> If stock agencies and photographers could work together, we could see a win-win
> situation. I agree that photos have become commodities, but so have many other
> items which still ratain differention in value and price. Our challenge is - how
> do we change perceptions in our industry?
Teri:
It's been my experience that photographers and agencies DO work together.
In the retail comparison, you are confusing the idea of getting the buyer to value a
product with what the supplier thinks a product is worth - a whole different
concept.
Like most people here, I know what my pictures are worth to me; my (and our) problem
is convincing buyers to cough up the money.
What I notice though is that the cost of producing an image has little or nothing to
do with what it can sell for. I can almost prove scientifically that the more I
spend on a shoot, the less it will earn. Simple still lifes on my kitchen table do
really well and those travel images I shoot to go with my writing earn almost
nothing.
At the moment, the high end is occupied by a few small agencies like Blend and
Art+Commerce. Blend seems to succeed by simply offering well-produced lifestyle
images. Art + Commerce takes it a step farther and represents only a small stable of
already successful commercial photographers.
So...do I shoot only high market value images only? (I've already been booted from
Corbis for not shooting enough of them), push it even further and seek fame? Adapt
elements of both and offer quality images (on some level) to clients and agencies?
Big decisions!!
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment