Posted by Martin Beebee on July 12, 2006 at 11:47 AM
An interesting essay was just posted on The Luminous Landscape about the growing business model of “Micro Payment Agencies”, in which stock photos are sold for $3-$4 each. (You can read the essay at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml.) Indeed, this model seems a natural progression given the success of selling Royalty-free.
A thread about the essay on the LL discussion forums surprised me: eight of nine posters were in favor of the new model.
I can’t help but think that this will eventually lead to non-assignment photography becoming an “artisan” craft, like hand-blown glasses or pottery. Most people go to Wal-Mart for crappy inexpensive kitchenware churned out in sweat shops, and a few artisans produce high quality items in their garage that they try to sell at craft fairs or galleries.
Assuming the trend continues (and there’s no reason to suspect it won’t –- Wal-Mart is doing quite well), why would a future photographer spend the time and money required to produce high-quality (non-assigned) images for any reason other than the love of the craft? Sure, there will still be a niche for great images, but it seems only natural that the proportion of high-quality images will greatly decrease over time (who can afford to produce them?), and the general mediocrity that characterizes almost everything else these days will finally catch up to photography.
Maybe it already has, and many of us just don’t want to admit it.
Well I've already realized I'm not going to get rich taking photos, and it sounds like this confirms that thought! I'll just keep on doing it 'cause I love it, and keep my day job!
I have to say I do feel for those who chose stock photography as a way to sustain themselves while following their passion for the outdoors. It seems less and less these days that we have opportunities to be in control of our destiny rather than a small cog in some corporate machine.
This is just something we'll need to address as a society. To what extent are the stock market and gas prices more important than finding satisfaction and pride in what we do?
The quote in my signature adds another dimension to that.
--- $3-$4 is pretty good considering that there are online agencies that sell them for as low as $1 per download, of which the photographer gets from 20-50¢ per sale.
--- WHY? A lot has been caused by the fact that there are so many "phony" photographers who only care about seeing their work in print no matter what it costs anyone else trying to make a living that way. That's supposed to impress all of their friends and make them feel like a real photographers.
--- This sort of use rip-off is not new. There have been dozens of publishers who hold photo contests for what they call, "The Best of Photography" year books. They give a few thousand dollars worth of prizes, then use every single photo submitted and call all of the ones that don't win, "honorable mentions" or "runners up" just so they can print them, then with every image in a book, all of the people who submitted images are sent an order form to buy a copy of the book that their image is in, for at least $50 per copy.
--- They get a book full of images that they don't have to pay a single cent for, and then sell copies of the book to the suckers who just want to show people that their work has been published. (NO MATTER HOW BAD THE IMAGE IS TO BEGIN WITH, they will get published just so these rip-off publshers can sell another copy to the person that submitted them.)
--- Good photos are worth A TON of money to businesses using them, and there will always be low-life people out looking to steal them however they can get away with it.
--- If you don't like it, then make a stick about it whenever/wherever you can, including informing people in places like this, and let them know what you think of people who give away their work for next to nothing, which does nothing but hurt "honest" photographers. Notice I state "honest" photographers, because these other people are not honest anything. They are phony wanta-be photogaphers who can't get anybody to use their work unless they give it to them for free.
--- Of course you can always be nice and "politically correct" and wait for others to stand up for your rights, (A lot like they did in Germany 60 years ago) but I have NEVER been politically correct and I am not about to be that way now just to be nice to people who are ripping myself and other "honest" photographers off every chance they get.
Remember,,,
--- "People who don't fight for their rights usually end up getting exactly what they deserve."
I think the micro payment schemes are much like a pyramid or chain letter model. In my opinion, there are no photographers who will make money at it, only the people who run the business on the internet, which if they can, must be largely because of the cheap overhead--compared to other businesses, it is to run this kind of business over the internet.
Yes, the state of stock photography has been changing for the past twenty years or so for the worse. It really is a matter of supply and demand and I think the micro payment schemes are kind of like the end result of so many people trying to supply the same products when there just isn't a sustainable market for the photos.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that if someone is an exceptional craftsman and an astute businssman you can still make a living in the photography field. There will always be companies looking for unique imagery that are willing to pay for it.
If you are an outdoor photographer that travels what I would call "the outdoor photo circuit" ie, birds at basque in November, elk in Yellowstone in October, bears in Alaska in September, on and on and on, standing shoulder to shoulder with other photographers and photo workshops, you may have some great photos but you may as well forget trying to make a living at doing such a thing, it just won't happen (unless perhaps you are one ot those who get paid to take photographers to those locations
Right now, as an example of unique imagery and projects, there is a lady, can't remember her name, who photographed two marshes in Minnesota every day for a full year. She also is photographing an eagles nest with eaglets two years running. As part of the project she has photographed literally hundreds of different species of bugs. In addition to the photography she keeps a running journal of her work for two or three different book projects she's working on.
People who can think and plan on that kind of level and do the work in a professional and artful way will probably always find markets and probably never really worry about the sad state of stock photography. Randy
When approached for stock sales, we quote our rates based upon national market averages and the buyers either pay or leave. There's normal negotiation, during which we usually have the opportunity to compare prices of photos from diverse sources with the potential buyers. Fairly frequently the cheapies come up, whether as a negotiating tactic or a reason why they aren't going to buy ours: "We can get photos from PictureDrool for three bucks!"
Here's what we tell them: You'd be a fool not to!!
Often enough to give us a nice income from stock the folks disappear for a few days, then reappear and pay our rates. Whether that speaks to the lack of quality at the cheap sources or the uniqueness of our work, I can't say. But to cite an example, at the bottom of our scale we are paid approximately 50 times the prices originally cited in this thread for half page or smaller use on the web. Why in the heck would we agree to three bucks for essentially unlimited use?
I'd hate to be making our sole income from stock, because it would become really discouraging to confront the cheap prices all the time while the wolf was at the door. I have to confess that other sources of photo income are much more lucrative for us, and stock sales only make up about 20% of our income.
Call it your art or call it your pride, it's only worth what you are willing to sell it for. In our experience you will miss sales competing with the cheap sources, but if your work is unique and you are professional about it there are clients willing to pay fair prices. You'll never learn that if you sell to the cheap sources.
Look at it this way: Wallmart and other big box stores are sweeping the land, and many local small businesses are wiped out in the process. Yet some survive and thrive. Howcum?
Because to some people price isn't the only arbiter in their decisions, and they are willing to pay fair prices for quality, service and professionalism. Small businesses that recognize the value of those commodities in the face of cheaper prices can thrive in spite of the discounters.
Posted by Walter Rowe on July 13, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Well said Paul, Randy and Hank. As a relatively new entrant in the profession (3 years), I have experienced first hand people expecting unreasonably low usage rates (like 10% of market value) because they are getting images from all kinds of places with less than professional ethics and quality. I express to every one of these potential clients that no one can make a living off those rates. Most don't seem to care. Fortunately, I have the freedom to walk away from these unreasonable rates and support the industry and the full-time professionals who depend on fair market rates to make an honest living.
Thank you for your perspectives on this. I too have been in the business a short time (about 3 years), and have been building up a stock portfolio. I have made some stock sales and, luckily, those few have been for professional market rates. I have two book projects I'm working slowly toward (my wife is a book designer), I sell fine art prints and guide photographers into the forests around Ely. I'll continue to build my stock portfolio but, based on what the experts here who have been doing it for years say, I'll look more strongly toward marketing my guiding and fine art prints. I already charge enough per person to make guiding a strong part of my business as I work away from my full-time newspaper job, so that's a plus.
There is an interesting series on http://www.editorialphoto.com/ regarding what they call the war on photographers. It seems photographers, above all other professions in the commercial arts, are having their rates hammered. While I have heard of graphic designers haggling over a fee, there doesn't seem to be the same level of disdain by clients that seems exhibited towards photographers.
Perhaps a seminal moment for me was about ten years ago at the Ontario College of Art in Toronto. I overheard a young student tell a friend she need hurry away as she had a class in 'how to control photographers.'
There have been, in the course of my career, many non-technical changes in photography. In Canada perhaps the biggest was the advent of free trade which killed the large studio in Canada. Places like TDF and ADS went down within a few months after the deal was signed. During the recession of the early nineties younger photographers, seeking to make a name for themselves, were working for as low as $50.00 a day plus expenses. The work showed it and rates, in Canada, have never recovered.
To my mind, part of the problem is visual pollution for want of a better expression. Particularly with the advent of the digital camera. We are flooded with images in media to the point that many have come to accept the mediocre. I was surprised to learn that major publishers now look to sites such as Flickr in search of cheap publishable images.
In my remote location, many of the businesses here have 'contests' which offer an unspecified prize or one of a few hundred dollars in exchange for absolute rights. The only one I will enter is the local city contest, which specifies non-exclusive use. It affords me free publicity when they use it in various publications, yet the ability to resell. One semi-pro here in town recently sold exclusive rights to a local publication $500.00 for five images. He was happy, he got a tank of fuel oil. He pays the mortgage by his day job. Is it worth trying to compete against that?
Part of it may be false economy. Is it really cheaper to have a number of photo researchers scouring the web for cheap images when to actually hire a photographer may be cheaper in the long run?
We have all meet the semi-pro or amateur photographer who can recite every technical detail of his equipment even telling you to the exact numeral the number of actuations their camera has had, yet have no conception of licensing and if they did, want the glory of publication, more than the income.
Many here may recall the phrase 'desktop publishing' that was so popular a decade ago. The phrase, and many of the small publishing houses, have disappeared in favour of progessional graphic designers. When the novelty of high quality digital images disappears will the industry favour the use of the professional photographer?
In the meantime I'm following Hank's example, professional work deserves a professional fee.
Dave
Posted by Dan Borzynski on July 14, 2006 at 10:52 AM
Interesting thread.
I looked at some of the microstock companies about a year ago, just to evaluate my options. My basic impression was this: For what I shoot, the quality level on these wasn't that high, certainly not above my work. Payment per image was low, but I *might* make that up in volume, then again, maybe not. How many people were actually buying from these places?
Last, it was going to take a fair amount of effort to bring large quantities of images up to a standard I was comfortable having my name attached to. We are not talking huge PS work, just the usual converting from RAW or scanning, mild color adjustments, resizing if needed, dealing with dust, etc. This I was going to have to do regardless of where I sent my images, microstock, a real stock agency, or print sales.
$4 an image, *if* it sells, simply isn't worth the time for me. If I am going to essentially give my work away, I'd rather go to an open field and photograph more spiders. I don't need to see might stuff in print that badly.
Right now, I have picked the Alamy route. I figure it is better than having my images sitting around doing nothing and the work I put in for them will largely transfer if I approach other more traditional stock agencies. Plus the few stray sales are kind of nice.
We've actually derived benefits from the PictureDrool sites a couple of times recently: Clients had looked there before reviewing our work, so had a frame of reference for our work and pricing. In both cases they said in effect "After viewing that stuff, your's looks even better. It's easy to see why you charge more." Thank you droolers!
Posted by Martin Beebee on July 16, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Interesting responses. (Great cartoon!) Like several of you, I’ve been shooting for awhile but only marketing my stuff for the last three years or so. I, too, have been trying to hold the line at what have historically been considered fair prices, as deliniated by FotoQuote and others. (The usual response to a quote -- if any -- is “Holy cow, that’s expensive.”)
But I wonder if the days of getting fair prices for enough of your images to make a living are gone. Granted, if all of your shots are brilliant you have less to worry about. But it seems a truism that the glut of imagery on the market now has made some generic shots less valuable (think sunsets), because of simple supply and demand. Unless the sunset is really different or extraordinary (or you’re a really good salesman), is it possible to get a fair price these days?
One solution, of course, is to diversify and not rely on stock for a majority of your income -- some of you are already doing that. But for someone trying to shoot mostly stock, I wonder if it’s valid to face the reality of the marketplace and sell some of your generic shots as Royalty Free, and hold out the more unique ones for Rights Managed licensing. I know of several successful NPN photographers who are already doing this. (I wouldn’t advocate anyone sell through Micro Payment -- that’s just dumb.)
Or is the only solution to cross our arms, stamp our feet, and say “No!”? This is certainly the more difficult financial route to take -- but perhaps more honorable. I just wonder sometimes if we’re not all a little like cowboys in the 1950s, riding our heard to market while getting splashed with mud by the passing cattle trucks. . . .
Survival of small businesses in the era of Walmart has required them to offer products and especially services the big box stores don't, and even products and services that other small businesses don't. They've had to learn new ways of doing business, work harder, and put a lot of thought into their merchandise (i.e., stock).
Stock photographers are not in the fight alone- The stock agencies are as affected as individual photographers. But heck, cruise their sites and there's a whole lot of redundancy between their offerings, as well as between their sites and the cheapies.
Are the stock agencies fighting back or are they simply playing the game and cutting their prices? They most certainly are cutting prices, though as slowly as possible. More important to themselves and professional stock shooters, they are looking for ways to offer products and services not available from the cheapies.
We don't shoot for agencies, but today we are getting more requests than ever from three simply because we do shoot differently and different subjects than most generic stock shooters. The agencies are coming to us because they can't get the shots that sell from their own shooters, whether due to subject matter or to reluctance of their shooters to provide them. Here's an approximate version of what all three tell us:
"I'll puke if I get another sunset. We have so many sunsets we can't begin to sort them. Everyone has sunsets. We try to get our shooters to do something differerent with their sunsets. We send out monthly, weekly, daily wish lists to our photographers, telling them we have immediate markets for specific shots, and most don't bother to submit. If they don't have a shot in their files, tuff for us. The very few that get the message run out the door when they receive our wish lists and get the shots and send them ASAP. Those shots are selling. Sunsets aren't."
The traditional stock photography market is changing. Generic stock is going to the cheapies, while working for a stock agency is becoming more specialized in subject matter, treatment and methods. In many ways it is starting to resemble assignment shooting. If you continue shooting old fashioned stock, the market is going leave you whether due to lack of interest from your own agencies or competition from the cheapies. But if you follow and respond to the wish lists from the agencies, and especially if you look for subject matter and shooting methods that set you apart from the cheapies, then you have a future in stock.
If your amibition is to make a living with a camera, you might also have to diversify beyond traditional stock. Stock has always been a sideline for us while we made the bulk of our living through other types of shooting. If you're unwilling to diversify your stock shooting, I'd say your future is going to be more challenging than ever. If you're unwilling to diversify beyond stock as well, it gets even more difficult.
Thanks, Hank -- I think that's perhaps the most coherent, realistic, and even inspiring response to this issue I've seen on any forum.
Posted by Cory Freeman on July 16, 2006 at 10:57 PM
As a guy trying to figure out how to make a career out of photography, I've read some disillusioning articles and threads the last few days. I was hoping to break into stock slowly and work my way up. I'm wondering if I've just been kidding myself that it's still possible for a guy like me to even get a foot in the door. My intentions have been to license my images through Acclaim Images under RM licensing. Times are certainly precarious. I have read articles stating that there is still money to be made in stock and others forcasting it's doom. On top of the stock photography uncertainty, people over at PDNonline talk about how bad the commercial sector is, stating some photographers having to move to different cities to get work.....
I guess I picked a bad day(decade) to start a photo career! I'm confused and not sure which direction to head! I guess there's always wedding photography......then again, maybe I'll just keep my day job!!
Whether or not it adds up to a living, the stock agencies I deal with are chronically short of photos showing people doing things, whether in a dramatic setting or deriving their power from the people themselves. Back to the proverbial sunset shot. You'll sell it quicker if you include silhouettes of people enjoying the sunset.
It's easy to think "stock" when looking at a beautiful meadow and fiddling with your camera. But now think about actually selling that pretty meadow as a stock photo. Put a kid in it blowing bubbles, a couple holding hands, a beautiful young person plucking petals from a daisy and looking wistful, a jogger, a kid throwing a ball for a dog, mom showing a toddler a flower, someone reading a book, even sitting and using a laptop. Man, I could go on adding to that list for hours, and I bet I could sell each of them before the shot of the plain meadow earned a cent.
I know too many photographers who derive a sense of "purity" shooting only nature and wouldn't consider sullying their reputation by including people in their shots. News flash: Plain old nature images, no matter how well done, are the images saturating the stock market and dominating the cheapie sources. Stock agencies are crying for people shots because that's what the markets are looking for.
Oops, lecture over. I've already given away too much.
Good laugh John! But payments for model releases reopens issues raised and discussed here before. I've got a busy day and can't go digging, but it's worth digging out those threads.
I'm as shy as the next photographer, and perhaps moreso. It pains me to approach strangers and ask for model releases, and worse, to be turned down. But I'd rather be turned down by potential subjects than markets.
The best solution for me has been to get releases from my companions (even other photographers), then include them in the shots. It requires that they dress a little more conscientiously than usual, but in my case at least, that's a good thing. My wife and I both carry a few extra caps and light windbreakers in our vehicles specifically to "share" with friends in response to specific color schemes for shots, or shall we say "clothing failures."
Two sales this month through one of my agency for $909.00, no way would I of made that much w/a microstock.
Posted by Fadil Aziz on September 6, 2006 at 7:35 AM
The world is changing so fast nowadays. We have seen film’s been replaced by sensor (not completely though), internet become the new marketplace and businessplace. That’s one factor that we have no full control. The photograph is in the process of becoming a “commodity” (though it’s not mass produced) in the perception of people.
On the other hand, there is other factor: the photographers themselves. So I agree this is a society issue.
We professional, amateur, semi pro and everybody who concern about our value of art have to make some kind of “business conduct”, some best practices of photography business (maybe the term is overstated). But you know what I mean.
Very often I find photographer friends, the one who just start either their career or business or who only shot in the weekend ask me what to do because theirs will be used by other people or how to price the wedding assignment, etc. We don’t have such a simple rule of conduct, guidance (do we have? can we make it simple?). Yes, we have books on the photography business but who cares? The majority don’t read or even have intention to.
This should address the copyright and its relation to licensing images, “the market price” of the daily rate among other things (how to calculate the annual overhead is way too much for sure). I think the first chapter of Photographer’s Market could be a good example (mine is 2005).
Moreover, the workshop is the right place to put this subject in the syllabus. I think pros who have classes, workshop or even web site shall put it. These will have impact in the long term.
As the supply of photographers is flooding nowadays, educating photographer about doing the business the right way become essential.
Posted by Don Miller on September 6, 2006 at 10:33 AM
For landscape/scenic the stock price will/should continue to fall. "but it seems only natural that the proportion of high-quality images will greatly decrease over time" Say Wha? The opposite is true, take a look around.
There are as many opportunities to make money in photography as there every has been. Actually, probably more, considering the growth of the world economy. But it may not be the way the photographer will want to work, or understand the changes.
By the nineties people were talking about declining revenue in stock photography. The most stable type of stock - that which is timeless - is the most vulnerable. This is nothing new.
What do people want or need that is not readily available? That's the question of the business person in the free market. It's only free market economies that produce the wealth that a photographer can even consider landscape/scenic photography as a significant source of revenue.
One can't have it both ways.
Discussion
19 repliesA thread about the essay on the LL discussion forums surprised me: eight of nine posters were in favor of the new model.
I can’t help but think that this will eventually lead to non-assignment photography becoming an “artisan” craft, like hand-blown glasses or pottery. Most people go to Wal-Mart for crappy inexpensive kitchenware churned out in sweat shops, and a few artisans produce high quality items in their garage that they try to sell at craft fairs or galleries.
Assuming the trend continues (and there’s no reason to suspect it won’t –- Wal-Mart is doing quite well), why would a future photographer spend the time and money required to produce high-quality (non-assigned) images for any reason other than the love of the craft? Sure, there will still be a niche for great images, but it seems only natural that the proportion of high-quality images will greatly decrease over time (who can afford to produce them?), and the general mediocrity that characterizes almost everything else these days will finally catch up to photography.
Maybe it already has, and many of us just don’t want to admit it.
I have to say I do feel for those who chose stock photography as a way to sustain themselves while following their passion for the outdoors. It seems less and less these days that we have opportunities to be in control of our destiny rather than a small cog in some corporate machine.
This is just something we'll need to address as a society. To what extent are the stock market and gas prices more important than finding satisfaction and pride in what we do?
The quote in my signature adds another dimension to that.
Guy
--- WHY? A lot has been caused by the fact that there are so many "phony" photographers who only care about seeing their work in print no matter what it costs anyone else trying to make a living that way. That's supposed to impress all of their friends and make them feel like a real photographers.
--- This sort of use rip-off is not new. There have been dozens of publishers who hold photo contests for what they call, "The Best of Photography" year books. They give a few thousand dollars worth of prizes, then use every single photo submitted and call all of the ones that don't win, "honorable mentions" or "runners up" just so they can print them, then with every image in a book, all of the people who submitted images are sent an order form to buy a copy of the book that their image is in, for at least $50 per copy.
--- They get a book full of images that they don't have to pay a single cent for, and then sell copies of the book to the suckers who just want to show people that their work has been published. (NO MATTER HOW BAD THE IMAGE IS TO BEGIN WITH, they will get published just so these rip-off publshers can sell another copy to the person that submitted them.)
--- Good photos are worth A TON of money to businesses using them, and there will always be low-life people out looking to steal them however they can get away with it.
--- If you don't like it, then make a stick about it whenever/wherever you can, including informing people in places like this, and let them know what you think of people who give away their work for next to nothing, which does nothing but hurt "honest" photographers. Notice I state "honest" photographers, because these other people are not honest anything. They are phony wanta-be photogaphers who can't get anybody to use their work unless they give it to them for free.
--- Of course you can always be nice and "politically correct" and wait for others to stand up for your rights, (A lot like they did in Germany 60 years ago) but I have NEVER been politically correct and I am not about to be that way now just to be nice to people who are ripping myself and other "honest" photographers off every chance they get.
Remember,,,
--- "People who don't fight for their rights usually end up getting exactly what they deserve."
Yes, the state of stock photography has been changing for the past twenty years or so for the worse. It really is a matter of supply and demand and I think the micro payment schemes are kind of like the end result of so many people trying to supply the same products when there just isn't a sustainable market for the photos.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that if someone is an exceptional craftsman and an astute businssman you can still make a living in the photography field. There will always be companies looking for unique imagery that are willing to pay for it.
If you are an outdoor photographer that travels what I would call "the outdoor photo circuit" ie, birds at basque in November, elk in Yellowstone in October, bears in Alaska in September, on and on and on, standing shoulder to shoulder with other photographers and photo workshops, you may have some great photos but you may as well forget trying to make a living at doing such a thing, it just won't happen (unless perhaps you are one ot those who get paid to take photographers to those locations
Right now, as an example of unique imagery and projects, there is a lady, can't remember her name, who photographed two marshes in Minnesota every day for a full year. She also is photographing an eagles nest with eaglets two years running. As part of the project she has photographed literally hundreds of different species of bugs. In addition to the photography she keeps a running journal of her work for two or three different book projects she's working on.
People who can think and plan on that kind of level and do the work in a professional and artful way will probably always find markets and probably never really worry about the sad state of stock photography. Randy
Here's what we tell them: You'd be a fool not to!!
Often enough to give us a nice income from stock the folks disappear for a few days, then reappear and pay our rates. Whether that speaks to the lack of quality at the cheap sources or the uniqueness of our work, I can't say. But to cite an example, at the bottom of our scale we are paid approximately 50 times the prices originally cited in this thread for half page or smaller use on the web. Why in the heck would we agree to three bucks for essentially unlimited use?
I'd hate to be making our sole income from stock, because it would become really discouraging to confront the cheap prices all the time while the wolf was at the door. I have to confess that other sources of photo income are much more lucrative for us, and stock sales only make up about 20% of our income.
Call it your art or call it your pride, it's only worth what you are willing to sell it for. In our experience you will miss sales competing with the cheap sources, but if your work is unique and you are professional about it there are clients willing to pay fair prices. You'll never learn that if you sell to the cheap sources.
Look at it this way: Wallmart and other big box stores are sweeping the land, and many local small businesses are wiped out in the process. Yet some survive and thrive. Howcum?
Because to some people price isn't the only arbiter in their decisions, and they are willing to pay fair prices for quality, service and professionalism. Small businesses that recognize the value of those commodities in the face of cheaper prices can thrive in spite of the discounters.
You all have provided valuable insight.
Perhaps a seminal moment for me was about ten years ago at the Ontario College of Art in Toronto. I overheard a young student tell a friend she need hurry away as she had a class in 'how to control photographers.'
There have been, in the course of my career, many non-technical changes in photography. In Canada perhaps the biggest was the advent of free trade which killed the large studio in Canada. Places like TDF and ADS went down within a few months after the deal was signed. During the recession of the early nineties younger photographers, seeking to make a name for themselves, were working for as low as $50.00 a day plus expenses. The work showed it and rates, in Canada, have never recovered.
To my mind, part of the problem is visual pollution for want of a better expression. Particularly with the advent of the digital camera. We are flooded with images in media to the point that many have come to accept the mediocre. I was surprised to learn that major publishers now look to sites such as Flickr in search of cheap publishable images.
In my remote location, many of the businesses here have 'contests' which offer an unspecified prize or one of a few hundred dollars in exchange for absolute rights. The only one I will enter is the local city contest, which specifies non-exclusive use. It affords me free publicity when they use it in various publications, yet the ability to resell. One semi-pro here in town recently sold exclusive rights to a local publication $500.00 for five images. He was happy, he got a tank of fuel oil. He pays the mortgage by his day job. Is it worth trying to compete against that?
Part of it may be false economy. Is it really cheaper to have a number of photo researchers scouring the web for cheap images when to actually hire a photographer may be cheaper in the long run?
We have all meet the semi-pro or amateur photographer who can recite every technical detail of his equipment even telling you to the exact numeral the number of actuations their camera has had, yet have no conception of licensing and if they did, want the glory of publication, more than the income.
Many here may recall the phrase 'desktop publishing' that was so popular a decade ago. The phrase, and many of the small publishing houses, have disappeared in favour of progessional graphic designers. When the novelty of high quality digital images disappears will the industry favour the use of the professional photographer?
In the meantime I'm following Hank's example, professional work deserves a professional fee.
Dave
I looked at some of the microstock companies about a year ago, just to evaluate my options. My basic impression was this: For what I shoot, the quality level on these wasn't that high, certainly not above my work. Payment per image was low, but I *might* make that up in volume, then again, maybe not. How many people were actually buying from these places?
Last, it was going to take a fair amount of effort to bring large quantities of images up to a standard I was comfortable having my name attached to. We are not talking huge PS work, just the usual converting from RAW or scanning, mild color adjustments, resizing if needed, dealing with dust, etc. This I was going to have to do regardless of where I sent my images, microstock, a real stock agency, or print sales.
$4 an image, *if* it sells, simply isn't worth the time for me. If I am going to essentially give my work away, I'd rather go to an open field and photograph more spiders. I don't need to see might stuff in print that badly.
Right now, I have picked the Alamy route. I figure it is better than having my images sitting around doing nothing and the work I put in for them will largely transfer if I approach other more traditional stock agencies. Plus the few stray sales are kind of nice.
But I wonder if the days of getting fair prices for enough of your images to make a living are gone. Granted, if all of your shots are brilliant you have less to worry about. But it seems a truism that the glut of imagery on the market now has made some generic shots less valuable (think sunsets), because of simple supply and demand. Unless the sunset is really different or extraordinary (or you’re a really good salesman), is it possible to get a fair price these days?
One solution, of course, is to diversify and not rely on stock for a majority of your income -- some of you are already doing that. But for someone trying to shoot mostly stock, I wonder if it’s valid to face the reality of the marketplace and sell some of your generic shots as Royalty Free, and hold out the more unique ones for Rights Managed licensing. I know of several successful NPN photographers who are already doing this. (I wouldn’t advocate anyone sell through Micro Payment -- that’s just dumb.)
Or is the only solution to cross our arms, stamp our feet, and say “No!”? This is certainly the more difficult financial route to take -- but perhaps more honorable. I just wonder sometimes if we’re not all a little like cowboys in the 1950s, riding our heard to market while getting splashed with mud by the passing cattle trucks. . . .
Stock photographers are not in the fight alone- The stock agencies are as affected as individual photographers. But heck, cruise their sites and there's a whole lot of redundancy between their offerings, as well as between their sites and the cheapies.
Are the stock agencies fighting back or are they simply playing the game and cutting their prices? They most certainly are cutting prices, though as slowly as possible. More important to themselves and professional stock shooters, they are looking for ways to offer products and services not available from the cheapies.
We don't shoot for agencies, but today we are getting more requests than ever from three simply because we do shoot differently and different subjects than most generic stock shooters. The agencies are coming to us because they can't get the shots that sell from their own shooters, whether due to subject matter or to reluctance of their shooters to provide them. Here's an approximate version of what all three tell us:
"I'll puke if I get another sunset. We have so many sunsets we can't begin to sort them. Everyone has sunsets. We try to get our shooters to do something differerent with their sunsets. We send out monthly, weekly, daily wish lists to our photographers, telling them we have immediate markets for specific shots, and most don't bother to submit. If they don't have a shot in their files, tuff for us. The very few that get the message run out the door when they receive our wish lists and get the shots and send them ASAP. Those shots are selling. Sunsets aren't."
The traditional stock photography market is changing. Generic stock is going to the cheapies, while working for a stock agency is becoming more specialized in subject matter, treatment and methods. In many ways it is starting to resemble assignment shooting. If you continue shooting old fashioned stock, the market is going leave you whether due to lack of interest from your own agencies or competition from the cheapies. But if you follow and respond to the wish lists from the agencies, and especially if you look for subject matter and shooting methods that set you apart from the cheapies, then you have a future in stock.
If your amibition is to make a living with a camera, you might also have to diversify beyond traditional stock. Stock has always been a sideline for us while we made the bulk of our living through other types of shooting. If you're unwilling to diversify your stock shooting, I'd say your future is going to be more challenging than ever. If you're unwilling to diversify beyond stock as well, it gets even more difficult.
I guess I picked a bad day(decade) to start a photo career! I'm confused and not sure which direction to head!
It's easy to think "stock" when looking at a beautiful meadow and fiddling with your camera. But now think about actually selling that pretty meadow as a stock photo. Put a kid in it blowing bubbles, a couple holding hands, a beautiful young person plucking petals from a daisy and looking wistful, a jogger, a kid throwing a ball for a dog, mom showing a toddler a flower, someone reading a book, even sitting and using a laptop. Man, I could go on adding to that list for hours, and I bet I could sell each of them before the shot of the plain meadow earned a cent.
I know too many photographers who derive a sense of "purity" shooting only nature and wouldn't consider sullying their reputation by including people in their shots. News flash: Plain old nature images, no matter how well done, are the images saturating the stock market and dominating the cheapie sources. Stock agencies are crying for people shots because that's what the markets are looking for.
Oops, lecture over. I've already given away too much.
I'm as shy as the next photographer, and perhaps moreso. It pains me to approach strangers and ask for model releases, and worse, to be turned down. But I'd rather be turned down by potential subjects than markets.
The best solution for me has been to get releases from my companions (even other photographers), then include them in the shots. It requires that they dress a little more conscientiously than usual, but in my case at least, that's a good thing.
On the other hand, there is other factor: the photographers themselves. So I agree this is a society issue.
We professional, amateur, semi pro and everybody who concern about our value of art have to make some kind of “business conduct”, some best practices of photography business (maybe the term is overstated). But you know what I mean.
Very often I find photographer friends, the one who just start either their career or business or who only shot in the weekend ask me what to do because theirs will be used by other people or how to price the wedding assignment, etc. We don’t have such a simple rule of conduct, guidance (do we have? can we make it simple?). Yes, we have books on the photography business but who cares? The majority don’t read or even have intention to.
This should address the copyright and its relation to licensing images, “the market price” of the daily rate among other things (how to calculate the annual overhead is way too much for sure). I think the first chapter of Photographer’s Market could be a good example (mine is 2005).
Moreover, the workshop is the right place to put this subject in the syllabus. I think pros who have classes, workshop or even web site shall put it. These will have impact in the long term.
As the supply of photographers is flooding nowadays, educating photographer about doing the business the right way become essential.
There are as many opportunities to make money in photography as there every has been. Actually, probably more, considering the growth of the world economy. But it may not be the way the photographer will want to work, or understand the changes.
By the nineties people were talking about declining revenue in stock photography. The most stable type of stock - that which is timeless - is the most vulnerable. This is nothing new.
What do people want or need that is not readily available? That's the question of the business person in the free market. It's only free market economies that produce the wealth that a photographer can even consider landscape/scenic photography as a significant source of revenue.
One can't have it both ways.