Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe Launches Stock Photo Service With Deep Creative Cloud Integration  (Read 12253 times)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

"…you could launch Adobe Stock right from inside Photoshop and pick an image you think you want to work with."
Logged

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3264
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage

Do Adobe need to sell photographer's images for as little as £0.12?

Is it a wise move for Adobe to sell photographer's images for as little as £0.12?

Adobe...supporting photographers?



Shutterstock sells 750 images (download as much as you want each day for 30 days up to 750 images) for $249.

 
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

Craig Lamson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3264
    • Craig Lamson Photo Homepage

They make Poundland look like they purveyors of Veblen goods. 

I had to google that one :)
Logged
Craig Lamson Photo

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com



Adobe...supporting photographers?



No, IMHO, it's another example of big business stepping on photographers..
Not happy Adobe.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

Adobe as a company has IMHO made it pretty clear these past 2 years that photographers are of secundary importance to them.

This annoucement is focused on the users of images, we're not supposed to be aware. We got these because of remainings imperfections in the web's contents delivery routing. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

we're not supposed to be aware.

Nonsense.

Quote
"Overall, the process is very much like that at iStock or Shutterstock in that potential contributors have to apply to the program by submitting sample images of their work. Once they are in, they will receive 33 percent of the royalties every time one of their image is sold. That’s a pretty high default rate (though very popular photographers who give services like iStock exclusive rights to their image may get higher rates that way — though they also limit their exposure)."
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

Adobe as a company has IMHO made it pretty clear these past 2 years that photographers are of secundary importance to them.

Bernard,

It goes back further. Back when Photoshop CS3 was launched, Adobe included Adobe Stock Photos in Bridge. Yes, is really pissed off a lot of commercial photographers. I was in a meeting at Photo Expo in NYC when Adobe explained that photographers amounted to less than 10% of the Creative Suite marketplace. As you might expect, this explanation went over like a lead ballon.

But this wasn't some evil conspiracy, Adobe was trying to provide easy finding and purchase of stock photos for art directors. That first effort failed and I guess they (Adobe) are revisiting the effort (something I was unaware of).

But this isn't directed at hurting photographers, Adobe has already proven they don't really understand the photography marketplace over and over.

But the real question to ask is whose fault is this? Is it the fault of Adobe for providing a service or the photographers that supply low cost/royalty fee images. There is clearly a demand but who provides the supply? Photographers...that is the group who are ultimately responsible for allowing this market to exist.

So, yeah, blame Adobe for impacting the photo market but blame the real culprits, the photo suppliers that allow this market to exist.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296

But the real question to ask is whose fault is this? Is it the fault of Adobe for providing a service or the photographers that supply low cost/royalty fee images. There is clearly a demand but who provides the supply? Photographers...that is the group who are ultimately responsible for allowing this market to exist.

So, yeah, blame Adobe for impacting the photo market but blame the real culprits, the photo suppliers that allow this market to exist.

I think that's only partly true. That mantra has been the credo in the drugs trade. Target the supply and you'll curtail the demand. Only you don't curtail the demand, you just force the price up (for illegal substances). In legitimate trading it's fighting the trend - which almost always fails - at least, I can't think of a single instance where it's ultimately been successful.

When you and I were teenagers, the closest thing to instant photography (polaroid excepted) were those photo booths one used to find in the underground stations (UK). Today, the world is awash with photography (aka the democratisation of photography) Quality issues aside, it's inevitable that photography succumbs to the laws of supply and demand. Photographers don't like it 'cos they feel undervalued/underpaid but in truth Adobe are only responding to market demand - and that demand will never be curtailed by simply restricting supply.

Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

I think that's only partly true. That mantra has been the credo in the drugs trade. Target the supply and you'll curtail the demand. Only you don't curtail the demand, you just force the price up (for illegal substances).

Well, forcing the price up is ok with me...look, in Chicago there were photographers who beat their chest about how much money they were making by shooting cheap and giving away rights. Their businesses didn't last long but their impact on the market was notable...clients are all about getting cheap art/photos–why should they pay more than they have too? They shouldn't...unless some whores are willing to give stuff away (and there are plenty of photo whores in the photo biz).

If you understand the laws of supply and demand, there is a demand for content...if the supply sells it for near nothing, is it the client's fault for buying it? Nope, it's the fault of the whores for selling too cheap...it's the people who are allowing Adobe to sell cheap shyte for near nothing who is at fault. Got a rebuttal for that? (I didn't think so...)
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296

Got a rebuttal for that? (I didn't think so...)

Very much so ... to name but a few:
The Bunker Hunt brothers - silver in the 1980's
Marc Rich ( that renowned American, pardoned by Clinton, who ended up a Spanish citizen living in Zug) - any number of examples)
Japanese and Korean car manufacturers
Ford Motor Co.
And I could go on ...

Bottom line : artificial pricing (or protectionism) has a limited life span.
Want to re-write the economics101 hand book ? ( I didn't think so...)


Quote
clients are all about getting cheap art/photos–why should they pay more than they have too?
They shouldn't...unless some whores are willing to give stuff away

Last time I looked, Mme Claude wasn't a freebie !  ;)

-----
Edit:
And as an example of predatory pricing , cast your mind back to Freddie Laker and British Airways. Sir Freddie ushered in the era of economical (not to say cheap) transatlantic travel. BA tried to force him out of business, succeeded - just, but that allowed Richard Branson (Virgin) to step-in once Freddie had borne the brunt and before the authorities could intervene. Now look at the market today. If you want to experience protectionist air travel , try flying Alitalia next time ...

« Last Edit: June 20, 2015, 03:33:53 am by Manoli »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

Bottom line : artificial pricing (or protectionism) has a limited life span.
Want to re-write the economics101 hand book ? ( I didn't think so...)
Last time I looked, Mme Claude wasn't a freebie !  ;)

Oh, great, I think you just proved my point :~) There is a market demand and a market supply; if you affect supply, you effect demand.

If you affect demand you impact supply. Right?

So, if you have a bunch of photographers willing to sell out and supply the demand, you can't really blame the clients for the prices demanded. Right? When whores are willing to sell their bodies (read copyrights) you can't really blame the clients for determining prices. The seller is ultimately in command...they can say no when asked, right? But they don't do they? So do, many don't. Is that the fault of clients (read Adobe)? Nope...
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296

But they don't do they? So do, many don't. Is that the fault of clients (read Adobe)? Nope...

Exactly ..

... but in truth Adobe are only responding to market demand
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

Exactly ..

Cool, so Adobe isn't the evil one...photographers trying to take advantage are? That would be progress...as most photographers think that Adobe is the evil one.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

Look, don't think for a moment I'm giving Adobe a pass on this more recent Adobe Stock Photo initiative...I don't. I think it sucks...but I just want to point out there are two players at the table, the sellers and the buyers. Adobe is trying to connect sellers to buyers...but if there are no sellers, there will be few buyers. If photo venders didn't offer dirt cheap solutions (meaning cheap photos) then Adobe would try to make a market in this drivel. And the fact is, the images made available with this service ain't the top line good stuff...it's the more pedestrian less valuable imagery that's painfully available everywhere. So, it's not like Adobe is somehow making a whole new method of buying cheap art magically available overnight.

Again who ultimately is at fault, Adobe or the photographers who shoot that cheap?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

I wondered how long it would be before we saw the Dude here
But really, defending either Adobe or the cheapskate togs is defending the indefensible. They're equally guilty of shafting photographers and photography.

I totally agree here...both Adobe and the content suppliers are guilty of commidizing image content and thus devaluing image content...everybody is guilty but especially those photographers that sell out to content providers.

Really, I'm not defending Adobe so much as accusing the people who are really responsible for negatively impacting the value of photography.

Do you really blame Adobe or do you blame the providers?

Sorry, I blame the providers (cause they-the providers-could always say no).

Adobe is only supplying a demand-they aren't making it. If there was no demand then there would be no supply.

If you think Adobe is making the market, you are giving them too much power.

All Adobe is trying to do is offer a service...doesn't help photographers (which we all seem to advocate)

But there ya go...who really is to blame for the devaluation of imagery?

Adobe? I don't think so...but hey, obviously I'm an Adobe "a·pol·o·gist" so of course, I don't have a friggin' clue...
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

So, yeah, blame Adobe for impacting the photo market but blame the real culprits, the photo suppliers that allow this market to exist.

I totally agree with you Jeff.

I have never agreed for any of my images to be used for commercial applications at those kind of prices.

Now, I am fortunate enough not to have to.

Cheers,
Bernard

Osprey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 102

The problem is that it isn't as hard to supply stock photography as it was in the past, both in taking the actual pictures and in organizing them for sale. Hence, the price for a lot of it has fallen as it appears to be a commodity. Now, if one has specialized skills or access.....
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

I remember well Adobe's previous attempt to enter this market. The Pro Imaging list here in the UK - who are the leading light in challenging this crap both in terms of photographers and the stock agencies -  had several meetings with Adobe at the time to try to influence them and show them the error of their ways and these were in part successful. But it seems Adobe have short memories. Shame on them.

Well, I caught a lot of flack for assessing a degree of blame to the suppliers/photographers on that list. That email list was quick to blame Adobe but slow to accept any blame for their members that agreed to supply images...

Look, photos can't be licensed unless photographers allow licensing...it's not like Adobe is stealing anything.

The blame really (seriously) needs to be laid at the feet of content providers, not the middlemen like Adobe.

Yes, it sucks that Adobe is making cheapo images available, but ya gotta ask why this is happening? Cause there is demand...and Adobe is trying to fulfill that need.

Who's fault is that?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up