| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2003 08:09:50 AM · #1 |
I am having some trouble with the stock photography voting. There are so many good pictures that are useless in stock photography!
In particular, I am thinking about the shot [description removed on request. The shot contained a brand name quite prominently], but there are many examples like it: It is a GREAT shot, but in stock photography terms, nobody would buy it. Why? Because it is very brand-focused. People buying stock are generally magazines and newspapers: There is no way either of the two would buy the [brand name] shot. Why? Because [the brand] would be getting free advertisement in editorial pages, and that is against the journalism codes of conduct (i should know, I was photo editor of a newspaper last year).
I think that makes it very difficult to vote - personally, I am voting as to whether I would have bought the image myself, in any situation. And, how difficult it would be to recreate the same image: There are a few good images in there where I, as a photo editor, would just have blatantly stolen the idea, and sent one of my own photographers to recreate it - at MUCH lower cost.
So: tips for the future when taking stock photos:
- Take unique pictures that are somehow difficult to recreate
- Make sure the image quality is PERFECT anything less than perfect, nobody would pay for
- Make sure that everything is generic. Visible brand labels or country specific items (An american power socket or an old-style british lightbulb) will cut the sellability of an image by at least 90%, because I (being based in britain) would never use non-british items in my newspaper.) are useless as stock photos
Just a few thoughts.
Haje
Message edited by KarenB - one reference to specific shot missed on edit. |
|
|
|
02/24/2003 08:14:58 AM · #2 |
| please edit you post to not include details of specific shots during the voting week. |
|
|
|
02/24/2003 09:14:05 AM · #3 |
| My advice to you is to vote based on the challenge. A pretty picture is okay, but if it doesn't really fit the challenge very well then it doesn't deserve a higher score. We're voting on stock photography, not a DPC free for all.. |
|
|
|
02/24/2003 09:36:33 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
There are a few good images in there where I, as a photo editor, would just have blatantly stolen the idea, and sent one of my own photographers to recreate it - at MUCH lower cost.
|
Boy, I never knew photo editors were such a cut-throat bunch! I'm glad I'm not a professional photographer, but just in case I ever decide to quit my day job, which magazine/newspaper do/did you work for?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2003 09:46:34 AM · #5 |
Then tell these people what they did wrong so they and I could learn by commenting on their photo. :-)
[quote=SharQ]I am having some trouble with the stock photography voting. There are so many good pictures that are useless in stock photography!
|
|
|
|
02/24/2003 11:53:16 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Martus:
Boy, I never knew photo editors were such a cut-throat bunch! I'm glad I'm not a professional photographer, but just in case I ever decide to quit my day job, which magazine/newspaper do/did you work for? |
I have worked as a photographer (primarily freelance, but also staff) for several different newspapers and magazines, both in the UK and in Norway. My work as a photo editor have been for a student newspaper and for some smaller magazine publications.
But: If you think photo editors are bad, praise yourself lucky you are not a journalist... Subs and desk editors are even worse.
HJ |
|
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: 08/26/2025 07:09:34 PM EDT.
