True, and the problem I encountered when speaking to designers and small businesses were the absurd prices they were being asked to pay for generic imagery by the likes of Getty. The old major libraries left the door wide open for the emergence of new pricing models.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin,
Abusrb is a moving number.
Phtotography that costs $300,000 but raises sales on an international brand by 400% is a deal, consequently a $10,000 stock photograph that is nothing more than a retread of an old concept . . .well yes, that can be absurd, but not because of the $10,000, or even if it's $1.
Photographers love the photograph, talk about the photograph, constantly try to reinvent the photograph, but usually give very little thought as to whether the photograph they shoot for commerce moves product or not and don't really think that if their photograph can have a desired effect on commerce that it is worth more.
Regardless of portfolios, locations, photographic style, I can give you about ten reasons why someone should hire a photographer, or buy a photograph and though the final photograph is very important, it's still about number 3 on the list.
Still, the estabilished stock agencies didn't really leave the door open for microstock, this is just the current pattern of the stock photography industry in general.
Add more images, sell for less, then add a lot more images, sell them for less, usually to try to appease an owner or the stockholders.
Stock has been moving in that direction for a decade and though microstock or dollar stock sounds like a new concept, it really isn't, it just has more acceptence.
Since my income is derived by specific assignment work, the proliferation of stock does nothing but improve my market because once it all is available and all looks the same, an advertiser has to do something that is more unique.
This doesn't mean that there is not good and unique stock in the marketplace, but it is very hard to identify.
JR
