The End of the Pro Photographer? The Classic Model that Is.
 

Selling Out and the Stock Photography Dilemma!

Someone on another photography forum , stated that a photographer sold their image for a cover of TIME Magazine for $30. It was sold through a stock photography agency called iStockPhoto. That is sadly unfortunate. It also represents the present state of affairs for many photographers attempting to make a living by their craft.

It is for this reason, that I am glad that I am a fashion photographer. It is impossible to sell stock of fashion shoots after more than three months as the next collections are already being prepared to be shot for the next season of fashion magazines.

Every editor knows which designers have come out with which collection and images must always be current. There are instances where fashion photography is sold as stock. If there is a fashion retrospective or a special article on a specific designer. Several of my older images from a magazine in France called Madame Figaro were used in a book about the Italian Designer Emanuel Ungaro, but that was a book and not a magazine.

Like in the music business, photographers outside of fashion are getting royally screwed in terms of fee's. However, they are still in a good position to negotiate royalties. Most image bank agencies take between 40-60 percent and that IS the norm. In my venue the standard across the board fee taken by a photographer agents is 25%.

It is up to you to not sell your images at bargain based prices. It is up to you to set the precedent. Once the barometer goes too low, you will have to find a more creative means of generating an income from your images.

Unfortunately, there is a line of photographers prepared to take your place for that $30, if you decide to say no to the proposition. A new business model must eventually surface for photographer's to be able to survive. Perhaps the new pro-photographers of the future will be all of you.

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=1181

Very interesting Benjamin, especially as while I was reading this thread there was an advert underneath for a Wedding Photographer charging £550 - £850 per wedding.

Yes, that is not really advertising or editorial photography. That is where the real problem resides.

This does seem to be the case. With the proliferation of affordable high quality equipment, every Joe thinks he or she can make a living as a 'tog. A work colleague recently got married, a few weeks later he asked me if I had any software to improve photos. I asked him what the problem was and he showed me some terribly out of focus photos from his wedding - focused on the background, not the subject. I said there wqs no software that would correct that kind of issue and he should take the matter up with the photographer. He said "about a third of the pictures are like this". He'd paid well into 4 figures for this guys services.

Well guess what. Next year there WILL be software that WILL correct out of focus images that are not totally distorted. I.e. within 10-20 percent of the chosen intended focus point.

I will try to find the link again.

Ben

Perhaps this is where something like the Magnum Photos Cooperative started by Cartier-Bresson and others needs to be started in your business to protect the interests of the photographer against the power of the Stock Photo people.

I have a few idea's under my sleeve...Hang in there...