PDA

View Full Version : Getty approved scanners



QT Luong
21-Nov-2006, 15:00
In view of the discussion in another thread about the performance of different scanners,
I thought that this list of Getty Images requirements (for those who don't know Getty is by far the largest and most successful stock photo agency) would be interesting. http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346

"We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3 "

Comments on their list ?

robc
21-Nov-2006, 15:27
The list seems like a dumb list if you are producing high quality digital files. It's the quality of the file that counts in the end.

BUT, if you are Getty and have a web site which offers the possibilty of submitting files for inclusion, then everyone with a digital point and shoot is going to submit images unless you tell them they can't.
I think the list is aimed at removing the majority of people who are just trying their luck with "snap shots" and saving getty from wasting a huge amount of time evaluating un-useable images. If your image quality is good enough for them, they are not going to reject the work and they have no way of checking what scanner you are using. And they probably don't care if your images are of high quality.

And they have probaly found that the kit they list produces good quality. I would read it as recommendation for that equipment rather than an exclusion list.

Oh, and if you contact them and ask "I have scanner XXXXXXX is that acceptable" they are very likely to say no because they probably get that question a hundred times a day from people without a clue.

Gordon Moat
21-Nov-2006, 15:48
Getty caught lots of flack on PDN Forums about a year ago when it came out about their approved list of D-SLRs. I understand what they are attempting is trying to avoid possible file problems, but it is not a good effort on their part. It is far too easy to just remove that information from a file, or not have that as part of the tagged information. However, just judging by their listing, I think they are missing some capable equipment . . . perhaps they simply want to narrow the choices of submissions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

robc
21-Nov-2006, 16:59
This could be a handy little set of utilities for the unscrupulous;)

http://www.ozhiker.com/electronics/pjmt/index.html