Oh, there is one of Andres Rodriguez's, too - with Andres himself in the picture!!! Would be funny if it wasn't so annoying.

I'd say that Getty will simply shut down StockXpert and any others they buy that compete with IS.  But they won't do it in a day, because they don't want to lose customers. The whole idea is to take down these sites in stages while herding all their existing customers over to IS.   

I totally agree. They will NOT fold StockXpert into Istock - they encourage contributors to "start building portfolios" on Istock. If they were adding StockXpert to their collection that would not be necessary. They will eventually just close it down, since there is no point in marketing 2 different micro-sites with similar collections, it's confusing for customers.  And yes, they don't want to do it abruptly since they want all StockXpert customers to switch over to Istock. Would be silly to let them go to Fotolia instead. However, they made opting in for Jupiter subs ridiculously difficult  - you literally have to add each single file, there is no "select all" option. Well, maybe there is one for exclusives:)

I had the same thought - it's a greenhouse:) Not that there is anything wrong with it - the light should be great, especially with those hanging light-diffusing panels instead of ceiling. Top diffused light makes everything look so nice. Thanks for sharing Yuri - that's pretty neat. Although, for me 2 white walls and 3 lights still works fine:), but every kid has a right to have all they toys they want, why not.

When I started this topic all I wanted to find out if it's worth participating in Getty's "Photographer's Choice" collection and paying placement fees for images. I also promised to report my experience, which I did truthfully. I do not like being asked for my credit card info upfront before I even decide to pay for something or being charged erroneously, I don't think anyone does. However, I offer no opinion on Getty as a company or give anyone advice to participate or not. My own opinion is that at this point I don't consider "PC" a good way to expand my business. It would either take too long or too much money to build considerable presence there. Case closed:)

Well I am not saying Getty is bad for everyone, I am sure there are people who make very nice money with them. I am speaking for myself and this "Photographer's choice" collection. Let's do some simple math. Let's say I submitted 10 images for free. It will take them 2 month just to online.  When you sell one, Getty allows to to submit another one for free only next quarter (!), and only once (i.e. if the same image sells again, no "freebie" this time). So, in a year I can only submit 10 more for free if every single image sells. Now after a year I have 20, after 2 years 40, after 3 years 80 and so on. That is without investing any money in it. If I reinvest all the money I make on Getty back into placing images with them, I can submit some more images, so maybe I'll get to 200-300 in 3 years (and not see a penny of profit meanwhile). Remember all the images have to be exclusive to them, too. So, after 3 years I have 300 images with Getty if I am giving them my best images and also get extremely lucky. Now - wow, I have a potential of making what? about 750 dollars a month (if I am making $50/month with 20 images).
That is after 3 years of making nothing. Keep in mind, images have their own "shelf life" and 3 years is probably half of it (unless you're shooting landscapes, but then forget about these kind of sales). So some of them will "go out of style" and will stop selling.
Now let's say I submit the same 300 excellent images to microstock or other non-exclusive "mids" and "macros". They will start earning me money right away, and by the end of 3 years each of them will easily generate more than 300 dollars. (300*300)/36 month = 2500 per month. No waiting. Plus, I have freedom to submit more images and hit some unexpected bestsellers, which happens quite often. 
So, my conclusion is that "photographers' choice" placement is not a good way for me to make money. It maybe good for someone who doesn't produce a lot if images, and doesn't rely on stock for income. I don't care if I can make twice as much per image on getty than on micros if my monthly total is 50 bucks:) or even a 1000 for that matter, I have bills to pay:)
I know you can say I can make more with good images on Getty, but if I am not able to submit large number of images in reasonable time without investing ridiculous amounts of money, I still don't get the income I need. Would be different story if they weren't exclusive, but they are.
Now if you're invited to shoot for some other Getty's collections, that's a different story. But I heard it's practically impossible to get into that these days if you're an outsider.

 I just spent some time browsing through their collection. There are some good images there. Most of them though seem to be really overprocessed  - from blurs and color oversaturation to really darkening the image by screwing up the histogram. Which in some cases does achieve some dramatic effect. However, I don't think quality is even a consideration here, at least in traditional sense. It looks like the entire collection is about this darkened oversaturated oversharpened look which I heard is quite in vogue right now. So, some advice for people who want their photos choosen - move levels sliders way over to the right, same with saturation, apply even more dark around the corner of the image, them apply and blend in about 5 layers of gaussian blur and you have big chance to be selected! ;-)
I also saw quite a few classic microstock staples. And a lot of pet pictures, some of them a good, some ... well just pet pictures:)
Some stuff is plain weird. Not "wow weird", just ... strange. I am too lazy to post some here, there are some real "gems" over there , but you can always go enjoy them for yourselves:http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx/1/creative?brands=fkm,fkf,fks#

I remember a while ago big macros were trying to distinguish themselves from microstock by saying that they have good quality and micro stuff is crap. I guess it doesn't work anymore - quality standards on micro are ridiculously fierce, I wish the guys had some common sense and stopped this nonsense. But microstock quality is pretty good these days. So now the macros have to come up with something different - like stocking up some really creative shots and who cares about quality:)

It looks like what Getty is trying to do is to stock up some really unusual images - the price also makes sense, too - if you're looking for unusual, you should be prepared to pay a lot. Which makes sense, they have to offer something different to survive the competition with micros. Be prepared though, your quirky stuff may never sell, since there are not that many buyers that look for very unusual. On the other hand, if it just sits on flickr and not earning anything, it's much better to have it sitting on Getty:)

I wish microstock admins allowed more creative stuff in, why not have it - really dudes hard drive space is dirt cheap these days. And yes, a closeup of some guys's front in underpants with cooked spagetti stuffed into them (Creative (RF) #85153696 Flickr) is not going to sell as many times as one of Yuri's business teams, but again - why not have it? Maybe someone will need it someday, although really I can't imagine what for:)

this is interesting - they are browsing Flickr for images to add to their collection?... boy they must be desperate...:-)

I agree - placement fee is something I can not get my mind around. I don't think I'll pay anything at all - maybe submit these 10 free images and see how it will go... so far I am quite unimpressed though. I submitted a couple of images - just as a test run. About a month to review. Then they appear with no relevant keywords. Apparently, they take another month to add keywords. They are in complete control of keywords, some that appeared are not even relevant. These guys are not in a rush anywhere. Emailed contributor relationship twice with some questions, no reply. Support form on the site does have a person on the other end, so at least that was helpful. I learned that I can not remove the images that have been accepted ever - "under no circumstances". Nice. You pay 50 bucks, then if they just sit there, you can't even remove and sell somewhere else. Not even after some time.
Placement fee goes on top of all the production costs of an image - I wonder how they think photographers will make money, providing they have lowered their prices and introduced "high volume", i.e. subscription, sales model.
So, am having second thoughts about participating at all. Like I said, maybe those free ten... the thing is, a good image can bring me hundreds on microstock, so by taking it out I'll be actually losing money... 

What is the search results order? It seems no matter which subject I search for, especially people related,  I get images from Yuri Arcurs portfolio first:) Does your relevance search go something like this: "show whatever matches from Yuri's porfolio and then everything else"?:-) His stuff is good, no question, but what about the rest of us? I don't think I will be able to sell anything if my images consistently show up on page 25...

I looked at the White Lightning series, which is also Paul C. Buff (same as AlienBees), I really like their X1600 flash unit. I like the ability to adjust to lower powers if needed. It's a bit more expensive than B1600, about $100 difference, but I think this is going to be the one... This thread has been very helpful, thanks everyone for your inputs.
I also think that Profoto is a bit overpriced, I mean it looks like it's an excellent lighting system, but it seems to me that at least part of that price you are paying for a brand name. I liked the Mercedes analogy - it's an excellent car, but the price difference does not directly correspond to the quality difference. That's my impression, at least for now:)   

grp_photo, you are right, I should be comparing similar lights from Profoto and AlienBees. Need a more detailed look at the specs....

The price difference is quite substantial. So, does anyone know what Profoto strobes are doing better than, say, AlienBees B1600? Is the difference just power and recycling time (and AB1600 looks quite powerful and fast enough to me), or there is something else? What kind of shoot would require Profoto  strobes and why ABs won't work in that case?
Thanks in advance for your comments!
Elena.