| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2006 12:07:13 AM · #1 |
| Anyone know how what the requirements are to be accepted at Getty? Is it hard to get in? |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 12:10:29 AM · #2 |
As far as I know Corbis and Getty are two of the top stock agencies. I believe you have to be a pro photographer just to apply. I'm sure their website has more information here
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 12:19:00 AM · #3 |
[...]We are committed to recruiting professional photographers and illustrators, who have a proven ability to produce this content.
As a Professional Photographer or Illustrator, you will be at home with interpreting creative briefs to produce contemporary, relevant images for your own clients; and you will be expected to bring original ideas to the image production dialogue and process.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:20:23 AM · #4 |
check this thread out for some info here
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 08:16:43 AM · #5 |
thanks a lot everyone.
So it sounds like you have to shoot for their clients? They tell you what to shoot? Can you just submit to their library whenever you want? |
|
|
|
10/27/2006 01:50:50 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
10/27/2006 02:08:00 PM · #7 |
Getty has a sense of humor...but apparently they like the iStockphoto model better (they boght Istock 8 months ago).
New getty OPEN model is like iStock's
During a gloomy conference call Tuesday overshadowed by disappointing third-quarter earnings and falling sales volumes, Getty CEO Jonathan Klein revealed that the company is developing a new system that will let all qualified professional photographers submit their images to Getty for distribution.
"This is not based on something we're smoking," Klein said. "This is something we're already doing with iStockPhoto."
See, a sense of humor...perhaps gallows humor?
Despite its success, owning iStockPhoto puts Getty Images in the odd spot of offering high-resolution royalty-free images for $5 through one site and at an average price of $248 across its other brands.
Klein predicted that it will be some time before iStockPhoto amounts to even 10 percent of Getty's revenue.
Their 2006 revenue is expected to be $800 million.
So is microstock for you?
80 mill vs 720 mill in sales, $5 vs $248....
Message edited by author 2006-10-27 14:11:11.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2006 02:19:58 PM · #8 |
I have a friend that is a salary based photographer for Getty...he does red carpets and parties...I envy him. They pay for his equipment and send him all over the place...obviously I know you are looking more for the stock site, but just thought I would make others jealous along side of me.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2006 09:14:10 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by TomFoolery:
I have a friend that is a salary based photographer for Getty...he does red carpets and parties...I envy him. They pay for his equipment and send him all over the place...obviously I know you are looking more for the stock site, but just thought I would make others jealous along side of me. |
Red carpets are disgusting affairs that place you in the middle of many paparazzi style shooters all yelling the most ridiculous shit you can imagine at the celebrities walking by in an effort to get them to look into their lens.
I shot for getty for a year when I was 18. It was pretty horrible to do the red carpet stuff.
They brought me on board to shoot concerts and would ask me to do a few random gigs like red carpets. It was lame.
They took crazy advantage of me as a kid too. Buyouts, without explaining what a buyout is.
I managed to change the terms to get a 50.50 split on licensing from my images, but that was only for a month before they restructured the LA offices.
I haven't worked with them since and I'm 24 now.
It was pretty easy to shoot for them. I just set up a meeting with the person in charge, showed my work, and they would give me some assignments while i would submit my own work from the concerts I wanted to attend.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2006 10:00:06 PM · #10 |
| there's a big difference between getty for stock and getty for editorial. |
|
|
|
11/18/2006 10:25:50 PM · #11 |
Would you be so kind as to share the insights of these differences?
Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 12:39:37 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by OLD_HENRY:
Would you be so kind as to share the insights of these differences?
Thanks. |
Both end up going into Getty's image bank of stock images... I've just noticed they have separate libraries.
Editorial shots have a higher demand but a shorter shelf life. These images are to be used for editorial only (news worthy articles). The value therefore is determined by the exclusivity of the images, not the usage.
Stock for stock generally has less demand because there are so many more photographs of similar subjects but in a sense has a longer shelf life. These images have more usage allowed because you should be supplying a model release. The usage is what determines the price for the images here.
Those are the differences that I can determine.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/26/2024 05:44:31 PM EDT.
