Subscribe and save with our all-new image subscriptions.

Learn more
Close

Rangefinder Magazine - The state of stock

First pagePrevious pageof 2
Displaying 21 to 35 of 35 matches.
risamay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue May 15, 2007 12:31PM
The article was less interesting than the little "Big 3 Squeeze" piece by Lou Jacobs Jr. that followed it. Did anyone read that? It talks about Copyright Law, the Big 3 (Getty, Corbis, and JupiterImages), and their ability to digitally alter images in their collections to create infinite numbers of new digital images, without violating Copyright Law or having to pay their photographers anything (because you sign a "Transfer and Waiver" form). Very, very interesting. What do people think about this?
lisafx
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Tue May 15, 2007 5:42PM


You just don't want to blow the cover and encourage the competition, huh. ;-)


I know this is said tongue in cheek, but I think it is absolutely true. There is no reason for those who are doing well in microstock (or those who aspire to do well) to do ANYTHING to encourage more people to join.

Particularly experienced stock photographers. I would much rather have them stay in the trads bemoaning their fate than coming over here adding yet more to the flood of imagery already being uploaded.
Down2theXRoads
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Tue May 15, 2007 8:52PM

Posted By lisafx:


You just don't want to blow the cover and encourage the competition, huh. ;-)


I know this is said tongue in cheek, but I think it is absolutely true. There is no reason for those who are doing well in microstock (or those who aspire to do well) to do ANYTHING to encourage more people to join.

Oh, no. That wasn't tongue in cheek at all, and I honestly understand not wanting to encourage the competition. What I find amazing are the number of photographers who have never heard of microstock. Okay, so where are all these new submissions coming from? And how do we make them go away :-) J/K It's also weird that most seem to want to keep it quiet, yet won't hesitate to refer someone and take their cut.


Posted By risamay:
Very, very interesting. What do people think about this?


That squeeze is exactly what's knocking a lot of old pros out of the market, not us. The guys I talked to in NYC have seen their income drop to a third of what it used to be because of new contracts with new vendors at the Big Three. The Big Boys not only can alter their images to create new ones, they're licensing their images to smaller houses, and there's nothing the photographers can do about it, other than accept their 10% commission where it used to be 80%. Those guys are taking it on the chin in a lot of different ways. The whole thing makes me hesitant to feel comfortable or secure when it comes to anything photographic. The impact of digital isn't done clobbering all of us yet.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Tue May 15, 2007 9:17PM

Posted By Down2theXRoads:

Posted By sjlocke:
I don't see any need to set things straight.


But isn't that a little weird? Microstockers take offense at being called amateurs, yet they're not willing to do what it takes to establish the industry as a profession, or even a career path.


Nope. The only thing I'm interested in, is the buyers coming in and filling their cart. They don't care about professions, or industry, or career paths. I'm not interested in prosthletizing stock as a career path for anyone. In fact, if anyone asks, I tell them it's a waste of time.
LawrenceSawyer
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue May 15, 2007 9:57PM

That squeeze is exactly what's knocking a lot of old pros out of the market, not us. The guys I talked to in NYC have seen their income drop to a third of what it used to be... The whole thing makes me hesitant to feel comfortable or secure when it comes to anything photographic. The impact of digital isn't done clobbering all of us yet.


You got that right. Digital giveth, and digital taketh away. Don't assume for one minute that you are safe here, long term, with your contract or your income. It will change over time. Ride the wave while you can. This is the third wave that I've seen. #1 was the rise of stock in the '80s with great images; #2 was digital delivery led by PhotoDisc in the '90's-- pre-internet. And now iStock has led the latest change. The cost is that the lifespan of an image is 1/5 of what it used to be. The speed of the process increases from every aspect: shooting is faster, editing is faster, sales are faster, payment is faster, and... images get "used up" faster. Faster and faster, new work is added, seen, absorbed into the world of communications or rejected altogether. Can you keep up? I expect this wave to last another 5-10 years, tops. After that, making a living in stock will be a very different proposition than it is now. I will ride this wave. I won't make any predictions about the next one.
Funwithfood
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 12:34AM
Well put shooterguy.
Down2theXRoads
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 12:56AM

Posted By Funwithfood:
Well put shooterguy.


Yeah, he's pretty good, isn't he.
crazychristina
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsThis member has lost their last cage match. Consider this the black eye the bully gave you after school by the bike racks.
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 4:26AM
Posted By risamay:
The article was less interesting than the little "Big 3 Squeeze" piece by Lou Jacobs Jr. that followed it. Did anyone read that? It talks about Copyright Law, the Big 3 (Getty, Corbis, and JupiterImages), and their ability to digitally alter images in their collections to create infinite numbers of new digital images, without violating Copyright Law or having to pay their photographers anything (because you sign a "Transfer and Waiver" form). Very, very interesting. What do people think about this?

I thought it was very interesting too. Given the state of computer created imagery (Final Fantasy, LOTR, etc) I can see a time when any image can be made to order with software, no real content required. I don't think that time is far away.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 6:29AM
Maybe for generic landscapes, since you can render that now. But anything significant would not be "real" enough - takes alot of work to make a specific image.
Fotosmurf03
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 7:08AM
Posted By lisafx:



You just don't want to blow the cover and encourage the competition, huh. wink


I know this is said tongue in cheek, but I think it is absolutely true. There is no reason for those who are doing well in microstock (or those who aspire to do well) to do ANYTHING to encourage more people to join.

Particularly experienced stock photographers. I would much rather have them stay in the trads bemoaning their fate than coming over here adding yet more to the flood of imagery already being uploaded.


 


Amen to that Lisa!
JoeGough
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 7:51AM
Posted By shooterguy:


You got that right. Digital giveth, and digital taketh away. Don't assume for one minute that you are safe here, long term, with your contract or your income. It will change over time. Ride the wave while you can. This is the third wave that I've seen. #1 was the rise of stock in the '80s with great images; #2 was digital delivery led by PhotoDisc in the '90's-- pre-internet. And now iStock has led the latest change. The cost is that the lifespan of an image is 1/5 of what it used to be. The speed of the process increases from every aspect: shooting is faster, editing is faster, sales are faster, payment is faster, and... images get "used up" faster. Faster and faster, new work is added, seen, absorbed into the world of communications or rejected altogether. Can you keep up? I expect this wave to last another 5-10 years, tops. After that, making a living in stock will be a very different proposition than it is now. I will ride this wave. I won't make any predictions about the next one.
Very well said. I think the difference with this microstock 'wave' is however that it has also created a much greater market for images simply because of their affordability. Nowadays I see publications, posters, websites, leaflets, etc that not so many years ago would have had either no images, or maybe just one or two, whereas now they have multiple colourful images sprinkled everywhere. I have no doubt that the increase in supply will outpace the growth in demand in the long run though __ as indeed we are already seeing here.
wdstock
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 11:26AM
Posted By JoeGough:

Posted By shooterguy:



You got that right. Digital giveth, and digital taketh away. Don't assume for one minute that you are safe here, long term, with your contract or your income. It will change over time. Ride the wave while you can. This is the third wave that I've seen. #1 was the rise of stock in the '80s with great images; #2 was digital delivery led by PhotoDisc in the '90's-- pre-internet. And now iStock has led the latest change. The cost is that the lifespan of an image is 1/5 of what it used to be. The speed of the process increases from every aspect: shooting is faster, editing is faster, sales are faster, payment is faster, and... images get "used up" faster. Faster and faster, new work is added, seen, absorbed into the world of communications or rejected altogether. Can you keep up? I expect this wave to last another 5-10 years, tops. After that, making a living in stock will be a very different proposition than it is now. I will ride this wave. I won't make any predictions about the next one.
Very well said. I think the difference with this microstock 'wave' is however that it has also created a much greater market for images simply because of their affordability. Nowadays I see publications, posters, websites, leaflets, etc that not so many years ago would have had either no images, or maybe just one or two, whereas now they have multiple colourful images sprinkled everywhere. I have no doubt that the increase in supply will outpace the growth in demand in the long run though __ as indeed we are already seeing here.

Well you could also argue that if increase in supply was outpaceing growth in demand, than prices people pay here for images should be going down, but in fact they have been going up (a good thing!).
risamay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 11:45AM
Very interesting. Ah vell. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with the stock market and the use of old images to create new ones. At least we all have the ability to do the same thing ourselves, too.
lisafx
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed May 16, 2007 11:49AM

Posted By JoeGough:
I think the difference with this microstock 'wave' is however that it has also created a much greater market for images simply because of their affordability. Nowadays I see publications, posters, websites, leaflets, etc that not so many years ago would have had either no images, or maybe just one or two, whereas now they have multiple colourful images sprinkled everywhere. I have no doubt that the increase in supply will outpace the growth in demand in the long run though __ as indeed we are already seeing here.


Joe makes an excellent point. Microstock has certainly created a market in addition to tapping into the existing one. In fact imagery is so affordable these days that when I get a free circular or community newspaper that DOESN'T have stock imagery I am surprised. Guess I should mail them my card with a link to istock
Down2theXRoads
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Thu May 17, 2007 1:11AM

Posted By risamay:
Very interesting. Ah vell. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future with the stock market and the use of old images to create new ones. At least we all have the ability to do the same thing ourselves, too.


At the rate of change we're seeing now, images could be completely obsolete within 10 years. We'll have holographs jumping out of brochures and off web pages and sitting on our laps.

That pendulum is always swinging. It hits an extreme, then swings back. Etsy is a good example of techno burnout that's happening. They're having great success, and it's mostly handmade goods. Remember Teddy Ruxpin? That seemed to be the wave of the future with no turning back. Surprise, surprise. It floated for a couple of years, then kids toys suddenly went mute and soft again.

As far as the stock market.......The industry of images needs to have a new sector created. It's currently under Business Services, and of course it's going to underperform in that sector. The analysts only look at the sector, make their ratings, upgrade or downgrade, and the public follows. I think we've outgrown that sectors and a new one needs to be created for more accurate coverage.
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 2
Displaying 21 to 35 of 35 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)