Return-Path: Received: from homiemail-a6.g.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.208] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5450573 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:32:27 +0200 Received: from homiemail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DA159806C for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:32:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=influxx.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:from :subject:date:to; s=influxx.com; bh=Lv/ynGGoAWyQIaOL4UwQn43n55g= ; b=lt8Ta3LfU1WI4EU5k17EOfd6V8vOf5g/8fY4YC2zTMQC3F4dkRcJ30/WUPJg NCu6R+jd9cZZaygSShP/6PDDejzTAwRTRRrdeV1PIPIRqHQcPr3P3q1r9jvuWXxU Mvda6G3n/nqW75mQVmQ5pVAmDSkeAKKF6KDb/c8OO7dTofU= Received: from [192.168.0.14] (cpe-98-148-138-81.socal.res.rr.com [98.148.138.81]) (Authenticated sender: adam@influxx.com) by homiemail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0638359806B for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5--982846226 Message-Id: <9BD001B7-F4F2-4F92-A467-30DF2EE22CAC@influxx.com> From: adam mercado Subject: Re: [AE] stock photo sites Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:32:28 -0700 To: "After Effects Mail List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) --Apple-Mail-5--982846226 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Not sure if this is mentioned before, but have you tried Flickr. I =20 was in this situation a while back and was able to find a shot on =20 Flickr by a decent photographer who had set the rights to protected. =20 That is I was not able to simply use CC to grab and use. But I =20 contacted the photographer directly and explained my situation and he =20= was very open to licensing his work, for a much more reasonable fee =20 than any of the big stock houses. Adam Mercado Influxx Media Production Fullerton, CA Moving Images. For Business 714=B0928=B09896 http://www.influxx.com http://www.twitter.com/influxx http://www.linkedin.com/in/influxx http://influxx.tumblr.com/archive http://www.flickr.com/photos/influxx On Apr 22, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Jim Curtis wrote: > Warren, > > No, I don't need exclusive rights to stock photos. I have looked =20 > at artbeats and footagefirm. They're both nice, but seem to =20 > concentrate on moving images. > > To my utter shame and embarrassment, I'll disclose that every other =20= > year, I get work doing political ads, and the need for footage is =20 > usually issue related: immigration, healthcare, law & order, =20 > budget, seniors, soldiers, and a gamut of real life situations. =20 > This accounts for my frustration with ShutterStock, et al, who have =20= > these absurd "stylized" scenarios that outnumber realistic looking =20 > ones by 100:1. > > Getty would be the go-to source for realistic "editorial" photos, =20 > but at $1000+ for even a local single-run TV ad. Most of my =20 > clients are running state races or for the US House, and are paying =20= > me about $2K/ad, and they're just not going to buy off on $6-10K =20 > for stock images. Getty also has a nice feature in their search =20 > engine which lets you choose between "creative" or stylized =20 > (usually hokey) setups, or "editorial" realistic/documentary style =20 > images. Alas. > > I think there's bound to be a market for a stock company that deals =20= > in value priced, non-exclusive images, that has a customer oriented =20= > search engine that isn't an insult to our precious time. > > Thanks for your reply, and also to George and Mike who offered =20 > excellent suggestions (both of which are out of my current client's =20= > price range, but with some extremely nice images). Brian's post =20 > came in as I was typing this. dollarphotoclub is priced well! And =20= > I see some of the same images that are on some other sites, and the =20= > site has that needle in a haystack search engine, but I can see =20 > some images there I'll end up getting. > > I do use Creative Commons frequently for public domain shots of =20 > politicians, military ops, government buildings and monuments, =20 > etc. Also, all branches of the armed forces and NASA have images =20 > that are free. So, does the Library of Congress, but it's a =20 > beating navigating that site, too, and most of it is not very high =20 > resolution. > > Thanks again, everybody! > > Jim > > > > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Warren Heaton =20 > wrote: > >> Did these get mentioned yet? >> www.artbeats.com >> www.footagefirm.com >> >> It might be worth doing a web image search with "Creative Commons-=20 >> licensed content" in the text string. >> >> Jim, do you know if you need exclusive use of the stock photos =20 >> (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 =20 >> 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 =20 >>> spots, and need stock photos to bring in and do some animations =20 >>> to - the pseudo 3D effect. >>> >>> I have a beef with the low-budget stock houses like Pond5, =20 >>> Shutterstock, BigStock, iStockPhoto, etc.: Most of what they =20 >>> have is pure crap. Their search engines suck; returning hundreds =20 >>> of irrelevant results, and numerous duplicates, wasting my =20 >>> valuable time. >>> >>> I know that you get what you pay for and if you want quality, you =20= >>> have to go to Getty, but my client doesn't have the budget to =20 >>> 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 =20 >>> like they came from real life or photojournalism, and not a bunch =20= >>> of hokey staged garbage with bad actors? >>> >>> >>> >>> . >> > --Apple-Mail-5--982846226 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Not sure if this is mentioned before, but have you tried Flickr. I was = in this situation a while back and was able to find a shot on Flickr by = a decent photographer who had set the rights to protected. That is I was = not able to simply use CC to grab and use. But I contacted the = photographer directly and explained my situation and he was very open to = licensing his work, for a much more reasonable fee than any of the big = stock houses.



On Apr 22, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Jim Curtis = wrote:

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 <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?



.

=


= --Apple-Mail-5--982846226--