tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post6408041976632759336..comments2023-05-24T06:02:06.480-05:00Comments on Chuck's Chatter: The decline of stock photographyChuck Doswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-74454768289411132952009-05-11T17:05:00.000-05:002009-05-11T17:05:00.000-05:00Like you, I'm glad not to be a full-time professio...Like you, I'm glad not to be a full-time professional photographer trying to make a living off of it. But like Aaron, I've settled on a few occasions for a little less than what standard stock-photo tables (SAA sanctioned or otherwise) or online guides (e.g., http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm) indicate, on the premise that a discounted sale is better than none at all. Where do you draw the line?<br /><br />Especially in a weak economy, cost seems to be the overwhelming driving consideration over quality or uniqueness. It is cheaper for a web designer to order up some generic "tornado" image off one of those $5 image sites -- unaware that half those so-called tornadoes are doctored or faked anyway -- than to obtain a better quality image that is for real. <br /><br />Look at the phone book sometime, thumbing through pages of ads for doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc. The same 4 or 5 images of happy, smiling, two-parent/two-child Caucasian families keep showing up in different ads for different services. You'll learn to recognize them after awhile, and may even get familiar enough to assign names to the families. "Hey look at this ad for legal services: There's that same photo of Steve, Stacy, Caitlyn and Dakota that I saw in the orthodontics billboard up on Highway 77!" I have seen one particular field of bluebonnets in ads for lots of different businesses. Elke points out to me redundant photos that she finds often in her line of work (web design). <br /><br />Why are these images so popular despite their redundancy and mediocre quality? Easy: they cost a few bucks to download, and they suffice for generic, budget usage.<br /><br />How do we as licensers of rights managed, authentic and professional quality photography counteract this? In most cases, we don't. The generic market is lost. Those who want the same cheap, often heavily Photoshopped crap that every other ad agency uses will pay less...get what they pay for, and yes, probably will be satisfied with less than the best, out of ignorant bliss.<br /><br />Instead, we as rights managed stock agents have to promote our advantages: <br />1. Quality. This speaks for itself.<br /><br />2. Authenticity. The tornado or lightning strike is real, as it happened...no bogus insertions or combining images.<br /><br />3. Uniqueness. Our images won't be found on every other Tom, Dick and Harry's ad or website. <br /><br />The few decent licensing agreements I've gotten the last year or so have been based off premise #3 above: While our license still is nonexclusive, my image will not be appearing ad nauseam on the site of every other maker of the same widget. The "other guys" download the $5 image, and don't stand out from the crowd. <br /><br />Volume is very slow right now, as you've seen, and there's little we can do outside of promoting quality, authenticity and uniqueness. <br /><br />As a result, volume will be lower and less frequent in a hard economy, and a market filled with adequate-but-not-great images that are cheap and easy to obtain. Instead, we deal with those few clients who demand high quality and are willing to pay for it. Those may be getting even more few and far between. <br /><br />Makes me glad I've got a full-time day (and night and weekend) job that I love.El Gran Rogeliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14519504590872284310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-12774642914079630562009-05-08T11:01:00.000-05:002009-05-08T11:01:00.000-05:00You could have as easily titled this as "The decli...You could have as easily titled this as "The decline of photography(photographers)"<br /><br />While the DSLR revolution has made many positive changes to the field (mainly in creativeness), it has also over saturated the market with a large number of photographers willing to work for little money (wedding photography comes to mind). People normally get what they pay for but it still ends up driving down the costs for the pros that have been working years in the field.<br /><br />I have to admit I'm even a part of the problem. While I don't partake in any stock photography, I have accepted way too little money (in my opinion) for certain calendar shots. But what can you do? If you decline their request on principle after they refuse changing their image fees, they'll just go to the next joe schmo and use his image. Some of the more recent calendars have even used stills form VIDEO which absolutely flabbergasts me. <br /><br />So In the end I end up pocketing the money they offer, make sure a URL gets thrown in, and deal with it.Aaron Kennedyhttp://www.ontheplains.comnoreply@blogger.com