Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33856

San Francisco, California, US

KillerShotz Photography wrote:

He is content.  Everybody else here are the ones that are complaining.

No it's not everybody, but there are a few.

Jul 25 09 04:45 pm Link

Photographer

Scott A Miller photo

Posts: 5627

Orlando, Florida, US

Lumigraphics wrote:

A photo of a jar of coins is not worth thousands of dollars, no matter how loudly you claim it is.

And you need to fix your business model. I'd love to put you out of business because it means *I* get the money instead of you.

Somebody in Podunk wouldn't get to publish a shot in Time under the old system. So really, the only people hurt by this are commercial guys in LA and NYC. The rest of us have access to a market that was closed before.

I see this as a good thing.

Really?

Bring it on.. Mt business model has made me very successful for over 20 years. And not doing TF and BS work either.

Second my market to LA and NYC is closed because I live in Orlando or any where that isn't LA or NYC?

Hmmm.. how do I get the covers, and the clips I get then from national publications?

Or the commercial clients all over that I do work for ?

At one time I lived in Gallup New Mexico -- look it up --25 miles from the Arizona state line and 140 miles west of Albuquerque.

On a regualr basis, I shot for national publications and commercial clients from both coasts.
That was the early 1990s.

So location means nothing. It's about knowing the business, knowing what to charge, networking, sending promo cards meeting editors.

Jul 25 09 04:47 pm Link

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33856

San Francisco, California, US

Damn, some of you thread jack the shit out of the o.p. thread. Let's get back on track and let the man be happy; agree or not agree.

Jul 25 09 04:49 pm Link

Photographer

Studio Velvet

Posts: 12

Charlotte, North Carolina, US

Lumigraphics wrote:

Newsflash, dude- you don't get to decide! The market decided for you. Too fucking bad if you don't like those prices.

The department stores cried when Walmart came along and ate their lunch. Guess what? Walmart is huge and the dept stores are on life support. That's capitalism for you.

Oh..YEAH Walmart! They are part of the problem,not the solution! They help to erode the industry here,not only did they help to put out of buisness,stores,but  manufacturing industries through out the US,because in order to offer these undercut prices we had to do buisness with cheap slave labor,in China etc..WhoopLa! So continue to shop at Walmart and all of us may be out of jobs,less we move to China for one..lol.

here's a newsflash,not everyone shops or wants to shop at Walmart.Some people value uniqueness and quality.
I support as many local merchants as I can,I may pay alittle more,but atleast I know the soap I buy or the food ,whatever was made here in the US,a crafts person,but that additional cost is worth it to me,for many reasons.

For the person asking,did it really cost thousands of dollars to produce that image..hmmmm,depends what equiptment you use I guess..as well as other cost,vehicle ,gas,insurance,your TIME processing,keywording,uploading...only you know that...I can bet you though that cover is what helps sell that magazine,so to them 30.00 is a bargain for what their publication is making. So if their product is valuable,why is yours not?

Jul 25 09 04:52 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

Creative Works LLC wrote:

So, if I post a photo of a jar of pennies to a stock photo site, I should expect to get $4,000.00 for each use of it?

No, but how much you get is determined by HOW it's used(Usage), something which it appears you don't understand. BTW, how much did your stock site get for selling the image to TIME( a 4/C COLOR WEEKLY NEWS Magazine)

Jul 25 09 04:56 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

MinisterC  wrote:
WOW! Congratulations. That's worth a shout. It's a bit unfortunate they don't pay a bit more, but such is the life of stock photography. Very cool. That means that thousands, if not millions of people will now view your work! Nice.

hpmft!  This is what's wrong with stock photography. it's being given away and the photographer is giving away his images thinking he made some incredible hit by his being able to point to a Time magazine and say it's his photo.

No wonder photographers have a hard time staying in business and making money.

Jul 25 09 05:00 pm Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32689

Detroit, Michigan, US

Does ANYONE think the old days are coming back? The days of artificial scarcity when print publishing was king?

I didn't think so. All the griping on this thread isn't going to change ONE THING.

Get used to the new world order, folks.

Jul 25 09 05:02 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

btdsgn wrote:
It's a cool tear...

Not unless it's got YOUR NAME on it. Otherwise, it's value is little if anything since you can't prove it's yours.

Jul 25 09 05:02 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Digital Czar wrote:

hpmft!  This is what's wrong with stock photography. it's being given away and the photographer is giving away his images thinking he made some incredible hit by his being able to point to a Time magazine and say it's his photo.

No wonder photographers have a hard time staying in business and making money.

there are plenty doing just fine, maybe the reason others are not able too has more to do with them and less to do with what others are doing.  hmm

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 05:02 pm Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32689

Detroit, Michigan, US

Tony Blei Photography wrote:
When you were a kid, did you always want to grow up to be an ass, or did it just work out that way?

Personal attacks are against the rules, mainly because you aren't worth getting brigged by an appropriate response.

Jul 25 09 05:03 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

R Studios wrote:

you are right. i will

Make sure you put a sign on it that you only got $30 too and see what the reactions are.

Jul 25 09 05:04 pm Link

Photographer

A-M-P

Posts: 18211

Orlando, Florida, US

lumigraphics wrote:
Too fucking bad.

I didn't weaken MY market where I was making nothing. I weakened YOUR market and took some of your money away.

So you can whine at me or you can adapt.

I 100% agree

Jul 25 09 05:04 pm Link

Photographer

Scott Doctor

Posts: 388

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Consider this analogy.

Why do people by Ferrari, Porsche, Rolls Royce, when they could get a nice Toyota or Honda?

Why do people buy name brands such as Kellogs Corn Flakes, Oreos, Charmin Toilet Paper, when they could buy the less expensive house brands of the same product?

Jul 25 09 05:04 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

Like most tear sheets, the value is in how the photographer uses it. Nobody is going to go looking for the photographer upon seeing that image. It's bragging rights and a selling point for the photographer.

OTOH the business can be incredibly small sometimes and you never have any idea of whom the client your're showing the image to knows, maybe someone at Time, maybe the Stock agency or whomever else.

You never hear the one that gets you...

Jul 25 09 05:06 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Scott Doctor wrote:
Consider this analogy.

Why do people by Ferrari, Porsche, Rolls Royce, when they could get a nice Toyota or Honda?

Why do people buy name brands such as Kellogs Corn Flakes, Oreos, Charmin Toilet Paper, when they could buy the less expensive house brands of the same product?

marketing!

Except the Porsche, for that, There is no Substitute!  big_smile

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 05:06 pm Link

Photographer

Scott Doctor

Posts: 388

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

StephenEastwood wrote:

marketing!

Except the Porsche, for that, There is no Substitute!  big_smile

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

And Quality. While the house brands may be Good Enough for many people, some people prefer that little extra quality that often comes with buying a name brand.

Jul 25 09 05:09 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63171

Danbury, Connecticut, US

Tony Blei Photography wrote:
I don't think we're complaining, I think we are just trying to argue that there are problems when it comes to microstock.

The biggest problem I see is that some people refuse to accept that Supply and Demand rule economies, not fanciful ideas of what should be or nostalgia of what once was.

Jul 25 09 05:13 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Scott Doctor wrote:

And Quality. While the house brands may be Good Enough for many people, some people prefer that little extra quality that often comes with buying a name brand.

Status, for the Rolls  wink

Look at me for the Ferrari 

Just all around hot for a twin Turbo Porsche  big_smile

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 05:13 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Brian Diaz wrote:

The biggest problem I see is that some people refuse to accept that Supply and Demand rule economies, not fanciful ideas of what should be or nostalgia of what once was.

maybe if they all ban together they can make a difference!  tongue

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 05:14 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63171

Danbury, Connecticut, US

StephenEastwood wrote:

maybe if they all ban together they can make a difference!  tongue

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Wouldn't that be a violation of anti-trust laws?  Price fixing is illegal.

Jul 25 09 05:16 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

Greg Christensen wrote:

Come on - let's get real here, does anybody think Time is going to shell out $10,000 for a cover shot each week. Photography for editorial use is not a money maker for stock shooters. If some 70K rag paid you $500 for a one time run there is a reason newspapers and magazines are going out of business.

First off, which Time? There's Time Magazine, Time Canada,Time Europe, Time Latin America, Time Out of New York, Time Out of Paris, and Time South Pacific.

Was it used only in Time Magazine or any of the others? Print usage, electronic usage? Direct Mailer usage? Or whatever else?

Time Magazine alone has a circulation of 4,026,891 and charges $241,350 for a 4/C full-page Ad. And the other Time's charge different fees.

That said Time payes $400-500 including e-rights so says Cradoc FotoQuote for this year. Far too cheap, but probably negotiable.

Last, what does anyone think it would cost for them to hire a tabletop shooter(probably in NY) to shoot that photo?

Jul 25 09 05:17 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Digital Czar wrote:
First off, which Time? There's Time Magazine, Time Canada,Time Europe, Time Latin America, Time Out of New York, Time Out of Paris, and Time South Pacific.

Was it used only in Time Magazine or any of the others? Print usage, electronic usage? Direct Mailer usage? Or whatever else?

Time Magazine alone has a circulation of 4,026,891 and charges $241,350 for a 4/C full-page Ad. And the other Time's charge different fees.

That said Time payes $400-500 including e-rights so says Cradoc FotoQuote for this year. Far too cheap, but probably negotiable.

Last, what does anyone think it would cost for them to hire a tabletop shooter(probably in NY) to shoot that photo?

If you had to book them for a full days shoot,
A good one, starts at 2500, a decent one maybe 1000, a great one can be up to 5000, a crappy one maybe 250, a craigslist one that may well produce a crappy photo or a fantastic photo, maybe free.  To have the shot you need on a time crunch, Istock 30$


Paying 2500 for a shot like that is because that person can charge that much because of what they can do, this is well below what that skill is, and if you want a more simple shot, he would be the wrong person to hire for this.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 05:20 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

PYPI FASHION wrote:

At this point, I don't think this thread is really about the OP's image or his $30. It was just a catalyst for the broader discussion of microstock images used for a cover shot.

I would never have any stock with a "Stock agency" that only brought $30 for this kind of usage.

What does the stock agency get for the photo vs. what they're paying the photographer?

Jul 25 09 05:21 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

Timothy Hughes wrote:

PDN would be interested in this story I'm sure.

The ASMP and the APA would be more interested and astounded.

Jul 25 09 05:22 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

Derick Hingle wrote:
I am not upset at the OP for getting a cover of TIME I'm upset that people value their images so little that they put them on Microstock site, and to make things worse the photog doesn't get credit for the image, istockphoto does. The inset images likely got $300+ each and the Illustrator likely made $200 or who knows a lot more being it was a cover. I'm just saddened by this. I'm happy for the OP getting a cover, but sad at the business practices of TIME in this situation.

PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION FOR TIME BY ARTHUR HOCHSTEIN. COIN JAR FROM ISTOCKPHOTO. INSETS, FROM LEFT: JON RASMUSSEN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES; ANDREW MACPHERSON/CORBIS OUTLINE.

Someone gets it! Hurray.

Jul 25 09 05:22 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63171

Danbury, Connecticut, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
Does ANYONE think the old days are coming back? The days of artificial scarcity when print publishing was king?

Back in the day, the scarcity was real.

Just a few years ago, you'd have to call a stock agency and tell the salesperson, "I need a picture of a jar full of coins."

So they'd get people to look through their libraries and gather together copies of the images that meet that criteria.  Then you'd go and look though those images, decide what you want, and negotiate licensing fees, etc.  Then they'd have to produce a physical copy from which you can print.

Just a few years ago, it took several people working together to sell one image of a jar of coins.  At that time, fees of $2000 for a stock image were more justified, as they more closely reflected the actual cost of providing that service.

Jul 25 09 05:23 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

Robert Randall wrote:

My NY agent represents a few guys that shoot editorial, and that includes shooting for Time magazine. Current going rate is $1800.00 plus expenses for a cover. They aren't using old line big names like Gregory Heisler anymore to shoot their covers because they don't have the money. Have you looked at a Time lately... counted the ads in it? Magazine work of a non fashion genre is dying quickly and there is little money to be made in it. I used to shoot for Business Week, but when covers went under a $1000.00, and inside features went to $400.00 it was time to quit.

Check this out!

http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=138023

Bob, maybe you needed some "forms"?  :-)

Jul 25 09 05:23 pm Link

Photographer

Digital Czar

Posts: 935

Oak Park, Illinois, US

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

microstock is out of the bag, it like digital isn't going back in.

If you have major publications using freebie and microstock in their publications, what are the implications of that for professional photographers?

What it's doing is devaluing commercial photography, photojournalism and photo work in general and commoditizing photographic images. Lowers the value of assignment work(espeically when some stock agencies are sending folks out on assignments.)

Jul 25 09 05:25 pm Link

Photographer

JJ Art

Posts: 1330

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

Brian Diaz wrote:

The biggest problem I see is that some people refuse to accept that Supply and Demand rule economies, not fanciful ideas of what should be or nostalgia of what once was.

Supply and Demand rule economies in a vacuum... not in the real world.  In the real world concepts like quality, brand loyalty, fame, fair play, psychology, and sociology all come in to play.  If there were no such influences, then $30 would be what every magazine paid for every cover shot.

sorry... you can't get off with a simple supply vs demand argument in art because the supply is either infinitely small or infinitely large depending on how you look at an image.

Jul 25 09 05:33 pm Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

Digital Czar wrote:

What it's doing is devaluing commercial photography, photojournalism and photo work in general and commoditizing photographic images. Lowers the value of assignment work(espeically when some stock agencies are sending folks out on assignments.)

That's my point.

No one cares about quality they care about bottom line.  especially the large corporations that own microstock and the large companies looking to cut out fat (except executive pay, of course)>

Take photojournalism....who cares about the journalism part of it anymore?  That doesn't sell newspapers...talking heads, short attack pieces with slant, opinion, gossip, photos of celebs are what count.   The photos accompanying a news story are for the most part forgettable, so news gatherers like CNN has internet sections devoted to citizen "journalists" submitting work for free, and they actually use this work.


We have a walmart culture and value system particularly as it relates to anything non-technical.

You don't have huge corporations asking IT people working for free, but it's perfectly okay to ask artists, craftspeople, photographers etc to do it for exposure.   It's the way it is, it will get worse, and unless you are at the top of the food chain like a few of the guys in this thread are or are a trustafarian you probably will have to be on your toes constantly adapting so that all the joe freebies out there don't take your paid work.

Jul 25 09 05:42 pm Link

Photographer

Studio Velvet

Posts: 12

Charlotte, North Carolina, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
Does ANYONE think the old days are coming back? The days of artificial scarcity when print publishing was king?

I didn't think so. All the griping on this thread isn't going to change ONE THING.

Get used to the new world order, folks.

Last time I checked,I marched to the beat of my own drum! No,your right,times are changing. It can change for the good or the worse,it depends on every persons voice.Thats fine if you want to join the masses in degrading this industry,you will accept your future willingly,I am fighting for mine. I am fighting for an industry I am passionate about and I will continue to speak out in hopes of waking someone the hell up...It is sad,that all to you in this industry is $$$, For me when I started,when I first picked up the camera,it was LOVE,it was obvious that to me this was something I had to do,I have to create,it is like eating. So for me,getting paid is a ways to the means to continue to do something I am so passionate about. It took me many years to even hang my hat out that I was a photographer,because luckily for me I had people around me who are just as passionate about their craft,coaching me.

I read something interesting,thought I would share,consumers are now purchasing one high quality item versus several cheaper items,consumers are buying the best they can afford. You are right,the trend has been more for less,but the quality has been mediocre at best. Just remember,trends change,like trendy fashion. Some clients want more,some realize the value in an image etc,setting their product apart! I know for me, a cover will  stop me everytime,it makes me stop,makes me want  to pick up that item,look further,there is no value in that? It sells milions of magazines,books etc.. So,while I refuse to deny that someone should be happy for a cover,but at what cost does this cover come,when if they could have found this image for less they would have purchased it,and you willingly accept this trend,till when,when will you see that your work is being devalued,when your competitor sells it for 1.00 what once cost 30.00,yet once cost 100.00 and on and on.

Maybe someone can console you,when all the mags just hold contest to get images for free and your payment,a credit line! I bet you won't be at the front of the line,speaking how great the trend is then!

Jul 25 09 05:43 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

That's my point.

No one cares about quality they care about bottom line.  especially the large corporations that own microstock and the large companies looking to cut out fat (except executive pay, of course)>

Take photojournalism....who cares about the journalism part of it anymore?  That doesn't sell newspapers...talking heads, short attack pieces with slant, opinion, gossip, photos of celebs are what count.   The photos accompanying a news story are for the most part forgettable, so news gatherers like CNN has internet sections devoted to citizen "journalists" submitting work for free, and they actually use this work.


We have a walmart culture and value system particularly as it relates to anything non-technical.

You don't have huge corporations asking IT people working for free, but it's perfectly okay to ask artists, craftspeople, photographers etc to do it for exposure.   It's the way it is, it will get worse, and unless you are at the top of the food chain like a few of the guys in this thread are or are a trustafarian you probably will have to be on your toes constantly adapting so that all the joe freebies out there don't take your paid work.

to an extent this is correct, we are also seeing more access to more images and news events than in years past, more magazines, more tv channels, more internet sites all needing content, they cannot keep up the speed and demand for it with the same level of quality.  A weekly magazine can have a better written and thought out and researched article than a daily publication trying to meet a midnight deadline for an event that happened at 10opm.  We also have more demand for more images now than ever, and that means more potential.  And you do not need to be at the top of the food chain, just need to be able to produce what is in demand, when its needed.  Getting a shot of a once in a lifetime event can only be done at that time, so sending a great photographer to shoot it a day later is not going to make the image any better than the kid with a new digital rebel who was standing there when it happened. 

And as for the time shot, I have seen much worse cover shots by them, which they likely paid more for to a well established photographer, does that mean they were ripped off?  No, thats what they wanted and thats what they got.  They wanted a photo of change in a jar, they found one that looks like what one would expect, it cost 30$ thats what they wanted, and again thats what they got.

Think about this, last year Canon sold more sub 1000 digital SLR's than they and nikon sold film camera bodies (all totaled) in a given year 10 years ago.  And they sell more P&S's plus have at least 4 bodies each in the above 1000 class.  Thats a lot more people taking pictures, and that puts the supply of images (good and bad) far higher than years ago.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 06:01 pm Link

Photographer

StephenEastwood

Posts: 19583

Great Neck, New York, US

Studio Velvet wrote:
Maybe someone can console you,when all the mags just hold contest to get images for free and your payment,a credit line! I bet you won't be at the front of the line,speaking how great the trend is then!

isn't that what many of the nicer quality lesser know fashion magazines like We, bon, Noise, highlights, C&G, Eyemazing, Muse, Lulu, and others do for the majority of content  now?  Oh, no, they don't hold a contest, they have too many people sending in free submissions hoping to get picked already.


Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Jul 25 09 06:03 pm Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
That's my point.

No one cares about quality they care about bottom line.  especially the large corporations that own microstock and the large companies looking to cut out fat (except executive pay, of course)>

Take photojournalism....who cares about the journalism part of it anymore?  That doesn't sell newspapers...talking heads, short attack pieces with slant, opinion, gossip, photos of celebs are what count.   The photos accompanying a news story are for the most part forgettable, so news gatherers like CNN has internet sections devoted to citizen "journalists" submitting work for free, and they actually use this work.


We have a walmart culture and value system particularly as it relates to anything non-technical.

You don't have huge corporations asking IT people working for free, but it's perfectly okay to ask artists, craftspeople, photographers etc to do it for exposure.   It's the way it is, it will get worse, and unless you are at the top of the food chain like a few of the guys in this thread are or are a trustafarian you probably will have to be on your toes constantly adapting so that all the joe freebies out there don't take your paid work.

StephenEastwood wrote:
to an extent this is correct, we are also seeing more access to more images and news events than in years past, more magazines, more tv channels, more internet sites all needing content, they cannot keep up the speed and demand for it with the same level of quality.  A weekly magazine can have a better written and thought out and researched article than a daily publication trying to meet a midnight deadline for an event that happened at 10opm.  We also have more demand for more images now than ever, and that means more potential.  And you do not need to be at the top of the food chain, just need to be able to produce what is in demand, when its needed.  Getting a shot of a once in a lifetime event can only be done at that time, so sending a great photographer to shoot it a day later is not going to make the image any better than the kid with a new digital rebel who was standing there when it happened. 

And as for the time shot, I have seen much worse cover shots by them, which they likely paid more for to a well established photographer, does that mean they were ripped off?  No, thats what they wanted and thats what they got.  They wanted a photo of change in a jar, they found one that looks like what one would expect, it cost 30$ thats what they wanted, and again thats what they got.

Think about this, last year Canon sold more sub 1000 digital SLR's than they and nikon sold film camera bodies (all totaled) in a given year 10 years ago.  And they sell more P&S's plus have at least 4 bodies each in the above 1000 class.  Thats a lot more people taking pictures, and that puts the supply of images (good and bad) far higher than years ago.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

we're not disagreeing.

furthermore as editing plugins and programs become more sophisticated, I think an even greater number of people will be able to capture and create images that right now mid to upper level photographers are taking now.

If you think about it, we're still at the infancy of what software editing technology is capable of.  All the threads in the retouching section about how-to, in 5 years may be so obsolete, replaced instead by increasingly smart functions/plugins and programs that just need to be selected in terms of end look needed/desired by the user.    That sort of technology will put an even greater number of retouchers and photographers in the scrap metal pile in terms of living wages, because if Joe Blow who is moonlighting as a photographer can do the mid level photographers job at $100 instead of $1000, then many people will gladly go with Joe blow as is being evidenced by what microstock has done to many previously full time stock photographers.

MM and flickr are probably the model of the what the photo "industry" might very well be 10 years from now (but for the best of the best .05%), which is people who do other things to put meat (or tofu) on the table but do photography for fun and some chump change on the side.

Jul 25 09 06:15 pm Link

Photographer

Legacys 7

Posts: 33856

San Francisco, California, US

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
That's my point.

No one cares about quality they care about bottom line.  especially the large corporations that own microstock and the large companies looking to cut out fat (except executive pay, of course)>

Take photojournalism....who cares about the journalism part of it anymore?  That doesn't sell newspapers...talking heads, short attack pieces with slant, opinion, gossip, photos of celebs are what count.   The photos accompanying a news story are for the most part forgettable, so news gatherers like CNN has internet sections devoted to citizen "journalists" submitting work for free, and they actually use this work.


We have a walmart culture and value system particularly as it relates to anything non-technical.

You don't have huge corporations asking IT people working for free, but it's perfectly okay to ask artists, craftspeople, photographers etc to do it for exposure.   It's the way it is, it will get worse, and unless you are at the top of the food chain like a few of the guys in this thread are or are a trustafarian you probably will have to be on your toes constantly adapting so that all the joe freebies out there don't take your paid work.

we're not disagreeing.

furthermore as editing plugins and programs become more sophisticated, I think an even greater number of people will be able to capture and create images that right now mid to upper level photographers are taking now.

If you think about it, we're still at the infancy of what software editing technology is capable of.  All the threads in the retouching section about how-to, in 5 years may be so obsolete, replaced instead by increasingly smart functions/plugins and programs that just need to be selected in terms of end look needed/desired by the user.    That sort of technology will put an even greater number of retouchers and photographers in the scrap metal pile in terms of living wages, because if Joe Blow who is moonlighting as a photographer can do the mid level photographers job at $100 instead of $1000, then many people will gladly go with Joe blow as is being evidenced by what microstock has done to many previously full time stock photographers.

MM and flickr are probably the model of the what the photo "industry" might very well be 10 years from now (but for the best of the best .05%), which is people who do other things to put meat (or tofu) on the table but do photography for fun and some chump change on the side.

Funny,

makes me think about what Marxist said about capitalism.

Jul 25 09 06:17 pm Link

Model

The Main Man

Posts: 4135

Sacramento, California, US

Ok, Ive been reading this and learning alot. Maybe confused on a few points, but have been paying attention to lots of KEY PLAYERS in this disscussion. So I have a question, and hope it doesnt get anything thrown at me. tongue

Question is: Photographer shoots model and puts image on this Istock web-site. Would the model then be able to 'buy' that image of themself and use it to print and sell images of themselves?

Like I said, Im just learning here and curious about this.

Jul 25 09 06:22 pm Link

Photographer

James Sioux

Posts: 1360

Los Angeles, California, US

R Studios wrote:
I am looking to buy the back issue for Time

You need to buy many copies.  That's great they picked your picture!

Jul 25 09 06:25 pm Link

Photographer

Madcrow Photographics

Posts: 7802

Boston, Massachusetts, US

StephenEastwood wrote:

some will make money and be successful, some will go broke and blame microstock and flicker, some will go into the microstock business and make money,  some will go into microstock and not make any and blame flicker.  Some will just be happy to post on flicker and get someone offering them 25$ and a tear and claim they are not a photographer but have a tear sheet and be happy!  smile

Personally, I think this is the right attitude to have. Much more productive than whining.

Jul 25 09 07:01 pm Link

Photographer

Shane Noir

Posts: 2332

Los Angeles, California, US

The Main Man wrote:
Ok, Ive been reading this and learning alot. Maybe confused on a few points, but have been paying attention to lots of KEY PLAYERS in this disscussion. So I have a question, and hope it doesnt get anything thrown at me. tongue

Question is: Photographer shoots model and puts image on this Istock web-site. Would the model then be able to 'buy' that image of themself and use it to print and sell images of themselves?

Like I said, Im just learning here and curious about this.

If they buy it, they have it for that usage.  depends on what the usage rights for the image is-- its the same for anyone buying stock.

Jul 25 09 07:05 pm Link

Photographer

Bill Mason Photography

Posts: 1856

Essex Junction, Vermont, US

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

The magazine cover photo is slightly altered. The jar appears to have more coins in it.

Jul 25 09 07:08 pm Link