This thread is so "high school." 

Whoa!! so the new Canon 24-70 II does not have Image Stabilization? It was listed as such on B&H web site. Not now. So Canon is selling the new lens for about $700 more and no IS?  

I personally hated my 24-70 due to all the Chromatic Aberration and sold it and got the 24-105 with IS. I tested both side by side and the choice was clear.

I was hoping to snag the new over-priced 24/70 II with IS after testing the CA. Would love to have f/2.8.

Amazed they are selling that reworked lens for about the price of a new 5D Mark II.  

Quote from: oxman on May 27, 2012, 19:21

Also, if you are not bringing strobes and stands, be prepared for the nightmare of the available fluorescent lighting. With GOOD available light expect 400+ iso, f/2.8 at 1/60/. And still you may have to push the exposure in PS or LR and hope the noise does not kill it. And then there are color temperature issues.

Good luck

Wow, where can you get that EV? Inside a fridge? (at least in EU there usually are extra lights in fridges) In reality I think it's more like ISO 1600-3200 at f2.8 and 1/60. Not to mention that shutter speed doesn't allow virtually any movement, everything has to be shot static. Strobes are a must. Because agencies give you a hard time if you upload full res ISO 320 5D2 shots, unless there are no dark areas.

Actually yesterday I did an undercover reconnaissance EV mission at the local grocery store and pulled those number from my few "decent" exposures. Those were from shooting the vegetable fridge displays so yeah, kinda in the fridge . Your ISO is probably accurate but I was afraid to go there. I submitted some pepper shots to IS so I will see if this will work.

But I walked away fully convinced  that it is pretty much a waste of time and trouble without strobes and permissions and after hours access etc. Sean is the master of these kind of shots. There is only one way to shoot them... the right way. And if you walk into 99% of the stores and ask to take photos you will get, "We don't allow cameras in the store".

BBDO does great work. Nike. FedEx.

Interesting that their Brazilian office created that.

I'd like to know when it will run and where. Stock photography is a niche market so media buys would have to be to specific demographics. It might be a viral campaign but for what Getty paid for that, I would think it would be for national or international television broadcasts.

That spot is one minute but most media buys are for 30-second spots so they will have to edit it in half. What is odd is that it does not send the viewer to the website or even shows the web address. It is more a corporate image campaign. Sure, it is cool but feels incomplete or not working hard enough. I'd like to hear a voice-over like the "Think Different" Apple spots telling Getty's story in a subtle way.

Just guessing but I suspect that Getty is doing a front-load, awareness campaign to create buzz for an IPO. Hence, the lack of .com on that final tag. After the Facebook IPO disaster, Getty does not want to be caught in the anti .com sentiment.

I only wish they had created that for iStockPhoto.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5
This one from March 2011 sold over 50 times.  I think you didn't do your search right.

Do a search by FILE AGE in Agency Collection. Lemme know what you see

LOL
thx sean


ox

Quote from: pancaketom on May 09, 2012, 16:24

I am a rock climber and as far as I can tell the best selling rock climbing picture on SS is completely laughable as far as rock climbing goes. So having knowledge and access isn't necessarily what is required.

You are right. But I personally wouldn't spend time shooting images that are "wrong", it just doesn't make sense because everything could be done "correctly" just by asking some specialist or by googling around.

We also don't know if a portion of buyers have noticed that the rock climbing pictures look "wrong" and they have searched for better ones, maybe even contacting a macrocstock site or some rock climbing photographer to get the needed images. We just don't know it. We only know that many of the buyers are totally clueless

About six months ago I designed a trade show exhibit for a tech company. They wanted a rock or ice climber for a metaphor concept. I sent them to iStock and they said the selection was pathetic and fake. They headed to Corbis and Getty RF and RM and bought from Getty RM. Price was not a concern.

 Point - marketing managers and CEOs are not stupid. There are many more pragmatic and shrewd buyers out there than some here assume. Most of my clients fall into this group when it comes to images used in marketing.

LOL... this has to be a new IS approval record. I just uploaded an image from a group of test shots...  and exactly 13 minutes later I got the Acceptance email. Cool 

What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.

This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.

Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.

I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.

The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept.

Quote from: oxman on April 30, 2012, 01:32

Quote from: lagereek on April 30, 2012, 00:55

[Micro came along, for better or worse and made it possible for millions, the monopoly was broken, add to that, todays buyers are not your AD, at an advertising agency and that todays buyers are far from quality conscious with very little money in the pockets.

In your opinion...what is the profile of today's buyers?

I recon its made up of smaller one-man band designer operations, webb, homepages, non creative buyers, etc. They dont need to spend hundereds or thousands on a shot, what for? here, Micro came along and made it possible for the little guy to get a picky, which really is a good thing I suppose.

I mean, if you take the big sites, like, SS, IS, DT, FT, we do scream and complain when things arent going our way but they are actually providing a nice and healthy side-income, arent they.

I would add to that, all the small boutique design firms and advertising agencies which make up the majority of creative web, print and branding design in small  towns and many major cities. The large firms with big-budget national accounts of course will hire the specialized professional photographer (who hates microstock). Also, the marcom and product managers at mid-sized tech and manufacturing companies ($10 million plus annual billing) are fully hip to iStock and ShutterStock from my experience. They cringe at buying from Corbis of Getty due to the high prices, and licensing issues. Macro stock is an antiquated business model now that microstock has matured and gained mind share. The perceived value proposition cannot be denied. Over the past 15 years, I have had only one of my branding clients purchase a photo from Getty when they could not find an image at IS or SS.

Of the various fields of commercial photography, do you feel micro-stock has the most stringent technical standards?

Macro-stock appears to me to be less technically demanding according to the images I have purchased over the past 20 years. Weddings, corporate work, PR, newspapers etc� all have non-technical buyers, for the most part so noise, artifact, CA and such is not as critical as in micro-stock.

Perhaps, photo book publishers, national magazines and advertising art directors set the bar up high� but are the micro-stock inspectors consistently the toughest?
Your thoughts?

OX

I've used a mouse for ages and bought a tablet to test it. It was like my fingers were on ice wearing roller skates. I took it back and am therefore a life long mouser.

keep your receipt.

ox