Nope.I thought the stock photo business was dead already.
the trick is not to upload imags to teh web
and if you do, tag them all NSFW
I thought the stock photo business was dead already.
Have a closer look at the annoying advertisement brochures you get in the mail. You will see many examples of stock photos being used.I thought the stock photo business was dead already.
The stock business still exists, but the possibility of making decent money from it has shrunk drastically.Have a closer look at the annoying advertisement brochures you get in the mail. You will see many examples of stock photos being used.
That's commercial photography in a nutshell. There are undoubtedly people out there who have monetised the photographic image to their advantage in the digital age, but the majority are not photographers.My wife is in publishing for 35 years. She used to pay $1500 - $2500 for a photo for a book cover. Today, she pays less than $50 for the same thing.
My wife is in publishing for 35 years. She used to pay $1500 - $2500 for a photo for a book cover. Today, she pays less than $50 for the same thing.
My wife is just a cog in publishing. She doesn't drive prices, the publishers do. When they create a budget for a new book, art direction gets a portion of the budget. When photography was more rare, the budgets had to reflect the market and pictures had a lot of value. As I said, up to $2500 for limited rights to a premium photograph. But when micro-stock boom hit the marketplace and every owner of a digital camera became a stock photographer, the volume of images in the market exploded geometrically and the flood drove prices down to pennies. "Commodification" had hit photography and the injured parties were those who had made their living with superb photographs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?