Hi Brian:
You just don't go back far enough. In the '60s and early '70s stock was definitely all about "outtakes" from assignment. Almost no one shot specifically for stock.
One of the great things about microstock is that people can determine how much of a market there is for certain kinds of images by checking the number of times they have been licensed. The best information is not always looking at the best sellers of a certain subject, but looking at the 100th or 200th image and seeing how much demand there have been for those. That is something that is impossible in the macro environment.
Jim
> 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.
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