Stock photography's role in the Fishing Industry
- This topic has 61 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated May 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Phil, not to belabor the issue of professionalism or what a professional is but what I am getting at is what is the business model for making money. I work full time as a photographer not freelance or crusin for snaps or shooting my hobby or avocation. If you look at the rates payed and I have no issue with what you pay. I just don’t see how you could capitalize and sustain activity and make a profit. I shoot for fun and as a form of personal expression but I have to pay the mortgage like everybody else.
Thanks for the challenge on the photo assignment I’ll try to shoot something.
Phil, that is both a very cool and also a scary offer, I like it though [ch9786]. On the cool side: WOW!! I would love to be able to get a glance a lot of the assignments/wish list from many other magazines and advertisement firms, as well. You might just be the new trendsetter for editors and just open it up to anyone with a camera. It will provide for great opportunity for every photographer that has a dream of getting published.
On the scary side: It can take from the sacred client list and/or connections that many professional photographers hold in deep secret. On a humorous note, I would kind of hope that you get several hundred thousand images with only 1% being really good LOL..
On a more serious note: I have always heard that it is the open competition that makes a professional better and more diligent about staying on top of their game. Like Richard said, “if it is run like a business”, then no professional should be seeing a loss of revenue unless they are just bad businessmen and not as good a photography as they thought. Granted your rates are not great but they are very far from bad. Using your cover shot and full page figures as an example: $700.00 for a shot, that might take 2 days in both location shots and post edit, is still close to a six-figure income; for freelancers. $350.00 for a full page that might take one day, of shot plus post edits. Is still close to a six-figure income. All we need from you now is for you to change your publications to biweekly and make us even happier [ch9786].
Granted the contributions to the bottom line would also have to factor in what the actual associated production costs run but very few photographers are booked for everyday and this sort of assignment is a great vehicle for supplementing the down time between other assignments. Again, as Richard stated, and I paraphrase: If a photographer runs it like a business then they can actually increase their revenue stream.
Thanks Phil, that really is a cool thing that you offered to do, you too Zach!
There is a good article in the March/April issue of Digital Photo Pro Magazine called The New Economy.
DPP now has most if not all of its articles available online. The New Economy is available here.
Even though it is available online, I suggest buying this magazine. I have found it to be one of the few reputable professional magazines for the industry (PDN being the only other one that comes to mind).In regards to the issues addressed in this article, I’ve often wondered why rates for web usage are so low. Some of the magazines with largest distribution have a circulation rate of 2mil. I think Field and Stream is 1.5mil circulation and around 9mil readers. With a website, you potentially have the ability to reach a lot more than that.
I work for an internet based TV network. I don’t know the most recent numbers, but we have over 4million unique visitors a month, and it maybe around 5mil or more now. However the advertising $ aren’t at the same level as they were for shows I worked on that were distributed over cable and satellite. The ratio of $ to viewer is a lot different in the two mediums, yet the over all difference in number of viewers isn’t much. With our programming being available live and on demand, we have increased the opportunity for advertisers reach viewers. Remember, I said 4-5mil unique visits a month, out of those uniques there are many return viewers. There is a change taking place though. Advertisers are now starting to recognize the internet as a viable outlet to spend their money.
Because of the large number of views for our work and the growing amount of $ advertisers are willing to spend on internet campaigns, I would think that the value of a photographer’s work should go up, not down. Yet web usage rights are sometimes under $100. Why is this? Do we think that because the photo is not in a tangible form that it is worth less? To me, it seems like there is less overhead (printing, distribution)for magazines to create online versions, therefore they have higher profits. I’m all for everyone making a profit. The better magazines or advertisers do, the better the photographic community should do. Lets just make sure that as professionals, we get our fair share.http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramI think that you hit the nail on the head Chad. it isn’t really as much about the rates getting low as much as it is that there is a new bread of photographers that are willing to take $100.00 for a similar shot that might of cost $1,000.00.
Part of this phenomenon (the existence of photographers willing to work for less) is also the effect of the digital camera.
Zach,
That is a great basic breakdown of cost per image. Of course there is a lot more that goes into some images other than gear and pushing a button. I know you know this, I just hope people don’t think that an image really only costs $0.50 to make. Yea sure some do, but most don’t.http://society6.com/grainfarmer Fly Fishing and Landscape open edition Photography prints.
http://grainfarmer.vsco.co/ iPhone photos
http://instagram.com/chad_simcox InstagramZach,
Seems to me you’d also have to factor in costs such as storage, mailing, scanning, etc. My art director never wants to see another slide again, so you’d need a pretty good scanner, as well. All that Fedexing of slides is now a thing of the past, too. But then, of course, you need to add computer stuff to the equation.
The most important benefit of digital, I would think, is that you know relatively immediately if you got the shots you need. Otherwise, you gotta bracket the crap out of everything and hope you didn’t screw anything up. Then you wait for the slides to find out if you’re right.
Yeah, I think that the costs of keeping a decent computer system up and running, especially if you don’t steal the software is a big omission.
Zach,
The most important benefit of digital, I would think, is that you know relatively immediately if you got the shots you need. Otherwise, you gotta bracket the crap out of everything and hope you didn’t screw anything up. Then you wait for the slides to find out if you’re right.
Not to mention quality. A digital capture is a much cleaner file than scanned film. A digital file (particularly the RAW image data) is more pliable and has much more editing headroom than scanned film. Then there is the dynamic range. Film is not only constrained by a relatively narrow range of exposure latitude, but so is the scanner. Double whammy. Digital RAW files have 5 to 7 stops of DR. Most folks don’t know this either, but scanning film is an art as well. Even a very good scanner in the hands of an amateur will result in a bad image file. Viva la technology!
Another related benefit and something that has made it easier for amatuers to jump in FPS and Buffers. I thought of this immediately as my “main” interest is wildlife photography. Ive wanted to take these steps for years but it always came down to the impractialities of film.
I don’t think Ive used bracketing ever and only rarely use my histogram or “chimp” as I dont get the
Shooting digital has many advantages but you can’t discount the time spent in post shoot image processing. Even under controlled conditions in my studio I end up going into PS to sharpen scale and enhance any meaningful image. A digital raw file of a active subject outdoors will be what I would consider to be the same as a color or BXW negative that would need to be printed with all the associated work in whatever software you want to use. I can’t think of a image that went through my darkroom no matter how good the negative that didn’t get edge burning and some dodging minimum. RAW files are pretty much the same. So your in the virtual darkroom now and maybe you can output a nice final print which really makes a photograph a photograph and not a bunch of ones and zeros on a hard drive.
Film still has a place in creative photography just as it does in the movies, but like television the electronic image has come to be the common image format. I heard film sales were up on http://www.insidedigitalphoto.com/radio-programs/idp-radio-nik-software-viveza-tony-corbell
IDP Radio – Nik Software Viveza / Tony Corbell
Scott Shepard the host says “people are tired of being photoshop jockeys and want to be photographers again”.This guys program does a good job of keeping up with the latest trends. If you guys have a chance to listen I would be interested in hearing your opinions on what was discussed.David.
I know very little about darkrooms and processing film. Just the very basics and its been 20 years+ since I’ve been inside one.All else being equal. Wouldn’t the production of 1 image be infinitly longer in the darkroom than the same image with the same outcome produce in post?
I’m lucky as the editor I’m sending images to much prefers his staff do the work. Meaning he prefers the RAW files so he/they can optimise (including print size and subsequent sharpening) the image to its eventual useage. Maybe I have a great horizontal image, they want to print as a vertical crop. If *I* do the work thats not an option, and so on. I’m given to understand that not the norm and most publications want finished files.
Either way, if I had to I could select and can turn out 10 images, fully optimised to the best of my ability (Im no PS pro) in minutes. Film for even a professional developer?
If “Phil” asked me to go get some images of Chinooks going over some falls during the spawning runs and could I have the images in his hand later that day. I could providing I nail the exposures have a 100 possibly acceptable images in his hands within hours, even minutes (providing the Chinook are running). Not days.
John everything you say is true. Even with chromes you would have 24 to 48 hour turn around time.
If you look at how Tibor Nehmeth worlflow went for Simms you see value of film as a artistic decision.
Its difficult to mimic the look of real film and paper not to mention the difference in camera formats from small format to medium format. If you had stock images shot in that style they might get you more attention than the usual fare and I’m sure he commands a pretty hefty day rate to shoot for Simms and his other clients.I was a early adopter of digital since most everything I shoot is for advertising. I started by having slides
Lol to the last. I immediately thought of the Hardy Girl 🙂
Thanks David, every bit helps…film vis a vie digital and artistic expression capabilities re the former.
One of many questions i had from reading this, was do you submit the same image library to each of the magazines, or a different library to each one?
………….If Phil asked me to shoot something my reaction would be what does it pay and when do you need it and is Heidi Klum available? Man wouldn’t she look good in waders!
That would make a good cover!David….I know a couple of hotties down at the Pink Pony that would oblige in exchange for a few Benjamins
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.