PYPI FASHION wrote:
Like I said, photographers are to blame for that $30 option.

Microstock is a mixed blessing.  On the plus side, it puts stock photography within the price of small businesses, which make up well over 50% of the economy.  That opens up a whole market that simply didn't exist 10 years ago.  A small business simply can't afford hundreds or thousands of dollars for a single, traditional rights managed stock photo.

The down side is exactly what you see here -- major, national publications getting images for a minuscule fraction of what they should be paying based on their circulation. 

the microstock companies need to adjust their licenses so that both situations are covered -- make photos affordable to the little guys who are publishing in the local fishwrap, but ramp up the price drastically for larger circulations.

PPTPhoto wrote:
The ad rates for Time Magazine. Microstock has killed portions of the industry...Congratulations!

And the printing press completely killed the illuminated manuscript industry.  At one point, a single manuscript could easily fetch a year's salary for a scribe.  With the advent of the printing press, the price of a book dropped a thousandfold or more.   This sucked for scribes, but it created a new industry  and made books affordable for everyone, not just the super rich.

Progress happens.  Technology evolves and changes the economics of the industries based on those technologies.  You have to adapt.

ROBBIE SELL wrote:
This is the reason the photography industry is failing.  Don't lowball your fellow photographers, and maybe we'll be able to afford to continue shooting.

By that logic, if farriers hadn't lowballed other farriers, the horseshoe industry wouldn't have failed.

Advances in technology makes some industries obsolete or relegates them to a much smaller economic niche than they previously held. It's still possible to make a very nice living as a farrier (as any horse owner can tell you) but the total number of people the market will support is A LOT smaller than it was 110 years ago.   If shoeing horses were a popular hobby, that market would get saturated very quickly.   Basic supply and demand.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

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.

I can see a difference, but a shit movie is still a shit movie, now matter how great the resolution. I enjoyed watching low res movies and TV shows on my dads black and white 1955 Zenith TV - it's the content more than the glitter that counts.
We had HD cable for a while, but did not renew the subscription because most of the programming was garbage ( albeit hi res garbage)

CAP603 wrote:

I can see a difference, but a shit movie is still a shit movie, now matter how great the resolution. I enjoyed watching low res movies and TV shows on my dads black and white 1955 Zenith TV - it's the content more than the glitter that counts.
We had HD cable for a while, but did not renew the subscription because most of the programming was garbage ( albeit hi res garbage)

semi true, if its good I will watch it on youtube and be interested, but it would be noticably better on a 52 inch hdtv.

-- Stephen Eastwood --
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

CAP603 wrote:

I can see a difference, but a shit movie is still a shit movie, now matter how great the resolution. I enjoyed watching low res movies and TV shows on my dads black and white 1955 Zenith TV - it's the content more than the glitter that counts.
We had HD cable for a while, but did not renew the subscription because most of the programming was garbage ( albeit hi res garbage)

garbage? I dunno. I love History Channel, Animal Planet, Discovery, Smithsonian, and many others.  Sporting events are also much more enjoyable.

The Dark Knight on Blu-Ray is awesome!

Derick Hingle wrote:

I disagree there Stephen, the reason newspapers are failing is poor content, the same content provided by Joe Blow who was at the scene with a point and shoot a photo journalist does more than take a snap shot he take a photograph that tells the story of what happen.

I think you have an inaccurate view of the world. Papers are failing because of two primary reasons: 1) Classifieds/Ad revenue that traditionally supported the papers is shifting online, and 2) the major news organizations over-leveraged themselves through massive M&A activity in the 80s and 90s.

It has nothing to do with Joe Blow photographer. When is the last time you regularly saw GWC content in the NY Times, USA Today, WSJ, etc.

As far as the cover goes, the tear sheet is great for bragging rights, but the notion that you'll get work as a result of it is bs. You've now set your market rate. $30 for an image. Why would time ever come back to you and pay you anything more.

This isn't a signal that you're a great photographer (although I'm not disputing that it's a nice stock photo). It's just an indication that you priced a nice photo at an undermarket rate.

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...

Digital Planet Design wrote:
That's great.  How many images have you licensed to Maxim in the last year for $1000 each?

my clients license use, to publish my images in several nationally know publications....but as far as images used in maxim, 5 times this year so far.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

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.

Well, I went into this business because I love taking photos and solving problems. But I also went into the business with the idea of selling my work at a profit, not giving it away.

a3 wrote:
This isn't a signal that you're a great photographer (although I'm not disputing that it's a nice stock photo). It's just an indication that you priced a nice photo at an undermarket rate.

I going to disagree and use a car analogy again.

Rich person = Time Magazine

Jar of coin photo = 10 year old car Honda Civic

Rich person decides they don't need a fancy car and instead, picks up his used car.  because the customer is wealthy and normally buys fancy expensive cars, should he have raised the price of his used car?

Digital Czar wrote:

Well, I went into this business because I love taking photos and solving problems. But I also went into the business with the idea of selling my work at a profit, not giving it away.

Then don't.  If it worked yesterday, today, and tomorrow, great.  If it stops working tomorrow...it happens.

I could do my beach sessions a LOT more than I do if I lowered my rates or did all of them for trade/charity.  But I'd rather have more time reading books, playing video games, or spending time with family and friends.  If you want me to reduce my time doing those activities, you're gonna have to put something in my pocket.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Then don't.  If it worked yesterday, today, and tomorrow, great.  If it stops working tomorrow...it happens.

I could do my beach sessions a LOT more than I do if I lowered my rates or did all of them for trade/charity.  But I'd rather have more time reading books, playing video games, or spending time with family and friends.  If you want me to reduce my time doing those activities, you're gonna have to put something in my pocket.

I never worked, that is just did any job that came along. I'd be asked to do photos I didn't really want to do, so I'd price them where I knew they wouldn't go and if they did, my bank account would be a bit fatter and even then, I'd sometimes take stuff I could have the assistant shoot while we were doing other things.

Lumigraphics wrote:

How much money have you made and how much did you plan to make in the future shooting Time covers?

Lets see, I have one stock shot that has sold over $100,000 gross, several over $50,000 gross, many, many in the $10,000 PLUS range. Unfortunately that was then (10 years ago,) this is now, I don't think I have a singe image that has grossed more than $10,000 since micro stock came along. I used to produce 4 or more shoots a year that cost many thousand dollars, no more. Now I shoot on the cheap and make less completing against GWC's who think $30 for a TIME cover is a good thing. I just signed a 5 year renewal with Corbis, they still pay a fair % to photographers. Fortunately, I have good commercial clients, even in this economy they respect the value of photography and pay a proper day rate for assignments and licensing images.

Photography by Depuhl wrote:
I'm having a similar experience right now, where I shot a editorial photo that is running in the current Harper's Bazaar August issue, where I got $0.- from the magazine, but my client paid me for the full production of the job...

The client is re-running the ad again and will ask for photo credit in the printed piece, but I can use this for my publicity saying (everywhere I can) that my work has been published in Harper's Bazaar. It's worth more than what I got paid.

That sounds more like a PR job, not an editorial job and as such has no real bearing on this debate.  It is a stretch to call it a Harper's Bazaar tearsheet.  There is generally no editorial over-sight or creative input from the art or editorial departments regarding the photos in advertisements or client-sponsored advertorial/advertising sections.

If you are looking for upper-level clients, they will know the difference between a Harper's Bazaar editorial and 'as seen in...'.  Passing one off for another would likely be less effective than labeling it properly.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
my clients license use, to publish my images in several nationally know publications....but as far as images used in maxim, 5 times this year so far.

big difference between 'used in...' and 'used by...' 

your first post implied that you got a $1000 licensing fee from Maxim.  this post implies that the licensing fee comes from an advertising/promotional client.

Dan Howell wrote:

That sounds more like a PR job, not an editorial job and as such has no real bearing on this debate.  It is a stretch to call it a Harper's Bazaar tearsheet.  There is generally no editorial over-sight or creative input from the art or editorial departments regarding the photos in advertisements or client-sponsored advertorial/advertising sections.

If you are looking for upper-level clients, they will know the difference between a Harper's Bazaar editorial and 'as seen in...'.  Passing one off for another would likely be less effective than labeling it properly.

Ahhh... It's nice to see somebody who truly understands the difference between having a published editorial image and other types of images.

I've had images published in magazines that were paid for by record companies. The magazines DID feature the photos, so it means they were acceptable. But I don't put it on my resume that I did work for those magazines. I didn't. I did the work for the record companies.

I've also had pictures published that were assignments from the various publications or book authors. Those go down as editorial work.

In the publishing business, there's a careful delineation between the two. And the OP's image is definitely editorial usage, even though it was acquired through a microstock site.

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

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

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

Thats great. You are now on the cover of Time Magazine. Not everyone can say that and that would be enough pay for me

Doug Swinskey wrote:
my clients license use, to publish my images in several nationally know publications....but as far as images used in maxim, 5 times this year so far.

Dan Howell wrote:
big difference between 'used in...' and 'used by...' 

your first post implied that you got a $1000 licensing fee from Maxim.  this post implies that the licensing fee comes from an advertising/promotional client.

i would agree...i never used the term "used by maxim"

i brought up the fee, the size and the fact it was used in Maxim magazine, to draw a parallel as what commercial use of images are typically worth. (for a national publication) i would have never received the same licensing fee if the image was being used in some small local publication.

if an 1/8 page, towards the back of the magazine in maxim is worth about $1200, what must the cover of "Time Magazine" be worth...that was my point...

Doug Swinskey wrote:
if an 1/8 page in maxim is worth about $1200, what must the cover of "Time Magazine" be worth...that was my point...

not that I don't think things will come to it eventually, but I have yet to see an advertisement on the cover of Time Magazine, the printed edition.  Their web site is a whole different story.  Still don't see the relationship to advertising usage and editorial usage as it relates to this thread though.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
if an 1/8 page in maxim is worth about $1200, what must the cover of "Time Magazine" be worth...that was my point...

Dan Howell wrote:
not that I don't think things will come to it eventually, but I have yet to see an advertisement on the cover of Time Magazine, the printed edition.  Their web site is a whole different story.  Still don't see the relationship to advertising usage and editorial usage as it relates to this thread though.

actually, you are correct, my rate was an advertising rate...

i just hypothetically quoted an editorial cover for time magazine..

it wouldn't have been much more then $1500....i would have thought more..
i haven't ever quoted editorial usage in the 3.5 million circulation range

Michael McGowan wrote:

Ahhh... It's nice to see somebody who truly understands the difference between having a published editorial image and other types of images.

I've had images published in magazines that were paid for by record companies. The magazines DID feature the photos, so it means they were acceptable. But I don't put it on my resume that I did work for those magazines. I didn't. I did the work for the record companies.

I've also had pictures published that were assignments from the various publications or book authors. Those go down as editorial work.

In the publishing business, there's a careful delineation between the two. And the OP's image is definitely editorial usage, even though it was acquired through a microstock site.

So has editorial usage traditionally been devalued from an economic standpoint such that it's "worth" less than non-editorial images/work?

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
So has editorial usage traditionally been devalued from an economic standpoint such that it's "worth" less than non-editorial images/work?

umm...where have you been for the last 50 yrs?  editorial vs. advertising, do you really not get the difference?

Michael McGowan wrote:
I've had images published in magazines that were paid for by record companies. The magazines DID feature the photos, so it means they were acceptable. But I don't put it on my resume that I did work for those magazines. I didn't. I did the work for the record companies.

Reminds me of this photographer that goes to some red carpet events.  He'll take pictures of someone like Tyra Banks and then put her in his credits like they worked together.

MilloDigital wrote:
AAAARGH - i haven't even read thru most posts because i couldn't be bothered, except: way to go idiot! $30 for a magazine cover, of Time magazine no less!

But then you deserve it for playing into this microstock BS. And please don't anyone come with the crap that microstock serves the purpose of supplying imges to people that can't afford regular agency fees. You don't have $100 for an image for your bussiness site? Tough shit. You shouldn't be in business then.

But hey, like some others have said - you can now gush about your image being on the cover of Time.

Just like the graphic designer wannabe yo-yo's that enter advertising competitions (www.eyeka.com) for companies like Philips for the grand prize of headphones!

Oh, i am soooooo excited. Gush, gush, gush!

The fact that now whatever company owns everyone's entry to use however they wish - with the result that numerous graphic designers and ad people wont get the contract - is totally irrelevant because now said entrants can gush.

How fucken sad!

PS: do any of you girls wanna pose naked for me for $2 a pop? I promise you'll be on the cover of some magazine or other?

Idiot? wow, way to behave with the grown ups.

Not liking what happened is fine.

Disagreeing with anyone is fine.

Idiot? Maybe you need a time out in the corner.

David Pollack wrote:

Lets see, I have one stock shot that has sold over $100,000 gross, several over $50,000 gross, many, many in the $10,000 PLUS range. Unfortunately that was then (10 years ago,) this is now, I don't think I have a singe image that has grossed more than $10,000 since micro stock came along. I used to produce 4 or more shoots a year that cost many thousand dollars, no more. Now I shoot on the cheap and make less completing against GWC's who think $30 for a TIME cover is a good thing. I just signed a 5 year renewal with Corbis, they still pay a fair % to photographers. Fortunately, I have good commercial clients, even in this economy they respect the value of photography and pay a proper day rate for assignments and licensing images.

If you shoot on the cheap because of GWC's, I would suggest you have found your market niche. Blaming someone else for your lack of success is basically a form of denial. It would appear that your $100,000.00 successes were more random luck than anything else. At least that's the way it looks by virtue of your own admission.

Robert Randall wrote:
If you shoot on the cheap because of GWC's, I would suggest you have found your market niche. Blaming someone else for your lack of success is basically a form of denial. It would appear that your $100,000.00 successes were more random luck than anything else. At least that's the way it looks by virtue of your own admission.

Bob, how is your success with stock sites?

Digital Czar wrote:
I never worked, that is just did any job that came along. I'd be asked to do photos I didn't really want to do, so I'd price them where I knew they wouldn't go and if they did, my bank account would be a bit fatter and even then, I'd sometimes take stuff I could have the assistant shoot while we were doing other things.

Your first sentence is a lie. Among others, you worked for Montgomery Ward, which means you took whatever job they threw your way. The notion that you were in such high demand that you could pick and choose clients as if they were apples on a tree is a false hood. Basically its a ploy on your part to increase the perception of your stature within the industry. Why you feel a need to do that is anyone's guess, but having seen it from so many others, it doesn't come as a big surprise.

Fee integrity is a crucial part of any successful business. While I've heard stories of people that vacillate fee structure to suit a particular need, in a small marketplace like Chicago it amounts to professional suicide. The clients we deal with are not totally isolated, and when they start talking about vendors, you can be assured pricing structure will come up. What do you think would be the result of two art buyers discussing the variety of fees in your approach. I don't believe you used this ploy, again I think you are fishing for stature points, but if you did, your lapse in judgement is highly questionable.

When you had the assistant shoot your jobs for you, did you tell the client, or did you sneak it past them? Did you charge a lesser rate or did you charge your normal rate? I have a problem with any answer you give because one answer falls into the realm of shoddy ethics, while the other answer makes you a hypocrite. The ethics problem stems from charging the rate of a consummate pro while having a less experienced assistant actually do the work... that makes you a cheat. If you charged less for the assistant to shoot, that certainly counters any argument you've been making about micro stock fees, because you just admitted taking a full fee job and reducing the fees for it by having underlings do the work, thus by your own admission, cheating working pros out of their deserved cut of the pie... that makes you a hypocrite.

I'm sure you can come up with some rationalization for this moral and ethical conundrum, but the fact is I can pretty much rip apart every post you've made in here in a manner similar to the above. It really boils down to the fact that you want to protect your cut of the pie, so you are trying to shame everyone into raising their fees to conform with your fees, thus protecting your cut of the pie.

This is when someone like Cuica Cafezinho comes in and calls me an asshole.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
So has editorial usage traditionally been devalued from an economic standpoint such that it's "worth" less than non-editorial images/work?

Dan Howell wrote:
umm...where have you been for the last 50 yrs?  editorial vs. advertising, do you really not get the difference?

I don't understand the difference in terms of economics.

Is editorial looked down upon vs advertising?  not every advertising budget is for dior it could be for joe's regional tackle and bait shops.


and really dan, if you can't answer the question without being a dick, just don't answer.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

Bob, how is your success with stock sites?

Up until now, I've made about $30,000.00 from iStock. Its ramping up, so I have no way of annualizing the figure. With additional uploads as time allows, along with a good many of my images having been selected into the Vetta collection (slight amount of bragging), I expect those numbers to keep rising. Were I to focus all my efforts into iStock, I would expect I would soon be earning in excess of $10,000.00 per month, and my ceiling would be about $40,000.00 or so per month.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
Bob, how is your success with stock sites?

Robert Randall wrote:
Up until now, I've made about $30,000.00 from iStock. Its ramping up, so I have no way of annualizing the figure. With additional uploads as time allows, along with a good many of my images having been selected into the Vetta collection (slight amount of bragging), I expect those numbers to keep rising. Were I to focus all my efforts into iStock, I would expect I would soon be earning in excess of $10,000.00 per month, and my ceiling would be about $40,000.00 or so per month.

You may have mentioned this before but are you shooting any new work for istock or is this mostly/all previous work you took over the years and are scanning it into digital files?

Patchouli Nyx wrote:

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
So has editorial usage traditionally been devalued from an economic standpoint such that it's "worth" less than non-editorial images/work?

I don't understand the difference in terms of economics.

Is editorial looked down upon vs advertising?  not every advertising budget is for dior it could be for joe's regional tackle and bait shops.


and really dan, if you can't answer the question without being a dick, just don't answer.

actually i'll answer anyway I want...kind of the purpose of a forum since Roman times. 

you are all over this thread with opinions about how the business should run but you seem to be unaware of the difference between images used in editorial content and images used in promotional or advertising content.  i'm not sure this lengthy thread is long enough to impress upon you the differences between them if you haven't got it by now.  simply put, advertising images help sell a specific product, service or idea to enrich the client.  editorial images combine with all of the other information or entertainment content of a publication to give it value. 

you are the one who used the term 'devalue' when no one who understands the difference would really look at it that way.

Robert Randall wrote:

Your first sentence is a lie. Among others, you worked for Montgomery Ward, which means you took whatever job they threw your way. The notion that you were in such high demand that you could pick and choose clients as if they were apples on a tree is a false hood. Basically its a ploy on your part to increase the perception of your stature within the industry. Why you feel a need to do that is anyone's guess, but having seen it from so many others, it doesn't come as a big surprise.

Fee integrity is a crucial part of any successful business. While I've heard stories of people that vacillate fee structure to suit a particular need, in a small marketplace like Chicago it amounts to professional suicide. The clients we deal with are not totally isolated, and when they start talking about vendors, you can be assured pricing structure will come up. What do you think would be the result of two art buyers discussing the variety of fees in your approach. I don't believe you used this ploy, again I think you are fishing for stature points, but if you did, your lapse in judgement is highly questionable.

When you had the assistant shoot your jobs for you, did you tell the client, or did you sneak it past them? Did you charge a lesser rate or did you charge your normal rate? I have a problem with any answer you give because one answer falls into the realm of shoddy ethics, while the other answer makes you a hypocrite. The ethics problem stems from charging the rate of a consummate pro while having a less experienced assistant actually do the work... that makes you a cheat. If you charged less for the assistant to shoot, that certainly counters any argument you've been making about micro stock fees, because you just admitted taking a full fee job and reducing the fees for it by having underlings do the work, thus by your own admission, cheating working pros out of their deserved cut of the pie... that makes you a hypocrite.

I'm sure you can come up with some rationalization for this moral and ethical conundrum, but the fact is I can pretty much rip apart every post you've made in here in a manner similar to the above. It really boils down to the fact that you want to protect your cut of the pie, so you are trying to shame everyone into raising their fees to conform with your fees, thus protecting your cut of the pie.

This is when someone like Cuica Cafezinho comes in and calls me an asshole.

No bob, I did pick and choose. Some jobs I didn't want to do. Period. My choice.

Wards, do you think anyone working for Wards could pick and choose which jobs Wards gave them if you wanted to keep working for them? Of course not. You're picking fly shit from pepper as you've always wanted to do, hitting your grumpy button as you've always done. I know my business, you don't. That simple.

It has always been tradition that if you didn't want a job, you priced it as such and everyone understood that, maybe you didn't. I would never tell a client I didn't want to shoot his job. The pricing was the kind way.

When you have a "boutique" business on the side of your regular business and that means some, maybe all shooting is done by an assistant, all the work is supervised by me, so it still makes it mine. I lay out the guidelines that I want the assistant to shoot under. No different than when I worked for Dick Krueger and I shot stuff for him/his studio and his name went on the work, the studio's work. Get it?

There's no ethical/moral conundrum as you'd  like to make. Please don't say either that Rudy Guttosch shot all his studio's photos either. There were a lot of "shooters" there as well as assistants but it all went under the Kranzten name. No different than ETM, BAM, Grignon, Silver Lining, Pederson, Vogue Wright, and a few others. You're trying to ride a horse that doesn't exist.

Oh, and bob, go ahead and rip all you want. That is your rep....

Digital Czar wrote:

No bob, I did pick and choose. Some jobs I didn't want to do. Period. My choice.

Wards, do you think anyone working for Wards could pick and choose which jobs Wards gave them if you wanted to keep working for them? Of course not. You're picking fly shit from pepper as you've always wanted to do, hitting your grumpy button as you've always done. I know my business, you don't. That simple.

It has always been tradition that if you didn't want a job, you priced it as such and everyone understood that, maybe you didn't. I would never tell a client I didn't want to shoot his job. The pricing was the kind way.

When you have a "boutique" business on the side of your regular business and that means some, maybe all shooting is done by an assistant, all the work is supervised by me, so it still makes it mine. I lay out the guidelines that I want the assistant to shoot under. No different than when I worked for Dick Krueger and I shot stuff for him/his studio and his name went on the work, the studio's work. Get it?

There's no ethical/moral conundrum as you'd  like to make. Please don't say either that Rudy Guttosch shot all his studio's photos either. There were a lot of "shooters" there as well as assistants but it all went under the Kranzten name. No different than ETM, BAM, Grignon, Silver Lining, Pederson, Vogue Wright, and a few others. You're trying to ride a horse that doesn't exist.

Oh, and bob, go ahead and rip all you want. That is your rep....

Since you seem to rely on revisionist history, distortion of fact, and name calling to press your point, I feel you are no longer worth the time its taking to square this issue.

I'm going to avoid you in the forums from now on, the way I do with everyone that can't be trusted to tell the truth. I suggest you do the same with me.