DominikDUK
Well-known
Frank can't agree more Getty and Corbis are pure evil and together unfortunately own most of the famous historical images (Hutton Archives and others), they also killed pretty much the entire market. Getty and Corbis also own quiet a few microstock agencies. I wonder what the EU and US monopoly control/ justice dept./Sec/etc... were thinking when they allowed the evil twins to acquire one agency after another. The two own I believe a lot more than 70% of the picture market.
Dominik
Dominik
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
DominikDUK
Well-known
And what's the Vatican's/Monks main topic of conversation, "how to make money with images from the monestary".
So the OP will probably soon return to the RFF fold.
Dominik
So the OP will probably soon return to the RFF fold.
Dominik
I Love Film
Well-known
But sometimes, it's tremendous fun to take advantage of a dunce or an ignoramus, and really gyp him good. Pay him a dollar.....ha ha ha ha!!
Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks
In the example I gave with Time magazine, the guy should have been paid the $5000 because that was what the usage was worth.
I Love Film
Well-known
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Well, I once did something similar. I was in a camera shop and a young girl was selling a Leica M2. This was in the 'eighties and prices were pretty low in the UK. The dealer made a very low offer and the girl was obviously unhappy. So I asked the dealer (who I knew) if I could make an offer and he told me to go ahead. I offered her half-way between the dealer's offer and what I thought it would sell for in London, which was a lot more.
The long and the short of it is that she got a decent price, the dealer got the satisfaction of not buying a camera he didn't want and I got a nice Leica plus I got some nice pictures of the girl's mother for a project I was doing on older women.
It doesn't make me a good person or a bad person but three people were happy that day.
I Love Film
Well-known
That's very generous of you but not quite the same scenario.
Well, I once did something similar. I was in a camera shop and a young girl was selling a Leica M2. This was in the 'eighties and prices were pretty low in the UK. The dealer made a very low offer and the girl was obviously unhappy. So I asked the dealer (who I knew) if I could make an offer and he told me to go ahead. I offered her half-way between the dealer's offer and what I thought it would sell for in London, which was a lot more.
The long and the short of it is that she got a decent price, the dealer got the satisfaction of not buying a camera he didn't want and I got a nice Leica plus I got some nice pictures of the girl's mother for a project I was doing on older women.
It doesn't make me a good person or a bad person but three people were happy that day.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Getty and Corbis didn't kill the industry, though they helped speed up what was inevitably going to happen. What killed the industry was technology and the downturn of the economy as well. I am just speaking about the photo stock industry here. There were also quite a few over bloated, self hyped photographers in this mix as well.
Tony Stone, remember them, was one of the first agencies to start buying up smaller ones in the early '90s. This is how they set foot here with a large office and grabbed a fare share of the US market. Bill Gates had an interest in media. Corbis/Microsoft started out by buying/licensing the rights to images of museum collections. Wasn't it him who said, "If one controls the media, one controls the world."? Getty started out pretty soon after by a chance meeting of Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein on an airline flight. On that flight they hatched the motion of Getty Images. Some small agencies joined forces to hold off the inevitable. These small agencies didn't have the money or backing to survive, knowing what they had to do in the face of burgeoning digital technology.
History was set in place.
Tony Stone, remember them, was one of the first agencies to start buying up smaller ones in the early '90s. This is how they set foot here with a large office and grabbed a fare share of the US market. Bill Gates had an interest in media. Corbis/Microsoft started out by buying/licensing the rights to images of museum collections. Wasn't it him who said, "If one controls the media, one controls the world."? Getty started out pretty soon after by a chance meeting of Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein on an airline flight. On that flight they hatched the motion of Getty Images. Some small agencies joined forces to hold off the inevitable. These small agencies didn't have the money or backing to survive, knowing what they had to do in the face of burgeoning digital technology.
History was set in place.
Tina Manley
Newbie
I make my living leasing stock photos online. The stock industry has changed drastically in the past 10 years and not for the better. I use to get 10 to 100 x what I now get for the same usage. I blame microstock and the devaluing of photography in general. It is still possible to make a living leasing stock but it's much, much harder than it used to be.
Tina
Tina
Steve M.
Veteran
I think what Tina said is really true. Images have been devalued, but that's the technology that did that. Digital cameras, the internet, multi media, etc have produced so many images that it's impossible to keep up w/ them. When I was younger, getting a Life or Look magazine was a big thing. Where else could you see such great photographic images?
Now, modern society moves at a break neck pace (we don't notice it because we're used to it), and images are slammed at us constantly, everywhere and anywhere. I can't even go to a post office in a big city, or stroll down a grocery store isle w/o being bombarded w/ images and sounds that are trying to get me to buy something. If I go to a fast food joint, there's usually a TV blaring and displaying all manner of strange stuff. Driving or walking down a street puts you smack in the middle of store front ads and images, along w/ huge signs on poles and large billboards.
Something is generally not worth much if it's everywhere and free. If I didn't have a computer connection my idea of images would be totally different than what it is now. There would be time to spend w/ an image, not be prodded along to see the next one w/ just a mouse click. Besides, I say Never Mind the Bollocks!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyEZ_Pg560
Now, modern society moves at a break neck pace (we don't notice it because we're used to it), and images are slammed at us constantly, everywhere and anywhere. I can't even go to a post office in a big city, or stroll down a grocery store isle w/o being bombarded w/ images and sounds that are trying to get me to buy something. If I go to a fast food joint, there's usually a TV blaring and displaying all manner of strange stuff. Driving or walking down a street puts you smack in the middle of store front ads and images, along w/ huge signs on poles and large billboards.
Something is generally not worth much if it's everywhere and free. If I didn't have a computer connection my idea of images would be totally different than what it is now. There would be time to spend w/ an image, not be prodded along to see the next one w/ just a mouse click. Besides, I say Never Mind the Bollocks!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziyEZ_Pg560
celluloidprop
Well-known
Photography was once a specialized skill - getting an image that would print in a magazine or catalogue required a certain level of knowledge that wasn't supremely common. It also required skill and care to make slow-ISOs and expensive film work.
Today, digital is free - once you've bought the Rebel, anyone can use it in the office to make an image that will likely be usable. Some companies require great images, even many. But a lot of them are perfectly happy with good. We can gnash our teeth all we want about devaluation, but if you're not working with special skills or knowledge, your work won't be as valuable as once upon a time.
Today, digital is free - once you've bought the Rebel, anyone can use it in the office to make an image that will likely be usable. Some companies require great images, even many. But a lot of them are perfectly happy with good. We can gnash our teeth all we want about devaluation, but if you're not working with special skills or knowledge, your work won't be as valuable as once upon a time.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
10-100x? 100x for sure! My income is barely a quarter of what it was 3-3 1/2 years ago.
Araakii
Well-known
mrrobleyleica
Member
Selling photos online, any money to be made?
I've had a quick look through this thread, obviously some strong views. Some points have not made sense, here's my bit.
Internet based stock photos / image selling has transformed the economics of certain areas of photography and illustration (my area of work, trained and worked as a graphic designer, now an illustrator).
It's fairly simple. Most designs are made to a tight budget, if that's small (which it can be now in a recession) so is the fee for an image. If some image can be found that fits the brief for $1 that's great for the designer, his fee may be fixed so cost cutting like this is his/her profit.
Some people never understand how much to charge for using their work, any number of reasons for that. Some simply don't care because they can live on peanuts, or because they like to undercut to get an advantage, very irritating. I say some undercharge because their work is below par and are rich dilettantes.
For a massive fashion based multi million pound ad campaign, an ad agency won't use stock images. A photographer or illustrator who can sell a $1 image 250,000 times has been lucky. If it was more they may not sell any, because there's another one just as 'good' for $1 somewhere i the world, that's the internet for you.
Internship (how did that crop up?) sounds crazy to me. It's usually in the 'professions' not on the factory floor. If it's a short term foot in the door and is a good experience, well, that's their choice, might be good. It could be a good way of deciding if that job is for them, not easy. If it takes away a real job that already exists, that should be outlawed, if it were possible.
It's not slavery as nobody is forcing them. If they are forced to get the coffee and dry cleaning, it's a poor boss in charge and a waste of everyones time, that's all and that may be an education for some.
In the film and TV industry there are huge numbers of interns. In PR there were always loads of rich kids, they used to be called 'friends of the boss' and were young inexperienced relatives of a somebody who was loaded and could do a few things around an office. They would usually end up licking envelopes if they were rubbish. The best got a job, in TV.
Most of these modern interns don't have a mortgage, a family. It's their life choice and as long as it doesn't affect the job market for experienced workers it shouldn't be an issue. I don't know if it has, yet?
I bet half the entourage behind the top fashion shooters are unpaid dilettantes. If they were paid well, the job wouldn't exist, who wins there? I was lucky, when I left college nobody worked for nothing, and few could get work - it was the last big recession. Now, there are much bigger numbers of students leaving college and no jobs, how did that happen? Crazy!
Thousands want to be TV cooks, film makers, TV researchers, work for fashion labels or magazines. If it's not fixed term or under contract I suppose it's a fact of the economic situation the mad bankers have got us all in. I don't see unpaid nurses doctors or engineers though. Underpaid maybe - it's seems to be okay for some - not others. In the ideal world we would all get paid a fair wage for the hours we work, unfortunately it's not fair all the time, will it ever be? I live with it, do my best and hope it's better in the future for my kid, that's all I can do. Deep.
I've had a quick look through this thread, obviously some strong views. Some points have not made sense, here's my bit.
Internet based stock photos / image selling has transformed the economics of certain areas of photography and illustration (my area of work, trained and worked as a graphic designer, now an illustrator).
It's fairly simple. Most designs are made to a tight budget, if that's small (which it can be now in a recession) so is the fee for an image. If some image can be found that fits the brief for $1 that's great for the designer, his fee may be fixed so cost cutting like this is his/her profit.
Some people never understand how much to charge for using their work, any number of reasons for that. Some simply don't care because they can live on peanuts, or because they like to undercut to get an advantage, very irritating. I say some undercharge because their work is below par and are rich dilettantes.
For a massive fashion based multi million pound ad campaign, an ad agency won't use stock images. A photographer or illustrator who can sell a $1 image 250,000 times has been lucky. If it was more they may not sell any, because there's another one just as 'good' for $1 somewhere i the world, that's the internet for you.
Internship (how did that crop up?) sounds crazy to me. It's usually in the 'professions' not on the factory floor. If it's a short term foot in the door and is a good experience, well, that's their choice, might be good. It could be a good way of deciding if that job is for them, not easy. If it takes away a real job that already exists, that should be outlawed, if it were possible.
It's not slavery as nobody is forcing them. If they are forced to get the coffee and dry cleaning, it's a poor boss in charge and a waste of everyones time, that's all and that may be an education for some.
In the film and TV industry there are huge numbers of interns. In PR there were always loads of rich kids, they used to be called 'friends of the boss' and were young inexperienced relatives of a somebody who was loaded and could do a few things around an office. They would usually end up licking envelopes if they were rubbish. The best got a job, in TV.
Most of these modern interns don't have a mortgage, a family. It's their life choice and as long as it doesn't affect the job market for experienced workers it shouldn't be an issue. I don't know if it has, yet?
I bet half the entourage behind the top fashion shooters are unpaid dilettantes. If they were paid well, the job wouldn't exist, who wins there? I was lucky, when I left college nobody worked for nothing, and few could get work - it was the last big recession. Now, there are much bigger numbers of students leaving college and no jobs, how did that happen? Crazy!
Thousands want to be TV cooks, film makers, TV researchers, work for fashion labels or magazines. If it's not fixed term or under contract I suppose it's a fact of the economic situation the mad bankers have got us all in. I don't see unpaid nurses doctors or engineers though. Underpaid maybe - it's seems to be okay for some - not others. In the ideal world we would all get paid a fair wage for the hours we work, unfortunately it's not fair all the time, will it ever be? I live with it, do my best and hope it's better in the future for my kid, that's all I can do. Deep.
Last edited:
Tina Manley
Newbie
Sorry! I've been working and haven't checked the forum. I did mean that I'm getting about 1/10 as much for each photo lease and, while it's true that sales have increased considerably, they are not 10X so I'm making less. I would much rather lease one photo for $100 than 10 photos for $10 each but that is the way the market is going. Photography has been greatly devalued and I blame microstock and royalty free leasing.
Chris, yes, the internet has made sales much easier. I sell stock all over the world now when before I was mostly limited to the USA. However, the internet has also made millions of photos available to the same buyers. Some people are willing to let their photos be used for credit only. They aren't making their living with photography. The only way to get around this is to be sure that your photos are better than any that are available for free!! It's a really difficult way to make a living these days!
Chris, yes, the internet has made sales much easier. I sell stock all over the world now when before I was mostly limited to the USA. However, the internet has also made millions of photos available to the same buyers. Some people are willing to let their photos be used for credit only. They aren't making their living with photography. The only way to get around this is to be sure that your photos are better than any that are available for free!! It's a really difficult way to make a living these days!
Robert147
Newbie
I might be a newbie here but I can assure you there is money to be made from selling photos. It can't replace my day time job but I'm doing fine.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
There is a realignment in all the arts going on, especially those classified as "commercial". The writer is confronted with ereaders. The musician deals with all kinds of electronic piracy and devaluation. This is the paradigm for the 21st Century and photography is no different. People can sell their work cheaply or give it away, as has always been the case.
I'm happy to sell for what the realistic market will bear while paying for my equipment, supplementing my retirement income, boosting my ego with usage world-wide and having fun in the bargain!
I'm happy to sell for what the realistic market will bear while paying for my equipment, supplementing my retirement income, boosting my ego with usage world-wide and having fun in the bargain!
.... _
-
there is some enlightening reading and stats to be found at the following link ( no 5 of 6 ). All six are worth reading.
http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2011/11/02/my-internet-based-photography-business/
http://www.terragalleria.com/blog/2011/11/02/my-internet-based-photography-business/
Bill Clark
Veteran
I don't sell photographs on line.
The photographs I make are of people.
They sell from my studio.
The photographs I make are of people.
They sell from my studio.
.... _
-
An artist friend of mine told me of a little artist shop he uses for supplies which usually has a few paintings by local artists hanging on the walls for sale. Chatting to the owner one day about a painting which had been on sale for over two years for £150 with no interest, my friend suggested he put the price upto £1000. He did and it sold within a week. Says a lot about the mentality of art buyers.