Brian,
So an image that might be both is a series I'm working on. It could have value in high tech but could also hang on a corporate wall.
Some lifestyle image might fit this as well, but it's an exception and not the rule. Still I think you would want to avoid someone from paying $10 from a micro stock site to start selling prints of your work for a profit. Why would someone want to pay you a premium for an art print when they could it for pennies on the dollar?
I'm going to avoid stock sites for now. I just don't see the upside of going that direction at all. Angie sold an image for $1,500.00 and I'm sure that was not through a "micro stock site". So how many micro images in a year would it take to make that up in stock sales?
Don
From: Brian Yarvin <brian@brianyarvin.com>
To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: The VALUE of images? Warning: Philosophical Rant
To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: The VALUE of images? Warning: Philosophical Rant
> I would agree that stock is no longer a money making venture. And like anything
> else there are exceptions to this statement, but in general selling stock images
> is not a career move. I also don´t think we will be able to put the genie back in
> the bottle. Stock sites are all about volume and not about the photographer.
Don:
(It's Don, right?)
I'm detecting a few more of those myths here. For as long as I've known it - that's forty years
+ the experience of the people who taught me - stock photography has been a moneymaking
venture for only a small handful of people. It was back then, and it is now.
Stock agencies have been about volume and serving the buyer since the 1920's, or maybe
earlier. The idea that this is some sort of new trend is a myth that's developed to explain
something...I don't know what. Maybe some other failure?
> If you can develop a niche in fine art you can start to set your own prices and
> avoid stock sites altogether. Or if you can develop a reputation in; landscapes,
> portrait, wedding, product, food ..., then you can attract clients interested in
> your style rather than price.
Fine art is a whole other animal. And in New York City anyway, it's booming in a way I haven't
seen it in decades. I just can't imagine a photo that would interest stock photo buyers and
galleries and don't get where these two businesses intersect. And let's not forget to mention
that guys like our Ron would drop dead on the spot if they saw the hype and salesmanship
that goes into any given New York art show.
> This thread seems to be taking a tangent away from the topic of "Selling Stock".
> In that context I would be interested if and how someone can still develop a name
> and reputation in that space.
I'm trying to drag it back and I'm glad I'm not doing it singlehandedly.
> Is it better to tag images as RF
> or RM?
If you're not working through agencies, you won't have to label them at all. Otherwise, this is
something to discuss with them; agencies tend to know what's working best for them.
> What´s in demand/hot right now in
> stock?
Any new lifestyle trend does well. I'm working on comfort foods right now.
> Can you and should limit fine art
> prints in the contract?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of a photo that could be both a successful
stock image and a successful fine art print. Help me here!
> Are there seasonal trends/holidays
> that payoff more?
Yes! Pictures that illustrate holidays can do well. It's all about the quality of production values
and getting the image in your head into the camera.
No more philosophy please!
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
> else there are exceptions to this statement, but in general selling stock images
> is not a career move. I also don´t think we will be able to put the genie back in
> the bottle. Stock sites are all about volume and not about the photographer.
Don:
(It's Don, right?)
I'm detecting a few more of those myths here. For as long as I've known it - that's forty years
+ the experience of the people who taught me - stock photography has been a moneymaking
venture for only a small handful of people. It was back then, and it is now.
Stock agencies have been about volume and serving the buyer since the 1920's, or maybe
earlier. The idea that this is some sort of new trend is a myth that's developed to explain
something...I don't know what. Maybe some other failure?
> If you can develop a niche in fine art you can start to set your own prices and
> avoid stock sites altogether. Or if you can develop a reputation in; landscapes,
> portrait, wedding, product, food ..., then you can attract clients interested in
> your style rather than price.
Fine art is a whole other animal. And in New York City anyway, it's booming in a way I haven't
seen it in decades. I just can't imagine a photo that would interest stock photo buyers and
galleries and don't get where these two businesses intersect. And let's not forget to mention
that guys like our Ron would drop dead on the spot if they saw the hype and salesmanship
that goes into any given New York art show.
> This thread seems to be taking a tangent away from the topic of "Selling Stock".
> In that context I would be interested if and how someone can still develop a name
> and reputation in that space.
I'm trying to drag it back and I'm glad I'm not doing it singlehandedly.
> Is it better to tag images as RF
> or RM?
If you're not working through agencies, you won't have to label them at all. Otherwise, this is
something to discuss with them; agencies tend to know what's working best for them.
> What´s in demand/hot right now in
> stock?
Any new lifestyle trend does well. I'm working on comfort foods right now.
> Can you and should limit fine art
> prints in the contract?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of a photo that could be both a successful
stock image and a successful fine art print. Help me here!
> Are there seasonal trends/holidays
> that payoff more?
Yes! Pictures that illustrate holidays can do well. It's all about the quality of production values
and getting the image in your head into the camera.
No more philosophy please!
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment