Stock Photography just got harder...

Stock Photography just got harder...

15 posts
6 March 2014
CSD_Images
Photographer
CSD_Images
Gettty is now giving away the images for free when embedded on a website:

The Verge

Arguably they never made money from this so they are not losing anything, but it's a suprising change from one of the biggest stock image companies.
Posted 6 March 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
I'm amazed people actually make money from it anyway, what with how utterly saturated the market is. You'll get the odd 'celebrity' stock photographer but I find it hard to think the average jobbing photographer will get little more than teenage pocket-money from it as it's something every man and his dog can do.

Posted 6 March 2014
MLP
Photographer
MLP

' .... it's something every man and his dog can do ....' interesting take, tell me do you actively work at all in the stock market?




Posted 6 March 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
I was referring to the fact that digital photography has created a level playing field between amateurs, professionals, good and bad alike. For modest investment in equipment anyone can take fantastic images that would be suitable for stock work whearas in the days of film nothing less than medium format would have sufficed (not only was this comparitively expensive but arguably the skillset was higher in the days of film).
Posted 6 March 2014
MLP
Photographer
MLP

You may have missed the fact that in true stock photography, not micro stock, the taking of the images is often the easy part. So often no modern all singing DSLR required, a solid model 5 years old with a few lens would suffice, plus simple techniques is all that is required.

The hard work is the business of what will sell. From this plan what to photograph and when and how and in doing so keeping the cost to a minimum, day after day; then how to edit, keyword and caption, then distribute to enable that stock photography essential of multiple sales from the same image.

Photographers who are good at business able to take a regular 'sellable' and, most important, required image should survive; being a good or outstanding photographer, with a mass it kit, techniques and abilities, is no longer enough, no matter if you are amateur, professional or anywhere in between.





Posted 7 March 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Perhaps my view is somewhat negative of stock photographer as I've heard from many who claim they make good money from stock photography yet their images that I have seen are somewhat lacklustre (be it composition, lighting, technique or whatever). It may be that they don't show the good stuff, but then it begs the question about the general standard of their work in other fields (using the same skillset & all that). I still stand by my statement that it's not the field it once was and is becoming utterly saturated to the point of being virtually unsustainable for making a living out of (as with most photographic genres).
Posted 7 March 2014
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
Working the stock market is a particular skill according to articles and case studies I have seen in Professional Photography magazine and elsewhere...and for the people with that skill...it seems to generate a steady income.

It seems, like most markets, knowing the market requirements, complying with them; and personal marketing and personal contacts with the stock editors are still important.

Posted 7 March 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
anthonyh

Working the stock market is a particular skill according to articles and case studies I have seen in Professional Photography magazine and elsewhere...and for the people with that skill...it seems to generate a steady income. It seems, like most markets, knowing the market requirements, complying with them; and personal marketing and personal contacts with the stock editors are still important.


So it's pretty much along the lines I'm thinking.... naff all to do with photography and your technical skills, and more to do with how you approach them and sell yourself.
Posted 7 March 2014
MLP
Photographer
MLP
' ..... Perhaps my view is somewhat negative of stock photographer as I've heard from many who claim they make good money from stock photography yet their images that I have seen are somewhat lacklustre (be it composition, lighting, technique or whatever)... ' So what? If a client want a, in your eyes, lacklustre image he must has a need for that image and the stock photographer is the winner! As I said before the true skill is anticipating the image. You must remember the stock photographer satisfies the needs on his clients - not his own ego! If the clients want a lacklustre, and is happy with the image, then the stock photographer will supply it and get paid for it.
Posted 7 March 2014
MLP
Photographer
MLP


' ... naff all to do with photography and your technical skills ...'

You are still missing the point! It has to do with photographic ability, but an ability to satisfy your clients requirements and needs; not your own!

The very basis of supply and demand and business  as we kinow it - give the cutomer what he wants - not what you want to photograph!  Trust me it can be frustrating!! 







Posted 7 March 2014
Edited by MLP 7 March 2014
artistoli
Photographer
artistoli
RedChecker

I'm amazed people actually make money from it anyway, what with how utterly saturated the market is. You'll get the odd 'celebrity' stock photographer but I find it hard to think the average jobbing photographer will get little more than teenage pocket-money from it as it's something every man and his dog can do.


Have to say he has a point. Consider just how many new images are being added each day. Also this move to free if embedded is not just a Getty thing. If I remember correctly it was some stock site based in Singapore or somewhere like that that started this trend a few years back. 
Posted 11 March 2014
artistoli
Photographer
artistoli
I think RedChecker is more just pointing out the physics of the market. The saturation, competition and trend towards 'free' is not going to reverse. This means that the monetary worth of most stock photography (even if it is fantastic) will continue to fall. I don't think he is seriously knocking the skill of photographers who produce stock; its like every field, there are good and bad. But the undeniable trend is for tumbling margins and prices (despite the myriad of articles abounding on the web - those articles are often produced for reasons that have nothing to do with photography and everything to do with attracting traffic that leans towards wanting to believe a certain lifestyle is possible).

Posted 11 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
It's interesting that no-one seems to have read the article, particularly the Op whose headline seems rather dismissive of what appears a sensible approach to market conitions

Posted 11 March 2014
PeterH
Photographer
PeterH
artistoli

This means that the monetary worth of most stock photography (even if it is fantastic) will continue to fall.


I started selling stock images (mainly for chatline ads, that sort of thing) and I could easily get £10 per image on a regular basis. I stopped several years ago when the price I was currently being offered was 0.6 cents per image. 
Posted 11 March 2014
MikeBee
Photographer
MikeBee
MLP
' ... naff all to do with photography and your technical skills ...' You are still missing the point! It has to do with photographic ability, but an ability to satisfy your clients requirements and needs; not your own! The very basis of supply and demand and business  as we kinow it - give the cutomer what he wants - not what you want to photograph!  Trust me it can be frustrating!! 
+1
Posted 18 March 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join