What he said +1!
Tina
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> I cannot help thinking about how computers killed the typewriter ribbon
business.
>> And how the printing press in put transcribing monks out of business in
the 16th century. And...
>> I do not mean to sound callous. I know that change is difficult and
wrenching. But the reality is that technology has changed the business
model for photography in a fundamental way, and no amount of nostalgia for
the good old days will undo those changes.
>
> While I understand your sentiment, I don't necessarily agree with your
> specifics. Computers greatly increased demand on ink ribbons with a
> couple decades of dot-matrix printers screeching away. Laser printers
> and then inkjet printers eventually took their place. Demand for IBM
> Selectric typewriters died a rapid death, though. As to the monks
> being put out of business, it really didn't do that either. They
> continued to do what they did, but the growth of their industry
> capped. Over a period of a few generations, that task of
> writing/copying died down as the manuscripts they did copy were put
> into print. But not all of them were put into print and even to this
> day there is still a few copying away, but for the past hundred years
> they've used the photographic process (both analog and digital). As
> new manuscripts were produced in the printing era, the monks didn't do
> any manual copying of them as they were not in written form to begin
> with.
>
> As to the change as it affects stock photography, it really has less
> to do with technology and everything to do with supply, demand and
> greed. As supply has gone up, the demand hasn't kept pace. And from a
> greed perspective, the buyers are less willing than ever before to pay
> for anything. It's our God given right to have all the apps on our
> cellphones to be free.
>
> When "microstock" first emerged on the scene, the images were almost
> always seconds, overruns and other dross. The good stuff was managed
> through a stock agency. Illustrators and designers scarfed up the
> cheep stuff and would do all sorts of bit-bending on it to make it fit
> a design where the original picture didn't really matter too much.
> Through the miracle of modern Photoshop, the source material doesn't
> matter much. Then the quality of the microstock images started getting
> better and with enough of them (millions upon millions of images added
> every year), there is no need to worry about rights management as the
> chances that anybody else actually using the same exact picture that
> you are using is slim.
>
> This really isn't a technology issue. This is a market issue. An
> argument could be made that the technology is a response to the
> market, not the other way around.
>
> I remember the days when a decent sized inventory of images managed
> through a decent stock agency would yield an average of $5 per image
> per year. So, if you had 20,000 images on file, you could average an
> income of $100,000 per year. It's a very, very, very tiny fraction of
> that now.
>
> So, as it is now a market issue, what do we do? I know what I did. I
> pretty much abandoned stock photography. I wasn't getting enough
> return on my own investment. My rate of return on a per image basis is
> somewhat near normal, but I just don't have enough images out there to
> matter. Tina's library is HUGE and she is able to dominate any
> particular space she's in. But at what cost? Her production costs are
> sunk. The digitization, preparation and key-wording process is
> tedious. But once uploaded to the agency, it's pure income after that.
> Not much income, but some. Based on sheer mass, she should be able to
> eat "Top Ramen" instead of the $0.13 packages from Walmart.
>
> But, if Tina were to start out now, she would never be able to cover
> the production costs. Microstock and royalty-free images have
> destroyed the market for getting high-end talent, like her, to travel
> to all these locations and actually do stock photography. It is only
> possible if she is already there for other purposes.
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|