Thanks to the
internet, Pbase and iStock now allow millions of people around the
world to see pictures that would otherwise have just been stored
forever in someone's shoebox--and quite a few people are willing to
pay for them too. My brother just financed his new camera with
money he earned on iStock by selling what were essentially his
vacation photos.
--
http://web.mac.com/panosian
It is good that we can see interesting images taken by those who do not rely on their passion to pay the bills. By all means display images on the internet to show off your passion/talent, for everyone to enjoy and sell, but not on istock and the like as these organisations are devaluing the industry.
There are different levels of photographers, those at the very top who will always be in demand and can charge £10,000 per day +, the likes David Bailey. Others who charge in the thousands for commercial work and bread and butter photographers who earn in the medium to high hundreds, who are extremely competent, including editorial and studio based image makers.
It is the lower earners in the professional market, professional photographers, who do exactly what the client want, to a high standard, that can be replicated by experienced non professional photographers who are under the biggest threat. If they charge the same, or similar rates as the pro, fine, but not at $1.00 - $8.00 per image rates.
Photographers covering wars and specialist photographers, for example accredited sports photographers, are very rarely threatened by amateur photographers, for obvious reasons. I am less threatened as an accredited sports photographer from general snaps but under threat from powerful stock libraries, large publishing corporations and hard to swallow, irresponsible professional and semi professional photographers who work on the cheap.
Taking pictures for historical projects for the local community, family and friends doesn't offend me as a full time professional. Advertising images on istock at give away prices, when photography is no more than a hobby, does matter.
Sadly in the last 6 years the industry has seen several photographers come into a small sector of the industry (sports) desparate to get on board with a leading sports magazines and charge half the fee that was cahrged for a full days work 11 years ago. Several of these snappers are not skilled and produce sub standard images. Magazine editors these days inform me the public don't care about image quality and fees are a big factor in their decision to hire a photographer. They have accountants pushing for ever cheaper photo budgets so their shareholders are kept happy.
Some of the stunning bird photgraphy seen on DP review, not just sharp images against blue skies, and many other types of creative images displayed, are worthy of more than $1- $8 an image.
If you could substitute all of the istock type companies for decent libraries charging the realistic fees then we would see a fairer playing field for everyone, amateur and professional alike. I see no achievement in selling an image to a company, for the price of a large capuccino.
I obtain satisfaction when my image sells in competition with the most powerful stock libraries, and especially when I have been told my image was actually slightly more expensive than theirs and not therefore purchased becuase it was cheap.
