PDA

View Full Version : No Olympus for Getty?


Haisbro
27th March 2008, 06:03 PM
I wonder why Olympus cameras are not accepted by Getty Images. Most reviews have the E3 as the same image quality as the D300 so why is it not accepted?

Here's the list

If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Canon EOS: 1D(Mk1,2&3), 1DS(Mk1,2,2n&3) 5D, 30D and 40D; Nikon: D2X, D2Xs, D3, D200, D300 and the Leica M8.


Any ideas folks

David

DTD
27th March 2008, 06:09 PM
Some picture libraries specified cameras because of resolution. Also to discourage/weed out amateurs with compacts. All the list are seen as 'professional'. They're probably used to working with files from the cameras they specify.

Ian
27th March 2008, 06:29 PM
I wonder why Olympus cameras are not accepted by Getty Images. Most reviews have the E3 as the same image quality as the D300 so why is it not accepted?

Here's the list

If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Canon EOS: 1D(Mk1,2&3), 1DS(Mk1,2,2n&3) 5D, 30D and 40D; Nikon: D2X, D2Xs, D3, D200, D300 and the Leica M8.


Any ideas folks

David

My understanding is that the E-3 has been approved by Getty, but the public list is not up to date.

Fundamentally, if you have a great image, would they turn it down because it's not from a camera they have tested? I don't think so.

Ian

Haisbro
27th March 2008, 07:06 PM
I have often thought that camera tests should include a bit of info as to how the image from a particular camera can be used. "Professional" is such a wide term, if you said for instance the E3 produced image that was accepted by one of the world leading libraries then it would make more sense to the consumer than podiums and scores that are presently used. I did have the AP review in mind when i was researching Getty policy on suitable cameras.

David

shenstone
27th March 2008, 10:45 PM
Some picture libraries specified cameras because of resolution. Also to discourage/weed out amateurs with compacts. All the list are seen as 'professional'. They're probably used to working with files from the cameras they specify.

I think this is the main reason.

The same libraries were accepting 6 Mp digital images when that was the state of the art a few years ago.

I've had pics from my 500 and 510 published, but only through direct dealings with magazines and newspapers so it's not technological issue. My Wife had a 2Mp picture published as a near 1/4 page on a broadsheet so that shows what newspaper technology can do.

As far as I can see it's purely to keep the number of registered photographers down and ensure that the market is protected i.e. keep "exclusivity" in the brand name. In that if you can afford to upgrade every year because it's a business expense and a tax write off / VAT free then you can play... Otherwise .. revolve !

Regards
Andy

DTD
27th March 2008, 11:26 PM
The library I contributed to doesn't specify cameras, but they do have minimum file sizes which are way beyond what my E-1 produces. Images had to be scaled up using pxl SmartScale or Genuine Fractals. Scanned negs were fine size-wise though.

As I understand it, the thing about file size is so a client knows any image they like can be used at say A3 at 300ppi. A library like Getty which charges a lot, has to ensure quality is at a high level, microstock libraries attract a different cliental, some accept any image submitted and compete by charging next to nothing – I don't think any of the photographers make much money from them.

Pjphoto59
31st March 2008, 07:53 PM
I submit a lot of images to Alamy. Their requirements are 48MB files (open), their recommendation is a minimum 6M pixel "professional" camera.

I have had several hundred E1 pictures accepted, but recently I have had a number of failures for "interpolation artifacts".

I think that although the quality requirements have not been changed, the QC people are increasingly used to seeing images from hi res cameras, and hence fail my E1 stuff.

I am waiting for a combination of more Alamy sales to raise the money plus price reduction for the E3 to make it affordable. Meantime I am working away with my E500.

Peter

Haisbro
1st April 2008, 06:33 AM
I submit a lot of images to Alamy. Their requirements are 48MB files (open), their recommendation is a minimum 6M pixel "professional" camera.

I have had several hundred E1 pictures accepted, but recently I have had a number of failures for "interpolation artifacts".

I think that although the quality requirements have not been changed, the QC people are increasingly used to seeing images from hi res cameras, and hence fail my E1 stuff.

I am waiting for a combination of more Alamy sales to raise the money plus price reduction for the E3 to make it affordable. Meantime I am working away with my E500.

Peter

I found myself in the same position, i took my E1 to Scotland this time last year and most have been rejected. Anything with vegetation fails QC, rocks and water OK. I bought the E410 as a standby for a trip to Turkey in October and the majority of these images accepted. Its a handy second camera that my better half has got her eyes on.:eek:

David

shenstone
1st April 2008, 07:40 PM
I submit a lot of images to Alamy. Their requirements are 48MB files (open), their recommendation is a minimum 6M pixel "professional" camera.
...
Peter

I'm interested in this - to get a 48Mb compressed JPEG I need to size my E-510 images up by a large factor ( they are about 29Mb Uncompressed - this doesn't add any detail, it just fragments the detail that is in the picture and adds artifacts.

What are these people trying to get to or what am I missing ?

Regards
Andy

250swb
1st April 2008, 09:13 PM
What are these people trying to get to or what am I missing ?

Well E3 files are accepted by Getty, but the basic reason they have for wanting a certain minimum file size is so customers know without searching the small print that all the images presented are suitable for a wide variety of use.

An E510 TIFF without any changes to resolution is 57Mb, so that should be good enough for most picture libraries/agencies. But upping the resolution is also possible in software such as Genuine Fractals, and even Photoshop is getting better at this. It obviously can't add something directly from the scene you shot, but it does convincingly up the resolution by using algorithms to insert 'missing' pixels as the image file is enlarged.

Pjphoto59
9th April 2008, 09:33 PM
I found myself in the same position, i took my E1 to Scotland this time last year and most have been rejected. Anything with vegetation fails QC, rocks and water OK. I bought the E410 as a standby for a trip to Turkey in October and the majority of these images accepted. Its a handy second camera that my better half has got her eyes on.:eek:

David

Just shot 10 pics today with the E1, and uploaded them to Alamy. If they pass then I will keep the E1 as a spare and for rainy days. If they fail, no more E1 pics for Alamy. I don't have too many problems with my E500, just that I really like the handling of the E1 and especially the viewfinder (FS2 screen). The E410/E510 are not a worthwhile upgrade from the E500, their viewfinders are just as bad. I may get an E3 eventually but the price will need to fall a lot!

Pjphoto59
9th April 2008, 09:44 PM
I'm interested in this - to get a 48Mb compressed JPEG I need to size my E-510 images up by a large factor ( they are about 29Mb Uncompressed - this doesn't add any detail, it just fragments the detail that is in the picture and adds artifacts.

What are these people trying to get to or what am I missing ?

Regards
Andy

If you uprez the picture to 4800 x 3600 pixels it gives a 49.4MP result (open). the resulting JPEG is usually 8 - 12 MB, according to how much detail it contains.

Why does Alamy ask you to do this? Because they make the rules! Many, maybe most, of the pictures they sell will be downsized before use.

However requiring pictures a minimum size (it gives about 16" x 12" at 300dpi) makes sense for the quality control people who only have one size to judge the acceptability or otherwise of the files.