How much is a glass of water worth?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/05/2005 01:09:31 PM · #1

Photo value

...this is a great link for the microstock people. :P

Message edited by author 2005-11-05 22:15:26.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

11/05/2005 01:19:20 PM · #2

interesting. i have an istock account- but have yet to upload an image ;} and probably won't, ever.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/05/2005 10:14:56 PM · #3

bump.

Canon EOS-20D

11/05/2005 10:23:51 PM · #4

Look at you all sneakin' in with a new name...

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/05/2005 10:31:05 PM · #5

That was very interesting! I did not guess the $4600 image correctly - did you?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/05/2005 10:33:19 PM · #6

I picked it.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/05/2005 10:33:32 PM · #7

I've seen that before when researching stock. It is very interesting. I think the thing is that most people get addicted to the constant small cash flow, and don't think their images are good enough to get the "big fish" I guess.

zapgrafx

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/05/2005 10:51:15 PM · #8

They really put a good campaign together and nice clean layout. Very interesting. Didn't say what the split was or maybe I just didn't see it what's there take 20%? Looked closer to 50 if the photog only made 2300 on that 4600 image or did I miss something?

Edit just saw the * 50/50 split. Thanks for posting that Brent

Message edited by author 2005-11-05 22:52:39.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/05/2005 10:53:10 PM · #9

HAH! I went through 25 pages of one of their featured photogs, and I only found one Rights Managed photograph. LOL.

hokie

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/05/2005 11:29:37 PM · #10

Our company is an image company.

We provide photography for agencies, marketing departments and our own clients.

Any art director that pays $4,600 for a stock photo of a glass of water is either

a) A total noob or.....b) A total boob

We have 5 professional photographers who produce images for Bank of America, Hanes International, UVA Sports, Taco Bell and dozens of other major advertisers.

A day in our studio costs $1,500. I can GUARANTEE that we could produce a dozen water shots in a day that will meet an advertisers needs.

High pricesd stock photography of simple shots are for companies who don't have art directors who know their business.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/06/2005 01:20:37 AM · #11

Originally posted by hokie:

A day in your studios costs $1,500? Then you charge for materials right? We'll assume the assistants are included in the $1,500. Anyhow, add the cost of film and processing for a day's work, and the costs for some food/refreshment, and the salaries paid to the staff who are on hand (art director, marketing director, there's always a couple) and the client's paying quite a bit more than $1,500, albeit probably not as much as $4,600.

BUT: are you telling us with a straight face that your photographers shoot the mages at an all-inclusive fee of $1,500 for a day's studio time, then GIVE THE IMAGES TO THE CLIENT with no residuals locked in?

That water-glass shot was used in a national ad campaign and the payment was a reasonable percentage of the media cost of the placement; this is one standard way of determining the value of a shot. 5% of media cost is mid-range if my memory serves me right.

Can you think of a single valid reason why the agency that designs the ad should get paid tens of thosuands of dollars or more to do it, the media hundreds of thosuands to run it, and the photographer a pittance? We ALWAYS scaled our prices to the end-usage of the image, and always sold limited or one-time use.

Robt.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/06/2005 02:54:37 AM · #12

Originally posted by hokie:

Sounds like inexperience talking here. I've seen an image licensed for $10,000 for one year for a catalog cover. Also, you have no idea what the AD's timline was. Short notice, less hassle, stock fills the need. But what bothers me is that this is the mentality of many graphic designers. Especially junior ones, until they realize our 2 professions are linked very closely. They also forget how much easier it is to design a project than shoot it.

Message edited by author 2005-11-06 03:04:01.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/06/2005 03:22:39 AM · #13

Funny that the site's two "Wards" think alike on this one, and that we both are (or were, in my case) working commerical photographers. Wonder what the odds are of that?

Have I ever introduced myself, even? Robert Ward here; pleased to meet you, cousin Brent...

Robt.

11/06/2005 03:27:37 AM · #14

Originally posted by bear_music:

LOL! Never realized that was your last name. Have any relatives from the south? Feel like a family reunion in the rockies? Rocky Mountain National Park is calling your name... ;o)

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/06/2005 03:30:01 AM · #15

Originally posted by mk:

Look at you all sneakin' in with a new name...

Who, me??!! ;o)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/06/2005 03:37:41 AM · #16

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Funny that the site's two "Wards" think alike on this one, and that we both are (or were, in my case) working commerical photographers. Wonder what the odds are of that?

Have I ever introduced myself, even? Robert Ward here; pleased to meet you, cousin Brent...

Robt.

LOL! Never realized that was your last name. Have any relatives from the south? Feel like a family reunion in the rockies? Rocky Mountain National Park is calling your name... ;o)

I wish... I had family (from my mother's side) in Littleton for a long time,a nd I used to spend time there every year, so I got to know the Rockies fairly well. I'm not aware of any relatives on the Ward side from anywhere but Southern California; I'm a 4th-generation native of San Diego. My father's side of the family, the Ward side, trace their ancestry to Scotch and German roots, is all I know...

The chances of me making it to Colorado are extremely slim; let's hook up when you come East, young man.

R.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/06/2005 01:40:44 PM · #17

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Funny that the site's two "Wards" think alike on this one, and that we both are (or were, in my case) working commerical photographers. Wonder what the odds are of that?

Have I ever introduced myself, even? Robert Ward here; pleased to meet you, cousin Brent...

Robt.

LOL! Never realized that was your last name. Have any relatives from the south? Feel like a family reunion in the rockies? Rocky Mountain National Park is calling your name... ;o)

I wish... I had family (from my mother's side) in Littleton for a long time,a nd I used to spend time there every year, so I got to know the Rockies fairly well. I'm not aware of any relatives on the Ward side from anywhere but Southern California; I'm a 4th-generation native of San Diego. My father's side of the family, the Ward side, trace their ancestry to Scotch and German roots, is all I know...

The chances of me making it to Colorado are extremely slim; let's hook up when you come East, young man.

R.

Good chance of that. Shooting lighthouses on the east cost is high on my list!!

hokie

Nikon D2X

11/06/2005 02:39:14 PM · #18

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Well, sorry, not inexperienced.

I am a 42 year old art director 20 years in the business. I have ran my own ad agency for 2 years then hired by 2 fortune 500 companies (as a result of my ad work for them) and now work in a company with other photographers as a project designer and art director.

My experience says that I can meet a timeline for a glass of water in 2 hours.

Now, something that involves a model, a specific background, a storyline or other involved set-up..then yes...stock photos purchased at several thousand dollars have (I use the past tense once again based on the fact I have been the buyer in these cases) can save me time and money.

But...if I need a glass of water (and I know what the concept is) I can get that shot in 2 hours..no more than half a day.

UNLESS the glass of water needs to be held by Elle MacPherson, then we might be talking a couple days of shooting in the Bahamas :-D

Message edited by author 2005-11-06 14:42:35.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/06/2005 03:20:31 PM · #19

I am not a commercial photographer, but I look at this from a couple different angles - I agree with bear, who seems to be saying it is a market-driven price, which does not relate to the amount of time or effort involved in producing the product - it's simply how much someone is willing to pay for THAT particular image.

On the other hand, if I am President of the agency whose Art Director paid $4,600 for that glass of water, I might call him into my office and ask him to explain why we couldn't have paid hokie $1500 to produce a dozen images.

Then again, this Art Director might have a long record of phenominal success at what he does, and since I did hire him to do this, maybe I should not question his decisions, but judge him on the success of the campaign.

Of course, just because a campaign was greatly successful, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been even MORE successful by costing a lot less.

Ultimately, I think there was a budget established for the Art Director and if he stayed within the budget and the campaign was successful, I would defer to his judgement on the $4,600 for that glass of water.

...but it would sure bug the crap out of me. :)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/06/2005 04:04:13 PM · #20

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Sounds like inexperience talking here. I've seen an image licensed for $10,000 for one year for a catalog cover. Also, you have no idea what the AD's timline was. Short notice, less hassle, stock fills the need. But what bothers me is that this is the mentality of many graphic designers. Especially junior ones, until they realize our 2 professions are linked very closely. They also forget how much easier it is to design a project than shoot it.

Well, sorry, not inexperienced.

I am a 42 year old art director 20 years in the business. I have ran my own ad agency for 2 years then hired by 2 fortune 500 companies (as a result of my ad work for them) and now work in a company with other photographers as a project designer and art director.

My experience says that I can meet a timeline for a glass of water in 2 hours.

Now, something that involves a model, a specific background, a storyline or other involved set-up..then yes...stock photos purchased at several thousand dollars have (I use the past tense once again based on the fact I have been the buyer in these cases) can save me time and money.

But...if I need a glass of water (and I know what the concept is) I can get that shot in 2 hours..no more than half a day.

UNLESS the glass of water needs to be held by Elle MacPherson, then we might be talking a couple days of shooting in the Bahamas :-D

As an experienced art director, I'm sure you are also aware of the legal ramifications of duplicating the concept and the exact shot. I'm sure the client would rather pay a little extra for the shot instead of a copyright infringement case. I read an article about a painter that sued a sculptor for duplicating his work in a different medium and won!

Now anytime you have a bahamas shoot with Elle, give me a call. I'll shoot it at cost and buy you a beer afterward. ;o)

hokie

Nikon D2X

11/06/2005 04:17:28 PM · #21

:-D

I agree with kpreist.

If the Art Director in this case was very experienced or the budget was such that $4,300 for a photo was 1% of the budget then I could see this purchase being made without a lot of questions.

My point was really to rebuke the original story that gave me the impression that they were saying common stock photos are a path to fortune and Art Directors are out there throwing money around.

I haven't found that to be true. If someone else has a different experience, please direct their buyer to me...I would be glad to sell a basic stock photo to them at a discount for only $3,995...:-D