Board index Photography Artistic Questions Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Artistic Questions

Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Discuss style and artistic aspects of photography
benjikan
 
Posts: 344

Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Post Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:16 am


Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Someone on another photography forum , stated that a photographer sold their image for a cover of TIME Magazine for $30. It was sold through a stock photography agency called iStockPhoto. That is sadly unfortunate. It also represents the present state of affairs for many photographers attempting to make a living by their craft.

It is for this reason, that I am glad that I am a fashion photographer. It is impossible to sell stock of fashion shoots after more than three months as the next collections are already being prepared to be shot for the next season of fashion magazines.

Every editor knows which designers have come out with which collection and images must always be current. There are instances where fashion photography is sold as stock. If there is a fashion retrospective or a special article on a specific designer. Several of my older images from a magazine in France called Madame Figaro were used in a book about the Italian Designer Emanuel Ungaro, but that was a book and not a magazine.

Like in the music business, photographers outside of fashion are getting royally screwed in terms of fee's. However, they are still in a good position to negotiate royalties. Most image bank agencies take between 40-60 percent and that IS the norm. In my venue the standard across the board fee taken by a photographer agents is 25%.

It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.

Unfortunately, there is a line of photographers prepared to take your place for that $30, if you decide to say no to the proposition. A new business model must eventually surface for photographer's to be able to survive. Perhaps the new pro-photographers of the future will be all of you.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1181

dougj
 
Posts: 2276

Re: Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Post Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:33 am


In another forum, an agency posted a request for a model shot for an ad they were doing in Maxim, the print run is about 2.5 million copies. He first asked for a free photo, in exchange for 'exposure' for the photog. He later offered to pay, but not a 'ton of money'. No volunteers, one OP sent him off to the stock agency you mentioned and another.

As you mentioned Ben, fashion has a very short life. Yuri Arcurs does well in this very competitive field, he does a lot of work with styles that have a long shelf life and are appealing to businesses for brochures, ads, websites, etc.

madlights
 
Posts: 914

Re: Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Post Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:18 pm


I think to some degree..what this speaks of is the lack of regard for the visual arts (and to some degree all art) in many cases. If it isn't technological, or scientific or mass produced...the value to society has diminished...at least in some regards. If we look upon past societies...say the Greeks, Romans, or Arabic, African, Aztecs, Incas, Eastern worlds, or Europe in the Renaissance ...sure we judge them by technological accomplishments to a degree, but more so by their art. Literature, painting, sculpting, music, etc. So what does that say about us? To me it says that we have devalued human endeavor, individual creativity and initiative.
OK this may be a vast generalization but...I was at an art fair. I saw two men talking and overheard their conversations. They were obviously doctors by what I heard. In looking at a very good watercolor (really good - by a very good artist) at what I considered a very reasonable price...one said to the other something like " that person is 'talented' but their price is outlandish" Well it was 400.00 for an original, by an American Watercolor Society artist. Now it takes a lot to get into the American Watercolor Society. What in the hell, makes people think that someone who goes to school, or learns by experience to do art well, whatever type of art...should be devalued like that? Why does society put such a low value on art? How many times have we all heard that "oh isn't that person talented? I wished I'd have been born with that talent"? How many times do you get asked "what kind of camera took that picture?" Like that your camera was walking around on legs going snap happy? As if photography (and art in a more general sense) took no skill or learning and used very little intelligence. I'm not talking about the attitude of the "arts" community or the seemingly few in society who are truly aware, but of society in general.
Don't let them take away arts programs in the schools, because budgets need cut. I love Stephen King books...but when I asked my kids to name a literary person from the late 20th century, guess who they named? Stephen King....mostly I think because they've made movies of his books :) Yeah and movies are an art form for sure, but a very big bucks one in most cases. I remember reading Steinbeck, Huxley, and Dylan Thomas...and I could have been interested less in literature. I remember lots of painters and photographers from growing up...I know of few kids today who can name painters or photographers that are still alive.
Had a teacher in school, he said "no money, no art" I also know of a painter. He was at a show...doing alright but not great. A business man with a foreign accent came up to him..obviously very well to do. He made the painter an offer...to buy 'all' of his paintings for a considerable sum. To make prints of them to sell in a department store chain. The business man said "think of the exposure it will give you?" The painter after considering the offer for a minute or two said "give me your name and contact info please?" But the painter still hasn't called, and think that was 5 years ago. It seems that many artists in general, musicians, photographers, painters have even begun to devalue themselves, and it's a tough world when trying to make a living...
We as a society...have got to not let the forces at play cut arts programs and funding as a first 'resort'. I think we as artists also have to spread the word that photography, painting etc. isn't born into people. That photography isn't learned by picking up the most automatic, advanced megapixel armed camera and aiming it at something (regardless of what some will tell you on DPR) :twisted: . This was all happening to a large degree, before the current economic downturn, and kind of think it's going to get worse. Maybe a Time Magazine cover will go for ten bucks.
Edit: Here's an article also that I found on the death of photojournalism it's very enlightening and I think provides insight into the financial drivers behind both stock and photo journalistic decline:
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0 ... wires.html

mnl
 
Posts: 46

Re: Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Post Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:08 pm


Many thousands are making a very fine living in professional sports; but many millions of extraordinarily gifted athletes never quite make it. I can't estimate the number of fine screenplays and novels that have never been produced or published--most of which have readers that are numbered in no more than dozens. Are you getting my point? I don't suppose it's any more difficult or rare making a living as an actor or musician than as a photographer. Can you say, "Day job"?
All M8. Mostly 28 2.5 Elmarit http://www.pbase.com/mnl/photo_diary

madlights
 
Posts: 914

Re: Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Post Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:57 pm


mnl wrote:Many thousands are making a very fine living in professional sports; but many millions of extraordinarily gifted athletes never quite make it. I can't estimate the number of fine screenplays and novels that have never been produced or published--most of which have readers that are numbered in no more than dozens. Are you getting my point? I don't suppose it's any more difficult or rare making a living as an actor or musician than as a photographer. Can you say, "Day job"?

I agree that there's only so much room...but I do think that the appreciation of art has been sold short...especially as of the last 20-30 years in western culture, with most emphasis on math and science (not that anything is wrong with math and science). Also the change in the way we get our information has pressured all kinds of journalism and information sources( flyer's, and newspaper advertising, I think used to be somewhat a purchaser of "stock photography"). I do think that arts programs and athletic programs have a great deal in common in schools...when budgets tighten, they are the first threatened. If our society were to further education in any form of art, there'd be more room "at the top" As of now there are probably hundreds of thousands making a living in some art related field (probably more in advertising - artists, photographers, writers etc.) Probably many less in fine arts related, although undoubtedly more than in athletics, and a great many more supplementing their "day jobs" with income from art related areas. But a good point you made. I think the problem regarding photography specifically is, to me, the lack of respect (since everyone is now a photographer with the renewed interest in photography since digital) and economic pressures because of the way information distribution has changed, mixed in with the laws of supply and demand. Brett Favre gets millions, a Time Magazine cover photographer gets 30USD. The top has changed.


Board index Photography Artistic Questions Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests