My proof:
“Finding the right image just got easier,” because we have giant effing eyeballs.
-
« Home
-
Categories
A Photo Editor
Former Photography Director Rob Haggart
My proof:
“Finding the right image just got easier,” because we have giant effing eyeballs.
Comments 34
I noticed that and thought it looked strange too! “Let’s make all our subjects look like they’re on drugs”… Not really sure why they’ve done this!
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 6:57 am ¶Perhaps they are watching the company earnings….
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 7:04 am ¶awful. reminds me of those steve madden ads that were all over new york subways a few years ago.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 7:30 am ¶I’ve been with Getty since the Tony Stone years. When I saw the new web site, I shrugged and thought to myself, Getty got another group of twenty-somethings made-up of wanna-be art directors/designers/photoshop stoners/Full-Throttle-Mountain Dew-Red Bull drinking caffeine flushed omnipotent tools who think they are too cool for their own good and came up with this concept.
Or, maybe it is the look of all those Getty contributors (me included) who can’t believe the the tally on the royalty statement. All those six and seven dollar totals really add up after a while. (Of course, this is after Getty has raked off their seventy to eight percent and I paid the initial $50 for submission to Photographers Choice.)
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:05 am ¶now we need an anonymous Getty Insider – “A Getty Art Director”
he/she can comment about new upcoming business models like where Getty pays the magazines to use our photographs and charges back the photographer for the exposure – it could be called the “Tax Liability Offset Imagery Collection.”
Better come up with a better name though – something sexier.
How about the “No Reason to Drive Slow Just Because Your Lost Image Collection”
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:05 am ¶A campaign “inspired” by the love-child of Loretta Lux and Chris Scarborough?
http://www.scarboy.net/photo.html
http://www.lorettalux.de
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:19 am ¶Hey maybe this ties into your other post about padded client lists. How much would I pay Getty to pay Kathy Ryan to run a stock image of mine? How much would I pay Getty to pay Kathy Ryan to run an image of mine with a good-sized horizontal photo credit?
Imagine my client list if I paid Getty to pay you to run an image of mine.
Hey maybe we’re onto something here.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:34 am ¶Hey you guys, the enlarged eyeball thing is a visual trend. Haven’t you noticed it before? Isn’t it visually acceptable?
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:56 am ¶Some facts:
1. This is what happens when you fire your entire creative department.
2. They would never put a photographer’s choice image on their splash page – they shuttle “undesirable” photographers into PC because they’re not legally allowed to drop their contracts. They favor wholly owned content and their sales staff generally pushes commissioned content first.
3. They don’t hire 20 somethings as editors. 20 somethings are not as afraid of unemployment as the 30 somethings Getty hires and keeps frightened with the occasional round of random layoffs.
4. Getty hires 20-somethings straight out of art school to shoot wholly owned work for hire pictures.
5. Getty still uses the term “edgy” to describe their collection. That’s so 90s.
6. An all-digital-workflow encourages bad photoshop decisions.
7. Getty = Enron
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:15 am ¶Yup, there’s a fine line between cute/kitsch (Lux) and awful (Getty).
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:15 am ¶Oh yeah – how could I forget…
9. Getty Images doesn’t care about intellectual property rights.
(Say it in the same way Kanye said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”)
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:21 am ¶That is the kind of imagery that moves a person to action. It is hard hitting, edgy, visually stimulating, and absolutely incredible. What a concept. I feel a desire, no… a GD need to go there and buy my stock. I was going elsewhere, but this simply cool approach left me with no other choice. That’s what great creative does… and God that’s great creative.
Probably shot in NY or LA by a really, really great photographer.
You can tell from the eyes!
(jes kiddin APE)
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:25 am ¶The very strange thing, when you think of all the talent they must have access to, is how badly done it is.
Even at the small sizes shown here they look poor. Particularly the second one; it is like her left eye is being freaked out by some kind of barrel distortion and she seems to have some kind of mini Dave Vanyan white bit thing going on in her hair at left.
Gollum indeed.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 11:20 am ¶I work on a picture desk in London and we have a theory that the subjects and the photographer must have been sky high on something. They seem like Tarsiers.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:11 pm ¶What a bunch of crap. As a getty photographer, it’s time to move to Corbis.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:14 pm ¶We have to keep focused on the goal here guys! This ain’t no jivin’ happy outfit of misfit artists out to change the world, we’re better then that!
Big eyes on big images to make big money. Remember, they’re still forking over moolah to AFP for those NA distribution rights, on top of all that stock they purchased in the last 10 years. Suddenly, VC is gone, microstock is here, and now we have aliens telling us to buy.
I think it’s hypnosis. Hidden messages. Anybody see anything written on their eyeballs?
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 12:26 pm ¶I’m currently working on a series like this. Except, they will all be cross eyed.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 1:48 pm ¶I agree with Mark above, it looks somewhat like someone is doing an imitation of Loretta Lux’s work.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 2:02 pm ¶“I come in peace….”
Creepy.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶These are all the children of the Geico spoke lizard.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 5:42 pm ¶Either way, it seems like a tough sell. Honestly, not being a visual person, but a bean counter, I’m still not sure if Getty is saying that those people are the staff at Getty who search for images, or if they are the customers of Getty, now able to “see better” due to the improved interface. Either way, it leaves me feeling icky and cold, and needing a hug. As a Brand Manager, I like my people feeling warm and fuzzy; I like to see the world through an 85C.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 6:14 pm ¶What kind of accountant knows what an 85C is ?
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 6:44 pm ¶I think I had those same pictures on my wall as a kid .
They were on velvet.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:25 pm ¶This is what happens when you get in a telepod (like in The Fly) with Anne Hathaway.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 8:40 pm ¶Everything Getty does is creepy.
[Reply]
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 10:08 pm ¶Actually these aren’t models, they’re Getty photographers listening as Jonathan Klein explains Getty’s new $49 pricing model…
[Reply]
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 9:59 am ¶Re: Corbis vs. Getty…
I’d rather my agency be answerable to Little Billy Gates who just wants to make money than to a gazillion Getty stockholders who just want to make money.
[Reply]
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 5:16 pm ¶Say, how much did you pay to run those screengrabs?
[Reply]
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 12:14 pm ¶“Say, how much did you pay to run those screengrabs?”
$49 like everyone else….
[Reply]
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 6:26 am ¶I went out with the girl in the second picture. Her eyes really are like that. It freaked me out so I left her. Lovely hands though.
[Reply]
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 4:22 am ¶man, that stuff is spooky. Loretta Lux stuff is like that washed out crap we used to get for color illustrations in our “Going my way” and Dick and Jane readers as kids and equally intellectual.
freaky, I think I’ll stick with my bugs and glad I didn’t apply to Getty form everything I hear. Corbis is totally unpalatable concept with Bill the Pill as owner. The mentality … forget it.
iit’s all the free skin peels that makes that nice surface shine. Limeade works every time. they’re flashing Britney right now, so they probably got some good revenue off that. Apparently she’s desperate for any kind of publicity.
[Reply]
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 6:58 am ¶I’ve noticed this trend in a few photogs. work. I simply don’t get it.
[Reply]
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 2:04 pm ¶LOL, Jon. For the correct answer you get a full day in our studio with the alien of your choice.
[Reply]
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶Personally, I love that ad! I think it’s hilarious and it really catches your attention. Fact is that it’s going to stick in your mind for a long time, thats what they want. I think it’s great.
[Reply]
Posted 10 Jan 2008 at 10:34 am ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
Usefully Creepy…
A Photo Editor shows the new adverts for Getty Images today. The comments on these ads are so far negative, but I think they’re wonderful. Getty seem to be referring directly to the fact that they’re seen a sinsiter brand and that this is a…
Post a Comment