Redundancy on Stock Photography

[Taylor]

Okay, this is getting redundant.. ANOTHER THREA FOR STOCK PHOTOS?!?!? Well, theres a reason. This one is not to tout and praise the sites of stock, no, its for a much different cause. Im here to tell you why I stopped, and why you should too. In the beginning, I know I told you all it was good, and to do it, but anyone who listened to me then needs to listen again. CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIPS. Thats what I did. I really was very happy with the poultry sum of money I was making, but then I realized, is this really what I want my photos to be? This photo, that I took an hour to get the lighting and setup, or this one, etc. Do I really want them to be some one-dollar-a-pop-like-this-site-is-a-freakin-dollar-store deal? Is that what I want my work of art, my masterpiece to end up in? No... you want your pride and joy on display in a fine gallery somewhere, on the pages of a magazine, on the television. Maybe even a one of those coffee table books with foliage photoography throughout. The point is, with stock, you get no credit for your art. Your laughed at. Why? Your being taken advantage of. By the stock site owners, and the advertisers that are getting great deals. They laugh in your face because you think you are doing well.

Another reason to cancell those memberships is this. It devalues everthing that photography is about. Less jobs for photographers, more buyers on stock sites. Your hurting not only other photographers, but your hurting yourself by almost giving away your work. Stock will be the end of the hobby unless...

We put this to an end. There still are alot of people out there who wont settle for selling their photos to some jackass nerd who owns his little site, no, the war is far from over. But to keep photography on the up and up, lets stop selling to stock, and start realizing that there are better ways to make money. Ways that will benefit you, others, and the hobby as a whole.

thanks for reading - Taylor

[Will]

I disagree, As a web/graphic designer I can say that I use stock photos allot. For example I got a stock photo of a gear for a logo I made for a client. Well maybe you say why would I get stock photos if I am a photographer? 1. I don't have a gear laying around my house 2. Most of the photos I use I don't have (so thats why you would buy/download a stock photo)


I think, if you would like to make money off of photography and your either to young or are not that good at photography, stock photography is a good choice. Most people wont hire a 14 becuase they think they don't have the maturity level (some don't) and the experience of some photographers. So how would that person make money (of course they don't have to make money but if they want to) stock photography! I'm not saying that stock photography is the best thing.

I really don't see how it "devalues" photography. It doesn't really make less jobs for photographers. Because you cant get stock photography for your wedding, graduation, party.. So as in that part it doesn't degrade photography (correct me if I'm wrong)

Do I really want them to be some one-dollar-a-pop-like-this-site-is-a-freakin-dollar-store deal? Is that what I want my work of art, my masterpiece to end up in? No...

What would you rather them be doing?

I would really like to see what the other members think about this

[Taylor]

So would I.. I would rather sell my hard earned photos for some hard earned cash. Some shoots I do take an hour to get ready for.. drumroll please.. ONE PHOTO! (Some just happend and they take maybe ten seconds, but thats rare) So, for an hour's worth of work, Im getting paid less than minumum wage. Whats more, its not that amount of hours I put in, as much as the quality of the photo itself. If I got an amazing picture of say.. a flower, it would go for as much as a POS picture of a flower. Get it?

When you do stock there is no value set on your photo for how good it is. Sure, it will probably get bought more times, but at 20 cents a purchase, who cares?

And that brings me to my point Will, how much are you making for selling your photos? Twenty cents. What would you do with twenty cents? Can it buy you gum? No. Not even gum. Now lets look at the other side of things, how much is fotolio making? Eighty cents. Not only thats, eighty cents a download. And whos getting the best deal? Well, certainly the advertiser himself, as he does not have to pay for a proffesoinal to come out and shoot pictures of what he is selling. So how much money does he save? Surely more than $200. And who is out of a job? The photographer that he wouldve hired if it had not been for fotolia. And that photographer could, quite possibly, be Bob, Jointhetrain, even you. Dont screw yourself out of potential clients just because you are willing to settle for less because its available. I know opportunities are slim to none at our age, but it doesnt mean we screw over other photographers, and out future in photography.

Will, I dont know if you follow anything about bussiness (Im an avid stock buyer.. well stock funder, bought through my dad of course.. Ah it sucks to be young ) but its all about suply and demand. Ill try to make it easy to understand for you. The more supply, the less the demand is, the cheaper the supply has to be sold at. The less supply, the more demand, the more you can charge. Flooding the market with photos for twenty cents devalues it because you are doing excactly that. Flooding it. Which makes a photo that would normally be $50-$500 a measly twenty cent photo.

In regards to your gear comment, it is not logical in this argument. Just because you didnt have a gear in your house to shoot for a site does not mean that stock is a good thing. I understand that it was useful for you, but that does not make it "good". Also, think about who you just screwed. You just screwed all of us by supporting this flooding of the market. You also screwed the photographer; that was his work of art, and how much did he get? Twenty cents.


So, as a whole, what has our hobby come to? Twenty cents? Is this something that you would be proud of? Do yu want to tell people you get twenty cents for your hard earned photos?

I dont know about you, but I sure as hell dont.

- Taylor

Id also like to hear some other peoples opinions on it. Jointhetrain you touched the topic briefly in another thread of mine, but Id like to hear your reasoning behind why you are not doing it.

[Will]

I'm going to skip down to the lower part of your post first (the gear part) I didn't screw anyone, Why? Well because I got that picture from sxc.hu a free stock photography website. Free! That means the photographer submitted his photos and is not getting anything in return! So obviously people don't care about giving there photos away.
Also you say that stock photography is not the right thing, if its not then what is?

Ok.. now back up at the top

Not every stock website gives you 20 cents some of them give you more so if you have a problem with 20 cents then you should check out some other sites that give the photographer more.

As for potential clients.. I doubt your really "screwing" them just by participating in stock photography...

On most jobs your probably not going to get between $50 $500 for one photo..

As for the hobby at 20 cents, thats for 20 cents a photo which is downloaded so if you take a picture and it gets downloaded 100,000 you make a lot more money then you would by letting your self get hired by a "potential client" to take one picture.. Unless! That clients a billionaire and have no idea how to price your photos (if they suggest things )

[Taylor]

Will, your argument has so many flaws.

First, the "other sites" you are talking about are not there... unless you are talking about shutterfly which costs $15 a month.. and you price the photos.

Than about my pricing, I was pricing for a job.

I really dont think I could change your mind on this subject though..

And the "free photos" is even worse, because it degrades our hobby as a "free service".. somehow that site should be illegal.

Thats my two cents - Taylor

[Will]

How can a free website where the photographers are submitting their photos at their OWN free will be illegal? They want to do it so let them!

If a photographer wants to submit there photos to a free stock website or a paid one it should be up to them not up to other photographers who are against it. You haven't given a good reason why you should not do stock photography except that it downgrades photography as a hobby? And that your losing potential clients...


Give me some good reasons why and them I'll think about changing my views on stock photography.

[Taylor]

Alright Will, I will send you the longest, most bad ass argument on why it is bad that you have ever seen!

After dinner..

[Taylor]

Alright Will, its my turn to convince you that stock photography is something we do not want to be involved in.

The site you got your photo from, which is free, is terrible. It is a terrible thing for our hobby. Now, what was once just twenty cents, is free. I dont care if the taker of the picture dont give a crap, because I do. You, in taking that free picture are supporting that site with your traffic. Now the site does well and makes money. The photographer, makes nothing. Due to his lack of respect for his own work, and his hobby, he nw downgrades photography that much more by giving away his photos. If you are an ad agency, are you going to find a free photo that works for you, or, are you going to hire a photographer to do the shoot? Your going to get that free photo. Now, while this may be all well and good for the ad agencies, we are only hurting ourseleves by selling to stock. Which is twenty cents a photo. And if we paln to make any living out of this at all, then we better start playing doctor, because we are a dying breed. Not those goons running around selling everything to stock sites to make aquick buck mind you, the dying breed is the real photographers, the ones that actually think of their work as art. You should treasure your work more than twenty cents. Okay, which brings me to my next point. You said they sometimes pay you twenty cents each. Well, Im sorry Will, but for me, its still a measely sum of money for my masterpiece. You have to have two thousand downloads to get five hundred dollars. Do you know how hard two thousand downloads is? Things are always better than they seem, and in this case, these sites are all smoke and mirrors. Havent you learned to stay away from the get rich schemes? They never work.

Ill try to reiterate my supply/demand comment earlier, because obviously you overlooked it when you said my argument was lame.

Before stock sites came into being, there was little supply of photography just lying around for people to use. This made the photography industry a very healthy bussiness. People were always searching for a photgrapher because there was not a great supply of them. And with that comes getting paid well. Back then photography was not taken as lightly, it was serious. No one in their right mind ould sell their pictures for twenty cents. Even if it was twenty cents each download. Than, people saw how much was to be gained through the photography market, and everyone and their grandmothers became "professionals" I use that word lightly, because anyone with half respect to the hobby woudnt sell their photos at the price these stock sites are buying.

And Will, let me just point out again who the winners are, and who the losers are. The ad agencies save hundreds of dollars by not hiring a photographer. This unhired photographer could be, like I said before, you, me, ellie, jointhetrain, bob, gustin, stevejobs, etc. etc. Now the stock sites are winning because they get eighty cents.. a pop. and with more than three million users on fotolia, I can only imagine how many photos they have.. which means that if each user got one photo a day downloaded, the site would make *gasp* more than one million dollars a day. And the losers? Well, they are you and me, who once got paid well, and made a living off of creating art, and now we have cookie cutter photos that go for twenty cents. Will, thats two dimes. Thats five nickels. Its unimportant. Think about it. You are trading YOUR art. For two dimes.

Now, I know what you said before about it being hard to find jobs at this age.. I feel you. I know lol, but that does not mean we screw everyone else over, and screw our futures over. Opportunities will come soon enough, if you are looking in the right spot. Or maybe you could end up selling your photos for twenty cents the rest of your life, and be happy in your mediocrity.. Its your choice, but if we continue in this direction, soon it might be hard to give away your photos .

Will, Im not trying to be mean or anything, Im just trying to make a somewhat bold point here. If you disagree with me, Id like to hear you have some intelligent words about it, because so far youve said nothing that means anything. All you have done is ask questions right back. Show me you are right, or let this article convince you. And again, other members, Im DYING to know what you guys think on this subject!