Thanks, Gary and Ali!

I've run it on both calculators, also the AOP one. Does the Getty calculator give you the total licensing fee or the photographers percentage, Gary?

Thanks for the reply, Fletch!

They want to license the image for one year, worldwide exclusive use for print, web and OOH (ie buses, taxis and billboards).

I'm just after as much as the image is worth in the context they want to use it; I retain all copyright, and receive no credit for the image, which suits me. Exif will be stripped.

They need the image for a campaign starting mid-December; I've no idea why it's such short notice, but it's happened on the last couple of images I've sold too. The last one, for a magazine article, I was contacted the day before printing! In that case they just said they would pay me 300 Euros. Bizarrely, they insisted on a contract that stipulated single usage, and I've now sold the same image to 3 magazines in the same publishing group.

Anyway, I digress. I'm just looking for a fair, standard market price for the image for use as stipulated.

Thanks, but that's freelance rates rather than selling rates.

I have two Sony cameras with EVF's, and I much prefer them to OVF's. They work in low-light, they have focus-peaking, magnification, all the settings visible without taking your eye from the viewfinder, plus everything an OVF has as well. I rarely use the screen.There are no problems whatsoever with them, I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to?

I've been asked to give a quote to a major advertising agency for use of one or more of my images (taken on a K5 )for a worldwide advertising campaign, billboards, print and web, and have no idea what to quote. Does anyone have any experience/knowledge/links that could help me out? I've got to send the quote by tomorrow.

Ironically, it's a campaign for my employers, and the images were taken from one of their planes!

Any pointers most welcome.

I drop in sometimes to see what's going on...although I've changed systems, I still have a K5, though the FF Pentax lenses I kept are getting more use on my unmentionable new system (of which they are an invaluable part, me having only two native lenses as opposed to 6 PK ones)

The GR is still used a lot.

I agree, which is why I've sold my K3 and kept my K5 (and bought an A7s). The K3 takes fantastic images at lower ISO's, probably as good as any camera on the market, but any sort of extreme processing (ie lifting shadows a large amount, large levels adjustments, or using plug-ins) introduces a lot of noise, even at low ISO's. For a landscape photographer, or someone who doesn't shoot much in low-light, the K3 is indeed an amazing camera, but unfortunately it didn't work for me.

If I didn't use Photoshop (and DXO, Lightroom, Topaz...) I wouldn't be able to produce aerial images. They would all be dull, low-contrast, indistinct and very boring. I find the continual discussion of whether processed images are "real" totally absurd.

The RF lens is interesting, either it's for a new GR or they are going to produce some sort of mirrorless camera...

I did too and I don't think I'll be back...though I'll keep the K5.