshot" photographers you are all mocking. My photo is the dog with the wig.

I put a lot of thought and effort into that shot, and the many that followed. That image has made a fairly large sum of money for me. It has been on multiple book covers, used in various ad campaigns and sold as a large print for charity.

Was I or am I a professional photographer? No. Not everyone starts out as a professional. But it really doesn't matter. I, like everyone else, has the right to shoot how and what they want and do whatever they choose with those images.

I don't really know what I am trying to say here other than I have become more and more disheartened by the photography community lately. There is no support, there is only trash talking and "leave it to the pros" attitudes.

If Getty is not your thing, great....but does it really do any good to trash talk other peoples work, or is it just a way to make yourself feel better in an ever changing industry where the size of your lens or being a "pro" no longer matter.

Anyway....I just had to vent.

bunhill · « **Reply #58 on:** September 03, 2011, 03:36 »

^ great post

Who cares whether a photographer likes to call themselves a professional? Many of the world's greatest images were shot by, so called, gentlemen amateurs (but not only men) - and until recently 'professional' was something of a dirty word anyhow.

The past 25 years or so has been all about the snapshot. I very much like the Getty flickr collection.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Hot Shot Joke? (Read 22035 times)

lagereek

lagereek

microstockphoto.co.uk

vonkara

Xalanx

lagereek

lagereek

alias

Dook

Dook

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors