infrared camera extender
Interview with Jim Pickerell
Jim Pickerell has done it all in photography, war correspondent, to the stock owner to agency and industry analyst editor of the highly regarded industry newsletter selling stock shares. Jim gives us a thorough overview of his vision for the future of the stock and suggestions on how to to adapt to the changing industry.
Jim, you can share with us your journey to and through photography, stock, and finally, establishing yourself as the leading industry analyst and commentator?
In high school I worked at a camera store, selling cameras and photo supplies, the client and processed using the movie "dip" method dunk. I attended Ohio University for two years, where I majored in photography. At that moment I felt I need more time to practice what I learned before I finished my training. I also knew I had a selective military service obligation after college, so I joined of the Navy as a photographer. After Navy photo school was assigned to the Navy lab in Yokuska, Japan. Later I was in Tokyo-based staff photographer for Pacific Stars & Stripes, a military newspaper is distributed to all military instillations in the Asia / Pacific, and traveled around the area of assignments.
After four years in the Navy, I went to UCLA and three years later received a degree in political science. During this period I work for UPI lab and one summer I served as National Geographic Magazine intern. The day my class graduated from UCLA I was on a plane to Tokyo for a career as a freelance photographer, editors.
After a summer in Tokyo where I worked hard, but almost no revenue generated, I got one month temporary assignment to Vietnam for UPI, and cover them until they would send a representative from New York. When my month, I decided to stay living in Vietnam because it was cheap and seemed more photographic opportunities than anywhere else in Asia at the moment, but even that was not much. That was 1963. There were about 15,000 U.S. advisers in the country, no U.S. combat units and for the most part it was pretty quiet. I was the only non-Vietnamese freelance photographer based in Saigon at the time. The other two were Western photographers Horst Fass of the New York and AP photographer who had replaced me at UPI. A few other Westerners came in from time to time, but nobody stayed long.
Three weeks later, the Vietnamese troops overthrew their president, Ngo Dinh Diem. I was the only photographer in Saigon color shooting that day. Earlier that year had decided Life Magazine that she wanted to try a color shot of the big news organizations story in the world use every week. I came away from that event with my first photos in a national magazine and a life cover.
I covered the war in Vietnam for three-and-a-half years with occasional trips to other parts of Asia. During that period I wrote and illustrated a book called Vietnam in the mud, which sold out its first printing. In 1968 I returned to New York, still the vision of a career an editorial photographer. 8 or 9 months after my wife and I moved to Washington, DC.
In Saigon I was in demand as a war photographer, but New York and Washington had plenty of experienced photographers covering business and politics. I was a nobody, I started looking for more commercial work. Short of resources, and a new daughter in 1969 I took a staff position with Aviation Week & Space Technology. This was the worst year of my photography career. I was taking pictures of airplanes and production, but the magazine does not have a travel budget for a photographer and I spent a lot of time sitting around. After one year I went back to freelancing with more of a focus on government and commercial contract work.
All this time I was the submission of outtakes from assignment to shoot some stock agencies. In fact, the life cover (November 15, 1963 - http://www.oldlifemagazines.com/mag.php?d=111563) was a stock photo as I was shooting on speculation for Black Star that day. Stock sale was a small but growing part of my total income. The Copyright Act 1976 changed things for stock photographers who are owned by their production rather than into the hands of the customer's workload. More photographers began to store and customer interest to produce began to grow. I began to spend more time between commercial assignments and some annual stock shoot. Stock sale was a steadily increasing proportion of my total income photography.
In the early 1980s I helped down the mid-Atlantic chapter of ASMP, served two years as vice president, two as program chairman, two as chairman and a member of the National Council. One of the problems that occurred while I was a national board member of ASMP was a new edition of their Manual and Stock Photography Pricing Guide to publishing. The Board has decided not to do, but I felt such a book was needed and decided to publish an independent.
The first edition of Negotiating Stock Photo prices, charts presented with the recommended prices for all types of rights-managed stock photo used, was published in 1989. I kept the book up to date through the 1990 and the fifth edition was published in 2001.
In 1990 I started publishing selling stock, a subscription-based print newsletter six times a year dealing with all aspects of the stock photography industry. In 1995 we started delivering the articles both online and in print version and increased steadily frequency to the point that Dudnik Julia Stern, and I mean three stories a day five days a week. At the end of 2006 we gave the print edition entirely and solely on the supply was Online.
In 1993 my daughter and I started a Stock Connection, a public interest rights managed stock agency gave photographers a share of 75% of sales. This is the highest royalty share available at that time. Later we found it necessary to reduce the royalties to 65%, but are still active on that basis. Today we have approximately royalty-free, but the concentration is still within the rights-managed sales. We represent a collection of more than 200,000 images of more than 400 photographers.
We On the eve of the launch of a new online information service - Photo Licensing Options - This will expand beyond photography and stock to handle the business side of photography and every possible way in which photographers can earn money from the photos they produce.
One of the hallmarks of my career is that one of the Re-Invention been continuous.
Let us get to, people can still live a stock?
NO - With a few exceptions. (1) It may be possible if the photographer lives in Eastern Europe, many parts of Asia or other places where the cost of living is low. (2) If the photographer is very low expectations in terms of living standards. (3) If the photographer has a large collection of images in distribution channels, it is likely a "living" to make He cuts a while with his charges and transitions into a different kind of photography that a fixed fee for the activities of production guarantees. Gross receipts stock will decline. (4) And finally, many photographers to another source of income to supplement what they earn from stock licensing, but they will not be able to self maintain the income from stock licensing alone.
For photographers living and working in the U.S., I think it's almost impossible now produced a profit of images and go forward to achieve. The question, even for microstock is leveling or declining, and there is too much about the delivery of each topic. The provision of good quality images will continue to grow at a much faster pace than it has. Prices continue to fall. As a result, no one will ever be able to as much as they deserved in the past to earn from stock photos.
Stock can be a complement to other sources of income, but not live.
There has been much speculation about "tablets" such as Kindle and iPad possibly leading the way for more image use and therefore a potential boon for stock photo licensing. Do you have ideas about that?
The iPad in particular, has the potential to become a widely used tool in education. Currently, I believe global license stock photography for educational purposes Totals something in the range of 350 million U.S. dollars annually, but that figure is more likely to fall than to grow due to the introduction of the iPad.
A lot of the images used on IPAD, but that does not mean that professional photographers will earn more royalties on still images. For the past five years, at least, book publishers 've added something like the following to their requests for permission to use a photo in a printed book.
The requests have included "the right to take the picture Publish an unlimited number of electronic applications on the Internet, or in any other electronic products are now in existence or to be invented, for 10 years from the date of the invoice. "
Most image vendors have agreed to these conditions for little or no extra money. Consequently, the rights to most of these educational applications iPad In the next decade already given away. Getty Images is a leader in this giveaway. Find a rights-managed image on their site and you can reproduce in a book printed in any size from postage stamp to double page spread and print an unlimited number of copies for seven years for $ 267. If you want electronic rights for same book and it is time available for an additional $ 120. If you only want to use the image in an e-book price is $ 92 for 10 years. And, because publishers are often significant users of Getty Images offers them much more favorable bulk deals.
The theory that there may be a "boom in stock photo licensing" assumes that publishers will continue to books pressing them that at the moment, plus the electronic versions of the Kindle and the iPad .. But I expect the use of printed books to decline rapidly as school systems switch from paper to electronic books. It is likely that professional photographers will sell much more than they get lose.
For an analogy, consider how the demand for legal traditional managed and royalty-free images has declined as microstock and the demand for them has grown. There are many more users to view, but the total income from licensing rights to shares to display declined in recent years. So in a sense, a "tree" that more images will be used, but the implication of the question is "will a growth in revenue generated, and the answer to that question seems likely to be no. In addition, revenues generated are distributed over a much larger group of photographers with much more going for it part-timers and amateurs.
Interactive electronic whiteboards
The buzzword in providing educational information today the day is "Interactive electronic whiteboards. These systems typically include a computer with an Internet connection, a video projector and a large white board on which the image projected on the screen. The computer can be operated by touching the image on the whiteboard with a finger or an infrared or sometimes a stylist. The user can write the sign with a color stylist or fingertip and the information can easily be stored. Students in some applications, each with their own computer, sitting in a classroom, look at the professor and the whiteboard at the front of the classroom, but also all the information displayed on the whiteboard on their computers for them and can interact with each other and create and save their separate note.
A basic system can be had for about $ 3,000, and of course the price will drop soon. It is easy to see how the iPad will student or teacher, portable computer within the system.
Such systems are not only used at universities, but also installed in the K-12 classrooms throughout the country. In October 2009, the Detroit public schools inked a $ 40 million multi-year contract with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt to its "Learning Village" electronic system installed in Detroit schools. If HMH get around to license rights to use images from the Village Learning program, and to IPAD, I'm sure they will argue that the picture is not worth anywhere near as much as it was worth it in a printed book, and therefore look a lot less than $ 92 for those paying habits.
These electronic systems will enable schools and teachers more control over their lesson plans. School systems will be less dependent on publishers than they are in the past and will adapt their curriculum and lesson plans to a greater extent. They use the Internet as an information source. If they want pictures, they go to Google, Flickr and microstock sites first. People who want to sell to the market, the education must find a way to sell quality to work with individual teachers and school teams systems at very low prices and I hope the volume will find the difference.
The iPad and interactive whiteboards are friendly educational video mediums. I think a lot more demand short videos and a lot less demand for still images.
Thinking about science classes. Magnetism can be better with a still image or a short video to explain? How about dissecting a frog? I looked up "dissecting a frog" on YouTube and found 459 videos. Most were not very good and could have benefited professional lighting, professional camera work and good sound quality and story, but where do you think teachers go to visuals that will inspire their students?
Summary
The iPad will be a boom in the education industry, not professionals. Primary school pupils will no longer have to carry heavy school bags, but a simple iPad. They learn using the tools of their future careers, not outdated 20th Century ways of learning. Tests and additional resources will be available to students wherever they are. Teachers will be able to test and grade online. School systems will save enormous amounts of money compared to what they previously spent on books. No longer will need to 1000 university students U.S. dollars to pay for the books they need to study a semester. It will upload all the educational materials they need for their iPad a fraction of that cost.
The need tons of books written test paper will be reduced. Trees will be saved. Trucks to carry books on the market will no longer need. There will be less need for the book of outlets, or at least the need will be for a very different kind of sale. There will be less need for complete packages called books. Experts on various issues currently be found in books on their research and findings in shorter articles and a series of such teachers will collect items during curricula.
The world is changing, but not necessarily for the better for those photographers who want to continue working under 20th Century rules.
Comparison shopping tools, as Spiderpic begin to gush. Do you think these tools will have a real impact on the industry?
Spiderpic will have a major impact on the microstock and subscription segments of the market because it is so easy to compare prices when the price is based on file size. It will be much harder to effectively to compare prices on rights-managed side of the company, because so many other variables.
Microstock sellers will be put under pressure to go and not their exclusive images on multiple sites so some companies can maintain higher prices. When the distributor licensing images as well as individual photos, or part of a subscription of competes against itself. We also know that those who market the same images from multiple sites is always more money than those represented by only one company.
Dan Heller and Jim Erickson are at opposite ends of the spectrum photography, and yet everyone seems to be the direct sales work. What can we learn from their success? Is their success and good for the rest of us?
I do not know enough about Dan Heller's business or what he deserves for direct sale to intelligent talk about his business model. I did an extensive story about Jim Erickson and think there are a few keys to his success. First, he is a very good photographer and there will always be a some that the exception to the rule.
One of the key elements of his success is his stock in strong business mission. His contract customers are regular users of his stock. Working closely with art directors contracts helps him understand what it is in stock and I am sure support him in developing concept ideas. He also provides enough revenue to justify that he is building a highly effective website and publish catalogs of regular simply doing his job. Moreover, he had the advantage of building his career when the company was more feasible - both stock and assignment sides - than it is today.
Given how the company has changed I think not someone with the same degree of talent and perseverance could ever achieve what Erickson has achieved as a still photographer.
Timing is important and heyday of stock photography has expired.
Getty has just added social network licenses to their pricing for RM images. Included are commercial and noncommercial categories. Do you think the problems of image theft, and the attitude that theft is OK, can be overcome using personal photos on blogs and social networks into cash?
Unfortunately, I do not think in today's society the problem of image theft can be overcome. There is a general attitude in our society that individuals are "entitled" to all sorts of things that they do not pay. Information on the Internet is just one of those things.
That said, the fact that so many microstock images are purchased for small applications on the Internet is proof that many people are willing to pay nothing for images. This can not, because buyers recognize that images have any value, but since the records are organized in a way that makes it easy for buyers to quickly find something that works for their projects and saves them time. It should be recognized that buyers might not feel any responsibility to pay creators for their efforts, they are just paying for convenience. The same can be said of iTunes.
On the other hand, the author gets something than nothing for his efforts. The big question is whether that something will be enough to continue of production to justify the part of the creator. In the long term, I doubt it.
What experts do you think we should pay attention to (besides selling stock)?
It is natural for people to want a short list of experts to follow. It may be useful if the experts agree with the reader wants to hear. But with the technological changes taking place in the photography industry, I am not sure that one of the experts (me included) have a lot of answers. A of the things that prognostication is difficult in the photography industry is that there is almost no good, solid public information on which to base decisions or opinions. Very few companies whether information relating to their business public.
That said, I think photographers need to listen to anyone who speaks at the annual conference Photo of East. They should listen to the leaders of industry associations and everyone who has written a book about the photography business. For more difficult cases, there are many different the business aspects of photography, stock photography is just one of them. Part of what each individual must do is figure out whether it is advisable to concentrate on only one aspect the company or work in different areas. The answer may vary by individual.
One of the things I've tried to do with my new site www.photolicensingoptions.com is to bring together, in one place, information from experienced experts working in all the different ways that it is possible to make money (and hopefully in many cases money) of taking photos. I want to offer a variety of different opinions in each area of persons who have sufficient experience, or have done enough investigation to justify their position.
I want useful information easy to find. At that point the reader to determine what portion of that information helps him or to increase its earning capacity of the images produced. Some of this information will also be available on other sites on the Internet. However, it is often hard to find. I've found that doing an Internet search is often necessary to wade through an enormous amount of slag in order to find some useful gems. Photo Licensing Options will deal with a narrow focus issue - the business of photography - and find the gems for readers to consider.
Can you give us a brief overview of the agencies that you think are currently doing the best job for photographers?
Best is a relative concept. The stock photo industry is in such a state of crisis, it is difficult to say what's best for any photographer could be. Photographers must recognize that while the agencies are "entitled to act on behalf of the photographer," they are not necessarily act in the best interest of the photographer. Most organizations see a drop in sales. The goal of most organizations is to maximize profits and that is not necessarily the best importance of the photographers. Most organizations are reducing costs and trying to be honest and sincere service of the photographers with them for many years. It is not a good time to jump in the company either as a photographer or agency / distributor.
I am trying to give agencies photographers a greater share of the revenue collected. I am for agencies that try to price based on usage rather than file size, but I must admit that the concept of pricing based on usage is waning by size and price is becoming more and more popular.
The agencies that focus on selling at low prices directly to consumers (microstock) are the most growth is, but prices are so low that the vast majority of photographers do not will benefit.
Consumers will not have to search through hundreds or thousands of sites, each using different search methods to find an image that they can use. Consequently, they tend to go to sites where they only can find a wide range of images from a broad cross section of the photographic community. So, photographers need a central location where consumers can go to work found. But, for most of these sites make little effort to set prices at levels that are favorable for photographers and they take an unreasonable share of the fees collecting them.
Many agencies make very little direct marketing, but instead serve as intermediaries of images that are then sent to a wide range of distributors in order to reach a wider clientele. This may be a necessary service, but a further reduction is involved, often leaving the image maker with a very small percentage of the unreasonably low compensation paid in the first place.
Photographers should make every effort to put exactly the same images with as many agencies on a non-exclusive basis. Several editors agency will choose different images, often inscrutable reasons - and that's OK. In some cases, a number of agencies Select the same picture and that's OK. Each agency will have a number of customers will not reach the others and you want your images to get a chance to be seen by everyone. Some photographers will do well with one agency and another with a different agency. It is usually difficult to predict which body will be most successful in selling a particular photographer images. Be wary of an agency, that is the exclusive representative of your images and make sure they offer a significantly better deal than if your images with several agencies, non-exclusive.
If you shoot stock (hey, maybe you are ...), you would shoot for RM, RF Micro or ... or a combination?
I think rights-managed (RM) is on the way out. It would be nice if customers were willing to pay for an image based on the value they receive from their use, or to some extent use the cost of production. But those days seem over. No matter what the topic, there are too many good alternative choices at much lower prices. Why should customers pay more? Part of the theory behind RM is that the customer has exclusive rights to certain images are needed. Some do, but there are too many similar images to compete This occasional exclusive.
Exclusive sales be useful if the photographer is to produce something that meets specific customer needs, and a fee pre-negotiated before the work is done (a contract). But they make no sense when the photographer shoot on speculation and try to produce what an unknown customer will be somewhere In the future, and when the photographer has no idea how many other photographers simultaneously produce something similar.
Thus, RM images also allowed for non-exclusive use and because the price is negotiable RM images licensed agencies often at prices well below the non-exclusive royalty-free photos. The other problem with RM is that because the photographers and agents must ensure that they can all images to use, so they can track an exclusive license when prompted, it is much more difficult to image largely market through multiple distributors.
Royalty-Free (RF) has an advantage over the RM market because it is non-exclusive. Thus, it is much easier to provide for licensing through multiple distributors. However, it is much harder for the average photographer to effectively participate in the RF market. Selling through an RF distributor only (many photographers do this on Alamy) is not a very satisfactory solution, because the photographer to achieve for all customers who deal with other distributors. Most RF production companies want to work with some very experienced photographers who are willing to deliver high-volume production. Consequently, most photographers find it difficult to participate effectively RM in the traditional market.
The other problem with traditional royalty-free microstock is that eventually cannibalize because microstock offers the same unlimited use and is cheaper.
I have a problem with both royalty free and microstock because the price is based on the size of the file rather than how the image must be used. File size has very little to do with the value the customer receives the use of an image.
The use of micro stock will continue to grow, while the use of images using the pricing and traditional rights-managed and royalty-free models will decrease. However, microstock prices are so low, and the proportion of allowances to photographer so small that it is difficult to see how a photographer can earn a reasonable money for his efforts. Moreover, the volume of photos added to the collections grows at a rapid pace that most photographers will never earn enough to justify these efforts, in producing the images and prepare them for market.
Micro Stock is trying to find ways to raise prices without losing his base to find. It has defined several bodies of work as being of higher quality and the price of these images at a higher level. The problem with this strategy is that the higher-priced images will never be used by customers with limited budgets. Thus those who only license their images to the "higher prices" lose potential sales. The system works for distributors because they do not care to sell those images as long as each customer go away with something, but on average does not work for the benefit of photographers.
Micro Stock've defined a few types of uses as they are "comprehensive permits" in some cases can be negotiated. More uses must fall within the extended license category. Even if now is the microstock pricing system has evolved into something much more complex than pricing for traditional royalty-free and it promises more complex.
I think we need a pricing system that makes available any image at all price points rather than arbitrary allocation each image for a particular category of use, based primarily on price. Above a certain basic level, I do not think it is possible definition image of certain groups as being of "higher quality" Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Often very basic images are used in a way that a high price to justify the alleged "high quality" images are just what people need on a budget. We should forget about the license rights to shares images for exclusive use. When someone exclusive rights to make hiring a photographer to produce an image on a mission.
I favor a system that permits images based on how they will initially be used, but also offers unlimited future use. Customers are demanding this kind of flexibility, because they are unwilling to accurately to predict or track future use. Such a system is not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives we have today. It would be open to some abuse, but no more than abuse of today. It is not reasonable and equitable to the same charge companies to use an image as someone whose use is a personal blog or a school project.
I would like to believe that most customers will be honest in the disclosure, to the best of their knowledge, how they plan to license the images they use. However, I also recognize that this is no longer the way most people work in today's society. PicScout offers a service on the Internet for images represented by certain agencies search. They found that 85% of unauthorized applications or used beyond the initial authorization. It has also come to the attention of many in the industry for more than a decade the major book publishers are printing more copies of books than she licensed rights to print. Given these examples, perhaps there no way for photographers to receive reasonable compensation for their efforts. Perhaps the whole idea of licensing stock images as a company is no longer practical for a photographer.
When I first came in stock photography in the 1960s was the idea that stock images were outtakes from assignments, or occasionally something you shot When you have nothing better to do than sit drinking a beer. There was no great hopes of earning money from such images, but if you did was a fluke and not something you A firm base. Most stock photographers need to return this way of thinking. If your images and you do not mind the extra administrative work needed the images available for marketing than they are in the market and see what happens to. (The administrative work was not as big a problem in the 1960s as it is because all you had to do was to ship the raw film on your desk and you receive 50% of sales already.) But do not expect any return and look at what you get as a windfall. If your goal is to make money with photos then focus on projects that provide a return when the images are delivered offer.
I have predicted that eventually RM, RF Micro and everything would be sold in the same places ... Corbis and Veer just yet gone in the opposite direction. Spring is not RM to sell as Corbis getting more clearly differentiate its brands. Is this the way the industry is headed?
I think Corbis and Veer have trouble finding a model found that works, but I do not think this new strategy will be successful. I agree that eventually all sites have images available at all price levels.
Such a system, I believe that all activities of the images will be priced, either based on the size of the file, or use. If we look to the future I think not a combination of both will work for very long. I for one use based system, but there is a wide range of applications defined - some very small applications, which the fee is only $ 1.00 and moving ever higher on the scale until we come to certain advertising uses that command thousands of dollars. A system that allows The best photos are used for both personal and commercial purposes.
A system that does not try to define what is best and price it differently. Every customer the idea of best is different from that of any other clients, according to particular needs at a given time. Editing rejects more often pictures that would sell in the market than is appropriate. Let the customer does not see everything, decide what is best and will be charged a price that a relationship with the value he receive, depending on how the customer intends to use the image.
Where are the "rays of hope" for stock photographers?
I think we remove the word "stock" of that question. It should be "Where are the" rays of hope "for photographers?" Photographers have developed skills in seeing and taking photos. Shooting stock is not the only way to make money in photography.
Photographers must recognize that dramatic changes occur in the business and it is time to adapt. At one point all the professional pictures were produced on glass plates and tintypes. Then they had to be included on 8x10 sheet of 4x5 film. Then came the 35mm single lens reflex and color. Then we went to the digital generation of sharper images and more control. Also note that the effective life of each of these methods for producing images became shorter and shorter.
The next stage of communicating with images can be moving more towards video and stills from the near. My advice to photographers coming out of the school's throw away from the camera and focus on video.
But the ray of hope is that many of the photographic and business skills already learned can be re-used in new ways in the visual communications company. It's time for everyone consider reinvention. A few may find it redundant, but no one should be confident that they have the same kind of work do three to five years from now that they are doing today.
Many of your customers will try old strategies to work. Do what they ask for, but search for new customers on the cutting edge of new ideas. The bright spot that those customers are out there.
You have a new project ... PhotoLicensingOptions.com. Can you tell us about that project?
I've written about the stock photo company in _Selling Inventory for 20 years and involved in stock photography for over 45 years. I am absolutely convinced that it is time for everyone in the stock photography business to start thinking about the Re-Invention and transfer to another class. There are many other ways photographers can their skills to earn money.
We hope to publish articles that will PhotoLicensingOption.com in all the different ways photographers can make money with the images they produce. We will new developments and trends in every aspect of the business. In this way we hope to help photographers to identify and transition to more lucrative and rewarding aspects of photography business. We are plan for our readers to provide a continuous stream of valuable information from experts in the various photographic disciplines. Initially there is a focus on what happens in stock but that will change soon so check back frequently or sign up for our regular weekly e-mail that summarizes the stories are new.
Readers pay a small fee to have read the stories of interest. There is no charge, unless the reader actually intend to read a special story. The goal is to provide the best information about the business of photography to bring together in one place.
Sell-Stock.com worked on a subscription basis with the readers pay $ 195 per year for a day service. Photo Licensing Options is designed to provide the same quality of information, but at a price of $ 1.00 or $ 2.00 if the reader finds something of particular interest. On This way everyone can easily determine, without a huge initial investment, as one of the information is worth the price.
As owner and an agency-industry analyst, what are you doing to prepare for the future?
We are looking for ways to return for our photographers to maximize such long as possible. We also try to be honest and open with them and those they need to understand to think about the Re-Invention and the transition to another line of work to help. No of the photographers we represent are completely dependent on us for their livelihood.
We also expect that there is a point where it may be necessary for the physical operation agency to come close, but given the way we structured the business that can run and still keep the revenue streams to our photographers as long as someone interested in the use of their images.
What is one piece of advice you can offer us veterans that can not be deterred in pursuing stock photo?
Your expected annual revenues continue to fall. If you are under 55 the stock photography business will be dead as a way of earning a living long before you are ready are to be free to work. Plan ahead. Recognize that I am not saying the photography business will be dead, only the part of the equipment.
Do you have any advice for newcomers in the field of stock photography?
If you shoot just to have fun, enjoy. If the money you earn from taking pictures is an important part of your support, then look for customers that gives you an assignment to shoot photos for which they have a specific need and for which they will immediately payable after the completion of the job. Make sure the pay is enough to justify the work. If you can not be happy shoot such photos then look for a Another way to earn an income.
Instead of just thinking about how a picture of a happy couple that some ethnic stereotype fits incorporate more information about how that image is to be used. What is the image should communicate and how consumers react to such communication? Expand your knowledge beyond the photographic techniques and learn about other ways of communicating information. I agree that it is easy to say but hard to do because everyone has a limited amount of time, but those who can do will be to the Who succeeds.
Many of your customers will try old strategies to work. Do what they ask for, but search for new customers on the cutting edge of new ideas.
And finally there are the last thoughts you want us to leave?
My career in photography has gone through many stages of reinvention. For me photography has always had a way of living, that was exciting, interesting, challenging and ever-changing money. I've never worried about making art. I've always been more interested in finding clients who would pay me a decent wage and providing them the best I knew how to do more than they expected. None of my photos will be remembered as great, or art, but I particularly enjoyed the work and I was very happy customers. Often when it was time for a career change I would agonize over and think that things would never be a good as they were making. Almost without exception the work is ultimately is fun and satisfying than what I had earlier. Aim to enjoy what you do and give your customers the best you can do. The rest will take care of themselves.
US $79.95
