Selling photos online, any money to be made?

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Tim Berners-Lee a fallen angel? Now there's a scary thought!

[I Love Film]

I posted something similar to what I will post now, but I will post it again.

In the past, photography was a "black art". Up until the 1980's or so, it was not easy to do well. In the 1920's, it was even harder, and before that, even more difficult. In the 1800's, pre-Kodak, it was near impossible (and dangerous) indeed.

One had to learn developing, exposure techniques, master lighting, chemistry, optical theory, etc etc etc. Cameras were VERY expensive and hard to use, A good photographer was VERY RARE. In the late 19th Century, a common member of the public could buy a Kodak and take snapshots, but it was potluck if the photo would "come out", and amateur photos were obvious.

Even more rare was a photographer who was a good technician who could produce good prints, AND who had a good eye for composition and subject matter.

The world population was smaller too. There was only two or three billion people on earth, and only a tiny fraction of them were excellent photographers. The good photographer could make a very good living.

Magazines and businesses could not get away with paying nothing for photos, because there were not too many good photos around, and a lot of the market was controlled by agencies.

Fast forward to today. There are close to 7 billion people on earth. ANYONE can pick up a modern camera and make a technically excellent image. With digital cameras, it costs nothing to post your image online. You do not have to pay for film, chemistry etc. You can get a used digital camera that makes technically perfect images for $50.

TRILLIONS of excellent images are being produced and put into a form available to everyone every year. People raised in a visual environment have a "good eye", tens of millions of people can create gorgeous, artistic, technically perfect images, and they do.

There is no more "black art". Plumbers can easily make a lot more money than most photographers. Not everyone can fix a boiler, but everyone can make a picture. Photos are a commodity, and commodities are sold by the pound to the lowest bidder.

If I want a photo of a dog for my book cover, in 30 seconds I can find one million photos of a dog. I don't have to hire anyone, don't need to pay a lot of money. I can get perfect photos of dogs for free or for a penny. I would be insane to pay $5000 for a photo of a dog when I can probably find a beautiful one for nothing

There is no injustice here. The world has changed. Reality has changed. Entrenched artisans always wail and gnash their teeth when the world changes, but the smart people adapt, the people who can't adapt cry and die out. That's why Neanderthals are gone and we are here.

So you, as a photographer, have to do something different. Prices are not going to remain high because you want them to.

I can't tell you what to do, you have to invent it yourself. Hundreds of thousands are adapting and thriving as we speak. Leave the penny a pound stuff to the microstocks and the commodity brokers. It is asinine to get angry about them. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

The analogy to slavery, women's rights, etc, is not valid because this has nothing to do with injustice, this is just a sea change of technology. Every sea change completely destroys the old, but the new brings more opportunities.

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

If everyone had that attitude, the world would be an even worse place than it is now. We'd still have Negro slavery, child labor, 80 hour work weeks, debtors prisons, and segregation. Women, blacks, and the poor would not have the right to vote. Homosexuality would still be a crime. Education would be a privilege of the wealthy, not a basic right....

So, no, I won't "get over it". I'm going to fight you, and those who stand with you, to my last breath, to make the world a better place. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I have done the right thing for myself, my family, my community, and the world.

A positive attitude is warranted in positive circumstance. I am happy that my son is living with me and growing to be an intelligent, thoughtful, educated man. I am positive about him. I cannot, however, be positive when I see so many good friends literally going hungry because the only jobs they can find pay half the most minimal cost of living. I am one of the truly fortunate. Though I am not wealthy (I am the seventh person in my family's history to graduate from high school!), I am making enough to survive, and doing it through work that I love doing.

[surfer dude]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Bollocks also has a Latin entomology but it would be inappropriate to use it here as an adjective and expect an idiot to believe it wasn't intended as a noun ...

Ah, yes of course! The study of the testicles of Southern European insects, a fine and noble quest indeed!

[Sparrow]

whoops ... that'll teach em not to type etymology before the second coffee

[Frank Version Two]

This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them.

If I want a photo of a dog for my book cover, in 30 seconds I can find one million photos of a dog. I don't have to hire anyone, don't need to pay a lot of money. I can get perfect photos of dogs for free or for a penny. I would be insane to pay $5000 for a photo of a dog when I can probably find a beautiful one for nothing

This is not true in the real world, unless your standards are very low. While the print industry is shrinking, ask any of the thousands of remaining art directors, buyers, and editors how difficult it is to find a good dog photo that is unique and not available to a competing title or ad?

People made plenty of bad photos, book covers, and ads back in the pre digital age too, and there were plenty of cheap and sleazy practitioners (sorry to offend anyone with such graphic language!)

What is happening now is that Getty is actually holding back and withdrawing images, shrinking the pool, so they can sell more higher priced rights managed images. They can do this because they now dominate the industry, having put most of the individuals out of business. This was a case of our Justice Department failing to act against an evil monopoly.

[DominikDUK]

Sorry Frank 2.0 but I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say with this sentence "This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them."

If you think that europeans think more in long term profits against short term profits than I disagree with you we Euros have been completely Wallstreetarised

Dominik

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by photomoof

For a very long time I blamed the Walmarts for ruining the wage level in the US, then I blamed China, or other locations in Asia, for taking the wages in the US to the bottom. But frankly it appears to be a Global economy that allows me to eat berries from 3000 mile from my home. That same speed that delivers the berries also delivers socks and electronics. But you are right we can to a degree, insist at least personally, that everyone be paid decent wages.

However...

The point is you are not selling stock, and as you note, you are not competing with the "I sell myself for a dollar" crowd. When I shift thorough those I know who support themselves using a camera, they cover a wide spectrum of economic success. It is not now, and has never been easy to make money as a creative.

Fact remains... to make money one has to have something to sell that is valuable. Value is hard to legislate -- it seldom works.

I'm not saying the government should legislate a 'minimum wage' for self-employed people like me. I'm basically a small businessman, so its up to me to earn my living. What I'm talking about, as injustice, are the businesses that have employees paying them half the cost of living, and the use of unpaid internships, which keeps out people who cannot afford to live without an income while working for free, as a means of recruiting people for good jobs that do exist. It just perpetuates a cycle of poverty that is very hard for many to escape, even if they do positive things like acquiring an education.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

There is no injustice here. The world has changed. Reality has changed. Entrenched artisans always wail and gnash their teeth when the world changes, but the smart people adapt, the people who can't adapt cry and die out. That's why Neanderthals are gone and we are here.

So you, as a photographer, have to do something different. Prices are not going to remain high because you want them to.

I can't tell you what to do, you have to invent it yourself. Hundreds of thousands are adapting and thriving as we speak. Leave the penny a pound stuff to the microstocks and the commodity brokers. It is asinine to get angry about them. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

That seems to me to be a succinct analysis of the current position. I think that there will always be room for those with a flair for self promotion, regardless of their technical competence and I also believe that a few excellent technicians will find it possible to carve out a niche, serving markets which require that service.

[I Love Film]

Frank, I'll flatter you by stating (truthfully) that you are one of the better photographers posting here. Your photos of women (and the occasional "dog") are highly unique and generally excellent. I can instantly pick out a "Petronio" photo when it appears in the gallery, just as I was able to pick out a Helmut Newton or Suzy Randall chrome on the light table. If I were still producing magazines, I would assign you shoots (at a good rate scale) without any question.

HOWEVER, you are wrong about the "dog" photo, in at least 90% of situations. Suppose I am a mediocre AD, and I am doing a mediocre paperback cover of a reprint book. I will find and buy the $1 dog photo for it, and it will be pretty good.

If I am the AD of "Vanity Fair", then I will pay the high price for a "Petronio". It will be worth it.

(or if I am not the AD of "Vanity Fair", I can pay someone to do a "Petronio" for me, or an "Avedon" much cheaper. Or find one for $1. It is entirely possible. It's just economics. Someone can do a pretty good job of imitating you. Not great, not a masterpiece, but a creditable job. He can find a tattooed trailer park girl, and mimic your shots.)

It is a matter of supply and demand. But the talented people with the unique vision still have the niche to fill, and they will continue to be paid highly.

We are talking apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Frank Version Two

This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them.



This is not true in the real world, unless your standards are very low. While the print industry is shrinking, ask any of the thousands of remaining art directors, buyers, and editors how difficult it is to find a good dog photo that is unique and not available to a competing title or ad?

People made plenty of bad photos, book covers, and ads back in the pre digital age too, and there were plenty of cheap and sleazy practitioners (sorry to offend anyone with such graphic language!)

What is happening now is that Getty is actually holding back and withdrawing images, shrinking the pool, so they can sell more higher priced rights managed images. They can do this because they now dominate the industry, having put most of the individuals out of business. This was a case of our Justice Department failing to act against an evil monopoly.

[135format]

I wonder if the OP has slit his wrists yet? He's been very quiet since posting.

[DominikDUK]

Frank can't agree more Getty and Corbis are pure evil and together unfortunately own most of the famous historical images (Hutton Archives and others), they also killed pretty much the entire market. Getty and Corbis also own quiet a few microstock agencies. I wonder what the EU and US monopoly control/ justice dept./Sec/etc... were thinking when they allowed the evil twins to acquire one agency after another. The two own I believe a lot more than 70% of the picture market.

Dominik

[Keith]

Originally Posted by 135format

I wonder if the OP has slit his wrists yet? He's been very quiet since posting.

Joined a monastery several days ago I heard!

[DominikDUK]

And what's the Vatican's/Monks main topic of conversation, "how to make money with images from the monestary".
So the OP will probably soon return to the RFF fold.

Dominik

[I Love Film]

But sometimes, it's tremendous fun to take advantage of a dunce or an ignoramus, and really gyp him good. Pay him a dollar.....ha ha ha ha!!

Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks
In the example I gave with Time magazine, the guy should have been paid the $5000 because that was what the usage was worth.

[I Love Film]

Originally Posted by PKR

You're really a piece of work..

OK, come on now. How many people here have made boastful posts about finding some rare camera and buying it for five dollars?

Who has ever gone back to a seller and said "I found out your camera was worth $1000, not $5. Here's another $900 for you."

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Who has ever gone back to a seller and said "I found out your camera was worth $1000, not $5. Here's another $900 for you."

Well, I once did something similar. I was in a camera shop and a young girl was selling a Leica M2. This was in the 'eighties and prices were pretty low in the UK. The dealer made a very low offer and the girl was obviously unhappy. So I asked the dealer (who I knew) if I could make an offer and he told me to go ahead. I offered her half-way between the dealer's offer and what I thought it would sell for in London, which was a lot more.

The long and the short of it is that she got a decent price, the dealer got the satisfaction of not buying a camera he didn't want and I got a nice Leica plus I got some nice pictures of the girl's mother for a project I was doing on older women.

It doesn't make me a good person or a bad person but three people were happy that day.

[I Love Film]

That's very generous of you but not quite the same scenario.

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

Well, I once did something similar. I was in a camera shop and a young girl was selling a Leica M2. This was in the 'eighties and prices were pretty low in the UK. The dealer made a very low offer and the girl was obviously unhappy. So I asked the dealer (who I knew) if I could make an offer and he told me to go ahead. I offered her half-way between the dealer's offer and what I thought it would sell for in London, which was a lot more.

The long and the short of it is that she got a decent price, the dealer got the satisfaction of not buying a camera he didn't want and I got a nice Leica plus I got some nice pictures of the girl's mother for a project I was doing on older women.

It doesn't make me a good person or a bad person but three people were happy that day.

[kbg32]

Getty and Corbis didn't kill the industry, though they helped speed up what was inevitably going to happen. What killed the industry was technology and the downturn of the economy as well. I am just speaking about the photo stock industry here. There were also quite a few over bloated, self hyped photographers in this mix as well.

Tony Stone, remember them, was one of the first agencies to start buying up smaller ones in the early '90s. This is how they set foot here with a large office and grabbed a fare share of the US market. Bill Gates had an interest in media. Corbis/Microsoft started out by buying/licensing the rights to images of museum collections. Wasn't it him who said, "If one controls the media, one controls the world."? Getty started out pretty soon after by a chance meeting of Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein on an airline flight. On that flight they hatched the motion of Getty Images. Some small agencies joined forces to hold off the inevitable. These small agencies didn't have the money or backing to survive, knowing what they had to do in the face of burgeoning digital technology.

History was set in place.

[Tina Manley]

I make my living leasing stock photos online. The stock industry has changed drastically in the past 10 years and not for the better. I use to get 10 to 100 x what I now get for the same usage. I blame microstock and the devaluing of photography in general. It is still possible to make a living leasing stock but it's much, much harder than it used to be.

Tina

[Steve M.]

I think what Tina said is really true. Images have been devalued, but that's the technology that did that. Digital cameras, the internet, multi media, etc have produced so many images that it's impossible to keep up w/ them. When I was younger, getting a Life or Look magazine was a big thing. Where else could you see such great photographic images?

Now, modern society moves at a break neck pace (we don't notice it because we're used to it), and images are slammed at us constantly, everywhere and anywhere. I can't even go to a post office in a big city, or stroll down a grocery store isle w/o being bombarded w/ images and sounds that are trying to get me to buy something. If I go to a fast food joint, there's usually a TV blaring and displaying all manner of strange stuff. Driving or walking down a street puts you smack in the middle of store front ads and images, along w/ huge signs on poles and large billboards.

Something is generally not worth much if it's everywhere and free. If I didn't have a computer connection my idea of images would be totally different than what it is now. There would be time to spend w/ an image, not be prodded along to see the next one w/ just a mouse click. Besides, I say Never Mind the Bollocks!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyEZ_Pg560

[celluloidprop]

Photography was once a specialized skill - getting an image that would print in a magazine or catalogue required a certain level of knowledge that wasn't supremely common. It also required skill and care to make slow-ISOs and expensive film work.

Today, digital is free - once you've bought the Rebel, anyone can use it in the office to make an image that will likely be usable. Some companies require great images, even many. But a lot of them are perfectly happy with good. We can gnash our teeth all we want about devaluation, but if you're not working with special skills or knowledge, your work won't be as valuable as once upon a time.

[kbg32]

10-100x? 100x for sure! My income is barely a quarter of what it was 3-3 1/2 years ago.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by PKR

How about ANY skill or knowledge..

I saw a "notice" in an announcement for one of Bill Allard's workshops. The notice stated that anyone wanting to attend the workshop must submit a portfolio and be comfortable using their digital camera in manual mode. He said that he regretted having to add the notice to the fee schedule, but he wanted to be sure his students would be able to keep up (my words) with the course work. He went on to say that many recent workshop students weren't at a proficiency level necessary to benefit from the workshop. He hadn't had this problem in the past years (again my words).

Is the workshop business nowadays better than before? It seems like a lot more people would need to go to those.

[mrrobleyleica]

Selling photos online, any money to be made?

I've had a quick look through this thread, obviously some strong views. Some points have not made sense, here's my bit.

Internet based stock photos / image selling has transformed the economics of certain areas of photography and illustration (my area of work, trained and worked as a graphic designer, now an illustrator).
It's fairly simple. Most designs are made to a tight budget, if that's small (which it can be now in a recession) so is the fee for an image. If some image can be found that fits the brief for $1 that's great for the designer, his fee may be fixed so cost cutting like this is his/her profit.
Some people never understand how much to charge for using their work, any number of reasons for that. Some simply don't care because they can live on peanuts, or because they like to undercut to get an advantage, very irritating. I say some undercharge because their work is below par and are rich dilettantes.

For a massive fashion based multi million pound ad campaign, an ad agency won't use stock images. A photographer or illustrator who can sell a $1 image 250,000 times has been lucky. If it was more they may not sell any, because there's another one just as 'good' for $1 somewhere i the world, that's the internet for you.

Internship (how did that crop up?) sounds crazy to me. It's usually in the 'professions' not on the factory floor. If it's a short term foot in the door and is a good experience, well, that's their choice, might be good. It could be a good way of deciding if that job is for them, not easy. If it takes away a real job that already exists, that should be outlawed, if it were possible.
It's not slavery as nobody is forcing them. If they are forced to get the coffee and dry cleaning, it's a poor boss in charge and a waste of everyones time, that's all and that may be an education for some.

In the film and TV industry there are huge numbers of interns. In PR there were always loads of rich kids, they used to be called 'friends of the boss' and were young inexperienced relatives of a somebody who was loaded and could do a few things around an office. They would usually end up licking envelopes if they were rubbish. The best got a job, in TV.
Most of these modern interns don't have a mortgage, a family. It's their life choice and as long as it doesn't affect the job market for experienced workers it shouldn't be an issue. I don't know if it has, yet?

I bet half the entourage behind the top fashion shooters are unpaid dilettantes. If they were paid well, the job wouldn't exist, who wins there? I was lucky, when I left college nobody worked for nothing, and few could get work - it was the last big recession. Now, there are much bigger numbers of students leaving college and no jobs, how did that happen? Crazy!

Thousands want to be TV cooks, film makers, TV researchers, work for fashion labels or magazines. If it's not fixed term or under contract I suppose it's a fact of the economic situation the mad bankers have got us all in. I don't see unpaid nurses doctors or engineers though. Underpaid maybe - it's seems to be okay for some - not others. In the ideal world we would all get paid a fair wage for the hours we work, unfortunately it's not fair all the time, will it ever be? I live with it, do my best and hope it's better in the future for my kid, that's all I can do. Deep.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by photomoof

I read this a couple of times.. Do you now sell tens times aa many photos? Sounds tough...

She meant she was able to charge 10 times as much for a usage, and sometimes 100 times as much, as she can today. In other words, prices today are 1/10 to 1/100 what they were when she was younger.