R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

buy print at http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573

Congratulations!

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Sometimes something has to give it's balancing the budget; we'd shot some great studio 10x8 car shots for a catalouge only to have the art dir get it printed on what looked like toilet paper.

Quality of print will suffer with all these mag cuts as they search for cheaper print houses.

On the flip side, some people are looking for BETTER paper stock. The fact is, some people will go cheap while others will invest in quality to separate themselves from the cheap people.

--
MICHAEL DONOVAN
http://MichaelDonovanPhotography.com

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

it's totally convenient in that respect, absolutely.


just out of curiosity, have you ever analyzed your acceptance to submission or submission rejection rate?

Yes, my acceptance rate is 65.6 percent. I'd say I have 1 in 3 rejections later accepted with some fixes.

Since the beginning of June I've uploaded 103 files. I had 17 rejections, 5 of those accepted on the second submission, a few more that I haven't fixed yet, and two which I've sent off to Scout (iStock's appeal inspectors.) One I sent to Scout has a US Army Corps of Engineers sign in front of a lighthouse; it was rejected for privacy concerns (WTF?) So I'm trying to get it accepted without cloning out the damn sign :sigh:

That's the kind of stuff that drives me batty.

And most of my rejections are the infamous "lighting."

Chris Macan wrote:

I don't think that is a mask.... I think he is Sarcastic Bob
It's part of the charm.

Smilin' Bob. Yeah, that's him.

Bodyshots Photography wrote:

Not if their needs for that cover only require an inexpensive stock photo.  However, when their next issue requires something they can't get with stock, they may have it in the budget to pay for that expensive photographer.

I know the director of a small magazine who does just that all the time.  They have an annual budget for art (photography)  Saving in one area when they allows them to do something more unique when they need to.  They have purchased cover art from Istock and worked with a professional photographer who charges $1,000+ per day.  Sometimes, they'll do something in between like buy an image from me for $250.

So tell me, based on your experience(and I'm not trying to argue or fire shots, etc.) what is the basis for the price of a photo?

Digital Czar wrote:

Evasion takes many forms. Too bad you couldn't answer honestly and had to put on your "sarcastic bob" mask.

Jesus Jim, you look like your begging for a pat on the back. To tell you the truth, I barely remember what happened then. If you had something to do with a repeal or whatever happened, congratulations.

In business, I've always been a loner. I've never found that my practices run in tandem with the concerns of others. All the tax bullcrap that has come and gone seems to be mitigated by operating a full fledged C corp. I doubt whether her bill or anyone else's would have affected me. I doubt Sotomeyer's $7.00 per image assessment will ever affect me either.

PYPI FASHION wrote:
Not for a stock image, but an editorial photo on the cover of Time is easily $10,000. It may be different now that the economy is in the gutter but Time has a circulation of 3.4 million. Shit, I got paid $500 plus another 10% for a tiny web thumbnail for a single run on the cover of a local rag with a distribution of 70K. My web thumbnail rate was more than your entire 3.4 million cover run which may include foreign editions, reprints, subscriptions cards, and future reproductions.

Something is not right about that picture.

Actually, $10,000 is not correct (not trying to be argumentative).  I have had images on the cover of magazines in the US, and have also just missed a Sports Illustrated cover once (I've had images inside, but not the cover). Prices for covers of magazines are set as part of that publication's standard page rate, which they have set up for covers, back covers, full page inside down to spot usage inside.  They pay these rates with very little, if any, negotiation done ever. If you want them to buy rights and use the image, you pretty much have to accept what their rates are.  A magazine like Time will have a larger page rate schedule than a small, esoteric, or local magazine, however their rates are not astronomical either - quite the contrary.

As for some additional information, the Foto-Quote rate for an editorial magazine cover in the USA with a print run of up to 5 million is $1924.  Foto-Quote is industry standard pricing algorithm (online service) for pricing image usage rights for virtually any usage a client might request. As you can see, even for a large print-run pub like Time the suggested price is right at the $2K mark, but again, the publication (especially one as large as Time) will have a page rate that is non-negotiable (unless you have a one-of-a-kind, once-in-a-lifetime photo - ie hardly ever).

$30 is the downside of the microstock business, but if it's a good image, the upside is that that image may be purchased dozens or even hundreds of times and can add up to thousands of dollars in revenue over time vs. the one-time hit of Time using it for a cover. And how does one expect to get his/her images onto the desk of the Photo Editor of Time without the sales channel of a stock agency, in this case the mega micro-stock agency, iStockPhoto?  Just a thought.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Yes, my acceptance rate is 65.6 percent. I'd say I have 1 in 3 rejections later accepted with some fixes.

Since the beginning of June I've uploaded 103 files. I had 17 rejections, 5 of those accepted on the second submission, a few more that I haven't fixed yet, and two which I've sent off to Scout (iStock's appeal inspectors.) One I sent to Scout has a US Army Corps of Engineers sign in front of a lighthouse; it was rejected for privacy concerns (WTF?) So I'm trying to get it accepted without cloning out the damn sign :sigh:

That's the kind of stuff that drives me batty.

And most of my rejections are the infamous "lighting."

Huh! My rejections are usually for "high ISO noise" for shots taken in good light, ISO 200 on a 1Ds MKIII. I've never been able to fathom that one out.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Yes, my acceptance rate is 65.6 percent. I'd say I have 1 in 3 rejections later accepted with some fixes.

Since the beginning of June I've uploaded 103 files. I had 17 rejections, 5 of those accepted on the second submission, a few more that I haven't fixed yet, and two which I've sent off to Scout (iStock's appeal inspectors.) One I sent to Scout has a US Army Corps of Engineers sign in front of a lighthouse; it was rejected for privacy concerns (WTF?) So I'm trying to get it accepted without cloning out the damn sign :sigh:

That's the kind of stuff that drives me batty.

And most of my rejections are the infamous "lighting."

Justin Foto wrote:
Huh! My rejections are usually for "high ISO noise" for shots taken in good light, ISO 200 on a 1Ds MKIII. I've never been able to fathom that one out.

LOL

that's hysterical!!!!!

Digital Czar wrote:

Bob, you're missing something. While it's very true that no one is owed a living and that we do have to make a living, make your own place, you can't also sell your services when you're at $1500 to someone who's buying stuff for $30.

No magazine. agency, designer or direct client is going to hire Bob Randall for $2500/day when they can get something "good enough" in a stock shot or perhaps from a cheaper shooter, unless you've charmed the socks off them which might be unlikely unless they're familiar with you or your reps did the sock-charming.

This is not true.

If I was filthy stinkin' rich, I'd still buy a Ford Mustang.  Because I LIKE Mustangs.  But, Mustangs are no where near what a Ferrari F430 is.  But, they'll both do what I need them to do.  Get me to work.  Get me to the store.

But, if I want to really make myself shit my pants, I should get the Ferrari F430 as I'm sure a Ford Mustang GT would never be able to keep up with the Ferrari F430.

Ferrari doesn't sell nearly as many F430s as Ford sells Mustangs.  The market isn't there for Ferrari and there is no way they can compete with Mustangs.  Mustangs are just too inexpensive/affordable for the mass consumer.

I wonder if Ferrari has meetings about what to do about Ford Mustangs.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I wonder if Ferrari has meetings about what to do about Ford Mustangs.

LMAO.

PYPI FASHION wrote:

You got screwed.

We all do - congratulations on getting it out there!!

Justin Foto wrote:
We are now officially going around in circles.

Well my pixels are squares......... can we go round in squares please.

Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:
There was a time when I would just argue to argue with you, Bob. But I've grown since then and realize we often just have different opinions on things however I would agree with you 100% on this.

I'm fed up with reading people who are scribbling about how the sky is falling. You have to WORK to get what you want and I think most people on this site forget that missing piece. You have to really spend a lot of time defining who you are and what your voice is. Most peopel do not have a voice; I don't hear a voice emanating from that coin jar and I look at many people who argue that the jar killed their business to see they don't have strong voices either.

I agree that successful shooters have to spend a significant amount of time and energy paying their dues. I'm not a threat to top fashion photographers today but, so I can be, I am working every day on my art. I often find myself shooting twice or three times a day while trying to hussle a few pennies here and there to buy some mac 'n cheese. A $30 coin jar is not a threat to my business and it isn't a threat to anyone else's, except the people trying to sell an identical coin jar for $45 under similar conditions.

In the end, good business with good earnings isn't for everyone. You have to really work, think on your toes, take chances and adapt much more than the average person can handle. If business were easy then we would ALL be making 6, 7, or 8 figures each year. A $30 coin jar IS going to kill someone's business, but that person barely had a business in the first place.

PS: I apologize for being such a pain in the ass before... I am sure you will understand that I was just being "young and foolish."

--
MICHAEL DONOVAN
http://MichaelDonovanPhotography.com

Agreed...

Reminds me of someone who was talking to be about the difference between a "day job" VS owning your own buisness.

"you no longer work 40 hours a week, you no longer work 9-5, now you work 60+ hours a week and spend every waking moment pushing your buisness further."

So far this seems to be true, but the 60+ weeks fly right by and I am never bored.

BCADULTART wrote:
The important thing to remember is that it is summer time and that TIME has let go of most of the senior photo editing staff.

Are you trying to say that is because of MicroStock?
Or maybe it has more to do with their revenue stream shrinking due to ad revenue issues?

BCADULTART wrote:
Circles?  You All Dizzy Yet?

The important thing to remember is that it is summer time and that TIME has let go of most of the senior photo editing staff. 

My last statement on this is:  I am just glad that I am not a 22 year old photojournalist starting out.

Chuck

So am I, the thought of having to suffer through 30 more years of you is more than I can bear to think of.

Chris Macan wrote:

Are you trying to say that is because of MicroStock?
Or maybe it has more to do with their revenue stream shrinking due to ad revenue issues?

Magazine Publishers of America on my previous post may give a clue. Time has also had a big cut in staff.

Digital Czar wrote:
So tell me, based on your experience(and I'm not trying to argue or fire shots, etc.) what is the basis for the price of a photo?

Simple answer:  The average price is determined by the annual budget which is influenced by the economy.   The variance from this average for each image is determined by the nature of the need and the market price for obtaining images that fit this need.  Some needs require inexpensive images.  Other needs required more expensive imagery.   With less prominent images like visiting speakers, its usually a fairly low need and fairly fixed cost to meet this need.  When it comes to the front cover, or images associated with feature stories, the need varies more.

I know the art director looks forward to the images that come from spending the money on the professional photographer.  Those are usually the images that make the magazine look good and therefore make the art director look good.  The budget demands, however, this must be balanced against less expensive imagery.

My guess is the art director I know would be looking at the image in this post and thinking:  "That's the one I got to work that saved the budget and saved my job"  He's not thinking "That's the one that's going to make this issue memorable and make my job".  He'd be looking forward to having the money for the image people would remember.

While I know this art director and magazine fairly well, I have no idea if Time and larger magazines operate in a similar fashion or not.  I imagine there are some similarities.

I should add, I know they just had a 10% budget cut.  Since many of their costs are fixed, I imagine money spent on images will decrease by more than 10%.  That's their reality.

Justin Foto wrote:

Huh! My rejections are usually for "high ISO noise" for shots taken in good light, ISO 200 on a 1Ds MKIII. I've never been able to fathom that one out.

That's the one that I get all the time. It's either that or there's a logo in the photo. My favorite rejection was a fellow firefighter I shot closeup, pretty much just the SCBA mask and part of the helmet. Face shield was all fogged up so you couldn't see the face. They wanted a release. I work with the guy and I couldn't even tell who it was.

BCADULTART wrote:
Circles?  You All Dizzy Yet?

The important thing to remember is that it is summer time and that TIME has let go of most of the senior photo editing staff. 

My last statement on this is:  I am just glad that I am not a 22 year old photojournalist starting out.

Chuck

Not all of us miss the days when we shot off a few rolls of film then were happy to go to the bar.

Chris Macan wrote:
Are you trying to say that is because of MicroStock?
Or maybe it has more to do with their revenue stream shrinking due to ad revenue issues?

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Magazine Publishers of America on my previous post may give a clue. Time has also had a big cut in staff.

So based on that Micro Stock is good for Time Mag
cause Time is losing money and pages hand over fist compared to the previous year.
Cutting cost helps the publication stay afloat.

So this was a good decistion..... sort of......

BCADULTART wrote:
Circles?  You All Dizzy Yet?

The important thing to remember is that it is summer time and that TIME has let go of most of the senior photo editing staff. 

My last statement on this is:  I am just glad that I am not a 22 year old photojournalist starting out.

Chuck

I wish I was born a hundred years ago........ cos I could have bought my house for a hundred quid, or started Marks and Spencers.

There you go........ I feel better now, it got me nowhere but I feel better,

Bodyshots Photography wrote:

Simple answer:  The average price is determined by the annual budget which is influenced by the economy.   The variance from this average for each image is determined by the nature of the need and the market price for obtaining images that fit this need.  Some needs require inexpensive images.  Other needs required more expensive imagery.   With less prominent images like visiting speakers, its usually a fairly low need and fairly fixed cost to meet this need.  When it comes to the front cover, or images associated with feature stories, the need varies more.

I know the art director looks forward to the images that come from spending the money on the professional photographer.  Those are usually the images that make the magazine look good and therefore make the art director look good.  The budget demands, however, this must be balanced against less expensive imagery.

My guess is the art director I know would be looking at the image in this post and thinking:  "That's the one I got to work that saved the budget and saved my job"  He's not thinking "That's the one that's going to make this issue memorable and make my job".  He'd be looking forward to having the money for the image people would remember.

While I know this art director and magazine fairly well, I have no idea if time and larger magazine operate in a similar fashion or not.  I imagine there are some similarities.

What about Usage + difficulty to do the shoot + raw costs + your worth(what you bring to the party = budget           Knowing that this is open to negotiation.

It's been that circulation has played a part in what fee is charged, as well as size etc. I don't see that in your thinking.

It's hard to think budgets can be set without knowing the content and layouts, etc. and thus difficulty to do an image. You might be setting a years budget today, but in the 6th month of next years budget some relevant current topic comes up and say the photo illustration is a highly stylized one, a set had to be built, set stylist booked, prop stylist and props all before you get to pushing the button and then you have the photo fee. All something that can't necessarily be anticipated at budget time. And then later to stayin budget the AD has to rob peter to pay paul and so on.

slave to the lens wrote:

He'll always be KevlarVestGirl to me.

Do you mean impenetrable or slippery?

Why Dangle wrote:

I wish I was born a hundred years ago........ cos I could have bought my house for a hundred quid, or started Marks and Spencers.

There you go........ I feel better now, it got me nowhere but I feel better,

How many photographers have 3 assistants and a PA nowadays.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

How many photographers have 3 assistants and a PA nowadays.

I do, and I'm going to start charging more so I can buy one of these. Wait til I tell the purists I was on full auto 30 fps.

http://www.b2pro.com/gallery/shot_on_red/index.php

Chris Macan wrote:

You don't think Agencies still shoot creative content on location???
Sorry..... You're crazy.

Maybe that specific ad would be done in Photoshop.......
But Ads shot on location are commonplace for advertising agencies.

You're a bit out of context. I doubt THAT ad would be done today, or some like it, due to budget constraints. I'm not talking of the ad where you go to some location nearby or even perhaps in the states, depending on all the factors that go into the bottom line cost.

Digital Czar wrote:
What about Usage + difficulty to do the shoot + raw costs + your worth(what you bring to the party = budget           Knowing that this is open to negotiation.

I don't think there is a lot of negotiating.   However, the things you mentioned will be reflected in who they hire.  Who they choose to hire will once again depend on the needs they have.  Sorry - I should add their usage includes non transferable rights.  They do not buy the copyright.  I'm sure this is reflected in the initial negotiations regarding photographer pay.

At other times, they pay for images and this again relates to the need/difficulty. 

Digital Czar wrote:
It's been that circulation has played a part in what fee is charged, as well as size etc. I don't see that in your thinking.

I'm afraid I don't know much about how their initial budget is established or how it relates to circulation.   Webpage, and other parts of the business are a part of the equation as well as just the print material. 

Digital Czar wrote:
It's hard to think budgets can be set without knowing the content and layouts, etc. and thus difficulty to do an image. You might be setting a years budget today, but in the 6th month of next years budget some relevant current topic comes up and say the photo illustration is a highly stylized one, a set had to be built, set stylist booked, prop stylist and props all before you get to pushing the button and then you have the photo fee. All something that can't necessarily be anticipated at budget time. And then later to stayin budget the AD has to rob peter to pay paul and so on.

I think you mention many of the challenges the art director I know faces regularly.  Still he's responsible to the bottom line.  I think robbing peter to pay paul, is one reason they sometimes  turn to micro stock when they've gone over budget some where else.

Subjects/models not showing when he's paying big bucks for the photographer is another cost he runs into.  I guess some issues are universal.

Robert Randall wrote:

I do, and I'm going to start charging more so I can buy one of these. Wait til I tell the purists I was on full auto 30 fps.

http://www.b2pro.com/gallery/shot_on_red/index.php

Ultimate microstock camera.

30 fps x $30 = $900 per second.

Stephen Fletcher wrote:
23 pages and Bob hasn't been brigged?

You are slipping.

brigged for what?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

brigged for what?

Bob can generally find some reason to get brigged.

Whether he deserves it or not.