Selling Out?
Posted 09/08/2009 - 11:57
Link
benjikan wrote:
It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.
It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.
I somehow doubt I will ever find myself in such a predicament.
Posted 09/08/2009 - 13:06
Link
I'm with you Mike, but some "Idiots" who get a lucky shot sell or give it away and let someone else make loads out of it, A local "pro" who used to make a living, is now selling up, the news papers who were his bread and butter clients are getting it all done for free by amateurs who think they can break in to the market that way, and as soon as they start asking for payment, it's bye-bye time.
I do photography for a hobby no more than that.
I do photography for a hobby no more than that.
Posted 09/08/2009 - 14:12
Link
I suppose the mobile phone has changed the market to some extent, any recent model has a reasonable camera on it with enough megapixels for a decent print. Why pay someone loads of money for a photo when there was no doubt someone standing next to him taking pics on their mobile.
Posted 09/08/2009 - 14:51
Link
It is the same in the wedding industry.....
my plan is diversification.
We offer a multimedia package that many of our competitors can't match. A client would need to hire hire several services to get a similar package, and it would cost more to do it that way.
We charge for event coverage.... one flat fee, nothing to negotiate.
price list for a-la-cart items not offered in the package.
my plan is diversification.
We offer a multimedia package that many of our competitors can't match. A client would need to hire hire several services to get a similar package, and it would cost more to do it that way.
We charge for event coverage.... one flat fee, nothing to negotiate.
price list for a-la-cart items not offered in the package.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 09/08/2009 - 14:58
Link
Mike-P wrote:
I somehow doubt I will ever find myself in such a predicament.
benjikan wrote:
It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.
It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.
I somehow doubt I will ever find myself in such a predicament.
And there are some dafties around here who think its OK to give pictures away gratis. See other thread on watermarking
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Posted 09/08/2009 - 20:41
Link
I'm getting tired of all this insulting...
Its theirs right to give images away, they are putting you out of business, too bad. The fault is the client, the buyer, the regular jow who doe snot value your work anymore.
You are bound to know someone with a DSLR, or a good compact, unless he is clueless he'll take 80% of the pics the pro does, with fairly close quality for the most part.
Images are everywhere and anyone can take them, there is no magic anymore, no one cares about the photographer like they used to. Thats the hard reality, so stop blaming the "idiots".
Not all photography markets are in trouble, some are more gear and creativity demanding and inaccessible to the average joe. So less people nibbling at your heals. However, the same devaluation is there, beware.
Its not a piece of gold that the newbies are giving away for pennies... For a lot of people its worth very little.
Personally I do not make my policy to give away my pictures (except friends). But if people want to do it its their right.
Want to force the market up? Tell the amateurs to price their work high? So seasoned pros get all the business heh?
Not gonna happen, not with stock at least.
Who's gonna pay hundreds of dollars for a pic of a flask? For the same money you can buy a compact and do it yourself and get close results.
I'm not talking about photographic qualities per se, but of accepted quality.
Its theirs right to give images away, they are putting you out of business, too bad. The fault is the client, the buyer, the regular jow who doe snot value your work anymore.
You are bound to know someone with a DSLR, or a good compact, unless he is clueless he'll take 80% of the pics the pro does, with fairly close quality for the most part.
Images are everywhere and anyone can take them, there is no magic anymore, no one cares about the photographer like they used to. Thats the hard reality, so stop blaming the "idiots".
Not all photography markets are in trouble, some are more gear and creativity demanding and inaccessible to the average joe. So less people nibbling at your heals. However, the same devaluation is there, beware.
Its not a piece of gold that the newbies are giving away for pennies... For a lot of people its worth very little.
Personally I do not make my policy to give away my pictures (except friends). But if people want to do it its their right.
Want to force the market up? Tell the amateurs to price their work high? So seasoned pros get all the business heh?
Not gonna happen, not with stock at least.
Who's gonna pay hundreds of dollars for a pic of a flask? For the same money you can buy a compact and do it yourself and get close results.
I'm not talking about photographic qualities per se, but of accepted quality.
Posted 10/08/2009 - 16:16
Link
The big trick to earning money from photography is to take pictures that no else (or at least, very few) people have and that they cannot do for themselves.
A pic of a flask has no rarity value and is therefore worth little. But, to make a personal example, in 1977 I took the last studio pix of The Who before Keith Moon died. I have had, for 30 years, a 60-40 deal with my agent in my favour and that 60% on that picture has earned me, I estimate, around £12,000 over that time, excluding the first exclusive sales which obviously earn money in each country quickly.
I organised that picture myself with the band's management so it was exclusive to me.
Had there been twenty other photographers there, I doubt I would have earned £500 from it in all.
The effect of technology is to open up photography to many more people. That's why you see so many paps scrabbling to make a living.
But another effect is to put mediocre photographer out of business because with so many technicalities taken care of automatically, folk do it for themselves.
Technology does not much affect the original or talented photographer. He (or she) is selling his way of looking at things, his ability to add value to the assignment - often his own personality is his biggest asset. The technical ability is taken for granted. In fact, many of the most successful photogs have an assistant to do the technical stuff for them.
If someone sold an exclusive shot for a cover to time for $30 either they or their agent is an idiot.
I only know the editorial business but I can see that many people would baulk at paying a big sum for professional wedding coverage. My niece, though, paid a hefty fee for her wedding pix. Three years on, the money is forgotten but the lovely set of pix the photographers supplied lives on.
A pic of a flask has no rarity value and is therefore worth little. But, to make a personal example, in 1977 I took the last studio pix of The Who before Keith Moon died. I have had, for 30 years, a 60-40 deal with my agent in my favour and that 60% on that picture has earned me, I estimate, around £12,000 over that time, excluding the first exclusive sales which obviously earn money in each country quickly.
I organised that picture myself with the band's management so it was exclusive to me.
Had there been twenty other photographers there, I doubt I would have earned £500 from it in all.
The effect of technology is to open up photography to many more people. That's why you see so many paps scrabbling to make a living.
But another effect is to put mediocre photographer out of business because with so many technicalities taken care of automatically, folk do it for themselves.
Technology does not much affect the original or talented photographer. He (or she) is selling his way of looking at things, his ability to add value to the assignment - often his own personality is his biggest asset. The technical ability is taken for granted. In fact, many of the most successful photogs have an assistant to do the technical stuff for them.
If someone sold an exclusive shot for a cover to time for $30 either they or their agent is an idiot.
I only know the editorial business but I can see that many people would baulk at paying a big sum for professional wedding coverage. My niece, though, paid a hefty fee for her wedding pix. Three years on, the money is forgotten but the lovely set of pix the photographers supplied lives on.
Posted 10/08/2009 - 16:35
Link
Quote:
Technology does not much affect the original or talented photographer. He (or she) is selling his way of looking at things, his ability to add value to the assignment - often his own personality is his biggest asset. The technical ability is taken for granted. In fact, many of the most successful photogs have an assistant to do the technical stuff for them.
Technology does not much affect the original or talented photographer. He (or she) is selling his way of looking at things, his ability to add value to the assignment - often his own personality is his biggest asset. The technical ability is taken for granted. In fact, many of the most successful photogs have an assistant to do the technical stuff for them.
Not just true in photography in my opinion but I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. The real value is in this intangible.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------
You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.
You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.
Posted 10/08/2009 - 22:17
Link
mikew wrote:
Not just true in photography in my opinion but I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. The real value is in this intangible.
Mike
Quote:
Technology does not much affect the original or talented photographer. He (or she) is selling his way of looking at things, his ability to add value to the assignment - often his own personality is his biggest asset. The technical ability is taken for granted. In fact, many of the most successful photogs have an assistant to do the technical stuff for them.
Technology does not much affect the original or talented photographer. He (or she) is selling his way of looking at things, his ability to add value to the assignment - often his own personality is his biggest asset. The technical ability is taken for granted. In fact, many of the most successful photogs have an assistant to do the technical stuff for them.
Not just true in photography in my opinion but I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. The real value is in this intangible.
Mike
I agree entirely. Professionals have to provide quality day in day out, and it's the photographer's mind and eye that are pivotal. The camera is the tool and the investment in the best gear adds the extra element which allows the pro to take that extra special image..
I have come across a number of wedding photographers with humble gear, who get rather irritated by the compact user who boasts that their tiddly camera has a higher MP count....the 'troll' might have the latest all singing all dancing high feature compact that takes great pictures from time to time, but on a daily basis I think not.....
Ben, thanks for the insight
Z-1p, K-1, P50
F50 1.7. SMC-FAs 24, 35, 50 1.4, 85, 135. HD-FA15-30, DFA24-70, D-FA*70-200. The SMC-FA Limited Trinity.
Metz 45 CL-4, AF500FTZ. AF540FGZ.
Some Mamiya and some Nikon
F50 1.7. SMC-FAs 24, 35, 50 1.4, 85, 135. HD-FA15-30, DFA24-70, D-FA*70-200. The SMC-FA Limited Trinity.
Metz 45 CL-4, AF500FTZ. AF540FGZ.
Some Mamiya and some Nikon
Posted 12/08/2009 - 07:44
Link
I've seen this argument surface a few time in various places. People fuming because they can't make a living from photography anymore. People who think that their photos are worth what THEY deem them to be worth, and it's everyone elses fault for devaluing them. Wedding photographers who believe themselves to be in some sort of sacred industry that is being worn away by unscrupulous (sp?) individuals selling cheap images, or doing it for free.
Things have changed and what was once a high earning industy isn't the same anymore. The sooner people realise this and stop whinging the better for them. If there are people selling images cheaper than the next..well..why not? it's market forces, if it can be cheaper then it generally will. People won't stop bringing digital cameras to weddings just because we don't want to put the photographer out of buisness.
At the end of the day if someone prefers to pay nothing for an image they took, over paying sometimes very high prices for an image someone else took then who's problem is it? Not the customer that's for sure.
Things have changed and what was once a high earning industy isn't the same anymore. The sooner people realise this and stop whinging the better for them. If there are people selling images cheaper than the next..well..why not? it's market forces, if it can be cheaper then it generally will. People won't stop bringing digital cameras to weddings just because we don't want to put the photographer out of buisness.
At the end of the day if someone prefers to pay nothing for an image they took, over paying sometimes very high prices for an image someone else took then who's problem is it? Not the customer that's for sure.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
428 posts
17 years
Paris,
France
Someone on another photography forum , stated that a photographer sold their image for a cover of TIME Magazine for $30. It was sold through a stock photography agency called iStockPhoto. That is sadly unfortunate. It also represents the present state of affairs for many photographers attempting to make a living by their craft.
It is for this reason, that I am glad that I am a fashion photographer. It is impossible to sell stock of fashion shoots after more than three months as the next collections are already being prepared to be shot for the next season of fashion magazines.
Every editor knows which designers have come out with which collection and images must always be current. There are instances where fashion photography is sold as stock. If there is a fashion retrospective or a special article on a specific designer. Several of my older images from a magazine in France called Madame Figaro were used in a book about the Italian Designer Emanuel Ungaro, but that was a book and not a magazine.
Like in the music business, photographers outside of fashion are getting royally screwed in terms of fee's. However, they are still in a good position to negotiate royalties. Most image bank agencies take between 40-60 percent and that IS the norm. In my venue the standard across the board fee taken by a photographer agents is 25%.
It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.
Unfortunately, there is a line of photographers prepared to take your place for that $30, if you decide to say no to the proposition. A new business model must eventually surface for photographer's to be able to survive. Perhaps the new pro-photographers of the future will be all of you.
http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1181