| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2009 03:08:20 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Has anybody commented on the irony that the photo in question is being used to illustrate a cover story on "the New Frugality"? I have to believe that was intentional on Time's part, that they deliberately went the frugal, microstock route to be consistent with the message of the story...
R. |
Yeah, that could very well be true.
They have used a microstock image on other covers before though. I think they use whatever works. If they can be happy with an image that 1000's of other people have, or could potentially use then it is fine to pay $30. That is what the microstock concept is all about. If it was a big name advertiser, they probably wouldn't be happy to share the image with everyone, so they pay $10,000 for an exclusive stock image.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 07:18:25 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by BobbyXu:
I think that all this situation is clearly showing is that the industry is changing and will continue to change. Professional photographers are up in arms about this type of thing and about how the internet is changing their profession, but this is only going to continue. The industry isn't the same as it was 5 years ago and it never will be again. With the onset of digital photography, amateurs everywhere now have the tools to gain exposure and compete with professionals to sell their images.
I am not saying that the need for great professional photographers has gone away. I think it will always remain. But with this internet explosion there are many alternatives to high dollar shoots and I think you will see more and more advertisers and magazines gravitating to these resources in the coming years. |
Therein lies the difference. The posers & wannabes are the ones who stand to be hurt by the influx of talented amateurs, and maybe that's not a bad thing.
This may also serve to take down the attitude of all too many pros whose arrogance and demands have made a bad name for the profession at large. With the ready availability of others, customers know they don't have to put up with an obnoxious attitude from someone they're paying.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2009 06:24:20 PM · #28 |
| I feel what you are going through. I own a 4 store chain of outdoor sports eqipment stores. There are several larger chains moving in with prices to undercut, the walmart syndrome. You just have to find your niche. Like have a hinking bot in every color they can only get at your store. I'm sure you can come up with something of value with your photography business. Maybe some promotion deals, just trying to help you brainstorm. |
|
|
|
08/16/2009 06:44:22 PM · #29 |
I imagine the same hue and cry went up when cameras started supplanting portrait painters. "Any darn fool with a box and plate can cost a real artist his dinner!"
As technology moves forward, there is less need for the middle ground technician. Remember people who became "Word Processors" about 25 years ago? Not everyone could afford a computer and good printer, let alone know all the arcane commands to make the magic happen. Does anyone, other than upper income types, go out to have their resume written an printed up?
And so it goes... Change, adapt, and stay ahead of the pack, or stand at the side of the road and watch the parade pass by.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2009 07:44:43 PM · #30 |
I do think this signals the end of is speculative shooting for big bucks.
(In my opinion) the people who view their photography as a custom and high-end service will always be well paid and in demand.
If Time had requested the shot be created, the price would have been drastically different. Stock photographs are truly a commodity item and with this commodity market forces.
Sorry for not being offended by the $30 price tag.
Ironically, I bet they paid more for the picture of the pirates in the corner.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2009 11:59:48 PM · #31 |
This part is great!!
The problem here is that Time Magazine, who from the reports usually spends in the neighborhood of $3000 for its covers or about $1500 for a stock photo cover, licensed this image from iStock photo for a mere $30.00 ΓΆ€“ less than the coins in the jar. |
|
|
|
08/17/2009 12:18:21 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jotaga:
This part is great!!
The problem here is that Time Magazine, who from the reports usually spends in the neighborhood of $3000 for its covers or about $1500 for a stock photo cover, licensed this image from iStock photo for a mere $30.00 ΓΆ€“ less than the coins in the jar. |
I guess that means that the original photographer didn't even cover his costs? |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 02:28:00 PM · #33 |
Business models change. A rapid increase in supply changes price levels. In my opinion istock provides a great opportunity for prosumer photographers. We are not professionals, per say, but we have a venue to sell our work. As BobbyXU said, the business model is changing.
In my opinion some photographers sound like record companies. Pandora is out of the box.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2009 02:50:39 PM · #34 |
so, I was browsing some photography ads in my area recently when I came across a woman that advertises packages that run around $100 - $150 for FULL PACKAGES.
This includes the shoot, and all processed images on a CD, for that $100 - 150.
I'm thinking, either this person isn't trying to make a living with her photography and just does it as a hobby, or she's purposely trying to piss off other photographic professionals.
Thing is, her work is quite, quite good. Very good, in fact. Better than anything I've ever produced, and I charge a hell of a lot more for photo shoots. (But mostly only because I hate doing 'official' photo shoots and charging too much keeps people off my back. lol)
Now, what I'm wondering, is what others around here think of this? Would you consider this a case of undermining 'real professionals', or do you think that it's perfectly fine for someone that probably has other means of supporting themselves to go around advertising absolutely bottom-feeder prices for top-quality work? Capitalism at its finest? If you can do it, go nuts?
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
08/19/2009 06:08:10 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
so, I was browsing some photography ads in my area recently when I came across a woman that advertises packages that run around $100 - $150 for FULL PACKAGES.
This includes the shoot, and all processed images on a CD, for that $100 - 150.
I'm thinking, either this person isn't trying to make a living with her photography and just does it as a hobby, or she's purposely trying to piss off other photographic professionals.
Thing is, her work is quite, quite good. Very good, in fact. Better than anything I've ever produced, and I charge a hell of a lot more for photo shoots. (But mostly only because I hate doing 'official' photo shoots and charging too much keeps people off my back. lol)
Now, what I'm wondering, is what others around here think of this? Would you consider this a case of undermining 'real professionals', or do you think that it's perfectly fine for someone that probably has other means of supporting themselves to go around advertising absolutely bottom-feeder prices for top-quality work? Capitalism at its finest? If you can do it, go nuts?
Thoughts? |
I am sympathetic to photographers, especially this particular instance. Those of you who do this for a living, kudos. You are brave, enterprising souls and you have my respect. Having said that, I do believe market forces are tough to ignore. "If you can do it, go nuts". We may not like it.... but....
|
|
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: 05/18/2025 07:41:50 PM EDT.
