The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Time pays $30 for Magazine Cover
- Thread starter johnastovall
- Start date
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Random musings on this:
-- It amuses me that the cover theme was "The New Frugality"; obviously the Time staff was practicing what they preached!
-- I almost hate to say it, but I think $30 probably was a pretty fair price for a single use of this photo. It's utterly generic; most of its value comes from the way the cover designer used it, not from the photo itself. Another way of looking at it: if this photo weren't available, there would have been hundreds of other generic photos that a clever designer could use to illustrate the concept of "The New Frugality."
-- Another reason $30 isn't a bad price: precisely because the photo is so generic, the shooter will be able to sell it dozens more times. That's what makes the microstock world go 'round, or so I hear.
-- The professionals whingeing away on SportsShooter and other fora to the effect that the microstock shooters are taking food out of their mouths have got a bad case of craniorectal inversion. What do they want, a law stipulating that photographs for publication must be taken by a "Licensed Professional Photographer" at a mandated "fair" rate? (Yeah, actually they probably would want that... until they found out what it would be like.)
-- This moron goes even further, abusing the photographer for letting himself get "screwed out of several thousand dollars in income"... conveniently ignoring the fact that if the photographer had asked for several thousand dollars, Time would just have plugged in a different stock photo instead.
I guess there was a time, when photography was difficult and editorial markets were very cliquey, that it was possible for a cabal of editorial photographers to "ration" the supply of their product and prop up the price. But the Internet has pretty well killed that business model, and ranting at microstock photographers won't bring it back.
-- It amuses me that the cover theme was "The New Frugality"; obviously the Time staff was practicing what they preached!
-- I almost hate to say it, but I think $30 probably was a pretty fair price for a single use of this photo. It's utterly generic; most of its value comes from the way the cover designer used it, not from the photo itself. Another way of looking at it: if this photo weren't available, there would have been hundreds of other generic photos that a clever designer could use to illustrate the concept of "The New Frugality."
-- Another reason $30 isn't a bad price: precisely because the photo is so generic, the shooter will be able to sell it dozens more times. That's what makes the microstock world go 'round, or so I hear.
-- The professionals whingeing away on SportsShooter and other fora to the effect that the microstock shooters are taking food out of their mouths have got a bad case of craniorectal inversion. What do they want, a law stipulating that photographs for publication must be taken by a "Licensed Professional Photographer" at a mandated "fair" rate? (Yeah, actually they probably would want that... until they found out what it would be like.)
-- This moron goes even further, abusing the photographer for letting himself get "screwed out of several thousand dollars in income"... conveniently ignoring the fact that if the photographer had asked for several thousand dollars, Time would just have plugged in a different stock photo instead.
I guess there was a time, when photography was difficult and editorial markets were very cliquey, that it was possible for a cabal of editorial photographers to "ration" the supply of their product and prop up the price. But the Internet has pretty well killed that business model, and ranting at microstock photographers won't bring it back.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
It's the part of capitalism called "supply" and "demand". A friend of mine described it like this:
If you are a goldsmith, and one of your neighbours finds out how to make gold in his bathtub from materials he can buy at the local grocery for 50c per kilo, the price of the gold you sell will probably go down as well.
That's digital photography for you. The market for generic photos was bound to change, and it has. What the whiners and whingers fail to understand, is that this has opened up huge new markets, with buyers who used to steal or "borrow" photos instead of buying. A successful, generic microstock photo will usually sell hundreds or even thousands of time. In ancient times, like ten years ago, most photos would have sold once or twice, if at all.
If this is negative or positive to the business, is highly irrelevant. It's a result of digital photography and the internet, and it's obviously unstopable. The negative side is of course that a magazine like Time chooses to use a cheap generic photo for their front page now and then, instead of commissioning a photographer, paying thousands of dollars, to take that same photo. The positive side is that millions of websites who have an unlimited need for new photos on a regular basis, now actually pay for those photos.
Really unique and exceptional photos will still sell at a premium. It's just a question of taking those photos. In the stock photography business these days, it's adapt or die.
If you are a goldsmith, and one of your neighbours finds out how to make gold in his bathtub from materials he can buy at the local grocery for 50c per kilo, the price of the gold you sell will probably go down as well.
That's digital photography for you. The market for generic photos was bound to change, and it has. What the whiners and whingers fail to understand, is that this has opened up huge new markets, with buyers who used to steal or "borrow" photos instead of buying. A successful, generic microstock photo will usually sell hundreds or even thousands of time. In ancient times, like ten years ago, most photos would have sold once or twice, if at all.
If this is negative or positive to the business, is highly irrelevant. It's a result of digital photography and the internet, and it's obviously unstopable. The negative side is of course that a magazine like Time chooses to use a cheap generic photo for their front page now and then, instead of commissioning a photographer, paying thousands of dollars, to take that same photo. The positive side is that millions of websites who have an unlimited need for new photos on a regular basis, now actually pay for those photos.
Really unique and exceptional photos will still sell at a premium. It's just a question of taking those photos. In the stock photography business these days, it's adapt or die.
As a working pro anyone giving away these photos for 10 bucks 30 bucks what ever you are destroying a profession that you all hope to join. It is a shame you two do not see that. years ago as punk kid in my 20s I had a full page of Madonna from live aid . The folks at Life tried giving me 500 dollars "there were lots of photos of Madonna from Live Aid" I was told, I replied yeah but you chose mine it must be the best and therefore I want more then the 500 . I got 750. These days somebody might go to that large a magazine and offer free photos for a photo credit. Too Bad and Too Sad. David www.davidseelig.com
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
David,
There's a big difference between shooting a jar of coins at a tabletop studio in your kitchen and shooting a celebrity at a concert. I never said I liked the decline in stock photography prices, but when tens of thousands of photographers are shooting whatever they can find in their kitchen drawers, the prices are bound to be thrown into a free fall. This is not a question of being for and against. This is a question of doing a quick browse through the internet and check which way the wind is blowing. You can always try to stop it, but I do think there are more entertaining ways to waste your time.
Good editorial stock is a completely different world. Partly, most microstock agencies don't accept editorial images, and those who do, sell in very tiny numbers. A photo of John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe in the backseat of a pink Cadillac with Fidel Castro behind the wheel, will still bring in thousands of dollars. A glass of water isolated on white on the other hand... unless it has some really unique aspect to it, most microstock agencies would reject that, stating something like "we have too many of these photos". When that is the case, expecting Time magazine to pay $3,000 for it, even for a front page, is somewhat optimistic.
Again: this is capitalism, pure and simple. Supply and demand. And you'd be surprised if you knew how much profit some of the microstock photographers are actually making.
There's a big difference between shooting a jar of coins at a tabletop studio in your kitchen and shooting a celebrity at a concert. I never said I liked the decline in stock photography prices, but when tens of thousands of photographers are shooting whatever they can find in their kitchen drawers, the prices are bound to be thrown into a free fall. This is not a question of being for and against. This is a question of doing a quick browse through the internet and check which way the wind is blowing. You can always try to stop it, but I do think there are more entertaining ways to waste your time.
Good editorial stock is a completely different world. Partly, most microstock agencies don't accept editorial images, and those who do, sell in very tiny numbers. A photo of John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe in the backseat of a pink Cadillac with Fidel Castro behind the wheel, will still bring in thousands of dollars. A glass of water isolated on white on the other hand... unless it has some really unique aspect to it, most microstock agencies would reject that, stating something like "we have too many of these photos". When that is the case, expecting Time magazine to pay $3,000 for it, even for a front page, is somewhat optimistic.
Again: this is capitalism, pure and simple. Supply and demand. And you'd be surprised if you knew how much profit some of the microstock photographers are actually making.
A photograph and a photographer should never be devalued and when it is, it hurts us all . I have no desire to get into a internet shouting match, I do not think any photograph where ever it was taken has more or less value. If Time magazine can get away with paying 30 bucks for any photo they will and sooner or later only trust funders will be pro photographers. David
Here is a link with another take on this
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html
Here is a link with another take on this
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html
Last edited:
Ranger9 has already provided that link above.
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I see it as you adapt or you fail. My business, wedding photography, is full of this devaluation due to digital photography and you have to adapt, distance yourself from the 'new' or you fail and no crying about it will help put bread on your table. Let's face it, it's a new reality and the gearshift lever has no reverse on it. You can either select park or drive but if you don't move then everyone will pass you by.
Look at Getty, they scoured Flikr and found a new crop of photographers, offered about a 1000 of them jobs including a friend of mine. There was lots of whining from the regular Getty photographers who just didn't get it, people want to buy photos that aren't typical stock, especially in the 'look'. The marketplace has moved on and I think Getty were very intelligent in their approach. Reminds me of a quote from a Terry Pratchett that I was reading yesterday. The designer of a new machine asked for apprentices and students only 'as they've not yet learned the limits of the possible'.
In my own market there are at least 5 new people trying to break in to what is an extremely small market, I'm one of only 3 photographers servicing the Orthodox Jewish wedding market in the entire UK outside of London. There is only one who I even begin to worry about. That's the guy who Getty chose, the one with innovation, new ideas and a modern approach. The others are all trying to copy the 'top' man in the business, a man whose photography got stuck in 1980, who never adapted to digital properly and who is about to retire. They'll never get anywhere. I know I have to innovate and move with the times or I'll be out of a job.
What is making me slightly nervous is this convergence of video and photo. Everyone seems to be very excited about it (read the clients will expect it soon enough) but no one has any real concrete ideas as to the implementation or marketing of it. I do know however that the idea of someone shooting a wedding while doing the video of it, all at the same time and with a DSLR is more than laughable. But, I'm keeping my eyes wide open as to where this will go.
Look at Getty, they scoured Flikr and found a new crop of photographers, offered about a 1000 of them jobs including a friend of mine. There was lots of whining from the regular Getty photographers who just didn't get it, people want to buy photos that aren't typical stock, especially in the 'look'. The marketplace has moved on and I think Getty were very intelligent in their approach. Reminds me of a quote from a Terry Pratchett that I was reading yesterday. The designer of a new machine asked for apprentices and students only 'as they've not yet learned the limits of the possible'.
In my own market there are at least 5 new people trying to break in to what is an extremely small market, I'm one of only 3 photographers servicing the Orthodox Jewish wedding market in the entire UK outside of London. There is only one who I even begin to worry about. That's the guy who Getty chose, the one with innovation, new ideas and a modern approach. The others are all trying to copy the 'top' man in the business, a man whose photography got stuck in 1980, who never adapted to digital properly and who is about to retire. They'll never get anywhere. I know I have to innovate and move with the times or I'll be out of a job.
What is making me slightly nervous is this convergence of video and photo. Everyone seems to be very excited about it (read the clients will expect it soon enough) but no one has any real concrete ideas as to the implementation or marketing of it. I do know however that the idea of someone shooting a wedding while doing the video of it, all at the same time and with a DSLR is more than laughable. But, I'm keeping my eyes wide open as to where this will go.
I sure wouldn't be to quick to dismiss this video thing which is just starting up relatively speaking. 5 of my weddings this year passed on an album and opted for a 5 minute slide show movie with music and some effects ... it would be a simple step to include some moving footage and go to 6 or 7 minutes. Actual footage of the "wedding standards" ... part of the ceremony, the cake cutting and maybe some of the dancing and bouquet toss would be naturals interspersed with stills of decisive moments ... this way you wouldn't need stills of the standards so there wouldn't be any real shooting flow conflict.
As to stock photos, clients will pay a little as they can for what they need. If it's offered for next to free, then that's what they will pay. I disagree that you can "sucessfully innovate yourself" in a market like that since someone else is setting the price, and there are photographers willing to sell their work for the set price. FYI, the price for better work has dropped like a stone also. It's just a matter of time to when the image pipeline is full and even good photos will be $100 or less.
BTW, $30. isn't the actual income, it's the gross. To make an average wage like an office receptionists you'd have to sell over 2500 images a year ... that's 10 a day. Lots of luck with that.
The notion that $30. is better than some some company stealing the images they need is odd at best ... they are still stealing it, only this time it's legal.
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
Thing is Marc that you couldn't shoot video and still take the stills you do, nor work with a 2nd camera, nor shoot something that isn't infront of the lens videoing the 'action'. You could have a camera specifically geared to the video while you shoot your stills 360 degrees around you but we've had that for a while, it's called a videographer! 
If this kind of thing does kick off then I'll employ a videographer with tools made for the job and we'll work our output into a single package.
The idea of convergence seems to me just another way to make sure we work more for less pay. Let's be honest, how much would an album have been compared to the slideshow? See where I'm going with this?
If this kind of thing does kick off then I'll employ a videographer with tools made for the job and we'll work our output into a single package.The idea of convergence seems to me just another way to make sure we work more for less pay. Let's be honest, how much would an album have been compared to the slideshow? See where I'm going with this?
O
Oxide Blu
Guest
:ROTFL: :ROTFL: :ROTFL:
Not to go to far off subject here, but I don't agree Ben. Not that disagreement means I'll start doing that myself. Not interested because it is what I did for a living for 30 years. Enough already.Thing is Marc that you couldn't shoot video and still take the stills you do, nor work with a 2nd camera, nor shoot something that isn't infront of the lens videoing the 'action'. You could have a camera specifically geared to the video while you shoot your stills 360 degrees around you but we've had that for a while, it's called a videographer!
The idea of convergence seems to me just another way to make sure we work more for less pay. Let's be honest, how much would an album have been compared to the slideshow? See where I'm going with this?
What I'm suggesting could be done is just part of the event live action for which you don't need a full blown videographer and all the gear involved.
As far as I'm concerned, I just as soon do a 100 frame slide show which takes about 1/8th the time that a 40 print album takes and involves none of the materials costs (which keep skyrocketing in price) ... basically it generates more profit for less time spent. I hate making albums because it is also like what I did for a living before going full time photographer, and is donkey work that just adds to the post work load.
As far as stills are concerned, I'd rather do one or two dozen finely crafted individual prints in a portfolio box.
-Marc
I could not even click a link that someone called this moron. That blogger has been fighting for photographers rights and trying to educate photographers. Too denigrate someone who spends time helping others is low. Too hype getty which from some of the companies it bought like allsport and wireimage has been the model that has driven down photographers payments is particapating in your own destruction.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Stock is supposed to priced by circulation, use and time . This is clearly not even remotely close to those standards. The sad part the guy is happy as a pork roast in pig ****. Now there is the crime. Sad for the industry. This really encourages us to go shoot high end stock images. Folks stock as we know it is dead. I have to agree with David on his last comment. Any involvement in stock is like taking a leak on yourself any more, not fun and stinks. Sorry this one rubs me the wrong way for a long time now.
I'm sitting on 35 years of images and there is no revenue i can create from it.
I'm sitting on 35 years of images and there is no revenue i can create from it.
Start your own stock service ...
If the images are what is wanted, then they will come. In my former life as an agency creative I bought stock a fair amount of times ... the freaking search for a decent photo took a huge amount of time because all the crap was lumped in with the decent stuff.
-Marc
R
Ranger 9
Guest
Too spell "to" with too many o's is toooo much!
Which reminds me of one of the comments on the link to He Who Must Not be Called a Moron. The commenter pointed out that Don't Call Him a Moron is writing extensively on his blog, and selling advertising on it... yet he's not even remotely qualified as a professional writer.
Well, I am a professional writer, dadgummit -- got me a degree and everything -- and it infuriates me to see these photo-snapper bloggers trying to take food out of my mouth and driving down the rates for my profession by covering their blogs with their own amateur scribblings. If they're serious about professionalism, and about supporting professional standards and maintaining fair rates for professional work, then why don't they hire professional writers?!?
Okay, actually I wouldn't be caught dead ghost-writing that muck no matter how much it paid, but you get the point (or do you?) What we're seeing here in the howlings of such wounded professional photographers as Musn't Call Him a Moron is simply hypocrisy. They're ready to moan and groan when it's their own ox that's being gored, but happy to turn around and gore someone else's if there's a quick buck in it.
Really weak to get me on an extra o in to.
david
PS Glad to see Guy feeling good enough to be active in the forums again
www.davidseelig.com
david
PS Glad to see Guy feeling good enough to be active in the forums again
www.davidseelig.com
TRSmith
Subscriber Member
I don't know if it's right or wrong, but stock photography has changed. That's just the way it is. As a designer, I buy lots of the stuff and have for years. In days of yore, it was an excruciating and expensive process. Entire walls dedicated to stock photo catalogs. Transparencies! Scanning! Not to mention the penalty for losing or damaging a chrome. Now I can go to iStockphoto or any number of other (Getty-owned) sites and search, buy, and download photos at blazing speed. Heck, I've paid less than $30 for better photos than that coin jar. My billable photo-research time is usually more than the fees for the photo.
And yes, there are still Royalty-managed photos that are purchased based on publication type, circulation, and time. Those cost more money and tend to be better quality. I'll bet Time has used some of those too.
From a designers perspective, and maybe even from a client's perspective, all the changes have been good. From a photographer's viewpoint, maybe not so good. I don't think it helps much to bit*h about it though. That ship has sailed. And for some shooters, whatever little money they get is great. Plus, there's always a chance you'll get picked for the cover of Time!
And yes, there are still Royalty-managed photos that are purchased based on publication type, circulation, and time. Those cost more money and tend to be better quality. I'll bet Time has used some of those too.
From a designers perspective, and maybe even from a client's perspective, all the changes have been good. From a photographer's viewpoint, maybe not so good. I don't think it helps much to bit*h about it though. That ship has sailed. And for some shooters, whatever little money they get is great. Plus, there's always a chance you'll get picked for the cover of Time!
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Tim totally understand your comments and honestly don't disagree what the issue is and digital has brought on speed and use for the masses. What happened along the way was places like Getty are just giving it away at much much less value than it was say only 2 years ago. The image has not changed but the cheapening of the sale went to far on the usage and such. Let's face it a cover of Time for 30 dollars is absurd with that type of circulation. Even that image 2 years ago would have been 1500 for a cover. That's a big drop in value and as good as the industry has become we also cheapened it way to fast. I know NFL shooters when Getty bought them out that completely gave up and walked away from the business on what they where offering them for front end top quality cover shots for SI and such.