Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: A veri interesting article in the Times today  (Read 18708 times)

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
    • http://www.graham-mitchell.com
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2010, 09:20:32 AM »

Quote from: Quentin
Here is where one guy, Yuri Arcurs, is now at.  He owes his career to microstock.

http://bit.ly/VXm8O

Quentin

Well, he is supposedly the most successful in the world. It's a bit like saying "actors are doing ok - just look at Tom Cruise!" Not exactly representative.
Logged
Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2903
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2010, 09:35:02 AM »

Quote from: Quentin
Here is where one guy, Yuri Arcurs, is now at.  He owes his career to microstock.

http://bit.ly/VXm8O

Quentin

Just watching that is soul-crushing. I'm glad as an amateur I can shoot whatever I want.

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Quentin on Facebook
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2010, 09:45:18 AM »

Quote from: Graham Mitchell
Well, he is supposedly the most successful in the world. It's a bit like saying "actors are doing ok - just look at Tom Cruise!" Not exactly representative.

True, but the difference is that Yuri and others like him would not have a career in stock but for the micros which have been an entry point for a whole generation of photographers.
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013, 2014 & 2015

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14666
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #63 on: April 03, 2010, 10:57:00 AM »

Quote from: Quentin
What on earth makes stock photographers think that they should be treated as a special case?  Who said photographers should be insulated from the forces of modern business models that have grown out of the internet and digital technology / media?  

Roadkill?  You just didn't move fast enough.  

Quentin




Perhaps, somewhat intentionally, you just 'don't get it' either.

The reason professional photographers of all types get pissed off at the shamateur, as distinct from the amateur with whom I see no fight, is this: the professional learns his trade and through choice of career pays his dues to himself, family, clients, fellow photographers and even to the Inland Revenue. On the other hand, the shamateur pays no dues to anyone and is nothing more than a parasite living off the body photographic, which body he is slowly killing.

You may not like it, may refuse to accept it, but that is the reality.

Rob C

JonRoemer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 133
    • http://www.jonroemer.com/
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #64 on: April 03, 2010, 11:38:19 AM »

Somewhat ironic to note:

aPhotoEditor.com had a recent April Fools post about the NYT going all stock all the time (obviously in light of the article which started this thread.)

But here's Adobe publishing a YouTube video highlighting a new CS5 feature, Puppet Warp.  Be sure to check the photo credit on the bottom right....

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Quentin on Facebook
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #65 on: April 03, 2010, 12:24:00 PM »

Quote from: Rob C
Perhaps, somewhat intentionally, you just 'don't get it' either.

The reason professional photographers of all types get pissed off at the shamateur, as distinct from the amateur with whom I see no fight, is this: the professional learns his trade and through choice of career pays his dues to himself, family, clients, fellow photographers and even to the Inland Revenue. On the other hand, the shamateur pays no dues to anyone and is nothing more than a parasite living off the body photographic, which body he is slowly killing.

You may not like it, may refuse to accept it, but that is the reality.

Rob C

I totally agree with your underlying point and it explains some of the frankly pathetic bleating about the micros we see each time the subject is raised in certain circles. That's because Photography requires no formal training or qualifications.  Ask any wedding pro under pressure from mom and pop outfits. But then many pioneers of photography were amateurs.  The boundarys are flexible.   Our friend Yuri Arcurs started out as an amateur, and now works full time as a pro photographer.  If you are unwilling to accept the competition, then you should have chosen an different profession, because 'twas always thus.

Quentin
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013, 2014 & 2015

bcooter

  • Guest
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #66 on: April 03, 2010, 12:25:49 PM »

Quote from: Quentin
True, but the difference is that Yuri and others like him would not have a career in stock but for the micros which have been an entry point for a whole generation of photographers.


Quentin,

I think your on to something.  Team up with Yuri and write another book on motion footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SItFvB0Upb8


BC
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Quentin on Facebook
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #67 on: April 03, 2010, 01:09:36 PM »

Quote from: bcooter
Quentin,

I think your on to something.  Team up with Yuri and write another book on motion footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SItFvB0Upb8


BC

Brilliant  
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013, 2014 & 2015

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2326
    • sammorganmoore.com
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2010, 01:51:48 PM »

B Roll - Im gonna be doing it

It will be an addition to the (rights managed) image library i built

beachfeature

I already populated that library with grabbing shots on my travels - just need to roll the 5d2 too

S
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 01:53:03 PM by Morgan_Moore »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14666
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2010, 02:31:37 PM »

Quote from: Quentin
If you are unwilling to accept the competition, then you should have chosen an different profession, because 'twas always thus.

Quentin


You see, Quentin? You really, really do not get it: it was not always thus. I have been in that world since 1960 and have seen a lot of it.

I had to spend the best part of six years working in professional photography before it was possible to become a self-employed professional myself and run a business. Amateur competition wasn't even thought about, and there were always great amateurs around, as you rightly pointed out. The two worlds were totally apart.

Reference is made to wedding photographers. With respect, and at the risk of causing unintentional pain, I do not consider that a branch of professional photography in the sense of skill beyond the amateur; there, an amateur can often match the 'pro' sector. Yes, it churns money so has to be deemed professional, in that sense, but that is another matter. It is a very different sector with far fewer knowingly educated critical clients than photography intended for commercial markets, which stock is. The problem is that in the commercial (business) sector, the availability of cheap material, in a graphics world now run by accountants and lawyers rather than by creative minds, it becomes a requirement to use that material. When the man at the top only understands numbers, there is little alternative for the lowly art department but to follow budgetary dictates.

Of course, it is also a matter of wider education. The attitude that governments display towards such matters as copyright, 'orphan' works, registration/qualifications before practice is permitted, all those sorts of things, just perpetuates a situation where the arts are considered a pastime, a hobby, not to be taken seriously. Neither can it have helped that so many within the art world appear to walk with a heavy, anti-business tilt towards the left.

But I ain't gonna be able to fix it! That's for a younger generation to fight.

Rob C

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2010, 02:35:49 PM »

Quote from: feppe
Just watching that is soul-crushing. I'm glad as an amateur I can shoot whatever I want.

Yeh, that's one thing I agree about. All power to Yuri's elbow, but I would find shooting what he shoots absolutely soul destroying. Demonstrably he is an absolute master of calculatedly just-plain-enough shot, the shot which will appeal to lots of different customers. To my personal eye they are bland and absolutely soul-less. I'm sure he does not see them in that way, which is why he's making a great career out of shooting them and I'm not.

He has a nice studio- its contents is remarkably similar to my previous studio, except that I had more bondage steel collars, whips and chains than he has  I wish I'd had the vertical height to do the over-the-top shots, but I chose to leave mine on two levels and double the floor space to have double the number of different sets.

So he's obviously doing just great shooting his thing and selling them by microstock; I'm getting by shooting my thing and selling them by a subscription website. Whatever works for you. I won't be competing with Yuri because I couldn't bring myself to get out of bed in the morning to shoot another set of photos of smily fake call centre workers in their deliciously anodyne slightly grey fake office with their fake headsets on their heads and their fake smiles on their faces!  

The first rule of all, I think, is that you gotta shoot what you love. Then you gotta market it. And if you are good enough at both those things, and enough other people like what you do, you can make a living out of it. Simple as that.

  Cheers, Hywel.





Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #71 on: April 03, 2010, 03:16:12 PM »

Quote from: Rob C
... in a graphics world now run by accountants and lawyers rather than by creative minds... When the man at the top only understands numbers, there is little alternative for the lowly art department but to follow budgetary dictates...
The ONLY time accountants and lawyers run a company is when the company is already run into the ground by the "creative" minds. "The man at the top" has ALWAYS understood only numbers... when "creative" minds produce big numbers, Da Man does not mind giving them big budgets (e.g. Annie Leibowitz-size budgets, or SI swimsuit-issue budgets). When "creative" minds screw up, Da Man calls in accountants and lawyers.

Streetshooter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #72 on: April 03, 2010, 03:26:42 PM »

Quote from: Hywel
The first rule of all, I think, is that you gotta shoot what you love. Then you gotta market it. And if you are good enough at both those things, and enough other people like what you do, you can make a living out of it. Simple as that.

  Cheers, Hywel.


Hywel, you've hit the nail on the head there.....

For me photography has never been about just making money, if I wanted to do that I would have gone into big city banking.  That's why I refuse to get into MicroStock. I've never done Royalty free either. My stock sales have remained constant over the years, indeed they are now increasing as I put more images into the agencies. But I only do stuff that I enjoy doing, and I ain't going to sell my soul to a model with a fake smile, no way.  

The thing that Getty did to revolutionize the stock industry was to take it into the digital age and put it online. They did this by buying all the biggest agencies with a pot of cash, and now they've started on FlickR.

The MicroStock guys can chase their pieces of silver too, they're welcome to it. Enjoy it while it lasts......

Pete
Logged

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 847
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #73 on: April 03, 2010, 04:00:14 PM »

Quote from: Streetshooter
The MicroStock guys can chase their pieces of silver too, they're welcome to it. Enjoy it while it lasts......

I'd love to get a glimpse at that Yuri guy's P&L statements for the last five to seven years, as the prices have plummeted towards a Dollar. I'd like to see the graph of his Net Profits over the years. So what does he do then, once the bottom drops out of his world, in which he had a hand in his own undoing? At what point can you simply not shoot enough Dollar images in a day to maintain a large studio and staff, as you race toward the bottom?

And my personal feeling is: You could say that he's only operating in one isolated level in the marketplace, but my feeling is that business models like this, sooner or later have a ripple factor into other layers of the entire photo industry. It's just a matter of time.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 04:01:50 PM by gwhitf »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #74 on: April 03, 2010, 04:13:19 PM »

Quote from: gwhitf
... business models like this, sooner or later have a ripple factor into other layers of the entire photo industry. It's just a matter of time.
Indeed... and any business model will ultimately meet its demise, microstock included (just how soon is a different matter, of course). The only permanent business model seems to be bottling of carbonated sugared water, as witnessed by the most successful company in the human history (o.k., arguably).

Streetshooter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #75 on: April 03, 2010, 04:36:57 PM »

Quote from: gwhitf
And my personal feeling is: You could say that he's only operating in one isolated level in the marketplace, but my feeling is that business models like this, sooner or later have a ripple factor into other layers of the entire photo industry. It's just a matter of time.


And my personal feelings  are:  keep your overhead as low as you can, don't lust after new gear, do your homework, spend money on your book and travel to new places in which to improve it and not on the latest camera. That way you'll be able to survive this silliness of MicroStock, Getty World Rule etc..

My opinion anyway.

Also I just couldn't bear the thought of shooting the same picture or variations thereof, day after day after day. Knowing that next week I'll only get a dollar for each one, next year maybe fifty cents, and the year after that only maybe ten cents. Just simply crazy.....

Pete
Logged

pcunite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #76 on: April 03, 2010, 08:25:23 PM »

Quote from: gwhitf
You could say that he's only operating in one isolated level in the marketplace, but my feeling is that business models like this, sooner or later have a ripple factor into other layers of the entire photo industry. It's just a matter of time.

But that is the nature of our times, as long as destruction does not occur in your short 70 years then to heck with everyone else. The political climate is much the same with those in power being so selfish.
Logged

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
    • Quentin on Facebook
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2010, 05:59:16 AM »

Quote from: gwhitf
I'd love to get a glimpse at that Yuri guy's P&L statements for the last five to seven years, as the prices have plummeted towards a Dollar. I'd like to see the graph of his Net Profits over the years. So what does he do then, once the bottom drops out of his world, in which he had a hand in his own undoing? At what point can you simply not shoot enough Dollar images in a day to maintain a large studio and staff, as you race toward the bottom?

Prices (at the micros) have gone up over the last few years, not down, but the competition and quality has increased.
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013, 2014 & 2015

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2903
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2010, 06:12:03 AM »

Quote from: KLaban
Spot on.

Why would a reputable company...

To put this into perspective (haven't verified the figures):

Quote
"Well, since the photographer is exclusive to istock, and that image has had 6700 downloads, she's made something like $25,000 from that one picture alone. In trying to lambast microstock Chris Barton actually makes a good case for photographers doing it. Lise Gagné could have placed that image with Photographers Direct, and after a few years she'd have earned 80% of, well, probably nothing. Besides, doesn't everyone know that crass advertising actually works?"


from TOP

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2326
    • sammorganmoore.com
A veri interesting article in the Times today
« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2010, 06:53:54 AM »

On the micros stock thing one point has not been made

One trouble with 'conventional' stock is that the client has to understand the license and particularly for time managed images have some digital asset management system in place and some sort of diary event to know when to pull the images

they then have to know how to pull the images which may involve paying their web designer

I have found (after much heart rending and internal debate) that selling a 'blanket license' which enables a customer to use an image for 'a long time' (five years) and allowing a specific set of uses say..

-own website
-own printed material
-regional advertising

Is easing my sales of stock (particulaly second use of editorial material - I shoot a lot of advertorial for business and then sell to that business after publication by the mag)

I dont charge microstock prices for these licenses but typically the editorial fee (ie a second sale doubles my money)

I feel that expurging the client of the need for internal workflow has provided a far greater incentive to buy than cutting the cost

of course I have a few caveats in my T+C to renage the license when the local coffee dealer gets bought up by nestle

===

I was also introduced to a concept (by a recent graduate) of images (for business) kind of naturally timing themselves out - ie with constant rebranding, changes in fashion, changes in the appearance of any technology in images etc that most images are just not used after a couple of years

Another concept I struggle with is that if I sell 100 images then 1 may be heaviliy used by a client leading me to feel that I undercharged - the concept is to consider that the 99 other images may be underused compared to the fee and am I happy with the total revenue from the 100

Could I use the wide use of that 1 image to drive my own self promotion too ?

S
« Last Edit: April 04, 2010, 06:54:31 AM by Morgan_Moore »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up