Photographer
David Pollack
Posts: 1933
Wilmington, Delaware, US
Lumigraphics wrote:
No, you are wrong. iStock charged in the $120 range, the photographer got the $30. Is that supposed to be funny?????????? So the photographer got $30. An assigned Time cover is MANY thousand dollars. This gets more silly and sad every day, can't imagine how you would defend the difference between getting $3 or $30 for a major national magazine cover. That is like quibbling over whether Bernie Madoff got 155 years or 152 years, it just does not matter, the bottom line is the same. $30 for a TIME cover is absurd and an absolute sign of where this industry has gone.
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
Thornton Harris wrote:
Do you actually think I believe any of the crap in this thread? Sounds like a bunch of whiny little boys.
The only post I believe is the one by me up above where I demanded $10,000 from Mr Harrington. He still hasn't paid me. Take a look, it's pretty amusing. if you noticed, I am not against the sale, I see it as some end of the world doomsday talk, and if its true we wont be around after 2012 anyway to worry about it 
-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Photographer
Thornton Harris
Posts: 1689
San Francisco, California, US
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
if you noticed, I am not against the sale, I see it as some end of the world doomsday talk, and if its true we wont be around after 2012 anyway to worry about it
-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com I noticed. I'm not against it either. Actually since I haven't said it yet, Congratulations to Mr. Lam.
Photographer
Photos By Deej
Posts: 1508
Tumwater, Washington, US
Congrats! How many issues did you buy? lol
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
David Pollack wrote:
Is that supposed to be funny?????????? So the photographer got $30. An assigned Time cover is MANY thousand dollars. This gets more silly and sad every day, can't imagine how you would defend the difference between getting $3 or $30 for a major national magazine cover. That is like quibbling over whether Bernie Madoff got 155 years or 152 years, it just does not matter, the bottom line is the same. $30 for a TIME cover is absurd and an absolute sign of where this industry has gone. How much money have you made and how much did you plan to make in the future shooting Time covers?
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
you could say something similar when McDonalds offers burgers for 0.99 (where is the cent sign on a keyboard?) and peter lugers offers them for 25.95, only McDonalds can only sell that burger once, where as a stock photographer can sell their image as often as there is demand. a 30$ image becomes a 300.00 image after 10 people buy it, and over the life of an image that can go up. If someone said to a person who just bought a digital rebel to shoot for a hobby, or take pictures of their newborn "hey can you shoot me a picture of a jar with change in it for 30.00? " many would be thrilled, if they said "hey can you shoot me a picture of a jar with change in it for 300.00? " they may be intimidated since they are not a pro, if someone said to them "hey can you shoot me a picture of a jar with change in it for 3000.00? " they would be scared, but likely still say yes. So why not sell that image for stock for 30 and hope that 100 people buy it by the time the 5D3 is out so you can upgrade to that on what that rebel earned you? Can it hurt the industry? Yes, but its not the sale of that image, its the marketing of better and better digital cameras that could hurt the industry, yet no one wants to put the camera companies and all the employees out of work by making them stop.
How much do you have to shoot to make a living? well assuming you start with simple things around the house that you already own, and can do it in a few minutes, every shot you take, that is marketable, can earn you more than what most stores are paying for minimum wage. As the market becomes more saturated that "marketable" clause becomes more and more elusive, unless you improve and become better at finding what is marketable, which may mean spending more on what you shoot. At that point you may find that raising the asking price is needed, or you may be selling enough volume to leave it low and still make a profit.
-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Stephan, the McDonalds comparison is absurd. To compare a retail food item with a creative work is a way, way big stretch!
Better and better digital cameras isn't the reason either. We had the same thing with film and cameras. You can't deny a Nikon F/50mm was vastly superior to a kodak autographic which by comparison had little to no adjustable features.
I think that what you call a "marketable" image has changed over the years, with the proliferation of stock agencies. They all(too many I'd say too) need something to sell. Take less than perfect images and put them at a cheaper than cheap price and you'll find buyers. (I don't think many of the buyers are very sophisticated today and are schooled in what was photographic quality, but that's another story/thread.)
We have a more than tremendous supply of images of all kinds and quality. And with the advent of everyone becoming a designer(the desktop publishing revolution) and everyone becoming a photographer with a goodly portion of technique being taken from the equation, there's a lot of crap out there being offered as stock and many photos just aren't that good. So things get diluted in terms of their worth.
And be there no mistake, this doesn't so much affect the top end of the market, in stock or assignment photography for the folks who "Demand good or great images" will continue to do so. I suspect this TIME photo of the money jar may have arisen out of someone looking for a photo to "comp" the cover for next weeks magazine and perhaps it was taken to finish. We may never know and you can't deny that's a possibility. $30 for an image to comp something wouldn't be anywhere near exhorbitant, or unheard of either. We've all seen that done.
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
No, I DO understand. It all boils down to supply, demand, and competition. You're wanting to eliminate low cost competition/supply.
You have no actual control over this so you try to influence it by belittling people and crying about the industry being ruined. You're the mom and pop shop that sells a screw driver for $10 and are upset that Walmart is selling a cheap one for $2.50 and people are buying it instead of yours.
Economics. I don't sell photos for $30. Never have and I won't. Is that plain enough. I won't compete at that price point rather than give work away. That's just my standard.
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Stephan, the McDonalds comparison is absurd. To compare a retail food item with a creative work is a way, way big stretch!
Better and better digital cameras isn't the reason either. We had the same thing with film and cameras. You can't deny a Nikon F/50mm was vastly superior to a kodak autographic which by comparison had little to no adjustable features.
I think that what you call a "marketable" image has changed over the years, with the proliferation of stock agencies. They all(too many I'd say too) need something to sell. Take less than perfect images and put them at a cheaper than cheap price and you'll find buyers. (I don't think many of the buyers are very sophisticated today and are schooled in what was photographic quality, but that's another story/thread.)
We have a more than tremendous supply of images of all kinds and quality. And with the advent of everyone becoming a designer(the desktop publishing revolution) and everyone becoming a photographer with a goodly portion of technique being taken from the equation, there's a lot of crap out there being offered as stock and many photos just aren't that good. So things get diluted in terms of their worth.
And be there no mistake, this doesn't so much affect the top end of the market, in stock or assignment photography for the folks who "Demand good or great images" will continue to do so. I suspect this TIME photo of the money jar may have arisen out of someone looking for a photo to "comp" the cover for next weeks magazine and perhaps it was taken to finish. We may never know and you can't deny that's a possibility. $30 for an image to comp something wouldn't be anywhere near exhorbitant, or unheard of either. We've all seen that done. I have done the comp thing myself, and often. And it is likely that that is what happened.
And tell that to a chef that went to Italy, France and Germany to learn the fine art of cuisine to open a restaurant, and went out of business while McDonald's posted quarterly profits 
-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
you all can have those dollar stock image sites...i'd never pimp out my images on them...fuck that...i value my work to much...
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
whatever you want to call it, but don't forget good enough. I know from personal experience that some people don't necessarily care about having the best...for them, they look for good enough. Perhaps that's why we see so many terrible brochures, ads, not to mention TV spots too.
When you cut too many corners, something's got to give.
I've always felt that the average consumer in the marketplace can't often tell you why and ad, package, brochure, flyer or some other product of the industry is not very good, but that often they just know...and it's reflected in other ways, perhaps in a more subliminal manner.
Photographer
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS
Posts: 1466
FRESH MEADOWS, New York, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
you all can have those dollar stock image sites...i'd never pimp out my images on them...fuck that...i value my work to much... therein lies the question. You value it as more, does the market? and I mean you in the generic. If the market values it as $30, thats what it would need to sell for, or you don't sell. So if time had bought an image for $30 to comp and it turned out to fit perfectly, why go hire someone to shoot it again when they can just license the stock shot they are already happy with? To help stimulate the photographers prices? do they have any "duty" to keep photographers working at high rates? Only duty they have to to make the shareholders money, or at least not lose them money when its avoidable.
-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Digital Czar wrote:
I don't sell photos for $30. Never have and I won't. Is that plain enough. I won't compete at that price point rather than give work away. That's just my standard. And that's fine. No body is asking you to. But if some day you find yourself unable to sell anything, that will be no one's fault but your own. And if you manage to maintain your lifestyle and stick to your standards, that is GREAT! It will be proof that some people still value good work and will pay for it.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Perhaps that's why we see so many terrible brochures, ads, not to mention TV spots too.
When you cut too many corners, something's got to give.
I've always felt that the average consumer in the marketplace can't often tell you why and ad, package, brochure, flyer or some other product of the industry is not very good, but that often they just know...and it's reflected in other ways, perhaps in a more subliminal manner. I can't begin to tell you flabergasted I get from people who think HDTV is a waste because they can't see a difference in quality from Blu-Ray and a standard DVD. DVDs are definately great, but they can't compare to BR or other HD standards. I do not know how people cannot see a difference.
Photographer
Faith Bowman
Posts: 224
New York, New York, US
oh congratulations! i just started with them!
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
you all can have those dollar stock image sites...i'd never pimp out my images on them...fuck that...i value my work to much... NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
therein lies the question. You value it as more, does the market? i have an image licensed in maxim this month...< 1/8 page. its value, a little over $1K for the month....a time cover...are you kidding?...$30?????? yeah..i wouldnt let my work go that cheap...i'd give it gratis (with credit) first...
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
Doug Swinskey wrote:
you all can have those dollar stock image sites...i'd never pimp out my images on them...fuck that...i value my work to much... i have an image licensed in maxim this month...< 1/8 page. its value, a little over $1K for the month....a time cover...are you kidding?...$30?????? yeah..i wouldnt let my work go that cheap...i'd give it gratis (with credit) first... free? for credit? that is killing the industry! 
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Robert Randall wrote:
The last magazine shoot i did was for Business Week about 18 months ago. It paid $1200.00 for an inside feature and it was a portrait of Charles Evans, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank. At the time, he didn't remind me of a jar of coins, and I don't think he would today either.
For the record, I am completely charming. Lets suppose there was a stock shot of Mr. Evans out there for say, $30 with rights for what they want. Would they hire you at $1200?
Would that remind you of the jar of coins?
Photographer
David Friend Photograpy
Posts: 711
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Creative Works LLC wrote:
Congratulations on getting a Time cover. That can only benefit you. +1!
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
pick one 
http://images.google.com/images?q=Charl … e&resnum=1
If they want Bobs style, I don't think they would find it in stock, but if they did they may just run with it.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com So then it gets to picking nits of sorts. For that matter they could PS him into a bgnd too just as they credited another illustrator with the TIME cover of the coins.
However my point is that perhaps for the right price difference some would go with the stock image even though it's not what they had intended. So then they'd change things to accomodate the stock photo. And note, I'm not saying any hard and fast rule here.
Photographer
MC 2
Posts: 2531
New York, New York, US
I have a friend who's been describes as the most prolific and highly paid tv commercial director ever. As far as I know, he's the only person who they Clio people have every give an lifetime achievement award to and that was years ago - he's still working.
They shot at least 5 full days for the Ford Bold moves campaign and had a massive budget and still used stock footage for a few things. The choice of stock means nothing.
The thing I find most absurd about this discussion is that the, in theory, only lost out on $1500-2000. I'm 99% certain that he wouldn't have been hired to shoot the cover, and I'm guessing that he's made more than $2k from stock photography. So the idea that he was somehow ripped off or this was bad for him is absurd - barring an unlawful breach of the license agreement.
This is not a sign of photography it's a sign of either magazine budgets or the fact that not every cover needs to be a custom photo. What about when they have a cover that's a big question mark. Should the guy who picked the font get $2k for typing a question mark?
A cover does not have a value. A photograph that influences sales has a value, and this particular photo is not influencing their sales as shot. It was inadequate for the cover without the additional illustration. I don't know who did that or how much it cost, but part of the theoretical $2k went to that.
There are two other things that no one has considered. Maybe every time cover has paid #2k since the beginning of time, but ever issue has a total budget. Maybe they cut back on the cover photo budget and increased the photo budget for something else inside the mag.
Maybe it was a self-referential statement to cut costs by using stock photos in an issue about people pinching pennies everywhere.
I think in the bigger picture, stock photography is probably a good thing for the OP and this particular photo will probably be worth more to him that the money he didn't make. The only people who should be bitching are the people who are frequently considered for the job of shooting a Time cover and didn't get hired.
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
Doug Swinskey wrote:
i have an image licensed in maxim this month...< 1/8 page. its value, a little over $1K for the month....a time cover...are you kidding?...$30?????? yeah..i wouldnt let my work go that cheap...i'd give it gratis (with credit) first... That's great. How many images have you licensed to Maxim in the last year for $1000 each?
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Digital Planet Design wrote:
That's great. How many images have you licensed to Maxim in the last year for $1000 each? Well, it would take 30 at the iStock price to equal that $1000 from Maxim.
How many of you who have images in stock have sold 30 images this year?
Photographer
Digital Planet Design
Posts: 291
Saint Peters, Missouri, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Well, it would take 30 at the iStock price to equal that $1000 from Maxim.
How many of you who have images in stock have sold 30 images this year? I sold 30 in the last hour. (Not with extended licensing, mind you)
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12962
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Well, it would take 30 at the iStock price to equal that $1000 from Maxim.
How many of you who have images in stock have sold 30 images this year? There are around 350 photos of coin jars on Istock,
40 of them have sold more than 30 times,
8 of those 40 have sold more than 100 times,
4 of those 8 have sold more than 200 times,
and one lucky image has over 500 downloads.
So it is not hard to see the appeal of Micro stock if you are willing to work it and can shoot images that get downloaded a lot of times.
Photographer
ledrayphoto
Posts: 1773
Laguna, California, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Well, it would take 30 at the iStock price to equal that $1000 from Maxim.
How many of you who have images in stock have sold 30 images this year? I have sold over 1000 stock images so far THIS MONTH on just one of the sites im on.
Photographer
Michael Clark Photo
Posts: 1
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 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
Ok, real world numbers for you all here. I didn't read through the 28 pages of comments so I don't know if someone else has published this or not. Time magazines standard space rate for a cover is $3,000 and their circulation now is 4.03 million. They are one of the biggest magazines out there - only overshadowed by Reader's Digest and National Geographic.
So , yeah, for $30 you did get screwed over. But that is microstock and I can guarantee you there were looking for something cheap - that is just how it is these days. Soon enough, microstock is going to choke our profession. it is already making a big impact. I'd avoid it like the plague if I were a photographer - but some people are just happy to see their images in print. Nothing wrong with that but just realize the impact you are having on a profession.
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Michael Clark Photo wrote:
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
Ok, real world numbers for you all here. I didn't read through the 28 pages of comments so I don't know if someone else has published this or not. Time magazines standard space rate for a cover is $3,000 and their circulation now is 4.03 million. They are one of the biggest magazines out there - only overshadowed by Reader's Digest and National Geographic.
So , yeah, for $30 you did get screwed over. But that is microstock and I can guarantee you there were looking for something cheap - that is just how it is these days. Soon enough, microstock is going to choke our profession. it is already making a big impact. I'd avoid it like the plague if I were a photographer - but some people are just happy to see their images in print. Nothing wrong with that but just realize the impact you are having on a profession. Unfortunately too many only care of what they do and what happens to them with nary a thought of what happens to the profession they're in, which is utterly sad.
I'd bet the same one's don't care much about the country either.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Unfortunately too many only care of what they do and what happens to them with nary a thought of what happens to the profession they're in, which is utterly sad.
I'd bet the same one's don't care much about the country either. What a truly stupid thing to say.
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12962
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Unfortunately too many only care of what they do and what happens to them with nary a thought of what happens to the profession they're in, which is utterly sad.
I'd bet the same one's don't care much about the country either. ahh yes....... Just because they are undercutting you they must be godless haters of the good old U.S. of A.
And that may be your most pathetic post yet.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Chris Macan wrote:
ahh yes....... Just because they are undercutting you they must be godless haters of the good old U.S. of A.
And that may be your most pathetic post yet. isn't this the american way? I mean being able to compete in a free economy of sorts?
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
isn't this the american way? I mean being able to compete in a free economy of sorts?
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Maybe he wants something along the lines from the Gangs of New York.
Photographer
Brooks Ayola
Posts: 9754
Chatsworth, California, US
Digital Czar wrote:
Unfortunately too many only care of what they do and what happens to them with nary a thought of what happens to the profession they're in, which is utterly sad.
I'd bet the same one's don't care much about the country either. Dude! Rush Limbaugh has hacked your account!
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Chris Macan wrote:
ahh yes....... Just because they are undercutting you they must be godless haters of the good old U.S. of A.
And that may be your most pathetic post yet. Things like the $30 undercutting is beyond competing and just plain stupid.
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
isn't this the american way? I mean being able to compete in a free economy of sorts?
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com There can come a point when too much competition is as bad as not enough, don't you think?
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
I have done the comp thing myself, and often. And it is likely that that is what happened.
And tell that to a chef that went to Italy, France and Germany to learn the fine art of cuisine to open a restaurant, and went out of business while McDonald's posted quarterly profits
-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com in many ways, it's the silliness that can pervade things, not just in this business. There's nothing like doing your homework, but that can get to an extreme. Perhaps that chef should have stopped at a business school along the way, eh?
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Brooks Ayola wrote:
Dude! Rush Limbaugh has hacked your account! I'm not a fan of his, though.
Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
What a truly stupid thing to say. yeah, if they're not looking out for their own profession(note, I didn't say their personal business), then why would they look out for other things?
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Digital Czar wrote:
There can come a point when too much competition is as bad as not enough, don't you think? not really, if it comes to that in business, then it becomes too costly for some to stay in business and they drop out, the ones who remain take up their business and eventually the price goes back up as there are fewer suppliers of the goods or services needed. Or else the entire business goes away and it becomes only amateurs and hobbyists, if that happens and everyone is OK with what they can buy from the amateurs that is the way it goes, and the business model and work becomes reflective of that. In this case clients that want better will pay for better, clients that accept what is available cheap will be happy with what they get.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com
|
