| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
NYT Article
Thomas Meredith, Photographer, Assistant
|
Eric Linsley, Photographer
 |
West Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 7:32 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Professional photographers should not be pissed at the so called amateurs who are shooting the pictures...
everyone should be pissed at the companies buying them. Getty is buying the photos instead of going to a professional so its the companies that are keeping these amateurs in business. I mean if you are just a average person with a camera why would you stop if a company is going to pay you for doing it. Well from the photo of the mom it looks like she is using a nice piece of L series glass and also that looks like a 5D mark 2 she is using |
|
Eric Linsley, Photographer
|
West Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 7:42 PM on 03.29.10 |
| ->> I don't know how you could call someone an amateur when they are using pro equipment and getting paid for their photos. If they were using a rebel and a kit lens then I would say yeah they are an amateur. They may not know how to make a good exposure in manual mode but they click the shutter and take the picture so that makes them a photographer |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 10:03 AM on 03.30.10 |
->> "The important thing that a photojournalist does is they know how to tell the story — they know they’re not there to skew, interpret or bias. I’m not sure I’m going to trust an amateur to understand how important that visual communication is.”
While it is encouraging to see an educator like Katrin Eismann, chair/Masters in Digital Photography program/School of Visual Arts, state this obvious sentiment it is important to note that the budget driven, visually illiterate newsroom managers, who have fast become the industry norm for leadership, will choose the cheapest available image every time. "Good enough" is their quality standard and story telling, if they even have the skills to recognize it, is seen as something that takes up too many pages or too much time to produce and therefore is just an expense that should be eliminated along with those people who produce it. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:10 AM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> Eric - Just because someone's using the best gear doesn't make them a professional. In technical terms, someone is considered a professional photographer when photography is their primary source of income. It doesn't have much to do with talent or gear. |
|
Ray Anderson, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 10:45 AM on 03.30.10 |
->> Eric
In the right hands and the right moment even professional shots can be done with a rebel here is shot I did several years ago when the rebel first came out to show my son what he could do with the camera and lens out of the box that I had purchased for him.
http://s84202.gridserver.com/plogger/index.php?level=picture&id=3293
Granted only good for prints up to 13x19 and no where near what an 8x10 large format would give you but not bad for a rebel |
|
Eric Linsley, Photographer
|
West Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> I wasn't saying that you can't make great shots with a rebel. I have made some good pictures with one but on the other hand I'm not a professional photographer by any means yet |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> eric, with all due respect if you are "not a professional photographer by any means yet" why would you post statements like you just did? we can point fingers at these large companies all we want but IF these folks who are selling their rights for $1 or $100 would stop it would have an affect on the market. getty and folks like them are going to try and get the cheapest product out there, if you're selling them a photo for $25 then you're part of the problem. and if you don't understand that you're also a part of the problem. |
|
Eric Linsley, Photographer
|
West Haven | CT | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> I said I'm not a professional yet because as mentioned above a professional photographer is someone where photography is their primary source of income and right now its not for me. I'm hoping someday soon I'll be able to work somewhere in the photography.
I post comments like that because I always read on here that its the people who are selling the photos who are bringing down this business when its the companies like getty who uses these cheap photos instead of getting a great image from a professional.
How can you blame someone for making extra money doing something that is fun and also they like doing. If they have another full time job and they are making $25 a photo and lets say they happen to sell 10 photos a week that is an extra $250 a week and that is also $1250 a month which is not bad for a side job.
It is all business everyone is trying to get the cheapest product and not the better product but you can't blame the producer of the cheaper product. There well always be someone out there under cutting in any kind of business out there. |
|
Steve Violette, Photographer
|
Gulf Breeze | FL | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> "IF these folks who are selling their rights for $1 or $100 would stop it would have an affect on the market"
That IF is just not going to happen - in fact it will get worse sooner rather than later. Companies are buying the cheap images because their business is in jeopardy and the $25 image is "good enough" . THis means budget concerns and decisions on where you spend money and how much to spend. If "good enough" will cover it for now - then that is what they will go with: If as photographers we cannot make a compelling image that is significantly better than "good enough" we need to rethink if we want to be in this business and make a real determination of the perceived value of our work.
The marketplace will ultimately determine the true value of our work. Are there 5 figure opportunities out there - sure, but fewer and fewer because the marketplace is being driven to the lowest common denominator "good enough"
As Eric suggests above - $250 or even $100 per week is a good amount for someone that does it "for fun" and with new technology and editing software the "for fun" gets funner.... and the market value is driven down because the supply is increasing significantly. Sad but true for this old school industry.
Steve |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:59 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> Eric - Both the company and the photographers are to blame.
Most of the amateurs who are selling their images to Getty, royalty free, are a little less at fault, because I believe they simply don't know any better. I really don't think they realize the impact they're having on the rest of the marketplace. Getty, on the other hand, is looking out for their bottom line, and are taking advantage of these part-time shooters. It takes a lot less time and effort, and therefore less money, to sell royalty free images than rights managed photos.
With the advent of low-cost digital SLR and point-and-shoot cameras that produce high-quality images, amateurs are now capable of producing photographs of high enough digital quality for commercial uses (i.e., advertisements in magazines, posters, ect.). Back in the film days it was just too expensive for hobbiests to buy and develop film, buy a scanner, take the time to scan the slides, then email them to a stock agency. It was just too much of a PITA.
Even in the earlier days of digital photography, the cameras that produced images of sufficient resolution required by photo agencies was just too expensive ($3,000 - $5,000) for amateurs. These days, one can buy a 12.2mp digital SLR camera for under $500.
There are a lot of really talented amateurs out there who's primary source of income isn't photography, so they can use their photography to, as you put it, make a little extra money by selling their images (and most of the time royalty free) through stock agencies like Getty.
The problem is that the more amateur photographers sign on with Getty and other stock agencies with RF agreements the less value there is in rights managed imagery. The cost difference between a royalty free image and a rights managed image is, most of the time, very significant, so buyers are willing to sacrifice a little quality for some cost savings. As stock agencies become flooded with amateurs selling royalty free images, the rights managed photographs from professional shooters are becoming hard to notice and almost impossible to sell.
What does this mean? Basically it means people who have made their living by selling rights-managed stock photography are getting less and less revenue because of amateurs who are selling their images, royalty free, for much less just to make "a little extra money." And it also means that people like you who hope to someday make their living selling their photography won't be able to do so, at least through stock agencies, because it's almost impossible to make enough money to make a living by selling royalty free images. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> Photography has gone through a process of commodification.
Here's a good article about how the ancient spice trade markups disappeared due to increased consumer education and how the securities trading business is going through the same process. http://tinyurl.com/y9bqcck
I think today's photography market is going through a similar process. It used to be a select few had the resources to buy a camera, learn how to operate it, and process film and prints.
Now, combining camera technology, a plethora of instructional websites, and numerous outlets, the markup/commission/margin is diminishing to just the bare necessity of operational costs. Companies like Getty can afford to make a nickel an image because they process so many.
Sure, there are differences between individual images than homogeneous commodities like light sweet crude or natural gas, but due to extensive supply chains and logistics, they are more alike than they are different. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:48 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> my goodness Jim, that word is six syllables! I'm only good for up to three syllables...
If none of this is news to anybody, why are there still so many people trying to make a living as a photographer, and so many more who wish they could make a living as a photographer?
I used to be able to make a living as a photographer. And until this Great Recession, I was doing pretty well. However, in the past 18 months, I have gotten ZERO marketing or advertising clients. All the agencies I used to work for have bare bones staff, and very few clients. Which means that I have very few clients. Honestly, I can say my editorial work has picked up a great deal since the beginning of the year. But, making a living by freelancing as an editorial photographer is nearly impossible.
Can we blame this on stock photography and amateurs? Not solely. I lean more at blaming the advances in technology. And, there is now way we can control that. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 3:52 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> Nick, photographer has 4 syllables :) |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> I'm bad at math too, apparently. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 4:27 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> Are we allowed to blame Obama yet? |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 5:31 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> i'm selling my gear to get a 1098 Ducati. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:32 AM on 03.31.10 |
->> Here's a smoking gun: "Still, the pay, compared with print, is “less, for sure,” Mr. Shapiro of Life.com said, since some professional photographers “are really more excited for the exposure than they are to drive a hard bargain.” In other words, pros are still part of the problem, but not the only part.
None of this is new. Many of the masters of art faced the same challenges. Anyone could own a paint brush and for the masses, good enough was good enough.
The article cited one woman who was making money shooting images of friends and others. Let me pose a couple of questions: Did she "steal" business from a pro?
Or, did she expand the market by getting someone to buy who otherwise would not have bought at the prevailing professional prices because their budget wasn't big enough?
The answer is "Yes". Both are true, but my feeling is it's a lot more of the expansion than then stealing. If a client comes in and says something like "we've got some pictures that someone else has taken but thought it was time to step up to something of better quality" you've just met someone who is a part of the expansion. A certain percentage of those will move up to professional photography. The others are bottom feeders who you don't want anyway.
I can't prove it, but I would suspect that these folks with Rebels have probably impacted WalMart or Sears Photo Studios as much as anyone. It's also possible that they have seen a increase, but I'm guessing not.
There is a progression sometimes that occurs within any industry. Some consumers progress; others do not. This is how I think the model works for photography at this point:
* Beginner Low expectation Low Cost Low Value
*
*
*
*
*
* Value Buyer Medium Expectation:Looks for best combo of P/V
*
*
*
*
*
*
* High Buyer Expects the best--willing to pay for it
The use of Flicker by Getty has no doubt impacted professionals. I, along with others have preached niches - niches - niches.
It does little good to sit in the corner and cry. Develop new skills and find new markets. Take care of your clients. Look at the medium and high buyer segments. Don't waste too much time on the first segment unless you can make money - tough to do against free or almost free.
Make sense? |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 03.31.10 |
->> Maybe a lot of people here (myself included) need to accept that we (I) have to give up on making money from photography, and go back to enjoying it as a hobby.
I can't fault anyone for buying something that's "good enough" rather than the "best", as that's what I usually do with my own purchases.
It bothers me that now that there are such fantastically capable cameras and other gear available, there's so much less incentive to own it. Maybe that's part of the reason why my D3 sits unused, while I'm out using my Leica M camera.
It's all the "fault" of digital photography making things so much less expensive and easier to do..... but that's supposed to be progress. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 03.31.10 |
->> "I can't fault anyone for buying something that's "good enough" rather than the "best", as that's what I usually do with my own purchases."
Michael,
If the persons buying "good enough" are supposed to be the leaders in an industry, as in editors and publishers whose charge was supposed to be providing the best information and visuals possible for their readers, than they can be and should be faulted for lowering their standards for purely financial reasons which in turn carries the risk of dumbing down those same readers. |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 03.31.10 |
->> David, I agree. But in most circumstances, the people who are demanding the best are paying for the best. This is good for photographers until that buyer is fired for not being able to come in under budget. So we wave goodbye to an ally, and welcome in their replacement who has $200 to play with but needs to fill 20 pages.
This all almost makes Fotoquote obsolete. It doesn't matter what the program tells you/us because 97 times out of 100, the buyer doesn't have that price in their budget. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 03.31.10 |
| ->> Thomas - BINGO. A year and a half ago I had to buy a new car. Man I would have loved a Lexus, but I only had the budget for a Corolla. There was a time a while back where a Lexus might have been doable. Financial situation has changed for me. So I got the Corolla because it was the best product I could afford. Not the best on the market but the best intersection of need and cost. Doesn't mean I didn't WANT the better car. Doesn't mean that 5 years ago if I had the same decision to make I couldn't have gotten the better car. All it means is, what I could afford 5 years ago doesn't really matter. What matters is what I can afford now. And while I couldn't buy THE BEST, I could buy something GOOD ENOUGH. |
|
Mike Strasinger, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 3:37 PM on 03.31.10 |
| ->> Thomas , You are right on the money |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 04.01.10 |
->> Jim wrote:
"Photography has gone through a process of commodification.
Here's a good article about how the ancient spice trade markups disappeared due to increased consumer education and how the securities trading business is going through the same process. http://tinyurl.com/y9bqcck
I think today's photography market is going through a similar process. It used to be a select few had the resources to buy a camera, learn how to operate it, and process film and prints.
Now, combining camera technology, a plethora of instructional websites, and numerous outlets, the markup/commission/margin is diminishing to just the bare necessity of operational costs. Companies like Getty can afford to make a nickel an image because they process so many."
Jim, the two dollar business term for what once made margins higher in any trade - including photography - is barrier to entry. I first heard Jack Welsh of GE use it. A example of industries with high barriers to entry are jet engines or the aircraft manufacturing. Gotta have expertise, relationships and a incredible amount of money.
So, has digital lowered the barrier to entry for photography? No question. Thomas' comment that the good client getting replaced by the $200 one is spot on, too.
People, in my other business life, I've had to compete with entities much bigger than anything in this industry. Watching as things go from profitable to commodity happens every day. It's part of the business world.
So, what do you do? Here's the short, ugly answer and one some of you don't want to hear:
You change.
Change is like a giant wave or a high speed train - you can stand there and I guarantee you it will run your ass over, or you can step back, and change what you do, and charge more for it. I tell my people: You can be in front of the wave, or behind it. If you're behind it, you're dead. But the wave is coming either way.
If you are standing still, and you're competing with moms and dads with Rebels, you are dead. There are some fairly obvious ways you can make your work stand out. But you've got to change.
Over the last few weeks, I've tried to get people to quit complaining about what has happened to this industry and THINK. It's not fair, not at all. But the forces that changed this industry are far bigger than anyone can control. It's a giant wave. Do you want to be in front of or behind the WAVE?
There are people on this forum who I've talked to who HAVE embraced change. People WHO HAVE found profitable niches and successful business models. Some of you won't change - instead you'll complain and go down with the ship. What you fail to realize, is that there are more opportunities. You have to work to find them. But, if you do the work, you will find them. I could spend pages writing about it, but ultimately it comes down to embracing change.
Why would you do that? Because Getty et al have size, but they lack speed. Be first, be fast and embrace change. It is the only thing that will save you.
Michael |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 04.01.10 |
->> Michael Myers wrote: "Maybe a lot of people here (myself included) need to accept that we (I) have to give up on making money from photography, ..."
You and others could go ahead and toss in the towel, but I submit the better course of action, providing you really want be a photographer, is reexamine your business models....actually toss it out the window, grind it up into a fine powder and forget it existed.
Technology both in communications, photography and publishing industry change almost daily. Figure out how to use those changes to your advantage and develop a product or service that people will want before the guy/gal next to you does. In other words, look for ways to put your business on the cutting edge. Instead of waiting for change to happen, make change happen.
What can you do instead of posting whiny posts how camera companies, amateurs and the rest of world are against poor little you? Start by creating strategic partnerships with other photographers, businesses and individuals.
Ask yourself what can you can do different that my audience, community and/or target group would appreciate. Don't do what everyone else is doing, do what they are not - you might be pleasantly surprised and find a niche all your own.
Think outside the box.
Eight years ago I wanted to shoot for the Sporting News, Sports Illustrated or any national sports publication. With the nearest pro team 130 miles away my dream didn't look attainable unless I wanted to shoot for free - nah, no thanks. After a year I learned the competition was steep and looked at working with regional publications or newspapers. Again, after a year I found lots of competition along with low to no pay and no guaranteed regular work. Like the pro publications, the entry barrier was pretty high.
Then I came up with the bright idea of starting my own magazine. *blink*blink*blink* I had a winner.
Four years ago the publisher of a weekly paper, a 20 year veteran in the news business who started his paper from the ground up, and I formed a partnership. I supply the content and manage the editorial side of the house, he does the printing, ad sales and business side of the house. We spent two years planning, researching and listening to our target audience. Our partnership was and still is a match made in heaven. I've learn a lot from my partner that I know will help me at a future opportunity.
Our magazine, Field & Court (http://www.fieldncourt.com), is a local, bimonthly color magazine featuring stories, features and lots of photos :-) Our primary area of coverage includes a university, two junior colleges and about 18 high schools. Two and half years later F&C is still going strong. While our ad sales mirrored that of the editorial industry in general, we are grinding along and fully expect to grow as the economy recovers. The opportunities and contacts I've made through the magazine have far more valuable than had I landed a regular gig with SI or SN.
If you want survive as photographer, just do whatever everybody else does - bitch, whine and moan - blame everybody, everything but yourself for your position. OTOH, if you want to be out on the cutting edge, think outside the box; research, test and assess; and keep your eyes open for opportunities that could put you out front. Reexamine your business plan every 18 to 24 months. See how technology can enhance the services you deliver.
Remember, there aren't any cracks in front of you if you are the one out front :-) |
|
Thomas Meredith, Photographer, Assistant
|
Austin | TX | | Posted: 6:05 PM on 04.01.10 |
| ->> thank you clark. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|