DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Huh?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/28/2003 06:49:54 PM · #1
Pardon my ignorance, but what is implied by stock photography?
 11/28/2003 06:53:17 PM · #2
Comstock, a stock photo agency, should give you an idea.

Ed
 11/28/2003 06:54:33 PM · #3
Did you mean Stork photography?
 11/28/2003 07:03:05 PM · #4
Stock photographs are photos that are taken and then given (leased? sold?) to an agency. This agency serves as source/reservoir for photographs. Companies (and whoever else) that need photographs that depict something, but don't want to higher a photographer to do it, will go to a stock agency and look for suitable pictures. One example would be when a business is setting up a website or brochure and needs photos of people "brainstorming" in a business meeting.. they would go to a stock photography agency, which would already have photos like this that have been taken by professional photographers with models. Hope this was a proper explanation, and hope it helped.

Much of the recent talk about it has been related to the fact that stock photos are typically very straightforward photos - technically great, but little interpretation is needed.

Message edited by author 2003-11-28 19:08:45.
 11/28/2003 07:28:38 PM · #5
Thanks Brian.

I think I'm still dense on the whole thread of how dpc is like that but what do I know.

I'm not sure why so many people are so dissatisified as of late with the challemges & winners. It seem sto me that people complian when they don't get the shot and when they do.
11/28/2003 07:36:31 PM · #6
It seems to be the noisy minority. If not, then the winners would not be winning. I have not been here long but, the griping is starting to get on my nerves.
It takes talent, skills, and dedication to be a decent stock photographer. Everyone that is whining is just jealous.
 11/28/2003 07:47:49 PM · #7
It is not complaining about the winners winning.

It is about everyone spending their time writing congratulatory notes and fawning over the winners instead of offering constructive suggestions to the non-winners.
 11/28/2003 07:53:31 PM · #8
that would make sense but, from the threads that I have read, I have not gathered that.
 11/28/2003 08:08:31 PM · #9
Originally posted by jaimeegrl:
It seems to be the noisy minority. If not, then the winners would not be winning. I have not been here long but, the griping is starting to get on my nerves.
It takes talent, skills, and dedication to be a decent stock photographer. Everyone that is whining is just jealous.


I kinda agree with you that it is a tad whinny. Afterall one of the threads was began with a member comlainging about the comments he/sge got & how folks didnt get it.
As for the comments, not every one wants to or can comment on the technical aspects of photography & would like to say that they liked it. Whats the harm with that? I do that & like to hear from folks that like or dislike my shots as well. You know what they say about sore losers. I lost & i aint sore about it. Super Congrats to those who did win a ribbon. Obviously pople liked tham so they won! What's the big deal anyway. No one wins money or grand prizes or anything. Just a tiny ribbon. It's not even a real ribbon!:)

Everyone should try & have fun. This is supposed to be a fun learning experience within a community. Let's not spoil it by bitchin' 'cause we lost or bc someone didnt get what we were trying to say.
 11/28/2003 08:12:54 PM · #10
"Stock Photography" should not be associated in any way with something negative. It is not. Stock photography requires skill to produce. Or maybe I should say it requires skill to produce stock photos that will sell regularly.
 11/28/2003 08:16:17 PM · #11
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
"Stock Photography" should not be associated in any way with something negative. It is not. Stock photography requires skill to produce. Or maybe I should say it requires skill to produce stock photos that will sell regularly.


I didnt get that feeling from some of th rants that have been going on but I have read from others participating that it does indeed take skills to do stock photography. It seems it is being used as a diss. Maybe I misinterpreted it but that was my feeling.

Thanks fro learing things up.
 11/28/2003 08:28:00 PM · #12
I do think that in some cases refering to an image as a stock photo is a way of belittleing it. Many people feel that "stock" photo's are a genre that is not as good as "art" photos.

If you have the skills to create an exceptional stock photo, it means just that, you have SKILL. Many if not most photographers that do art photos also do stock as a way of paying for the less saleable arty ones they do.

I'm just starting, and have a couple of small jobs doing product shots. They are very hard to do right and well. And the skills I learn doing them allow me to create even better art shots, that probably will never sell.

I have a lot of respect for people that can consistently shoot great stock shots.
 11/28/2003 08:30:46 PM · #13
I think the threads on this issue stem from someone's artisic vision. Stock photography and fine art photography can be one in the same, but they generally aren't. It takes no more or no less skill to produce either one. I think that too many people are classifying studio type setup shots as 'stock'. Stock photography consists just as much of candids and outdoor shots as it does studio work.

For a photo to be considered 'fine art', all you have to do is put that label on it :) Everyone may not agree with you, but if you say it is fine art, then it is. There is no set of specifications that you must achieve to end up with 'fine art'. I think that fine art photography is much MORE subjective than stock work. I suppose that one true way to determine if something is actually fine art is to put it up for auction or sale in a gallery somewhere. If someone pays an exorbitant price for it, then you have achieved fine art status.

11/28/2003 08:55:34 PM · #14
Originally posted by Rooster:
I'm not sure why so many people are so dissatisified as of late with the challemges & winners. It seem sto me that people complian when they don't get the shot and when they do.


The short flippant (and grossly unfair) answer is that they're dissatisfised because they weren't the winners :-)

The slightly longer and (I think) more accurate answer is that because stock photography is popular and in some way 'commercialised', it's not arty enough for them. It has recently become socially questionable to strive to produce technically clean pictures with a broad-base appeal because thats "just stock photography".

And god help you if you're foolish enough to make it a studio picture too! :-)

[ok, I admit I drifted off the "accurate answer" a bit there!]
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 10:50:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 10:50:13 AM EDT.