istockphoto - I got rejected three times!

[emraphoto]

I have friends who are on board with Magnum, VII and Redux. I am on board with Redux.

Last year, one of the fellas (widely considered one of VII's rising stars and recipient of a Gugenheim) had 3 assignments.

Speaking with Perrie Wardell, Redux management, last week I learnt that the assignment flow has dried up to a trickle. "it's just not the way the
industry works anymore".

These are not small agencies.

 

[saxshooter]

Half of the VII founding members and a couple of Magnum photographers are friends of mine and I have worked with them in the field on various news stories, and have even taught workshops with some of them.

I can assure you that while these guys have ongoing personal projects (which is what I think you are incorrectly describing as "shooting on spec" or shooting "in a manner that is very similar to stock"), most of them WHO ARE MAKING A LIVING AT PHOTOJOURNALISM are rarely just showing up at a location without some sort assignment or outside means of getting there (ie, a grant, a corporate job, foundation work, an invitation to a show opening or speaking engagement).

You are making some valid points. But when you say the work "is shot in a manner very similar to stock", I can't agree with that.

 

[JayGannon]

I couldnt agree, Redux is not the average business model and is not really representative of the agency market to be honest.

I have worked at a number of agencies over the years, in various roles, and the suggestion that the majority of their work is done on spec is not my experience at all. Some photographers take time out from assignments to shoot long term projects but these are not as stock. Stock is very different.

I would estimate that 80%+ of agency work is for NGO and Periodicals of various sorts, and the other 20% is made up of spec work, usually long term projects whoch are not really comparable to stock. Not saing your experience is wrong just that I dont see it as representative of the market out there at the moment, certainly not the agency market at any rate.

Shooting on spec shouldnt be considered the same as shooting a long term personal project.

EDIT: As all said above while I was typing this.... must type faster in future.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Well, nice to see the discussion on this thread fired up again...by the way I completely gave up the idea of doing stock! Good luck to who wants to do...

 

[emraphoto]

You are right. Folks are not just showing up and shooting. A lot of work is funded through grants, awards, revenues from prior pieces put into syndication via the agency, gallery representation etc.

the fellow running Magnum's New York office two years ago was shocked when I explained I was no longer focused on CP and wire. "How do you survive relying on assignment work in this day and age. It's simply not there" he went on to say. That was my epiphany.

Since then, I have made a pretty good living shooting in the prospective model. It just be added that I do write a lot of grant applications to assist in this process.

to be totally honest, not to be mistaken with rude, I am a bit surprised that you appear to believe assignment work is a healthy segment of the industry?

I am not trying to be argumentative for no particular reason. I do think it would help folks in the beginning stage to be privy to some of this information.

 

[emraphoto]

I must also now head out to shoot. I loom forward to the input fellas.

Jay, I have found the NGO circuit to be pretty much dried up as of late. Where they are helpful is for reducing cost in the field and entry into stories. As far as funding work the Pulitzer foundation and likewise endeavors have proven far more helpful than any of the NGO's.

This is of course my personal experience.

 

[JayGannon]

Erm I wont say thats its live a nice life healthy but its pay the bills and weather the storm healthy. Particularly the NGO work I've found is still relativly strong. Periodical work is through the floor unless your a 'name'. Grant funding is pretty strong particularly the 'we'll cover your international travel and board if the NGO pays you a day rate' ones.

I think the days of walking through as a mediocre photojournalist (Not referrring to you at all) and living a relativly cosy life doing easy work is over, people need to find a good niche and capatalise on it, they need to go back to working on people and contacts, not relying on fixers on the ground so much, building their own contact base, increasing their own skills beyond photography (I'm learning Arabic at the moment), people need to move into being able (if not willing at least able) to shoot cut and deliver a 3 minute video segment for a website (What I specialise in helping agencies dead with) and do do in the field ambiesnt recording and interviews to back up their photography. I think we hear the cry of photojournalism is dead every few years but in reality its usually photojournalism is dead long live photojournalism.

Its been and going to be a hard few years, but spend the time wisely and keep your head down, make contacts, improve your versatility and flexibility and the market will recover soon, in fact I'm see ing recoverly already in my part of the world, not enough to make me happy yet but 'green shoots' at least.

 

[sirius]

Hi, I'm a graphic designer. Ignoring the discussion and emotion that comes with trying to define quality, I'd like to point out that subject matter and story is what's really important. Your photos just are not what I would go to stock photography to find. Answer the question of what your market is looking for and you'll probably have more success. You might need to get serious about it if you want to do this professionally, hire models, and have all your model releases ready. I'm guessing that's not the kind of photography you want to do, but remember, people buy stock because it's photos that they can not take themselves easily and because they need a specific subject matter.

 

[JayGannon]

I must also now head out to shoot. I loom forward to the input fellas.

Jay, I have found the NGO circuit to be pretty much dried up as of late. Where they are helpful is for reducing cost in the field and entry into stories. As far as funding work the Pulitzer foundation and likewise endeavors have proven far more helpful than any of the NGO's.

This is of course my personal experience.

Thats weird I've found NGO work is still strong enough, I dont know where your based though so maybe different circumstances Europe/Asia/USA etc.
I see that they are not conducive at all these days to you shooting your story on their dime, they want a lot more control over the final product and a lot more of what they want in the pictures, but still relativly receptive.

 

[JayGannon]

Hi, I'm a graphic designer. Ignoring the discussion and emotion that comes with trying to define quality, I'd like to point out that subject matter and story is what's really important. Your photos just are not what I would go to stock photography to find. Answer the question of what your market is looking for and you'll probably have more success. You might need to get serious about it if you want to do this professionally, hire models, and have all your model releases ready. I'm guessing that's not the kind of photography you want to do, but remember, people buy stock because it's photos that they can not take themselves easily and because they need a specific subject matter.

Heheh thats exactly why I will never shoot Microstock. I have no interest in whoring myself for 2 dollars for a photo. Its devalues the indutury and devalues photographers as a group and a profession. If a designer needs a photo he should hire a photographer to maek him that photo, gaah no I'll leave it at that before I start ranting about how I would like the world to be and how its not at all the way it is =):angel:

 

[sirius]

I looked through the tread now and see the person who posted answered his questions. The other discussions are very interesting but I don't have a lot of experience with that.

Jay, I'm in no way defending stock photography. I would prefer the use of a dedicated photographer any time. In my experience, it is always better and more personal. Most people can tell when a photo is from stock, and that's a really bad quality.

 

[JayGannon]

I looked through the tread now and see the person who posted answered his questions. The other discussions are very interesting but I don't have a lot of experience with that.

Jay, I'm in no way defending stock photography. I would prefer the use of a dedicated photographer any time. In my experience, it is always better and more personal. Most people can tell when a photo is from stock, and that's a really bad quality.

Thats why I stopped I was going to take my personal frustrations at the people who shoot stock out on you, decided better not to 😛

 

[gnuyork]

His success is minimal too. To make $2000 a month on iStock you have to sell a lot of images. A lot. For pennies. No thanks. I refuse to give my work away, I have to eat. I like to eat. Every day!

I get hundreds and sometimes much more for each photo I sell off my website for stock. I don't sell 10,000 photos a month but I make enough to live off my much smaller volume.

Chris, I would be interested in learning how you market your photos to customers/clients.

I have considered trying to do the iStock thing, but I'd rather sell my own images through my website (which doen'st exist yet) like you mentioned.

The advantage of some of these micro sites, however is the exposure to people looking to save money on stock images - which I am sure is huge simply due to popularity of iStockPhoto.

 

[sirius]

So, for those photojournalism experienced photographers out there...how does using a service like Photoshelter work for selling you stuff online? Does that generate much interest? I imagine that there needs to be a lot of promotion to drive the right people to look at the site.

Well, David Alan Harvey once posted a sorrowful note about the demise of the stock income on his blog. I think I might have offended him responding vehemently against the practices of companies like Getty and Corbis...saying they deserved what they got.

I don't want to deny quality work fair reward, but the licensing and restrictions for the work which, in my case is for pretty minimal distribution, was really absurd. It was only large magazine or corporate funding that could afford these services. If I could get work of the quality that DAH produces through, I would pay more for it...but only within reason.

How does $300 USD for an image to be seen by 150 students (which comes to about 3-5 years use) sound? The university would probably renew it indefinitely too. Nope, Corbis would routinely ask $500 for only 3 months use, period. If they are so inflexible then they don't deserve my business!

Working in the education and non-profit sector, I can find almost all the online-use images I need for free through licensed databases like ARTstor or through creative commons / GNU licenses found on Flickr and Wikimedia. Which is a good thing for education.

There needs to be something like Flickr for professional photographers...where they can share, form groups, and have access to the larger market the internet provides. What could the iTunes model do for images?

 

[user237428934]

There needs to be something like Flickr for professional photographers...where they can share, form groups, and have access to the larger market the internet provides. What could the iTunes model do for images?

In my eyes istockphoto and photos is the same as iTunes and music.

 

[JayGannon]

How does $300 USD for an image to be seen by 150 students (which comes to about 3-5 years use) sound? The university would probably renew it indefinitely too. Nope, Corbis would routinely ask $500 for only 3 months use, period. If they are so inflexible then they don't deserve my business!

Working in the education and non-profit sector, I can find almost all the online-use images I need for free through licensed databases like ARTstor or through creative commons / GNU licenses found on Flickr and Wikimedia. Which is a good thing for education.

What could the iTunes model do for images?

The iTunes model is the Istock model and only rewards the photogrpaher with pennies.

300 USD a year would be fair use for commercial low volume work, however you said your non profit so I would factor that into my pricing. However 300 for 5 years usage? Nope I have to make a living off of this and that just doesnt pay the bills unfortunatly. Theres a difference between flexibility which is good, and selling work for pennies (Whch Im not saying 300 is). It all depends on the image. I would price accorinding to how difficult the image was, how much it cost me to produce and its value in the marketplace. A picture of two people shaking hands on a white studio background might only cost me 300 to shoot incuding models, so I would price that differently to a reportage photo taken in the Congo basin of a rare tribal ritual that cost me 5,000 to get there and back to shoot.

 

[sirius]

Yeah, I said that it was 150 students though...that's all the people that would see between those years. Low enrolment courses can have a dozen students per semester. How about $300 for 20 years if only 5 people SEE it over that period? I'm just talking about distribution because that is a factor in stock pricing. The time shouldn't really matter. Not to argue with you, but it's the difference between charging each student $2 to see that photo and something that is unreasonable to ask for the educational value.

- - - I'd just like to add that I really love quality photojournalism and I do want to see it survive.

 

[sirius]

Actually, we've licensed with Magnum before and they are really reasonable. They understand that situations are unique. Corbis and Getty won't even talk to the small-fry when it comes to licensed photos (which is where the real quality work is as opposed to the royalty free).

Yeah, I said that it was 150 students though...that's all the people that would see between those years. Low enrolment courses can have a dozen students per semester. How about $300 for 20 years if only 5 people SEE it over that period? I'm just talking about distribution because that is a factor in stock pricing. The time shouldn't really matter. Not to argue with you, but it's the difference between charging each student $2 to see that photo and something that is unreasonable to ask for the educational value.

 

[emraphoto]

Perhaps of interest? Perhaps common? Maybe the editors or folks who work/worked in that whole machine could chime in?

The new Geographic has a lot of work picked up from image banks. AP in particular. Is this a common occurence or on of those 'every once in a while'.

Doe anyone know the photographers? Know if they were assigned to fill the image banks? On a story? Shooting speculative? Genuinely interested.

 

[saxshooter]

AP Images has an assignment service where their top photographers can be hired for specific work. I haven't seen the new Geographic yet but this may be it.