3 ms·
None of the images on that landing page can be achieved with only a moderately priced pro-am camera. I understand your point, but Getty's model has not been dis
by pvarangot 14y ago
None of the images on that landing page can be achieved with only a moderately priced pro-am camera. I understand your point, but Getty's model has not been disrupted and in fact they have no real competition. Getty offers professional images in a stock-like pricing model, short of agencies like AP there is no direct competition to them.
Lets go one by one on the photos on that landing page in terms of minimum equipment and people behind them... short obviously of a camera and an achieved photographer, that is already hard enough to come by and expensive but is a common factor in all images.
Katana image: model, make up, big room with stupidly expensive lamps, costume, katana, watermelon, more than one 1k/2k+ flash head.
War image: ticket to war zone, bulletproof vest, AK-47, missile launcher, missile, model/combatant. Very likely many pro camera bodies, pro to resist dust, many to have spares. You won't find a pro body there if one breaks up, unless you can loot a dead photographer.
London image: helicopter, helicopter pilot, weather controlling machine (can be replaced by an insane amount of luck or many tries and a lot of time in each one).
Guy with car hat: model, car hat, not sure if only one flash head or camera mounted strobe. I'm not sure of how much a car hat costs but I think this is the cheapest photo of the lot.
- _delirium 14y agoI agree these examples of high-end Getty photographs don't have a lot of competition, but I do think they've been losing their formerly strong grip on a wider range of middle-end stock photography, which traditionally was a big money-maker for them (and photographers) due to being high-volume. Nowadays there are a lot of alternatives for run-of-the-mill stuff like "photo of guy working at a cubicle", "photo of multi-racial group in a park smiling", "cheesecake on a plate with strawberry topping", etc.
- arethuza 14y agoAfter playing with Google Earth and its 3D buildings, I'm pretty sure the London pic is taken from Broadgate Tower. :-) NB I was curious what the low linear building in the lower center of the image is - it's the roof of Liverpool Street Station.
- GoodIntentions 14y agoNot looking for any argument here - the shots on the landing page are great examples of what Getty does and can continue doing. I agree that the serious hobbyists that feed micro stock companies those 2 dollar pictures will not compete with warzone shots, shots requiring $$$ cost in travel, props, lots of models or whatever to set up unless they happen to be professionals "double-dipping" on a paid shoot. The cash just isn't in it. The Micro-stock guys might surprise you though at how much cash they have invested in gear ( including lights ) Some of them take perfectly good photos of subjects that might previously have only been sourced more expensively through agency or in house.
- CamperBob2 14y agoYes, you're right, it would cost a lot to create the katana image by hiring a hot blonde martial-arts expert, buying or renting a katana, and rigging expensive lights in a fancy hotel ballroom. It would cost a lot to create the war image by commissioning a photojournalist to sneak professional gear into a conflict zone. Etc., etc. Or some reasonably talented kid with Blender (or a warezed copy of Maya) could knock them all out in a weekend, without spending a dime on anything not made by Domino's Pizza or the Coca-Cola Company. If not now, then soon.
- rdl 14y agoYou can do war zone photography for $10k or so in gear. It's really just the opportunity cost of a skilled photographer going.