Return-Path: Received: from nk11p00mm-asmtp002.mac.com ([17.158.161.1] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5450338 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:33:32 +0200 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_fQ2Ah4s1aIaeXrWgAhMW7w)" Received: from [192.168.1.68] (99-152-153-100.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.153.100]) by nk11p00mm-asmtp002.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(7.0.4.27.7) 64bit (built Aug 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0N4G004SU3JU1J60@nk11p00mm-asmtp002.mac.com> for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:33:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Jim Curtis Message-id: <097DDE4E-2340-4BC5-8CEE-ACB3563DDB92@me.com> Subject: Re: [AE] stock photo sites Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:33:29 -0500 References: To: After Effects Mail List In-reply-to: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) X-MANTSH: 1TEIXREEbG1oaGkdHB0lGUkdDRl5PWBoaHREKTEMXGx0EGx8SBBscHwQdGRAbHho fGhEKWE0XSxEKbX4XGhEKTFkXGxobGxEKWUkXEQpZXhdoY2YRCkNOF0sbGRpiTk0dWhsYaRl4c wcZZxsSGRl8HxEKWFwXGQQaBB0HTUsdEkhJHEwFGx0EGx8SBBscHwQdGRAbHhofGxEKXlkXYUB sW30RCkxGF2JraxEKQ1oXExMEGx8YBBsfGQQbGhoRCkJGF2MYfGl4eFlIelsBEQpCRRdnehJTf BJwUx1uHhEKQk4XbHBgeUAdYlJpGmIRCkJMF2sdUhoFH0JDGEEcEQpCbBdlHHJHZ39PWmVgZhE KQkAXb25SXmRyXnJYYXMRCkJYF2lhQ25nW155XkRyEQpwZxdrcEtFAVJrR3NTWREKcGgXa2JNQ QFJREASaF4RCnBoF3pvYnIeHlIcWmEaEQpwaBdjWXtmXVhjRmtrRxEKcGgXbFNDBVlpZxN9GkU RCnBoF25oGUcaeBt9ZWx+EQpwZxdoQUtlTX9raFxSXxEKcGcXbU1HXEUfHlpfQlsRCnB/F2Z4G UJTXlgBXhNhEQpwbBd6X31jTEdzWGJwSxEKcEwXbmRJXB5hZxNIb28R X-CLX-Spam: false X-CLX-Score: 1011 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.96,1.0.14,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-04-22_06:2014-04-22,2014-04-22,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1404220261 --Boundary_(ID_fQ2Ah4s1aIaeXrWgAhMW7w) Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Warren, No, I don't need exclusive rights to stock photos. I have looked at artbeats and footagefirm. They're both nice, but seem to concentrate on moving images. To my utter shame and embarrassment, I'll disclose that every other year, I get work doing political ads, and the need for footage is usually issue related: immigration, healthcare, law & order, budget, seniors, soldiers, and a gamut of real life situations. This accounts for my frustration with ShutterStock, et al, who have these absurd "stylized" scenarios that outnumber realistic looking ones by 100:1. Getty would be the go-to source for realistic "editorial" photos, but at $1000+ for even a local single-run TV ad. Most of my clients are running state races or for the US House, and are paying me about $2K/ad, and they're just not going to buy off on $6-10K for stock images. Getty also has a nice feature in their search engine which lets you choose between "creative" or stylized (usually hokey) setups, or "editorial" realistic/documentary style images. Alas. I think there's bound to be a market for a stock company that deals in value priced, non-exclusive images, that has a customer oriented search engine that isn't an insult to our precious time. Thanks for your reply, and also to George and Mike who offered excellent suggestions (both of which are out of my current client's price range, but with some extremely nice images). Brian's post came in as I was typing this. dollarphotoclub is priced well! And I see some of the same images that are on some other sites, and the site has that needle in a haystack search engine, but I can see some images there I'll end up getting. I do use Creative Commons frequently for public domain shots of politicians, military ops, government buildings and monuments, etc. Also, all branches of the armed forces and NASA have images that are free. So, does the Library of Congress, but it's a beating navigating that site, too, and most of it is not very high resolution. Thanks again, everybody! Jim On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Warren Heaton wrote: > Did these get mentioned yet? > www.artbeats.com > www.footagefirm.com > > It might be worth doing a web image search with "Creative Commons-licensed content" in the text string. > > Jim, do you know if you need exclusive use of the stock photos (typically a much higher price)? Just curious. > > > > -Warren > > > > > > From: George Loch > Reply-To: After Effects Mail List > Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 5:40 PM > To: After Effects Mail List > Subject: Re: [AE] stock photo sites > > Also, 500px.com now offers some stock images. $200 a pop is not cheap but, less than Getty. > > -gl > > > On Apr 21, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Jim Curtis wrote: > >> This is only tangentially related to Ae, as I'm doing some TV spots, and need stock photos to bring in and do some animations to - the pseudo 3D effect. >> >> I have a beef with the low-budget stock houses like Pond5, Shutterstock, BigStock, iStockPhoto, etc.: Most of what they have is pure crap. Their search engines suck; returning hundreds of irrelevant results, and numerous duplicates, wasting my valuable time. >> >> I know that you get what you pay for and if you want quality, you have to go to Getty, but my client doesn't have the budget to spend $1000 for each shot. >> >> There may be some middle ground sources that I don't know about. >> >> Can anybody recommend other sites, with useful photos that look like they came from real life or photojournalism, and not a bunch of hokey staged garbage with bad actors? >> >> >> >> . > --Boundary_(ID_fQ2Ah4s1aIaeXrWgAhMW7w) Content-type: text/html; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Getty would be the go-to = source for realistic "editorial" photos, but at $1000+ for even a local = single-run TV ad.  Most of my clients are running state races or = for the US House, and are paying me about $2K/ad, and they're just not = going to buy off on $6-10K for stock images.  Getty also has a nice = feature in their search engine which lets you choose between "creative" = or stylized (usually hokey) setups, or "editorial" realistic/documentary = style images.  Alas.

I think there's bound = to be a market for a stock company that deals in value priced, = non-exclusive images, that has a customer oriented search engine that = isn't an insult to our precious time.

Thanks = for your reply, and also to George and Mike who offered excellent = suggestions (both of which are out of my current client's price range, = but with some extremely nice images).  Brian's post came in as I = was typing this.  dollarphotoclub is priced well!  And I see = some of the same images that are on some other sites, and the site has = that needle in a haystack search engine, but I can see some images there = I'll end up getting.

I do use Creative Commons = frequently for public domain shots of politicians, military ops, = government buildings and monuments, etc.  Also, all branches of the = armed forces and NASA have images that are free.  So, does the = Library of Congress, but it's a beating navigating that site, too, and = most of it is not very high resolution.

Thanks = again, = everybody!

Jim




On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Warren = Heaton <warrenheaton@me.com> = wrote:

Did these get mentioned = yet?
www.Creative = Commons-licensed content" in the text = string.

Jim, do you know if you need exclusive = use of the stock photos (typically a much higher price)?  Just = curious.



-Warren





From: George Loch <george@motoxpress.com>
Reply-To: After Effects Mail List = <AE-List@media-motion.tv>Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 = 5:40 PM
To: After Effects = Mail List <AE-List@media-motion.tv>Subject: Re: [AE] stock photo = sites

Also, 500px.com = now offers some stock images. $200 a pop is not cheap but, less than = Getty.

-gl


On Apr = 21, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Jim Curtis <jpcurtis@me.com> wrote:

This = is only tangentially related to Ae, as I'm doing some TV spots, and need = stock photos to bring in and do some animations to - the pseudo 3D = effect.

I have a beef with the low-budget stock = houses like Pond5, Shutterstock, BigStock, iStockPhoto, etc.:  Most = of what they have is pure crap. Their search engines suck; returning = hundreds of irrelevant results, and numerous duplicates, wasting my = valuable time.

I know that you get what you pay = for and if you want quality, you have to go to Getty, but my client = doesn't have the budget to spend $1000 for each = shot.

There may be some middle ground sources = that I don't know about.

Can anybody recommend = other sites, with useful photos that look like they came from real life = or photojournalism, and not a bunch of hokey staged garbage with bad = actors?



.


= --Boundary_(ID_fQ2Ah4s1aIaeXrWgAhMW7w)--