Getty Images Insane Digital Camera Requirements

Hi,

 

I was looking to submit some images to Getty and when I read the following

requirement, I was quite taken aback:

 

"If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from

this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK

11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by

Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted

by us."

 

They must be insane. I shoot RAW on a 400xti and my images I?m looking to

submit are of high quality. Can they seriously use such a blanket statement and

exclude photographers without one of these cameras? I guess the answer is yes,

but this seems mad.

 

My question is this, Can I alter the EXIF data on the image to say that my

images were taken on one of these "elite" cameras, or do I need to wait until I

get a 5D and then start from scratch with no work?

 

Thanks!

it is crappy, they just do it to weed people out. I have a D200 and I doubt I'll ever offer any images to Getty

Do they specify what colour the camera should be?

Wesley -

 

While I do agree with you that the camera shouldn't matter, but at the end of the day, Getty is a business and can make whatever rules they want to. Looking at the list, The Nikon D40, D40x, D50, and D80 aren't there either. Which to me says that they are trying (incorrectly) to screen out "amateurs" by refusing images from consumer quality cameras.

 

I believe that you can edit the EXIF data, but doing so would be unethical and probably would be discovered by Getty. Given that they have been among the firms that were burned by photographers manipulating their images (adding things, doing composites, etc...) their radar is probably on super sensitive right now and if anything looks out of the ordinary they would detect it.

 

If I understand you correctly, you have a lot of images, so my suggestion would be to look at some of the other agencies and find one that doesn't have the camera requirements that Getty does.

 

Dave

I agree with David's first paragraph. In the digital era, images are not an scarce good anymore, they are more near to be a commodity. So offer-demand rules are governing the market: too many images allow big buyers like Getty to choose among those people who can assure them the most professional, better quality images. A way to achieve that is to get them from the user of more expensive cameras, buyed mostly by dedicated photographers.

 

Like it or not, that's the way things are going on nowadays.

Many folks will never like rules. Once a 4x5 was considered a minimum and 35mm not acceptable.

I think it's really not accurate to believe that photographs are either "commodities" or "commodity-like".There are certain people in the business of marketing photography who want photographers to beleive that as a way of subtly making photographers feel weaker in the negotiation process of licensing and selling photographs, and they would like that idea to be a commonly accepted axiom, but it is very far from being true.

 

You don't have to drink their punch.

I'm with Kelly on this one. Before the days of digital, the rules were set with films and formats. Now with digital, it's camera models. It's the same idea though; trying to reduce initial submissions to a manageable number.

 

In a brutally competitive industry, you can set the bar amazingly high and still have plenty to work with.

It's not like Getty (or Corbis) or the micro-stock agencies are the only way to get photographs into the marketplace.

 

If you don't want the hassle of setting up the marketing and distribution infrastructure try either http://www.photoshelter.com or http://www.digitalrailroad.com as alternate marketplaces.

 

I went to a Digital Railroad (Drr) presentation last night and going through Drr the photographer gets around 85% of the licensing fee as opposed to 30% from Getty.

 

Dan Heller in his blog and his books (http://www.danheller.com) has some pretty cogent arguments as to why Getty's business structure is very profoundly flawed.

 

Back to Wesley's original post in which he writes:

 

"(The) images I'm looking to submit are of high quality."

 

There's a difference between high technical quality, and high image (content + idea + aesthetic) quality. Images from higher resolution cameras can be used larger and in higher end usages --which yield more financial return for the same amount of effort on the part of the agencies.

 

There is also the very real work of adding the right keywords and other meta-data to make your photos more findable. Good, intelligent, and concept relevant keywording adds real marketplace value to an image.

 

While I have no idea as to whether or not Wesley's photos also fulfill those criteria, my guess is that the vast majority of people shooting with DSLRs bodies that cost $1000 or less just aren't cognizant of those factors and they probably aren't investing in high end lenses either. In that regard Kelly and Brian are probably right on the money about why Getty (and Corbis) see that as a criteria: they want to see a minimum investment of capital on the part of the photographer who submits work. Getty and Corbis also these days tend not to be very interested in taking on new photographers unless those photographers produce in great volume and work out all of the conceptual & metaphorical possibilities in a set of shots. So yes, I think the camera standards appear arbitrary but there's some kind of logical premise at work behind their criteria, even if the outcome of that logic --filtering out talent -- is very flawed.

I nmy last post I inserted the wrong URl for Digital Raod.

 

The correct URL is http://www.digitalrailroad.net

Geety's reasoning could be very simple, like below:

 

You need to use capable and expensive camera so there are better chances that you are serious about photography.

 

It is all about your commitment to the photography subject, and how much efforts you devote, as well as money, or how serious you are about the photography. With stronger commitment chances are that you will devote more time to master the craft. If you spend a lot of money, better chances are that you are committed to take good pictures.

reminds me of then post about the bride who insisted on digital only

because "film cameras use chemicals"

 

suppose you had a better camera that was not listed

would you then be rejected

maybe a nikon d3 or a kodak dcs.

<i>It's not like Getty (or Corbis) or the micro-stock agencies are the only way to get photographs into the marketplace.</i>

 

<p>

 

That's certainly true, but the average Getty photographer still makes much more than the average self-marketed photographer. To put it in perspective, my <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">stock photography website</a> has more traffic than *any* individual photographer site, yet my income from licensing is not considerably more than the *average* Getty photographer.

By the way, Getty's requirements seem fairly reasonable to me. Remember this is a market where images command regularly above $1000.

Well, it?s been an interesting and somewhat informative thread, so thank you all for contributing.

 

Funny how photographers still keep searching for that golden bullet and think spending money directly correlates to better images. I regularly print fine art quality photos at 3 feet (100cm) wide or more without issue with the 400D. I?d imagine CMYK billboards would require much less detail.

I?ll check out those agencies, by the way, or maybe I?ll just change my EXIF data. I don�t really see any ethical issues there. Any tips on how to do that would be appreciated.

Wesley:

 

Why would you risk doing something unethical just to get into an agency? You would have

to sign a contract with Getty to get in and I'm fairly sure that manipulating EXIF data could

be constructed as contract violation and who knows what you potentially would expose

yourself to from the Getty legal team. To me it just isn't worth it. Like others have said,

Getty is a business and they set whatever rules they feel like for contributors. I'm sure that

if your images are outstanding, they'll sign you on no matter what you shoot with - send a

portfolio in and see what they say.

 

As have been said in other posts, there are plenty of agencies out there.

 

I don't think many photographers who actually shoot for a living think that better gear will

somehow make better photographs. I think this is much more common among wealthy

"wannabees" who shoot on a part-time basis and are, generally speaking, more interested

in seeing their work in print than actually making money from their photography.

 

Also, remember that the client often dictates what they want to buy/license. If a client says

they're only interested in images shot on a digital Hasselblad for their national campaign,

that is certainly their right. To me it almost sounds like you're saying that your "rights" as

a photographer should somehow over-rule their "rights" as a client. Very often, there's no

educated reason why a client wants things a certain way, and we as photographers an

argue about how a file from a 40D might be technically as good as a file from a 1D. What

it comes down to is if the client specifies that they want only images made with a 1D, then

so be it.

"maybe I'll just change my EXIF data. I don't really see any ethical issues there. "

 

Beyond breach of contract & fraud I can't either. I think their legal department is lot bigger than yours.

 

BTW: they have other methods of detecting such fraud, They didn't get wealthy and powerful by being stupid.

 

 

Of course I'm left wondering why you are so eager to sign with Getty. Have you ever actually read their contract? Have you had a lawyer explain their terms to you? Have you paid attention to the ever increasing squeeze play they put on photographers in terms of decreasing royalty payments?

A couple of years ago Getty bought my main agency Bavaria here in Germany. I did not sign the contract because it was a very unfair contract. They play unfair games with your royalties. I do never get more than 25% of the original payments because they go the internal partneragency-way. I left them 14 pics from the Bavaria catalogue and I am happy not doing more business than that with them.

Just my 2 cent.

Greetings

Peter

The moral is that if you plan to sell images in mainstream channels, don't waste your time using a camera that is perceived (rightfully or not) as inferior. The cost of a "professional grade" camera is very little compared to the time you need to invest to produce great images.

Just to clarify: Neither Digital Railroad or PhotoShelter are stock agencies.

Thank you all, this has been quite informative. I guess Mikael is somewhat right, although his saying that if my images are good, they'd want them in the first place, which is what I meant by not seeing an ethical issue with it, truly, if the images are 1) desired and 2) of sufficient quality despite not being taken by what is considered "professional".

 

As for breach of contract, sure I'd have to see if that rule is actually in the contract and do more research, so point taken.

 

I'm planning on purchasing the 5D in about two months, so it's not so much that I am being stubborn or unwilling to take my photography to the next technical level, but rather the frustration with having to discard all that I've shot over the past 3 years and start from scratch.

 

I'll keep fishing and best of luck to you all.

Getty is going down. They're earnings drop every quarter and have gone through more ceo's in 2 years than I can mention. Also, you have no control over the price or collection you submit to. I've been sending everything lately to mp.photoshelter.com. 70% royalties on all sales and being a part of something new is nice. Stay away from microstock as the shots get sold for crap and then you get a percent of that crap.

 

And ellis, photoshelter opens their doors as a stock agency as of the 12th of this month. I've been prepping and uploading shots there for the last month. mp.photoshelter.com oh and you get to pick your own price, RF or RM, can submit more alternative and artistic works there. Imagine Stone + on Getty without all the strobes everywhere.

Oh and as far as cameras go, agencies tend to do that as most "pros" don't use xti's to shoot their work. And they're getty so they can be choosey. So many people want to submit there due to a huge brand name.

Getty?

Corbis?

Not me!

 

Guess some have not been keeping up with what's going on lately.

 

And, ... pros don't shoot with Xti's?

I'll leave that comment alone!