I have been asked to make some web and broadcast spots in relation to the presidential election. Because my client is not part of any campaign, I must find high quality images of certain people with proper clearances and not costing almost $2,000 per photo like Getty. All of their photos are for Editorial use so I would need to jump through hoops to try and get clearance for advertorial use.

So, does anyone know of other websites that sell/license high quality images?

At this point, it would be cheaper to fly to certain events, rent some photo gear and take photos myself. Heck, I could do an entire event for less than the cost of a single photo at Getty and have some fun.

You might check Alamy. They have editorial content.

You might check Alamy. They have editorial content.

Thanks. I just checked and they have some good photos of several candidates.

However, I am trying to convince my partner that it would be cheaper and more beneficial to either rent or even buy some photo gear and go take the photos myself. For the price of 3 photos from Getty ($5400) just for TV and web, I can get the new Sony A77, Zeiss 24-70, Sony G 70-200 and their top-end flash. When I add in the cost of using images for print, then I could buy a couple cameras and more lenses.

So how much time do you have in as a professional photographer? If you're considering buying new gear, I'd suspect not so much?

And as I've learned over the past 2 years shooting all my video on a DSLR, just having the tool - and even acknowledging that I've been behind video camera for more than 20 years as a working professional, does NOT make immediately me a particularly skilled photographer compared to the folks who've been doing that particular work as long as I've been making motion content.

You might get lucky and get decent shots. But what shows up on services like Getty, et al. aren't typically just "decent" shots. They're usually the cream of the crop.

We always are telling people that if they want great video, to hire EXPERIENCED video makers.

IMO, photography works precisely the same way.

Remember, it's not a great strategy to go out and buy ones first piano in order to perform at someone's wedding next month.

Just sayin'.

FYI, I was a photographer BEFORE getting into the video industry (starting learning vfx first). I sold nearly everything when I discovered how much more I love motion pictures. So, it won't be my first rodeo.

Maybe I don't understand the situation.
Is it the client that is balking at the price or is it you?

FYI, I was a photographer BEFORE getting into the video industry (starting learning vfx first). I sold nearly everything when I discovered how much more I love motion pictures. So, it won't be my first rodeo.

Clearly that makes all the difference.

If you've kept up with the subtle changes from traditional to all digital workflows - then you should be good to go.

I would mildly question the choice of the Sony Alpha line since there are obviously fewer choices in glass and ecosystem options than with the longer established Canon and Nikon lines, but you clearly know enough to parse that out.

So have fun.

Thanks Bill.

I was a Sony Alpha shooter mainly using the A900 (FF, 24MP) and a couple lower cost bodies. I can still pick up a Sony camera and start shooting whereas I tried my friend's 5D MkII and everything was rather different. I won't even touch Nikon because its lenses are bass-ackwards.

The main reason I only use Alpha is the built-in SSS aka VR/IS so every lens benefits. Can most people get this shot at only 1/10s handheld with a 24-70 f2.8? I think not because none have VR.

Steve, I have some political figures in my stills archive, but current presidential is limited to Herman Cain. Let me know if any interest.