> Well, if "stock" was originally "extra content I had shot either during work, or
> on the side", it could have meant that, but it has evolved a bit. I'm not even
> sure why people waste their time submitting flowers and trees (and other
> pedestrian subjects) to IS, or any other micro (or macro, even). It just isn't
> worth it.
Sean:
The "extra content" description is something I haven't heard in decades, but it was never how
the majority of images were created. I suspect that it was just a myth that faded away.
You might not be sure, but as somebody who has taught stock photography classes, I've
learned how it works; overwhelmingly, people want to shoot these subjects and as they do,
they become convinced that there must be a market for them. They then go online and see
that tens of thousands of other people are doing the same thing, so there MUST be a market
for it.
****
BTW...puting niche work in macro agencies actually does make sense - as long as it's
commercial enough in the first place. The higher prices easily compensate for the lower
volume - in this case, volume that was never there in the first place.
Second BTW...travel and nature don't count as "niche" work unless they're part of some
specialty that's much more narrow.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment