login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > my stock photo on Time magazine cover Search   Reply
first2223242526272829last
Photographer
BCADULTART
Posts: 1,986
Acton, Massachusetts, US


When did thread become a discussion of "Stock"?

Maybe I should spend an hour or so going back through all the posts, Na.
My only reference was to Royalty Free (RF) and how sad I think it is
that a major consumer magazine would "Stoop" to that level for a cover.

Any photographer would publicly admit that they created an image that
was "sold" to that publication for a cover and their fee was pocket change
Is not the brightest fish in the sea.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the image, I saw it posted on this
forum as well as the actual TIME cover.  I do have a huge problem with anyone
who thinks that RF is a good way of doing business or anyone who does not
understand the damage that RF and micro-stock has done to the business of
photography over the last 25 years.

Yes, I am speaking to the guy with no arms and no legs in the pool in Chicago.

Again as I have written before, It is what people in the magazine business call a
"Throw Away Cover" as are 90% of RF images.  It just fit the space, the actual inside story and it was available in the summer time when editors just want to
get away.

In reference to this I would ask; If you bought a winning lottery ticket, would you be happy to only receive 2 or 5% of the winnings.  Yes, again in my opinion the OP's image just filled an open space.

Chuck
Jul 29 09 07:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13,842
Chicago, Illinois, US


BCADULTART wrote:
When did thread become a discussion of "Stock"?

Maybe I should spend an hour or so going back through all the posts, Na.
My only reference was to Royalty Free (RF) and how sad I think it is
that a major consumer magazine would "Stoop" to that level for a cover.

Any photographer would publicly admit that they created an image that
was "sold" to that publication for a cover and their fee was pocket change
Is not the brightest fish in the sea.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the image, I saw it posted on this
forum as well as the actual TIME cover.  I do have a huge problem with anyone
who thinks that RF is a good way of doing business or anyone who does not
understand the damage that RF and micro-stock has done to the business of
photography over the last 25 years.

Yes, I am speaking to the guy with no arms and no legs in the pool in Chicago.

Again as I have written before, It is what people in the magazine business call a
"Throw Away Cover" as are 90% of RF images.  It just fit the space, the actual inside story and it was available in the summer time when editors just want to
get away.

In reference to this I would ask; If you bought a winning lottery ticket, would you be happy to only receive 2 or 5% of the winnings.  Yes, again in my opinion the OP's image just filled an open space.

Chuck

Not worth it.

Jul 29 09 07:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,652
Detroit, Michigan, US


David Pollack wrote:

OOPS we all seem to have missed something. iStock collected $30, our intrepid photographer was rewarded with either $6 or $12 for his effort (based on whether he is an "exclusive contributor" or not.

Well that should clear this all up. $6...$12 what a deal.

But WAIT there is more, if we look further into iStock we see that bulk credits can be had for 24 CENTS per credit so a "30 credit" use cost Time $7.68, our photographer made either $1.53 for his cover or maybe $3.07. Now I see the point.

There is a reason that Getty and Corbis are still paying royalties of 45% and 50%, why do their micro stock subsidies pay 20% BECAUSE EVERY GWC IS WILLING TO LET THEM.

No, you are wrong. iStock charged in the $120 range, the photographer got the $30.

Jul 29 09 07:45 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Michelle Genevieve
Posts: 928
Austin, Texas, US


Wow, this thread sure has legs! 25 pages! smile
Jul 29 09 07:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4283207/2/istockphoto_4283207-fire-sprinkler-heads.jpg

10 downloads for $7.26

I hope I find it somewhere as I'd love to know who actually found this photo interesting enough to purchase it.

It's just on the sidewalk not all that far from Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills.  I went to take pictures of a friend wand before I caught up with her, I saw this shiny gem and though, how neat !!  When I joined iStockphoto I thought this might be a perfect item to upload.  So far it is my ONLY image.

Had Time used MY photo, I'd have been pretty happy.  Even happier to know that it would piss off some of you tools.
Jul 29 09 08:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Antonio Marcus
Posts: 1,849
San Francisco, California, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:
http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4283207/2/istockphoto_4283207-fire-sprinkler-heads.jpg

10 downloads for $7.26

I hope I find it somewhere as I'd love to know who actually found this photo interesting enough to purchase it.

It's just on the sidewalk not all that far from Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills.  I went to take pictures of a friend wand before I caught up with her, I saw this shiny gem and though, how neat !!  When I joined iStockphoto I thought this might be a perfect item to upload.  So far it is my ONLY image.

Had time used MY photo, I'd have been pretty happy.  Even happier to know that it would piss off some of you tools.

Actually I'm ok with it now. This thread is so long that by itself it has beaten me into an apathy. haha.

*opens iStock account*

Jul 29 09 08:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


BCADULTART wrote:
In reference to this I would ask; If you bought a winning lottery ticket, would you be happy to only receive 2 or 5% of the winnings.

Quite possibly one of the worst analogies ever.

Jul 29 09 08:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Justin Foto
Posts: 3,587
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland


Digital Planet Design wrote:

Justin Foto wrote:
If I need a critique on MM or any other online forum, I'll ask for it. In the mean time, I just use the critiques I use all the time. Please stop with this horseshit for one minute and try to consider what you type before you type it.

For the record.

1) This forum is currently being used to discuss the pro's and con's of stock photography.
2) At no point did I ask for anyone's help in getting images submitted.
3) This forum is NOT about me or my images.
4) Please don't assume I need it help when I didn't ask for it. I don't.

Apparently, the critiques you use all the time aren't helping your stock photography sales at iStock.  Sorry, I'm not the one who was trying to subtly discredit the inspection process and contributing photographers by pointing out my rejection reasons:

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.

You must have a perception problem. I'll type it slowly this time.

I  d i d n ' t   a s k   f o r  y o u r   o p i n i o n.

Jul 29 09 10:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


Justin Foto wrote:
You must have a perception problem. I'll type it slowly this time.
I  d i d n ' t   a s k   f o r  y o u r   o p i n i o n.

You must have missed your #3:

Justin Foto wrote:
3) This forum is NOT about me or my images.

when you posted:

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.

Jul 29 09 11:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:

DC..... I'm a production professional at an advertising agency.
I know what retouching costs.
As should any production pro, designer, art director, art buyer.........

Which is why the sky is not falling.

Lots of ads work great with stock photos.....and lots don't.
We still need and pay for good photographers for all the work that can't be done with stock.

I didn't say there aren't "great" ads, but not very many. Even less when it comes to "great" TV spots.

Your perspective is on the inside looking out though. Do you think your PS work, if in-house costs less than buying an outside retoucher? Perhaps if it's outside the big urban areas and you use someone there, but if you're in some lesser place and send the file to a ret. in NY or Chicago, etc, the cost will be there.  You can say that every AB, AD, CD and so should know, but many don't. They turn that over to you. Even here in Chicago, I can't tell you the number of folks you'd run into over the years to where shooting a photo shouldn't be a techno-struggle, tht you feel like you're starting from photo-ground-zero, and you have to do it being a professional. I'm happy to, btw.

The question is what's first, the stock photo or the concept? And I've heard it both ways.

Jul 29 09 12:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:
I'm going to guess he spent less than 15 minutes to set up and shoot that shot,
and maybe another 15 to prep and upload it.
So lets say one half hour.
If he bills his studio time at $150/hr he has spent $75 in Time/Studio costs

So you would think he is losing money on this transaction,
Except that he may sell this same image many many many times.
Lets say it's not that popular of an image and it only sells 6 times.
And lets say the average sale was $25
Well then his return on investment is double his cost...

which seems to be an OK return on investment.

(and lets be serious... it didn't take 1/2 hour and he doesn't bill his time at $150/hr)

You forgot some costs, unless he had stuff laying around, but he still purchased the jar, had the money and the backgound. None of it was free. To think he spent 15 minutes doing the photo would sound like the observation of inexperience to me. It's not like you throw these things down and the photo magically works. Given the size of the reproduction, everything had to be spotless too, and that takes time.  It doesn't happen in 15 minutes and I know...and to think he can only attribute an hourly cost to that one photo is a touch wacky. He's still got to pay for his whole studio no matter if he's using it or not. Better to figure the day's "turn-key" cost, something I'd say many photographers don't even have an idea of what that number is in their specific case.

To think he may have sold the photo even 6 times could be a lot, or not. What client wants to purchase a stock photo only to see the same photo in someone else's ad or magazine cover? Don't act like that hasn't happend, for it has and in the large national magazines where the same photo was in more than one ad in a particular issue. It gets to exclusivity and that costs money, something you won't get for $30.

When you look at it properly, he got taken AND he lost money, unless everything including his studio was free or he chose to give it away.

Jul 29 09 12:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


BCADULTART wrote:
When did thread become a discussion of "Stock"?

Maybe I should spend an hour or so going back through all the posts, Na.
My only reference was to Royalty Free (RF) and how sad I think it is
that a major consumer magazine would "Stoop" to that level for a cover.

Any photographer would publicly admit that they created an image that
was "sold" to that publication for a cover and their fee was pocket change
Is not the brightest fish in the sea.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the image, I saw it posted on this
forum as well as the actual TIME cover.  I do have a huge problem with anyone
who thinks that RF is a good way of doing business or anyone who does not
understand the damage that RF and micro-stock has done to the business of
photography over the last 25 years.

Yes, I am speaking to the guy with no arms and no legs in the pool in Chicago.

Again as I have written before, It is what people in the magazine business call a
"Throw Away Cover" as are 90% of RF images.  It just fit the space, the actual inside story and it was available in the summer time when editors just want to
get away.

In reference to this I would ask; If you bought a winning lottery ticket, would you be happy to only receive 2 or 5% of the winnings.  Yes, again in my opinion the OP's image just filled an open space.

Chuck

Chuck, good observations. But in cases like this, did the magazine "stoop" to some lower standard/level or did they choose to take advantage of a better than great deal by a stock agency underpricing things and perhaps a shooter not asking for what they're really worth?

Jul 29 09 12:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


Digital Czar wrote:
What client wants to purchase a stock photo only to see the same photo in someone else's ad or magazine cover? Don't act like that hasn't happend, for it has and in the large national magazines where the same photo was in more than one ad in a particular issue. It gets to exclusivity and that costs money, something you won't get for $30.

What's nice about micro, is that the customers now include small, local businesses, churches, students, schools, etc.  The type that don't care if someone has used the image.  They're happy it suits their purpose.

Jul 29 09 12:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32,652
Detroit, Michigan, US


Digital Czar wrote:

You forgot some costs, unless he had stuff laying around, but he still purchased the jar, had the money and the backgound. None of it was free. To think he spent 15 minutes doing the photo would sound like the observation of inexperience to me. It's not like you throw these things down and the photo magically works. Given the size of the reproduction, everything had to be spotless too, and that takes time.  It doesn't happen in 15 minutes and I know...and to think he can only attribute an hourly cost to that one photo is a touch wacky. He's still got to pay for his whole studio no matter if he's using it or not. Better to figure the day's "turn-key" cost, something I'd say many photographers don't even have an idea of what that number is in their specific case.

To think he may have sold the photo even 6 times could be a lot, or not. What client wants to purchase a stock photo only to see the same photo in someone else's ad or magazine cover? Don't act like that hasn't happend, for it has and in the large national magazines where the same photo was in more than one ad in a particular issue. It gets to exclusivity and that costs money, something you won't get for $30.

When you look at it properly, he got taken AND he lost money, unless everything including his studio was free or he chose to give it away.

I can't speak for the OP but if he owns furniture stores, do you think he might have some free space to do photoshoots? His studio cost might be nil.

Jul 29 09 12:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
To think he may have sold the photo even 6 times could be a lot, or not.

Go to Istock Photo and type "Coin Jar" into the search,
It will yield you 370 similar photos most of which have been downloaded multiple times.
Some have been downloaded 50, 200, 500 times.

This particular image has been downloaded 3 times in the last year.
and I think it is safe to say it will continue to be downloaded for years to come

Jul 29 09 01:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
You forgot some costs, unless he had stuff laying around, but he still purchased the jar, had the money and the backgound. None of it was free. To think he spent 15 minutes doing the photo would sound like the observation of inexperience to me. It's not like you throw these things down and the photo magically works. Given the size of the reproduction, everything had to be spotless too, and that takes time.  It doesn't happen in 15 minutes and I know...

Actually I think I was being generous with 15 minutes.
In a table top stock production environment.....

set the coin jar in... shoot
set the clothespin in..... shoot
set the pacifier in..... shoot
set the toy car in..... shoot
set the antique tin men in..... shoot

You shoot batches of similar product with a fixed lighting set up.
It's boring but not difficult.


And the size of the reproduction???
Last time I checked.....the picture area on the cover of time was like 6"x9"
Not exactly large.


Really..... you are stretching your credibility with these weak arguments.

Jul 29 09 01:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:

Actually I think I was being generous with 15 minutes.
In a table top stock production environment.....

set the coin jar in... shoot
set the clothespin in..... shoot
set the pacifier in..... shoot
set the toy car in..... shoot
set the antique tin men in..... shoot

You shoot batches of similar product with a fixed lighting set up.
It's boring but not difficult.


And the size of the reproduction???
Last time I checked.....the picture area on the cover of time was like 6"x9"
Not exactly large.


Really..... you are stretching your credibility with these weak arguments.

Are you a tabletop shooter? Your photo work doesn't indicate that, but then you may have looked over someone's shoulder and can read minds and know what they were thinking when they were doing the photo you were observing.

I don't want to get too hinky, so I won't pull the client list on you, but I'm more than certain I'd have a better handle on doing tabletop than your work would indicate you do. And working on photos in PS isn't shooting them either.

A good artist isn't going to slap different products in a set(unless they're all the same but perhaps different labels) and assume the same light will work. That's way simplistic for otherwise all you'll get is $20 stock photos that do little else but dilute the value of the work.

Jul 29 09 01:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:

Go to Istock Photo and type "Coin Jar" into the search,
It will yield you 370 similar photos most of which have been downloaded multiple times.
Some have been downloaded 50, 200, 500 times.

This particular image has been downloaded 3 times in the last year.
and I think it is safe to say it will continue to be downloaded for years to come

Did you have a point that negates the notion that two clients could use the same photo and have something end up in a publication at the same time?

What do you think a client is likely to do if, after that photo was on TIME, would they want to use it?

Jul 29 09 01:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Lumigraphics wrote:

I can't speak for the OP but if he owns furniture stores, do you think he might have some free space to do photoshoots? His studio cost might be nil.

Doesn't matter, something is paying for the space. In your example, the furniture store is paying for the space. It's still not really free. Try thinking of cost accounting.

However, lets say a buddy lets him use his studio, equipment etc. and he does his photos. And his buddy has the jar, coins, background etc. Maybe then I'd consider his costs nil, though he probably had to drive to the studio.

There's no free ride.

Jul 29 09 01:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
Are you a tabletop shooter? Your photo work doesn't indicate that, but then you may have looked over someone's shoulder and can read minds and know what they were thinking when they were doing the photo you were observing.

I don't want to get too hinky, so I won't pull the client list on you, but I'm more than certain I'd have a better handle on doing tabletop than your work would indicate you do. And working on photos in PS isn't shooting them either.

A good artist isn't going to slap different products in a set(unless they're all the same but perhaps different labels) and assume the same light will work. That's way simplistic for otherwise all you'll get is $20 stock photos that do little else but dilute the value of the work.

I've sure you are a fine shooter with an impressive client list.
And your method of table top shooting may not be suited for a microstock model.
Well good for you.

Not everyone works or thinks like you.
The one who work faster and cheaper will eat your lunch in the generic stock market.
And many of them they will make money doing it.
That's life.

Which is why you business model likely caters to the client who wants or needs a more custom shot. Stock shots cannot replace that. The sky is not falling.

Jul 29 09 01:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Digital Planet Design wrote:

What's nice about micro, is that the customers now include small, local businesses, churches, students, schools, etc.  The type that don't care if someone has used the image.  They're happy it suits their purpose.

On the surface, I'd say you could be right that they don't care if someone else uses the image. But they will care if a competing business or other business in their area uses the same image and it causes some confusion in their marketplace. If that were to happen, I'm sure they'd have some objection.

Right now in some of our local ad fillers, there's ads for companies who clean air ducts. They all use the same photos of the inside of the ductwork and they all have different addresses, locations and phone numbers...they repeat the ads and I can only guess it's ok because the photos were cheaper than cheap.

Jul 29 09 01:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
Did you have a point that negates the notion that two clients could use the same photo and have something end up in a publication at the same time?

The point is the majority of the micro stock market does not care.

Jul 29 09 01:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
Doesn't matter, something is paying for the space. In your example, the furniture store is paying for the space. It's still not really free. Try thinking of cost accounting.

However, lets say a buddy lets him use his studio, equipment etc. and he does his photos. And his buddy has the jar, coins, background etc. Maybe then I'd consider his costs nil, though he probably had to drive to the studio.

There's no free ride.

And you miss the point that that shot can be shot on the guest room bed.
with a digital rebel and a vivitar 283.

It doesn't get lower budget than that.
and that is your lowest cost competition on a micro stock site.

Jul 29 09 01:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:

And you miss the point that that shot can be shot on the guest room bed.
with a digital rebel and a vivitar 283.

It doesn't get lower budget than that.
and that is your lowest cost competition on a micro stock site.

You think the coin jar could be shot on the guest room bed with a rebel and a 283?

(I'm glad I have sense of humor)

Jul 29 09 01:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:

The point is the majority of the micro stock market does not care.

I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush.

Jul 29 09 01:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 933
Oak Park, Illinois, US


Chris Macan wrote:

I've sure you are a fine shooter with an impressive client list.
And your method of table top shooting may not be suited for a microstock model.
Well good for you.

Not everyone works or thinks like you.
The one who work faster and cheaper will eat your lunch in the generic stock market.
And many of them they will make money doing it.
That's life.

Which is why you business model likely caters to the client who wants or needs a more custom shot. Stock shots cannot replace that. The sky is not falling.

The cheap stock market forces a client to settle for a less than ideal image.

I've always been a believer in if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right. Otherwise you cheapen things.

By your reasoning we ought to have stock photos kioscs at WallyMart.

Jul 29 09 01:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US


Digital Czar wrote:

I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush.

No, he's actually correct (as I pointed out above).

Jul 29 09 01:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:

You think the coin jar could be shot on the guest room bed with a rebel and a 283?

(I'm glad I have sense of humor)

Ok..... you might need two 283s,
some white paper and a piece of white plexi.

The point is...... there are people working with next to nothing in the micro market,
and some of them produce decent images in their guest-room.


They are not your competition for custom work.

Jul 29 09 01:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Alvah Burlas B A P
Posts: 411
Victorville, California, US


Looks like you have more money in the jar then you made off it. LOL

Oh well thats what the stock photos are there for atleast you can say it was on the cover, a lot more then I and most the photographers on MM can say.

B.A.P.
Jul 29 09 01:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,786
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


Digital Czar wrote:
The cheap stock market forces a client to settle for a less than ideal image.

Not always,
I think the image on Time worked quite well.

as a production dude......
I can see no cost benefit advantage to paying a better photographer to re-shoot it.

Some stock images are perfect for some layouts,

Jul 29 09 01:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


The biggest threat, typically, to anyone's business are themselves.

This doesn't HURT anyone.  All it is or might be is a CHANGE in the way things are done.  If you do not like the change, unable to change, or adapt to that those changes, then tough on you.  It's progress.  Progress does not always benefit everyone.

I believe I already made this analogy, but it's like when car companies started replacing workers with machines.  Why?  Because the machines could often do more work (they don't get tired, don't need breaks, and can work longer hours) and sometimes even better work.  Oh, but the workers did not like this.  They were being replaced by machines.  How impersonal!!

If it wasn't for iStockphoto, this photographer may not have ever been heard of.  So whatever amount Time saved by using his photo may be worth it.  It all depends on how he cashes in, if at all.  You're all so busying accusing Time of robbing him and not thinking about how maybe this will keep Time in circulation a little longer.  Or, instead of laying 10 people, they only have to lay off 9 because now they are saving $35,000 a year by buying cheap photos off the net.  Sure, now the question would become, who's job is more important?  That mailroom guy they get to keep on staff or the collection of photographers lost out on a Time cover job?

Someone is always undercutting someone else.  No one likes to be undercut.  If someone with quality of beach work included and MUA as good as the ones I use started offering beach sessions like mine for $300...I wouldn't be pissed at them.  Instead, I'd try to find other ways to make my $600 bill feel more appealing.  Maybe I'll need to provide a Victoria Secret bathroom and have grapes and wine available during the session.  Or, reduce my rate. Or, realize I can't compete and quit.  Dinosaurs aren't the only things that have gone extinct.

I'll use again another car analogy that I used a few pages back too.

I wonder how often Ferrari has meetings wondering what they should do about competing with the Ford Mustang.
Jul 29 09 02:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


Digital Czar wrote:
I've always been a believer in if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right. Otherwise you cheapen things.

I believe that too.  But you know what, I couldn't afford the V8 GT Mustang.  The V6 suited my budget limitations.

I've love to have a Nikon D3 or D3x, but right now the D300 is more of my budget and I'm working on affording the D700.

I always try to get the best when possible.  I could save money by buying 3rd party lenses but so far I have stuck with Nikon.

Knowing about component reliability, I focus on mid-range established company components when I upgrade my computer.

I don't know if the iPhone 3Gs is the BEST phone out there, but I do believe it's the BEST phone for me.

I like Levi's jeans.  They are far from the worst but I have no idea if they are best, they are certainly not nearly as expensive as some of those designer jeans. They are definitely good enough for me.

I don't think I bought the BEST golf clubs but I did spend $799 on Calloway Big Bertha irons.  Maybe that was a mistake because I till suck at golf.

Some people think the Sony Playstation 3 is better than the Xbox360, but they don't have Halo.

My HDTV supports 1080i but technically is just slightly higher than 720p.

My lighting is a couple of Nikon SB-800 speed lights and an Alien Bee AB-800.

I change my lenses while out on sandy beaches and sometimes it's windy.

I've shot in the rain with my Nikon D200 without covering it.  It still works.

I am, without exception, always right unless a girlfriend tells me otherwise.

Jul 29 09 02:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brooks Beauty
Posts: 238
Chatsworth, California, US


LOL
Jul 29 09 02:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25,351
Portland, Oregon, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:
The biggest threat, typically, to anyone's business are themselves.

This doesn't HURT anyone.  All it is or might be is a CHANGE in the way things are done.  If you do not like the change, unable to change, or adapt to that those changes, then tough on you.  It's progress.  Progress does not always benefit everyone.

So as a fulltime photographer, you don't feel challenged or pinched at all by the "threat" of microstock images undercutting the pricing or frequency of your getting a living wage from your craft?

Jul 29 09 02:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brooks Beauty
Posts: 238
Chatsworth, California, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:
So as a fulltime photographer, you don't feel challenged or pinched at all by the "threat" of microstock images undercutting the pricing or frequency of your getting a living wage from your craft?

I'll answer that for me.

Yep... It's actually affected me directly in a few cases. A magazine I used to shoot all of the covers for, now only uses stock. Not because they can't afford to pay a photographer, but because now the can save on the model and makeup and assistants and lost day of work for a couple employees and all that.

What do I do about it? I certainly don't blame stock or micro-stock. I move on to find clients that still have the budgets and need for something custom. Sometimes you have to adapt and I've been adapting to the changing whims of clients for 18 years now and if it isn't stock that causes the change, it's something else. There's always something else. :-)

Jul 29 09 02:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Justin Foto
Posts: 3,587
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland


Digital Planet Design wrote:

Justin Foto wrote:
You must have a perception problem. I'll type it slowly this time.
I  d i d n ' t   a s k   f o r  y o u r   o p i n i o n.

You must have missed your #3:

Justin Foto wrote:
3) This forum is NOT about me or my images.

when you posted:

How do you read "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." as asking for your opinion. It clearly isn't. It's just a remark. Note the lack of a question mark. Now please go stick your nose where it belongs and stay out of my business.

Jul 29 09 02:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eduardo Frances
Posts: 3,227
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain


Christopher Hartman wrote:

I believe that too.  But you know what, I couldn't afford the V8 GT Mustang.  The V6 suited my budget limitations.

I've love to have a Nikon D3 or D3x, but right now the D300 is more of my budget and I'm working on affording the D700.

I always try to get the best when possible.  I could save money by buying 3rd party lenses but so far I have stuck with Nikon.

Knowing about component reliability, I focus on mid-range established company components when I upgrade my computer.

I don't know if the iPhone 3Gs is the BEST phone out there, but I do believe it's the BEST phone for me.

I like Levi's jeans.  They are far from the worst but I have no idea if they are best, they are certainly not nearly as expensive as some of those designer jeans. They are definitely good enough for me.

I don't think I bought the BEST golf clubs but I did spend $799 on Calloway Big Bertha irons.  Maybe that was a mistake because I till suck at golf.

Some people think the Sony Playstation 3 is better than the Xbox360, but they don't have Halo.

My HDTV supports 1080i but technically is just slightly higher than 720p.

My lighting is a couple of Nikon SB-800 speed lights and an Alien Bee AB-800.

I change my lenses while out on sandy beaches and sometimes it's windy.

I've shot in the rain with my Nikon D200 without covering it.  It still works.

I am, without exception, always right unless a girlfriend tells me otherwise.

While it is true that you are the only one who can decide for yourself it doesn´t means that you will always take smart decisions but that´s up to you to judge it not me.

Unlike the panic it has generated microstock doesn´t affect the market in general becasue there´s a lot of work that needs to be custom and by a lot I mean A WHOLE LOT, however in the state microstock is now I hardly can see it making much profit in the future, in economics when the offer is high and the price is low the demand for said abundant and cheap product will be split  into the number of people that´s offering said product, taking into account that each month thousands of shooters join microstock sites and upload hundreds if not thousands a photos a month your chance of making money out of it is much less than it was a year ago and it will be much less in the next years, because you are being overshadowed by the number that join this sites which is grows at a really fast rate.

I have browsed lots of microstock sites and there are really some great shooters that are really conforming with the low income they get for the quality of the image they post (meaning if they moved their asses a bit more they could be making more money), sometimes people think that is easier this way but in the long run the profitability of it is not so bright, there are others who are lazy and conform with microstock because that way is easier to run a "business" although they get pennies as income.

Food for the brain? plenty:

-If TIME wanted to make a point on frugality and recovering the economy how about them striking a deal with the photographer to get a similar image for good money (not the usual 3,000 maybe but something more  than 30 bucks) the economy won´t be moving by paying 30 bucks to someone, however congrats to the photographer maybe now he will re think the whole micro stock stuff.

-microstock vs custom: hardly a competence to tell you the truth you won´t be able to run a cover with a celebrity with stock, nor the new mercedes benz double spread with stock, there are publications, advertising, that will use stock?: sure, but not in such a significative way, BTW did you know ad agencies mark up the price of the photos? no? well smarten up boys and girls because while you recieve 30 bucks they have charged the client 500 bucks tongue.

-The world is ending: No, this is mostly internet paranoia, just like the Free book which is being pushed by some internet personalities with no effect on the real world, if you want to make money and you are worried about the economy turn the computer down and go market yourself, if you are a microstock shooter re think the value of your photos, you could be doing much more if you weren´t conforming with pennies.


Fin

Jul 29 09 02:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,743
Buena Park, California, US


Patchouli Nyx wrote:

So as a fulltime photographer, you don't feel challenged or pinched at all by the "threat" of microstock images undercutting the pricing or frequency of your getting a living wage from your craft?

I'm not a full-time photographer.  But if my livlihood was financed through income earned by taking the kind of photos you see on stock photography sites, I can see how it would be increasingly difficult for me to maintain that lifestyle.  So that will mean that I will need to change, adapt, or quit.

Professional baseball players can't play baseball for their entire lives.  Younger, better, faster kids keep coming up so as players get older, not as good, and slower, they need to realize this and just quit and find something else to do.

Jul 29 09 02:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eduardo Frances
Posts: 3,227
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain


Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm not a full-time photographer.  But if my livlihood was financed through income earned by taking the kind of photos you see on stock photography sites, I can see how it would be increasingly difficult for me to maintain that lifestyle.  So that will mean that I will need to change, adapt, or quit.

Professional baseball players can't play baseball for their entire lives.  Younger, better, faster kids keep coming up so as players get older, not as good, and slower, they need to realize this and just quit and find something else to do.

How about rethinking your strategy instead  of quitting? your port isn´t bad at all and with some marketing and business training you could make some money, or are you to used to let the image be there and get revenue from it? (not trying to be ironic or harsh, is a question without meaning to hurt).

Jul 29 09 02:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brooks Beauty
Posts: 238
Chatsworth, California, US


Hey Chris! You're not that bad at all! :-)
Jul 29 09 02:55 pm  Link  Quote 
first2223242526272829last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers