View Full Version : Snapvillage -- New Place to Sell Your Pics
CameraQuest
06-25-2007, 09:18
www.Snapvillage.com has just opened up in Beta. Backed by Corbis and Bill Gates, it is lined up in the competing camp to the heavyweight, Getty Images.
Snapvillage aims to offer the new photog a good place to sell stock pics. You price them $1 to $50. I have not read all the fine print and details.
Does Snapvillage seem a good choice to you for the new stock shooter to make a few bucks? Are there better sites to do the same thing?
Stephen
These penny stock sites are akin to what You Tube is doing for amateur video of newsworthy events. Any place that allows a photographer to upload images for sale is a good thing. Whether they will sell or not is still determined by the same general rules that make a good image a good image, and a commercial stock one at that. A photographer that wants to get involved in stock image sales should do some market research as what subjects sell well. Not just any image can have commercial value in this particular arena.
There were some interesting articles in the NYT and PDN about penny stock companies and those that do well in them.
For every image that’s sold on a standard or product license, you will receive a royalty of 30%.
As a photographer who makes his sole living from photography, and is watching my industry die around me, I would like to direct you to an article on the Register written by a friend and colleague Sion Touhig who has written a cogent and interesting article about what 'penny stock' is doing to photojournalism and the ramifications that this has on democratic discourse. The article is not specifically about the kind of agency that Stephen is promoting but about the effects that cheap or free intellectual property is having.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
Quote "It's a volume and service business now to such an extent that you could argue that the individual image has been rendered almost worthless. People either won't pay for images, or will only pay a small fee - as little as 50 pence a time for images offered by iStockphoto, an image library owned by Getty Images. All this commodified 'off the peg' stock imagery has infected the attitudes of editors commissioning 'live' photography. These commissioning editors now see photographers as widget makers, and the cheaper the widget, the better.
With mass rip-offs on the Web and the unit value of images crashing, photographers can no longer make a living independently from their work, and so are driven towards working for these corporations to earn a living. As digital content becomes more commodified, the more certain it is that only big business can profit from it, thanks to their economies of scale."
I understand entirely that the whole market for photography is suffering seismic shifts, especially in the age of the internet. I will support the right of any non professional to try and sell their work, but not at prices which are undercutting and destroying our industry and pushing very talented photographers onto the scrapheap. I don't want to be accused of supporting an elitist or self interested position, (and can support my position robustly), but how would those of you in other profeesions react if I came along and said to your boss, I don't really need that man's job, but I quite fancy a go, and i'll do it for 20% of what you;re paying that guy? You wouldn't like it and I wouldn't blame you. I don't personally make a substantial part of my living from stock sales, but many of my colleagues do, and those sales often make the difference between what they can get in commissions and not being able to pay the rent or survive in their chosen profession.
Mark
http://www.thebppa.com/Mark-Pinder
http://www.unp.co.uk/photographers/photographer.php?title=mark_pinder
photogdave
06-25-2007, 11:51
I understand entirely that the whole market for photography is suffering seismic shifts, especially in the age of the internet. I will support the right of any non professional to try and sell their work, but not at prices which are undercutting and destroying our industry and pushing very talented photographers onto the scrapheap. I don't want to be accused of supporting an elitist or self interested position, (and can support my position robustly), but how would those of you in other profeesions react if I came along and said to your boss, I don't really need that man's job, but I quite fancy a go, and i'll do it for 20% of what you;re paying that guy? You wouldn't like it and I wouldn't blame you. I don't personally make a substantial part of my living from stock sales, but many of my colleagues do, and those sales often make the difference between what they can get in commissions and not being able to pay the rent or survive in their chosen profession.
Well said Mark!
shutterflower
06-25-2007, 11:55
Now, this is a fantastic idea.
Bravo.
Snapvillage will be getting a bunch of my work, for sure.
Now, this is a fantastic idea.
Bravo.
Snapvillage will be getting a bunch of my work, for sure.
Best of luck. Report back and let us know if you're making enough to support the wife and kids and give up the day job :bang:
Mark
lilin menyala
06-25-2007, 13:02
i understand your resentments mark. but it's the same in so many industries: fast changing technology is undercutting old values and undermining skill. i work in the music industry. tape recording, which requires considerable expertise, is a thing of the past. anyone can cheaply buy and operate a high quality recording set up at home. many many recording studios are closing down as a result of this, there are few stable positions for engineers (me! :() around. but it's also got an upside. some amazingly talented people who woulld have never been able to afford pro studio time can now make and release their own music. is this not also the case for photographer? some of whom might not be able to get onto established agency rosters, but are incredibly talented nonetheless? i kind of like the DIY spirit that comes with some of these new technologies...
Hey, I do it for fun ONLY. There is no sense in pursuing photography as a career, as the provider in one's life, unless you are single and don't mind living in your car for unknown periods of time.
Snapvillage sounds like a harmless way to showcase the marketable stuff we shoot.
Believe it or not, I have managed to make a comfortable, (but not extravagant), living from my craft and don't live in my car, and funnily enough would like to keep it that way.
Snapvillage is not a 'harmless' way to showcase your marketable work, but a harmfull way of giving away your intellectual property at a price many times below the commercial value of that imagery to the potential user. If you have any respect at all for your work, you wouldn't collude in this mass rip off.
But hey, it's a free country, and if you want to get ripped off that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to sit back and get ripped off by proxy.
If you want to showcase your work, put it on flick'r.
Mark
shutterflower
06-25-2007, 13:09
Believe it or not, I have managed to make a comfortable, (but not extravagant), living from my craft and don't live in my car, and funnily enough would like to keep it that way.
Snapvillage is not a 'harmless' way to showcase your marketable work, but a harmfull way of giving away your intellectual property at a price many times below the commercial value of that imagery to the potential user. If you have any respect at all for your work, you wouldn't collude in this mass rip off.
But hey, it's a free country, and if you want to get ripped off that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to sit back and get ripped off by proxy.
If you want to showcase your work, put it on flick'r.
Mark
I had to remove my original post becuase it wasn't well thought out...I think I put it best into words:
I understand your perspective entirely, and it’s 100% true. However, I have seen a great deal of "professional photography" in the stock photography, fashion, product, landscape, travel, and other categories that is just awful junk. Why shouldn't a serious amateur have a shot at selling if their work is primo? Isn’t this a way for a serious amateur to become a professional as well? I understand that a working pro wants as few competitors as possible for price and quality, but that’s not a good argument against Snapvillage or any other channel that might launch an unknown shooter into the professional world. If some photographer fears for his or her professional life, they should probably re-think their business tactics and maybe their quality.
I do understand also the argument that the market is being watered down with high-volume, cheap crap. Everyone is a photographer these days with their little digicams, and with the vast majority of usage being online, digicam images are perfectly usable and the workflow is minimal. People with large format digital cameras like the 5D are capable of producing high quality images, and don’t necessarily need all the technical skill or talent of the working pro because they can shoot 5K images and find the one or two winners. Or they can give all of those to the agency and let the agency choose. They have all the time in the world to do it, too, unlike the pro whose time is valuable.
Bottom line is that the market is flooded, these days, to the breaking point. Your neighbor is a stock photographer, the lady you pass on the street in 2 hours is probably a stock photographer. Your son’s friend is in 3rd grade and is a stock photographer.
I haven’t been to Snapvillage yet. I can tell you that I wouldn’t sell my work in the “stock photography” category in a million years. I don’t think it would sell, there, to begin with, and I wouldn’t allow its own meaning to be watered down like that. I’d sell only at Fine Art prices. Like for framing purposes. Sitting on walls in doctors’ offices, and in corporate settings, for instance.
I’d like to see a well marketed online gallery where people could go and buy fine art photography at fine art prices.
NOT another stock photography server.
BillBingham2
06-25-2007, 13:16
Mark,
I know where you are coming from and I’ve seen my industry go through a lot of the same. I am in computers, have been for 27 years, not counting college. I was going to be a photographer, but my father would not pay for me to go to school for it, so I did computers.
I watched over the past 17 years while the photography industry ripped the rug from under a wonderful dear old friend of mine, Milton Mann, god rest his sole. He and his wife made a good living for years and then it dried up. I’ve seen other photographers have to start by closing their studios, then go bankrupt as the industry has changed. It’s sucks no doubt about it.
In computers, the last ten years has been a race to find the lowest cost programming you can find. Ireland, Russia, India, now Brazil, cheaper must be better is the executive mantra. There are lots of good programmers in the US who now run lawn service companies, are poor project managers or are working elsewhere. It’s stupid, wrong and hurts everyone. On the other side, great programmers, here (USA) or in the UK or anywhere are in demand. These are the folks who can make the programs sing, hit the nail on the head dead square every time and add something extra. They add something that makes them worth five times as much. This is what you have to do, find that look, that something that is you.
The compression of the photographic industry requires you to take the time to develop a personal style and market it, drive it and your point of view. No more will good photographs bring in reasonable money. Now they have to be great. You need to find new ways to market yourself, people to tell your story to, new outlets. You need to find a way to get to the folks buying photographs and present what makes you great. There is a new crew of people buying pictures these days. Price is more of an issue than it ever was before. But if you have THE photo that they need, you can find a middle ground.
It sucks, but it’s part of life as we push forward in some areas, other parts get left behind in really nasty ways. Having a wife and kids makes it even harder, but you have to adapt. Those that don’t adapt in some way are not around for the long haul. Please find a way to work in the new rules. Your family needs it, mine did several years back.
B2 (;->
George-
Agreed. If you want to get paid, sell it the old fashioned way- as prints.
I feel for older photographers watching their old livelihood dry up, but what is there to do? You can refuse to sell stock images at the new prices, but you just end up removing yourself from having your work seen.
There are down and up sides for sure, as pointed out by Lilin Menyala, but changing the state of stock imaging is not realistically in our hands.
So for individuals, there is no right answer- to enter into stock or not. I choose not to, but don't see how others should be kept from doing as they see fit.
i understand your resentments mark. but it's the same in so many industries: fast changing technology is undercutting old values and undermining skill. i work in the music industry. tape recording, which requires considerable expertise, is a thing of the past. anyone can cheaply buy and operate a high quality recording set up at home. many many recording studios are closing down as a result of this, there are few stable positions for engineers (me! :() around. but it's also got an upside. some amazingly talented people who woulld have never been able to afford pro studio time can now make and release their own music. is this not also the case for photographer? some of whom might not be able to get onto established agency rosters, but are incredibly talented nonetheless? i kind of like the DIY spirit that comes with some of these new technologies...
I agree. And am all for pluralism and democratisation of the creative process. Where my issue lies is with corporations, (who aren't short of a bob or two), not paying properly for the produced intellectual property. I can't go into my local record record store and dictate how much I want to pay for a CD. Digital technology has simplified many of the technical aspects of creative endeavour, but at the end of the day, there will only ever be one Phill Spector or Joe Meek, and if we are sold on the idea that that creative endeavour is purely a commodity and (by extension), is all of equal value in the eyes of the corporate behemoth, then we may as well give up now and just let them shaft us, because they'll do it to us sooner or later.
If you've got a talent, then you should be paid properly for it, and I don't mean a bit of beer money at the expense of someone else's livelihood. The race to the bottom is ultimately self defeating and nobody really benefits from it other than the corporate shareholders in Getty, Corbis, Jupiter etc
I'm all for pluralism, but not on their terms.
"Why shouldn't a serious amateur have a shot at selling if their work is primo?"
he/she should. but at which price?
corbis/gates & getty etc are in the position to set the price, rendering your prices really really low... so an image you sell, has very little financial value to you, and possibly quite hight or even very high commercial value to the buyer...
Bike Tourist
06-25-2007, 13:40
I sell through three stock agencies. They range from penney a stock site to mid-market — maybe $250 for an image. I have been running a "contest" among the three for about a year and a half to see which one will prevail and make the most money. Interestingly, so far it's a dead heat between the cheap site and the expensive site!
I go way back to when transparencies were sent to agencies and they split revenues 50/50 with the photographer (and also sent tear sheets). Ah, those were the days. But that is no more. I need to make a little money in my retirement, if for no other reason than to support my habit. No apologies, but I certainly understand the imapct of technology on all the media and arts.
What's an artistic creation worth?
How does the artist make a living?
These have always been the questions, but when the technology is changing then they become more critical and immediate.
Rather than nailing the exposure in today's world, maybe we should be perfecting our mid-range jumper!
BillBingham2
06-25-2007, 13:40
......The race to the bottom is ultimately self defeating and nobody really benefits from it other than the corporate shareholders in Getty, Corbis, Jupiter etc
I'm all for pluralism, but not on their terms.
The middle class is feeling the pain of globalism as the race to the bottom continues. People have to find a way to adapt, to develop their own niche and become the ruler of it. Photographers, but creative types are in the same space as many types of artists, the work as the will of “The Man”, for the wages “The Man” is willing to pay.
I have to agree with a post earlier, there was a lot of stock out there that was a waste of silver. There were some professionals out there (two come to mind at Kodak years back) that were so bad an 8th grader could get better pictures than they could at events.
Be a Stephen Gandy, business changes, find a niche, a look, something you love, develop it, become it and own it!
B2 (;->
Nikon Bob
06-25-2007, 13:49
It very much sounds like a way for amateurs to get some recognition and make some pin money. OTH it is wrecking the living of pros. Almost every industry has seen this happen. Just take a look at what is left in the manufacturing sector as far as well paying jobs are concerned. Like wise the computer industry as has been mentioned. It is called globalization and it has as it's sole purpose the creation of more profit. Consumers love cheaper anything and make it all possible. I guess we all have to adapt to it in some way but as long as I make a good living at my day job I really don't want to ruin someone else's livlihood for pin money even if I had the talent to do so.
Bob
rogue_designer
06-25-2007, 13:49
Pluralism is fantastic. Except when the only people to realistically benefit are the corporations who have the resources to amass hundreds of thousands of these images, so they can make a profit. While the individual shooter gets $.30 on the dollar for a $2 sale.
I don't know what a better solution is. But this can't be it. I won't even tell you the headache that was my last phone call with a client asking why my rights managed policy was more expensive than a penny-stock site. I made him understand, finally, but I have no doubt that images like mine will be a very small fraction of his purchases from now on. Not when he can 400 images that are "sortof close" to what he needs for the same price.
Will he notice that his marketing marterials are less effective? Maybe. But he will have saved money upfront - those hard numbers, are hard to fight against.
I know this has all been said before.
I know that it sounds like sour grapes.
But there is a reason I've moved from mostly photography to mostly design. And I'm not happy about it. It's harder to sell yourself as a solution, rather than a commodity in photography. I do think if anyone can figure out how to turn that around, they'll do well. I'm not that smart, it seems.
I had to remove my original post becuase it wasn't well thought out...I think I put it best into words:
I understand your perspective entirely, and it’s 100% true. However, I have seen a great deal of "professional photography" in the stock photography, fashion, product, landscape, travel, and other categories that is just awful junk. Why shouldn't a serious amateur have a shot at selling if their work is primo? Isn’t this a way for a serious amateur to become a professional as well? I understand that a working pro wants as few competitors as possible for price and quality, but that’s not a good argument against Snapvillage or any other channel that might launch an unknown shooter into the professional world. If some photographer fears for his or her professional life, they should probably re-think their business tactics and maybe their quality.
I do understand also the argument that the market is being watered down with high-volume, cheap crap. Everyone is a photographer these days with their little digicams, and with the vast majority of usage being online, digicam images are perfectly usable and the workflow is minimal. People with large format digital cameras like the 5D are capable of producing high quality images, and don’t necessarily need all the technical skill or talent of the working pro because they can shoot 5K images and find the one or two winners. Or they can give all of those to the agency and let the agency choose. They have all the time in the world to do it, too, unlike the pro whose time is valuable.
Bottom line is that the market is flooded, these days, to the breaking point. Your neighbor is a stock photographer, the lady you pass on the street in 2 hours is probably a stock photographer. Your son’s friend is in 3rd grade and is a stock photographer.
I haven’t been to Snapvillage yet. I can tell you that I wouldn’t sell my work in the “stock photography” category in a million years. I don’t think it would sell, there, to begin with, and I wouldn’t allow its own meaning to be watered down like that. I’d sell only at Fine Art prices. Like for framing purposes. Sitting on walls in doctors’ offices, and in corporate settings, for instance.
I’d like to see a well marketed online gallery where people could go and buy fine art photography at fine art prices.
NOT another stock photography server.
Thanks for a more considered response. Please don't get me wrong. I don't believe in a closed shop, and have no problem with competition. Competition is what goes on to improve standards.
What my substantive issue is that microstock distorts markets for everyone, amateurs and professionals alike. And as has been said elsewhere, a good image is a good image. However, if the market is distorted in such a way that those with a natural penchant for their craft are forced out of the industry, then we are all the poorer for it. Who will have the resources and commitment to produce the great works of photojournalism that have informed and occasionally changed opinion and by extension the role that this independent endeavour has played in the democratic process. Do we really want to live in a world where our window on that world is mediated by the interests and agendas of big business? I for one don't. Amateurs and professionals stand side by side together for the true commercial value of our work!! And let's do our bit for cultural diversity and democracy too!
Mark
rogue_designer
06-25-2007, 14:20
On a lighter note. I had one microstock agency turn down a 120 6x7 velvia scan...due to the "pixels" the tech suggested, I use a professional digital like the Canon 10D. :D
I giggled a bit.
My old regular stock agency took the image no problem. And it's sold pretty well. But that was two years ago or so...
Al Patterson
06-25-2007, 14:21
Anyone read this article.
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/2837/25-cent-fortunes.html
Some folks are making money at it.
I had read that a few weeks ago while taking a trip on Amtrak. It is intersteing. I'm currently on out of work Systems Admin in the IT field, and while some of my former co-workers think my photos are "great" and ask why I don't consider photography for a profession, they haven't seen the quality of images here on RFF, where I'd likely be below average. (I'm here more for the gear talk. At some point I may put a few RF shots in a gallery, but not quite yet.)
I may just take a few of my recent digital shots and put them somewhere just to test the waters, but at even $50 per image, one needs to sell a boatload to replace an IT salary.
Tuolumne
06-25-2007, 14:26
"Do we really want to live in a world where our window on that world is mediated by the interests and agendas of big business?"
Isn't just the opposite happening? Doesn't the commoditization of photography mean that everyone has a camera, so that no wrong goes unphotographed or unrecorded? Think of the Rodney King video or the countless other videos/photos of police malfeasance that have resulted in better justice for the little guy. Sure, us little guys will never go to Iraq but that's where the traditional photojournalist can still shine.
Tektonic shifts in technology and markets will always unseat established players, some cruelly. But the end result is usually a better allocation of resources for all. If everyone is a photographer and everyone has a camera, maybe a few dollars is all a stock photograph is worth. The previous system was based on a shortage of supply and artifical constraints on distribution. Those are all gone now. Does anyone seriously think we are all worse off for that?
/T
Brad Bireley
06-25-2007, 14:35
I sell through three stock agencies. They range from penney a stock site to mid-market — maybe $250 for an image. I have been running a "contest" among the three for about a year and a half to see which one will prevail and make the most money. Interestingly, so far it's a dead heat between the cheap site and the expensive site!
I go way back to when transparencies were sent to agencies and they split revenues 50/50 with the photographer (and also sent tear sheets). Ah, those were the days. But that is no more. I need to make a little money in my retirement, if for no other reason than to support my habit. No apologies, but I certainly understand the imapct of technology on all the media and arts.
What's an artistic creation worth?
How does the artist make a living?
These have always been the questions, but when the technology is changing then they become more critical and immediate.
Rather than nailing the exposure in today's world, maybe we should be perfecting our mid-range jumper!
Dick,
Which penny stock agency are you with?
Brad
rogue_designer
06-25-2007, 14:40
The previous system was based on a shortage of supply and artifical constraints on distribution. Those are all gone now.
Silly me. I thought it was based on fair value for work done. Skill, investment in equipment, time, expertise and problem solving.
But that was just my take on it. *shrug*
Anyone read this article.
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/2837/25-cent-fortunes.html
Some folks are making money at it.
And what is the commercial value to the end users of this ladies 600 downloads a day? A great deal more than the 20% she is getting from any $1, $5 or even $50 download fees she is earning, and for that matter, well above the fees charged to the end user. It's a numbers game that only the corporations can win. What is she gonna do when the whole world is saturated with her product?
Some posters have mentioned the detrimental effect that globalisation and offshoring is having in all areas of commercial life. This poor sap is allowing her work to be essentially offshored and then shipped straight back to her. She might be making money, but she's nothing more than a sweatshop worker, albeit a very efficient one.
I won't even lend legitimacy by indulging further the pernicious nonsense in this link by posting a more detailed response.
Mark
"Do we really want to live in a world where our window on that world is mediated by the interests and agendas of big business?"
Isn't just the opposite happening? Doesn't the commoditization of photography mean that everyone has a camera, so that no wrong goes unphotographed or unrecorded? Think of the Rodney King video or the countless other videos/photos of police malfeasance that have resulted in better justice for the little guy. Sure, us little guys will never go to Iraq but that's where the traditional photojournalist can still shine.
/T
As Sion Touhig asks in his article on The Register: "You won't see any mobile phone images from Darfur any time soon"
Additionally "True 'citizen journalists' are people like Iraqi news journalists working where western photographers dare not go, to document the destruction of their homeland. Despite putting themselves and their families in peril 24 hours a day, most if not all of them earn a pittance and many relinquish their copyright on images and stories which make the front pages of the worlds newspapers. Just this year alone, 32 have died.
Baghdad has a mobile phone network, but mobile phone image gathering is virtually unknown (unless it's execution footage), as it would be tantamount to a death sentence for most residents. Instead, another form of journalism keeps us passively 'informed' from only one perspective - embedding."
Yes, there is a plethora of imagery, but one has either got to know where to go to or wade through so much junk to find it, that it may as well not exist.
Mark
I knew better than to join this thread.
Aha, a scalp! :D
Tuolumne
06-25-2007, 14:54
Silly me. I thought it was based on fair value for work done. Skill, investment in equipment, time, expertise and problem solving.
But that was just my take on it. *shrug*
Rogue,
You were right, but the march of technology has changed the value of skill, investment, expertise and problem solving. How do I know this? It's simple - if it weren't so, then a stock photo would still be selling for $250. Since it's not, and since I don't think the values of editors have changed much, it must be that those formerly highly valued skills can be provided in a different and cheaper way.
I see it in my own photography. There are things I can do now with the click of a button that I could never do in a chemical dark room. Sometimes I had no idea how those things were done; sometimes I knew how to do them but didn't have the skill to do them well. So, yes, those skills can be embodied in the expertise of a button of a computer program now.
I look around the Web and see how many astonishingly good photos there are. I won't say great. But they are damn good. It is those photographs that are finding their way onto the penny stock sites. Anyone who can do better should do better by selling their photographs in a different way. There are plenty of sites like this (http://www.panoramicphotos.com/licensestock/stock.html) wher5e photographers can demand and get a premium for stock photos. They offer something different and diffrentiated. If you don't you're just going to get a quarter for your trouble.
/T
You suffer from delusion of grandeur. ;)
Good to see you back! ;)
doitashimash1te
06-25-2007, 14:59
Some Martin Parr quotes:
“All the boundaries are collapsing. One of the things that’s interesting about flickr, is that it’s probably emerged as the most intelligent photo-sharing site - it’s become the brand leader. And what will happen with flickr is that within five years it will start licensing pictures. In other words, they’ll be part of the Getty Corbis machinery…the agencies are concerned about this. It’s something we discuss at Magnum…”
“…within five years flickr will emerge as one of the major sources for licensing imagery…”
“…the other point about flickr, is I can’t tell you how bad the most of the pictures are. I mean, we see this in the site up there (at Musee de L’Elysee) the noise of this contemporary photography is relentless and ultimately, nullifyingly boring.”
“…we have this amazing interest, resurgence in photography, a renaissance, but boy do we have to wade through a lot of rubbish in order to get to anything half-decent.”
“…the best business model is to have fantastic pictures, that have a unique vision and say something different. And you get away from the turgid quantities of cliches and propaganda which we see not only surrounding our lives, but we also see in the exhibition here.”
“…I’m totally in favor of flickr. I haven’t spent enough time trawling through flickr to find the new stars who may be emerging on flickr itself…”
“… but the last thing I’m going to do - is looking at flickr for my stars of the future.”
“I come back to this individual voice in homogenized times. Connecting with a subject matter, doing it with passion, resolving a set of pictures, coming out with a personal statement - there’s always going to be room for that, because we still, whatever the process, whatever the method, we still need stories that touch us as human beings.”
The complete interview: http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=189
Tuolumne
06-25-2007, 15:08
As Sion Touhig asks in his article on The Register: "You won't see any mobile phone images from Darfur any time soon"
Additionally "True 'citizen journalists' are people like Iraqi news journalists working where western photographers dare not go, to document the destruction of their homeland. Despite putting themselves and their families in peril 24 hours a day, most if not all of them earn a pittance and many relinquish their copyright on images and stories which make the front pages of the worlds newspapers. Just this year alone, 32 have died.
Baghdad has a mobile phone network, but mobile phone image gathering is virtually unknown (unless it's execution footage), as it would be tantamount to a death sentence for most residents. Instead, another form of journalism keeps us passively 'informed' from only one perspective - embedding."
Yes, there is a plethora of imagery, but one has either got to know where to go to or wade through so much junk to find it, that it may as well not exist.
Mark
I don't see what any of this has to do with the commoditization of stock photography. The situation in Iraq would prevail regardless of whether everyone shot with a pinhole camera or a digital camera phone. You would have to show that the state of publications that use stock photographs has precipitously declined since the institution of penny stock sites. Has it? Doesn't seem so to me, but I could be wrong.
/T
Rogue,
I see it in my own photography. There are things I can do now with the click of a button that I could never do in a chemical dark room. Sometimes I had no idea how those things were done; sometimes I knew how to do them but didn't have the skill to do them well. So, yes, those skills can be embodied in the expertise of a button of a computer program now.
/T
Yes, but you still ignore the fundamental issue which is the commercial value to the end user, in either selling newspapers or product. It's not as if the global corporation needs charitable status, just look at the rise in the global stock markets over the last couple of years. The rich get richer....blah blah. The fact is, in this race to the bottom, we all suffer, democracy suffers as corporations and governments feel that they can act carte blanche away from independent scrutiny and the quality of the media and imagery suffers as we are dumbed down by a media who's imperatives are controlled by the bean counters and technocrats to whom culture is nothing more than a commodity. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
Mark
If I were to program a clustered, multi-tiered service-oriented webapp like Snapvillage (which I easily could, with a team of experienced developers) I would give the photographers 80% of the stock revenue.
A 20% cut would, beyond a certain scale, cover expenses, including salaries.
A 70% take, however, is cold-blooded theft. I suggest you carefully read the contracts (PDF files online) before locking into this particular company. You might not be able to change stock providers at a later date, which should be a possibility for you at any time. Somebody please confirm those terms of the contracts.
It has already been mentioned before that if you just wish to showcase your art, then do so without supporting these con-artists. A friend of mine, who displays some absolutely brilliant work on Flickr, is frequently contacted by nickel-and-dime companies from here and abroad, trying to license his best work for pennies. He consistently says NO (after researching an figuring out just how much money they DO have to spend on marketing).
In all likelihood Flickr will hack out a quick and dirty response to this business threat and offer their members stock-selling functionality as well. Then they will improve the software later while ironing out the bugs.
In order to keep their members (and keep them happy), Flickr will have to initially offer them more % than Snapvillage. I am trying to remain distrustful and patient and gain an understanding of the entire business model. You should too. This isn't an artistic competition anymore.
Peace
Tuolumne
06-25-2007, 15:13
As an example of a real star who has emerged on Flickr take a look at Solea (http://www.flickr.com/photos/solea/552516828/in/photostream/), who has been written up internationally.
/T
Tuolumne
06-25-2007, 15:19
Culture is nothing more than a commodity, as far as price goes. Just ask Shakespeare who had to actually entertain all of those groundlings. ;) If he hadn't done that we'd have no Shakespeare to perform today. Then there is the price of an Ansel Adams or of a Picasso. Those are commodities, too, i.e. their price is set by the market. If you don't like the price, don't buy or sell. That is always anyone's perquisite.
/T
I don't see what any of this has to do with the commoditization of stock photography. The situation in Iraq would prevail regardless of whether everyone shot with a pinhole camera or a digital camera phone. You would have to show that the state of publications that use stock photographs has precipitously declined since the institution of penny stock sites. Has it? Doesn't seem so to me, but I could be wrong.
/T
I think that you misunderstand my, (and Sions), point. Yes, Iraq has happened, but are you prepared to risk getting shipped home in a box for a pittance, or run the risk of being wiped out in some act of sectarian score settling if you don't have the luxury of being able to leave? The issue is around the market forces that are impacting on the whole industry and helping to destroy the culture in which independent views are represented.
No, microstock is not the sole reason for this decline in pluralism, but is a pretty big nail in it's coffin.
Al Patterson
06-25-2007, 15:33
If I were to program a clustered, multi-tiered service-oriented webapp like Snapvillage (which I easily could, with a team of experienced developers) I would give the photographers 80% of the stock revenue.
A 20% cut would, beyond a certain scale, cover expenses, including salaries.
A 70% take, however, is cold-blooded theft. I suggest you carefully read the contracts (PDF files online) before locking into this particular company. You might not be able to change stock providers at a later date, which should be a possibility for you at any time. Somebody please confirm those terms of the contracts.
It has already been mentioned before that if you just wish to showcase your art, then do so without supporting these con-artists. A friend of mine, who displays some absolutely brilliant work on Flickr, is frequently contacted by nickel-and-dime companies from here and abroad, trying to license his best work for pennies. He consistently says NO (after researching an figuring out just how much money they DO have to spend on marketing).
In all likelihood Flickr will hack out a quick and dirty response to this business threat and offer their members stock-selling functionality as well. Then they will improve the software later while ironing out the bugs.
In order to keep their members (and keep them happy), Flickr will have to initially offer them more % than Snapvillage. I am trying to remain distrustful and patient and gain an understanding of the entire business model. You should too. This isn't an artistic competition anymore.
Peace
A 70% take sounds like a pimp rather than an agent...
Then there is the price of an Ansel Adams or of a Picasso. Those are commodities, too, i.e. their price is set by the market. If you don't like the price, don't buy or sell. That is always anyone's perquisite.
/T
Unfortunately, the price is being distorted downwards by the amateur/hobbyist who's only real payment is the warm glow that comes from knowing that somewhere their work is being seen, (often uncredited), and maybe a bit of pin money to help them indulge their hobby. Getty, Corbis etc, know this and the bean counters running these corporations exploit this mercilessly.
And what of us lesser mortals, who really just want to earn an honest crust.
I could knock you out a perfectly passable 'Ansel Adams' in two days from now, (I'd need the travelling time from the UK), but it wouldn't be an Ansel Adams. You'd know that, I'd know that and so would the collector we tried to pass it off to. If the truly great became the only people allowed to make a crust from the value of their intellectual property then overpopulation and global warming would be solved overnight, the rest of us would have simply starved, and Picasso would have to pay a ludicrous amount to get a shirt dry cleaned.
shutterflower
06-25-2007, 15:47
I know of a guy in Issaquah, WA that makes over $2M a year off his stock photography. He does NOT work through an agency.
Maybe we NEED a few more stock photographers out there to balance things a bit. ;)
I know of a guy in Issaquah, WA that makes over $2M a year off his stock photography. He does NOT work through an agency.
Is he in need of a desciple?
shutterflower
06-25-2007, 16:02
Is he in need of a desciple?
well, business is the secret to success, far more than is the quality of your work. THis guy has plenty of talent in both business AND photography.
Agencies exist because they offer the business solution to talented or volume gifted photographers.
If you feel the need for a leader, go study business. There are photography business classes around. I just finished my MBA studies, and I know that what I have learned would be very useful if I were to pursue professional photography on my own.
If the truly great became the only people allowed to make a crust from the value of their intellectual property then overpopulation and global warming would be solved overnight, the rest of us would have simply starved, and Picasso would have to pay a ludicrous amount to get a shirt dry cleaned.
:bang: The truth hurts.
well, business is the secret to success, far more than is the quality of your work. THis guy has plenty of talent in both business AND photography.
Agencies exist because they offer the business solution to talented or volume gifted photographers.
If you feel the need for a leader, go study business. There are photography business classes around. I just finished my MBA studies, and I know that what I have learned would be very useful if I were to pursue professional photography on my own.
Sorry, I was being glib. Unfortunately, like most others, I just want to earn a living. Yes, I run a business, but at the end of the day me and many of my my colleagues are photographers first and business-people second. Like you, we made choices, in my case i studied photography rather than business. I won't question the right of business to exist, I only wish that those busineses representing monopoly capitalism would have the grace to afford my community, (and many other communities, both social and commercial), the same compliment.
I work in manufacturing for a small USA company that is doing quite well making highly ruggedized computers for dangerous environments.
We are thriving because our management and sales team knows the market segment intimately, and our operations team is dedicated to continuous improvement from the customers point of view. We do things others don't know how to do, and we monitor every expense while doing it.
This is globalization and free markets. It is kind of like "economic combat". Nobody is paid for potential anynore, at least long term. It's now pay for performance, and performance is measured relative to everybody else's performance, world-wide.
You need to remain curious enough to learn everything you can, then flexible enough to apply it.
As a photographer, you could shoot for a success in a stock market by really analyzing your costs, cutting them to the minimum, thus increasing your margin at what the maket is willing to pay. Or, you could sell fewer images better than anybody else can make for as much money as your customers will pay.
As somebody earlier said, it is cruel but that is the way things are now and will be for the duration.
Ed
Unfortunately, there will always be market distortions, whether it be by supply or demand. I don't have an answer. All I can do is figure out how to do my own thing.
Unfortunately, a lot of the penny stock imagery looks like stock 20 years ago.
Why can't we outsource the management of companies? Surely one can find an Indian or Chinese guy to say "We need to cut costs. Sack 30% of the employees, concentrate on core activities, outsource ummm, everything." at, oh I don't know, 1/100 of what corporate managers are getting.
Another point, who will constitute the market when ALL of us are paid what some Indian kid or Philippino woman get?
colin
Dektol Dan
08-17-2007, 16:30
I knew better than to join this thread.
An image that has value is________.
You fill in the blank.
I am a classically trained painter, as was my father. I can kick out illustrations that would pass for Norman Rockwell. Imagery is a fad and can be an anachronism overnight. Today, images aren't consumed at the rate of each issue of the Satruday Evening Post, but by every image needed for any application at every second. Sadly, there is no market for my skills where I could even get close to union wages for my time.
Even the best song writers only get 1 penny an air play or 5 cents a song as a hard copy.
In this situation one has to have a 'hit' in order to make real money.
In our era of photography this can only be accomplished by making a name for one's self or by creating a memorable image (Like John Jr. at his dad's funeral).
Everyone is a photographer today, very few are trained and imagery is expected to be free to the common citizen. 99% of those with an experience paying for a photgrapher is for services like graduation pictures and weddings.
Photography is too easy, too cheap and the bar for what passes for professional has been lowered so low that its value as a commodity has become next to worthless.
I love to see those new to the craft buy into darkrooms (and all the smelly adventures that go on there) get inspired by an image emerging in a tray, but even that won't make an image more legitmate or have more artistic value.
Selling reproduction rights is where the money is, and if one is heady enough to think he is an artist, it's all in the fist (a.k.a. signature).
Welsh_Italian
08-17-2007, 18:57
Very good points. It's too easy with digital to knock off hundreds of pictures because the law of numbers will say that some of them will turn out okay. Of course, there is no craft in this or search for excellence which, to me, is a major appeal of any pursuit worth doing.
I did a bit of art at school and enjoy viewing it myself, but I'm not trained like yourself. I have, however, been teaching myself more about artistic composition to improve my pictures. I am not a bad photographer IMveryHO, but I'm not that good and certainly will never be great enough to carve out a career. It is purely for my own pleasure, otherwise I'd starve! :D
Talking of which, I was approached by schmap and asked if I would give them permission to use one of my photographs. Thanks to this thread, I turned them down. I business terms, they're being clever by harnessing "people power", but I don't agree with it. A commercial company should be paying for this but most on flickr are thrilled to be included. Will this kind of strategy undermine not just the traditional stock companies but the microstock companies too? Who can compete against zero-cost?
I wasn't impressed because they also chose one of the crappiest pictures I've done and there are many better pictures by other people around (even others of my own).
An image that has value is________.
You fill in the blank.
I am a classically trained painter, as was my father. I can kick out illustrations that would pass for Norman Rockwell. Imagery is a fad and can be an anachronism overnight. Today, images aren't consumed at the rate of each issue of the Satruday Evening Post, but by every image needed for any application at every second. Sadly, there is no market for my skills where I could even get close to union wages for my time.
Even the best song writers only get 1 penny an air play or 5 cents a song as a hard copy.
In this situation one has to have a 'hit' in order to make real money.
In our era of photography this can only be accomplished by making a name for one's self or by creating a memorable image (Like John Jr. at his dad's funeral).
Everyone is a photographer today, very few are trained and imagery is expected to be free to the common citizen. 99% of those with an experience paying for a photgrapher is for services like graduation pictures and weddings.
Photography is too easy, too cheap and the bar for what passes for professional has been lowered so low that its value as a commodity has become next to worthless.
I love to see those new to the craft buy into darkrooms (and all the smelly adventures that go on there) get inspired by an image emerging in a tray, but even that won't make an image more legitmate or have more artistic value.
Selling reproduction rights is where the money is, and if one is heady enough to think he is an artist, it's all in the fist (a.k.a. signature).
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.