Author | Thread |
|
09/16/2010 01:09:11 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: Photoshop came way before digital cameras. |
Way before? Are we talking seconds? ;-)
History of digital.
First version of Photoshop
Now we're talking first commercially available digital camera by Fugi in 1988. Not Kodak's Pro cameras from the 90s. Photoshop V1.0 came out in 88. |
|
|
09/16/2010 01:20:39 AM · #27 |
I kinda agree with dmadden on this. It seems to me that the photography oligopoly is crumbling so to speak and the overpriced photography is finally coming down to what it was actually worth. Rather than blame the amateurs for this, the pros would be better served by improving their own products. The real issue here appears to be an over abundance of untalented pros out there that had been getting by on investment alone.
Message edited by author 2010-09-16 01:47:24. |
|
|
09/17/2010 10:27:20 PM · #28 |
Well, what IS it actually worth? Keeping in mind that with stock, there is no money being spent for the MAKING of the image. In other words, no assignment. A lot of people selling stock are moonlighting of course, and aren't forced to take the cost of doing business into account.
Personally I price my stock based on the rarity of it too--rights managed. If it's ordinary (but well shot), one time non-exclusive editorial use, then the cost is lower or might even be licensed through my stock site as royalty free. If it's gonna star in a marketing campaign with dozens of uses, it's simply worth more, the same way if YOU work more hours, you get more pay. My images are my employees, so to speak.
Certainly things have changed since I routinely sold catalog covers for $1K each, and that was good for my niche but not for catalog covers overall. Those covers now go for only $200, and most of those selling to them are the newer pros.
I just try to keep upping my game, and hope that somehow the "cult of good enough" someday gets more discerning. Or their clients' media buys go back up. As an occasional image buyer for my lower end clients, I can't tell you how horrifying it is to search the microstock sites--repetitive images, unculled, poorly keyworded. Go search on "dairy cattle" and see what you get? Even Alamy was poor. But image buyers are willing to spend many hours in order to buy RF stock that might be in use by someone else's campaign.
Yes, the days of being paid to do an assignment shoot that could later on be used for stock seem to be largely over, except for the top 1% of advertisers using the top 1% of shooters. And the photography schools are still churning out the graduates who think they're gonna make money with assignments and stock. Better have a brave new game, like Joey, and keep reinventing yourself or diversifying to be a successful pro these days.
|
|
|
09/17/2010 11:27:30 PM · #29 |
I am not a pro photographer, nor do I shoot stock images. However, as cameras get better, cheaper, and easier to use, more and more people are going to enter the fray. I don't believe it will ever go back the other way. Once people had their TV installed and set up by a technician. It was difficult to do, especially the early color sets. Not so any longer. It has become so easy, amateurs do it daily without a thought. Part-timers do not need to support a family, do not need to fund a studio, and can settle for much less.
There is more than one profession that has devolved down to hobbyists or disappeared completely. Twenty years ago, people worked as word processors. When was the last time you heard of anybody going to one?
I don't dislike pros and have no axe to grind. It is just an evolution of technology. The pie is getting smaller, and there are more mouths seeking to be fed, as the access to the necessary equipment becomes easier and cheaper. To stay viable the pros will have to stay several steps ahead of the amateurs. Stay far enough ahead that there is little comparison. VHS supplanted Beta, not because it was better, but because it was good enough. The pressure to be more efficient, to perform at ever lower margins is not going to go away. It will only increase. Ask GM, Walmart, or any other business.
|
|
|
09/18/2010 01:40:42 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by lynnesite: Well, what IS it actually worth? |
What you get now. It's all about supply and demand. When there's an ample supply why should the buyer pay top dollar for an image that so many can produce? So you have two options. Either reduce your cost per image so you can compete with the low overhead moonlighters or find a way to distance yourself from that competition altogether. Being very talented helps, but what separates the top 1% shooters has more to do about brand building than anything else. We have people here that have produced work like Joey, Jill Greenberg, etc, but they don't have their brands or a unique enough style/vision to call their own and so they aren't as successful.
Anyway, that's basically what I was getting at. I have no doubt that you work hard and produce good images but there's really no point in complaining about how things are. I certainly know how it feels. I've been doing web design/programming since the late 90's and had to deal with all the kids with FrontPage offering to build web sites for pennies and things haven't gotten any easier since. Technology continues to make things easier and easier for the common man so the only way to survive is to keep getting better and offer things that others can't deliver.
Message edited by author 2010-09-18 01:42:12.
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 01:05:52 PM |
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: 08/03/2025 01:05:52 PM EDT.
|