getty sales?

[historicist]

In about a year, $4.20.

 

[back alley]

In about a year, $4.20.

what lens did you buy?
:bang:

 

[bulevardi]

So why are you worried about the amateurs who sell one photo in their life? Do they destroy someones livelihood?

Edit: perhaps it's the amount of one-time-sellers that is threatening?

That's a good question indeed.
But why skip the opportunity if you someday have the chance to sell one?

Aah, coincidence... I'm just in that situation now.
At the moment, a publisher wants to buy one of my photographs for a book cover and they asked me for a price.
I asked an amount that I thought the image is worth for me... and they accepted it. I had a bit of work editing the image, photoshop, getting the right dimensions, dpi, ..
I could buy me a (cheap) lens with this money, but it's definitely not enough to live for a month.

I hope the amount wasn't too low to embarras pros who do it for a livelihood.
BUT, the problem as an amateur is that in my country, I cannot just make a fake invoice, as I'm not registered as a company.
I can let make a friend of mine (who does own a company) a legal invoice, and hopefully get the money indirectly by him.
(I surely want to start a company someday, but only if I could live from the income, if I would sell more.)

On the other hand, I don't want to skip this opportunity just for that reason.

I guess lots of pros are rolled into this by once selling an image as a one-time-seller, with a hope to get more images sold later on...

 

[celluloidprop]

If they were smart they could get enough for a new lens from EVERY sale, not one lens from a years worth.

Unfortunately, that's not feasible in the contemporary market.

There are a lot of reasons work has been devalued - near-monopolistic outfits being able to set rates with low royalties, publishing in general going into the gutter, standards getting lowered, etc..

But beyond that, a $500 SLR will produce a file that's suitable for almost any use that a stock image might get licensed for and anyone with a couple of hours can learn to massage files in PS/LR to suit a lot of needs. Certain kinds of commercial photography no longer involve the kind of specialized knowledge that creates value in the minds of laymen.

I'm not saying it's right, or that I don't want commercial photographers to earn a living (I probably overcharge for the little bit of architectural/real estate work I get through my day job in contracting, to be honest - but the people I work with know me well and know that I'll make good on my end), but the market simply will not support what it once did.

 

[huntjump]

Unfortunately, that's not feasible in the contemporary market.

There are a lot of reasons work has been devalued - near-monopolistic outfits being able to set rates with low royalties, publishing in general going into the gutter, standards getting lowered, etc..

But beyond that, a $500 SLR will produce a file that's suitable for almost any use that a stock image might get licensed for and anyone with a couple of hours can learn to massage files in PS/LR to suit a lot of needs. Certain kinds of commercial photography no longer involve the kind of specialized knowledge that creates value in the minds of laymen.

I'm not saying it's right, or that I don't want commercial photographers to earn a living (I probably overcharge for the little bit of architectural/real estate work I get through my day job in contracting, to be honest - but the people I work with know me well and know that I'll make good on my end), but the market simply will not support what it once did.

^^I agree with this. Do i like it? No. but technology is opening up photography to more competition.

Technology can never make up for lack of talent and years and years of experience, but i think it simply has put more cameras out there and more stock photo options. Supply > demand?

i dont think amateurs selling $50 photos are competing in the same 'relevant market' as say Chris or other highly skilled professionals.

 

[Turtle]

All this is true and, while we might not like it, it means we have to move forwards with new ideas, explore more selective and difficult niches, diversify etc.

Yes, a monkey armed with a DSLR and half a clue can produce images that many outfits would be happy to publish and so the rate for stock images is in the gutter. It is not going to change for the better and so the conclusion I have drawn is surely not to fight these things, but identify ahead of time what is happening and evolve (preferably ahead of) the evolving market. To a large degree are you not already doing this, Chris C? I am assuming print sales make up a greater percentage of your income than low-level stock sales... and the stock sale you make good money from I am betting are fairly unique and hard to come by images?

We can't will this away and we won't be able to push prices up a great deal unless we are sitting on an image that really is unique and highly demanded and where there is a perceived return for the user.... and then it will only hold true in that instance. Your average stock image will continue to command peanuts.