The Business of Photography

Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,434
Location
Bournemouth, UK
if the photographer does not value their work then expect others to hold it in similar regard

funny blog comment just arrived.,

"I absolutely LOVE your flowers-they are exactly what i've been looking for for my own wedding. I have even printed off a picture to show my florist!!"

printed a copyright image w/o permission and asks their florist to copy a design..
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
734
Location
Berkshire, UK
Thanks Giorgio, very informative and insightful read.

funny blog comment just arrived.,

"I absolutely LOVE your flowers-they are exactly what i've been looking for for my own wedding. I have even printed off a picture to show my florist!!"

printed a copyright image w/o permission and asks their florist to copy a design..
:m41::m41::m41::m41::m41:

Sorry Teri, but that is just so ironic!
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
582
Location
Chicago
^how's this one:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
I like this one :


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
1,516
Location
Georgia
HAHAHAHAHA the emoticons alone were worth perusing this thread. I didnt know much about this, but i do not sell photos (yet). I am in it more for the art of it as a hobby. Just finished maping out the last of my lens lust and will be moving from there. It does make you wonder about all those sites... even Flickr. What exactly can and do these big photo sites do with all the photos? Why do people pay to license microstock only to lose the dollar they pay for it?
I still do not understand the full value of a photo, but after seeing what Time did, and knowing a little bit about their number of readers... well. Dang. That could have been a much more expensive photo.

Dead horse or not, the link was a good read. And im sure it will repost itself again later.

Daniel
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Thanks for the link, very good read. I think my "favorite" :rolleyes: part of this was "Then some get the bright idea to make up the difference through referral commissions. This amounts to about 2 or 3 cents made from the images the photographers they refer sell". So now we have Multi-Level Marketing going on as well, where the "business" no longer is just photographs, but my talking others into joining, so I can make money off their work also.

I think, in a broader sense, that all of this is a consequence of the "bottom-line" becoming the only important aspect of business, as well as the acceptance by the public of mediocrity as the norm.

On No, Mr. Bill!!!!! Now you sound like your Dad, and his Dad, and his Dad and .......... :wink:
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
1,092
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
This should be a must read for anyone that wants to know more about the business of Photography.
Giorgio,

Greetings. It's hard for me to understand why someone would think a photo of a jar of coins is worth $1500 or more (particularly from Time Magazine... Hah, and cover credits to boot!) or to think that the photographer in question would have the opportunity at all to make $30 for that photo without microstock (or would have bothered to take the photo at all).

The stock photography model of 10 years ago (5 years ago?) is gone. Is that what you meant by understanding the business of photography?

Scarce supply drives cost. The business of photography today relies on producing a unique or near unique image in the face of ubiquitous image making capability (how many cell phones are there?).

That's not to say that I've figured it out yet :wink:...

Cheers,

-Yamo-
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
1,456
Location
New York
Yada Yada Yada

Giorgio,

Greetings. It's hard for me to understand why someone would think a photo of a jar of coins is worth $1500 or more (particularly from Time Magazine... Hah, and cover credits to boot!) or to think that the photographer in question would have the opportunity at all to make $30 for that photo without microstock (or would have bothered to take the photo at all).

The stock photography model of 10 years ago (5 years ago?) is gone. Is that what you meant by understanding the business of photography?

Scarce supply drives cost. The business of photography today relies on producing a unique or near unique image in the face of ubiquitous image making capability (how many cell phones are there?).

That's not to say that I've figured it out yet :wink:...

Cheers,

-Yamo-

Yes the business model for professional photography is changing, has changed over the years and will continue to change.

Informed photographers will continue to prosper, the uninformed (well that was the purpose of the link) will not.

 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
It's hard for me to understand why someone would think a photo of a jar of coins is worth $1500 or more (particularly from Time Magazine... Hah, and cover credits to boot!)
You have it the other way around. Whatever the photo is it should be worth much more than the ridiculous $30 because its a cover of a widely distributed magazine. That's how prices are calculated, based on their size, placement and the circulation.

If all covers now get paid $30 that means photos inside the magazine won't be worth a kopek and that means "bye bye" work for thousands of pro photographers.

But amateurs rejoice, you'll be able to brag about how your photo made the cover of Time magazine. Of course you had to pay for this issue so in the end you earned around $20. Way to value your work … :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
2,322
Location
nashville
Well one of the problems is the medium in which this photo was published. Sure, Times is a great cover as is SI but magazines in general are being devalued just like we are starting to see school textbooks phased out in favor of electronic. People are still buying $600 dollar 24" canvases and bigger for more. This greatly depends on how you market yourself and how you portrait the value of your work. This is still a very sad topic and relevent but for me my clients are not magazines.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
1,092
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
You have it the other way around. Whatever the photo is it should be worth much more than the ridiculous $30 because its a cover of a widely distributed magazine. That's how prices are calculated, based on their size, placement and the circulation.
The price was determined by how much Time was willing to pay. There is a tipping point where it would be cheaper for Time to get a staff photographer (or a freelancer) to go take a picture of a jar of coins for them for which they have full royalty free rights.

It remains surprising to me that some actually think the photographer of this photo should be paid on the basis of Time's circulation. Or that Time would even consider paying a royalty for a photo of a jar of coins. (where is that head shaking emoticon?).

Cheers,

-Yamo-
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
14,472
Location
Toronto Canada
The seller put that image on the shelf with a sticker price.... the customer (Time) paid the sticker price. Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

That article also contains valuable information about the wording in a model's release, and the use of released photos! :eek:
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom