plasticman Posted June 20, 2007 Share #21 Posted June 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Anyone wondering about the economics of this business model should take a look at Chris Anderson's "The Long Tail - How endless choice is creating unlimited demand" The book gets rather repetitive after the first five or six chapters, but the point is essentially that all these $1 niche products end-up generating enormous amounts of money - in this case people like Lise Gagne are able to buy nice lakeside homes on the simple basis of selling in volume. Like it or not, the business model is here to stay - no turning the clock back to the elitist days... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2007 Posted June 20, 2007 Hi plasticman, Take a look here I'm almost ready to surrender but what about Stock Agencies?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
martinb Posted June 20, 2007 Share #22 Posted June 20, 2007 The one's of you who do stock here. Do you use RF or licenced? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 20, 2007 Share #23 Posted June 20, 2007 The one's of you who do stock here. Do you use RF or licenced? I am sure there are mixtures of both.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted June 20, 2007 Share #24 Posted June 20, 2007 my agencies officially do not accept files from the DMR or M8. however i have successfully snuck M8 files through before by removing the EXIF camera info. Ok... Besides today's and yesterday's and last week's Bush (the Shrub) statements I've rarely heard anything dumber. Since when do agencies have time to read exif data on every shot, and why would they anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 20, 2007 Share #25 Posted June 20, 2007 Ok... Besides today's and yesterday's and last week's Bush (the Shrub) statements I've rarely heard anything dumber. Since when do agencies have time to read exif data on every shot, and why would they anyway? Well...... they do...... Some stock agencies will not allow you to up-rez the shots, so they need to know what camera the shot was taken on to know what the native resolution is. Up-rezzing is a major no-no on iStockPhoto for instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 20, 2007 Share #26 Posted June 20, 2007 Well, it's easy to jump to conclusions for sure I know several photographesrs who have met and known Lise Gagne over the years. She is one of the tallented ones that has developed over the years. If you look at her early stuff (taken with a Canon 300D), and watch as her shots got better and better, it improves in line with time, experience and new exquipment purchases (like better lighting and cameras - now 1Ds2 I think). I am not getting into whether some people are making money at penny stock. I don't care. Lise Gagne... But you've never met her right? And all of those models are friends working for free? And I guess they came up with the locations, props, wardrobes, hair, makup, and concepts too. And they all paid their own travel costs and meals just to help her out. And her assistants are volunteers I bet. I am just not buying it. I have two friends who are tops in this type of stock photography. They were very skilled and successful commercial photographers long before that. And even with their experience, facilites, and staff, I don't think they would have been able to produce Lise's body of work in four years. (Although theirs would be more refined.) As for the M8 being acceptable to the stock agencies one deals with. If it isn't, why would you use it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 20, 2007 Share #27 Posted June 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) But you've never met her right? And all of those models are friends too? And I guess they came up with the locations, props, wardrobes, hair, makup, and concepts too. And they all paid their own travel costs and meals just to help her out. And her assistants are volunteers I bet. No body said she never paid for models, but that is not how she got started, and is not how things 'have to work'. There are lots of models - very good models around the world willing to work for free. I shot some a couple of weeks back (actually 8 of them in a concept shoot). They came for free (they paid their own travel), the worked for free (in return for high res shots on CD) and all I provided was lunch and directions (and of course did the shoot). No, I have never personally met Lise, but have had the oportunity on several occasions (which I chose not to travel to). I do know lots of people (actually good friends) who have, and you could too..... It's very easy to dissmiss some one as fake..... especially when you don't 'want' to beleive it. I have watched her portfolio grow over the years (from just a couple of hundred shots and a few thousand sales), whereas many other people are seeing it for the first time. Personally, I don't care if people think "she" is real or fake, or even what they think of all the others that are following in her footsteps, but what I don't understand is why people make such negative assumptions so readily.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted June 20, 2007 Share #28 Posted June 20, 2007 This reminds me of the holding in Philip-Lorca diCorcia's now-infamous lawsuit for taking some street photos of Erno Nussenzweig that, despite selling multiple prints of that image for tens of thousands of dollars each, the court found that no model release was needed since the sales where not commercial in nature. Now you can see where the REAL margins are! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted June 20, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 20, 2007 Personally, I don't care if people think "she" is real or fake, or even what they think of all the others that are following in her footsteps, but what I don't understand is why people make such negative assumptions so readily.... Dave - think of the Wizard of Oz. There are many succesful businesses that have others pulling the strings behind several thick layers of veils. I've seen it first hand how things can get the spin treatment to make them appear as something their not. Alan makes a good case actually....as much as I wouldn't consider myself a believer in conspiracy theories. I recall reading an article in Popular Photography a few years ago about how people were doing so well in the business and such...I'm sure that article alone had quite a few people signing up to istock, or giving submitting work a shot. I got my interest, that's for sure. I have a rather jaded view on certain things on the web...there is much I've discovered that has led me to this view of course....many things aren't what they seem at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted June 20, 2007 Share #30 Posted June 20, 2007 all 3 of my stock agencies each have a large team of dedicated image editors that THOROUGHLY go through each and EVERY high res file submitted to make sure they are up to their technical standards, which are EXTREMELY high. they look for things like banding, bad cloning, overshapening, posterizing, chromatic abberations, antialiasing etc. anything they deem as unable to withstand commerical applications (including billboard printing). when they see something that looks odd to them, they often look at the EXIF info to see what camera/lens/exposure setting etc and comment back to you why they think its problematic. NONE of my editorial or advertising jobs i have worked on go through the same technical scrutiny as my stock imagery does. they have a list of cameras they allow photographers to use for a reason--the M8 is not on them for reasons beyond me. the Canon 5D is, and i find the M8 outresolves the 5D in many instances.... but considering that once they refuse an image for whatever reason, you cannot resubmit it, so any time/effort/expenses used cannot be recooped. it is in the best interests of the photographer to get their images accepted. so before you start throwing insults, you should either do your research regarding stock photography technical standards, or watch your tone..... /a Ok... Besides today's and yesterday's and last week's Bush (the Shrub) statements I've rarely heard anything dumber. Since when do agencies have time to read exif data on every shot, and why would they anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 20, 2007 Share #31 Posted June 20, 2007 I am just not buying it. I have two friends who are tops in this type of stock photography. They were very skilled and successful commercial photographers long before that. And even with their experience, facilites, and staff, I don't think they would have been able to produce Lise's body of work in four years. Dave - think of the Wizard of Oz. Well, I will say this and then shut up about it because there clearly are some non beleivers among us (which is of course their absolute right and I am not arguing ) I used to think there were threee types of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those that sit around and wonder what happened.... Now I think there is a fourth one to add to this list.... Those who deny it ever happened...... Peace... and good luck to any one wanting to sell through stock libraries of any flavour and price range.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted June 20, 2007 Share #32 Posted June 20, 2007 Like it or not, the business model is here to stay - no turning the clock back to the elitist days... Yes imagine, those elitist photographers think they should be able to make a living from selling photographs! And how about all those models, assistants and make-up artists -why should they get paid anything at all (you could give them a nice print if your feeling generous) when all that money really belongs in the deserving pockets of a few wall street suits who control the mega media companies. It's the new economy. From China to the USA income inequality is growing at a rapid pace. The money shufflers (aka the real 'elitists') are taking an ever bigger slice of the pie while photographers, illustrators and the rest of the peons see the value of their efforts shrink with every passing year. In every survey I have seen the average annual earnings for penny stock photographers are a small fraction of the annual earnings of RM and RF photographers. Lise Gagne may be the real deal and good for her -as talented as getting peoples services for nothing as she is at photography, but she is an extremely rare exception and not the rule. Will the micro stock business evolve to support 100,000 Lise Gagnes? More likely that the predatory business model will attract even cheaper aggregators until even a $1 seems generous. The big content aggregators would like to get rid of copyright and artists rights and have content be free or as close to it as they can manage. That puts them in the drivers seat as they control the distribution channels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 20, 2007 Share #33 Posted June 20, 2007 My sincere apologies to Lise Gagne. She does take her own photos. I checked with someone who I consider an excellent industry source and this is what he told me about her and iStockphoto: Please keep in mind that this is a paraphrase of what he told me and I have no direct knowledge. ----------------------------------------------- Lise Gagne got started at the very beginning of iStockphoto and worked a special deal with them. She worked her ass off for several years and produced a lot of material in return for that deal. (With a strong emphasis on "worked her ass off") He feels that most of her images are simple copies of what was already out there and thus didn't take too much effort to plan the shoots. This is not so unusual of course. He figures she makes about $250,000 gross a year now and is the poster child for the penny stock industry. He thinks she would make triple that in RM or RF stock. He is not of the opinion that she just got into photography a few years ago. He figures the next highest grossing shooter there does less than half that. His feeling is that it is very unlikely anyone else can do as well because the market is flooded and she had a special deal. (He didn't explain what that deal was.) Again, sorry Lise, but you looked too good to be true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 20, 2007 Share #34 Posted June 20, 2007 ... More likely that the predatory business model will attract even cheaper aggregators until even a $1 seems generous. The big content aggregators would like to get rid of copyright and artists rights and have content be free or as close to it as they can manage. That puts them in the drivers seat as they control the distribution channels. I remember hearing someone describe this as eventually working for a "pat on the back." That's how I feel when someone calls me and wants to use one of my images in exchange for a photo credit. Eventually it will be like in the old days of home piecework manufacturing (people brought the work home with them) - the whole family can get involved in producing the work. For some individuals who are not running a full time photo business (with employees, health insurance, disability insurance, liability insurance, workers comp insurance, retirement plan, other overhead, etc.) they just see stock sales as a fun sideline or a way to make a little money from their hobby. They are not necessarily taking into account how much time they are spending and I doubt if they ever figure out how much they earn per hour. And I guess some pros see it as something to do with all those old images that are gathering dust or were taken just for fun. But if someone really wants to set up a full time business based on penny stock sales, I think it would be interesting to see the business plan for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 21, 2007 Share #35 Posted June 21, 2007 I'm learning a lot from this thread, but I've got some questions about some of your terms: I think she may be a front for another photographer who works in RM. A successful RM image though can make 10 times that. What is "RM"? Lise Gagne found a lot of friends to model for her to begin with, and a lot of shots since then have been on a TFCD basis. I too never paid a cent for modeling fees or make up services. TFCD all the way. What is "TFCD"? Do you use RF or licenced? What are "RF" and "licenced"? In every survey I have seen the average annual earnings for penny stock photographers are a small fraction of the annual earnings of RM and RF photographers. He thinks she would make triple that in RM or RF stock. As above, how do "RM" and "RF" differ? Many thanks for the education!! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted June 21, 2007 Share #36 Posted June 21, 2007 RF = Royalty Free RM = Rights Managed TFCD = Time for CD (as in model gets CD for their time instead of $$$) Licensed i'm not sure about, but would guess it's just a blanket license to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted June 21, 2007 Share #37 Posted June 21, 2007 Thanks, Sol! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.