Final nail for stock photography?

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
GMack Senior Member • Posts: 2,928
Re: Stock (like prints) has been dead...

Teila Day wrote:

(generally speaking)

The bottom dropped out of stock many years ago; same with the print market.

Magazines, newspapers, stock agencies are (for most photographers) a waste of time as the pay is poor.

Our local paper has given most of their photographers their walking papers over the past few years.  Some are now teaching and doing other jobs not related to photography.  It was a union paper and all sorts of issues erupted out of that when writers couldn't do photographer's jobs and visa versa.  The new owner's took a different route and pretty much messed that concept up.

The writers who are still there do both writing and photography both, and using some cheap P&S cameras too as the expensive DSLR ones were too expensive to maintain.  The new writer's don't want to lug equipment either.  Didn't matter to them if they banged a camera into a door and damaged it: "Let the paper pay for it."  I wouldn't at all be surprised if the TV news people begin ditching their site camera people and get their online people to somehow do both, although they often get "free interns" as help so maybe not.

I recall when I got a price-per-photo in print in a mag as well as a model stipend too for an article.  Some I could get $600 out of.  Now it's almost impossible for either and I'm lucky if I even get $35 as it seems all remaining on-board staff, and the owner, does the work rather now rather than farming it out and paying a third party for it.  The mag era sure is heading to the wayside over the cheaper blogosphere it seems who often copies, pastes, and steals from someone else and then sits back and watches their website ad pennies roll in.  Paper anything will probably get worse.


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow