Back in the mid late 90s I was with an outfit called Photonica, and was able to do quite well for myself with stock. They were subsequently bought by Getty and my profits went way down very quickly. I hung on with them for a little while, and finally gave up the ghost about eight years ago. Now, I’ve moved on to licensing on my own, and there has been more of a positive up tic. But not like the mid-nineties.
It really does sound like it was the golden age. I often say the mystery of film was very good for photographers. It was a real challenge to do this thing in the dark that involved film and chemistry and strobe lights and... If you needed something done well, you'd pay well for the assurance.
My second job in photography was with the stock behemoth Thre Image Bank in the mid-1970's. Among our many successes was the sale of Pete Turner's shot of Devil's Postpile to the "Close Encounters" movie. I believe we got $9,000.00 for that - a new benchmark in the business. Those days are long gone, just like the fees I used to earn out of my south-of0-Market studio in San Francisco.
The problem is this: there is little creativity left in the profession. How many flower/sunset/redwood-grove/homeless-people-on-the-street/sexy woman and otherwise don't-you-feel-bad-about-the-way-it-is shots are out there? There is truly nothing new under the sun when it comes to shooting with a camera. And there are more cameras out there than ever before, regardless of the talent, or lack of, that wields them.
The only thing that keep me going is a deep love of the craft - that is why it is analog for me!
Thanks so much for commenting, Robert. I appreciate it. I hope it's less a problem of lack of creativity and more an issue of signal-to-noise ratio. There is surely an awful lot of noise out there. I'd argue that's most "content" after all.
For anyone interested, Mr. Buelteman is responsible for some incredibly creative work himself—particularly his "engergetic photograms." Which, incidentally, have deadly potential if not executed to perfection. https://www.buelteman.com/energetic-photograms
Sorry for my cynicism. Another factor is that there is no investment required to make photographs in the digital realm. No Risk: No Reward. The absence of a cost in making digital images invites carelessness and a deficit of thought. As in, "I can always fix it in post-production." More options don't equate to more creativity.
Ha! No apology necessary. I think you're 100% correct about the idea of fixing it in post being damaging to creativity, and especially with the idea that there's no investment required in the digital realm. Same goes with words. You used to have to be pretty serious to dedicate the cost of ink and paper to printing what somebody was gonna say. Now any idiot can publish his thoughts weekly in a charming newsletter format ostensibly about photography and the business of being creative.
Sadly, I realized years ago that stock photography wasn't for me. I'd have to shoot subjects I really wasn't interested in like thumbtacks and diverse groups of people in corporate conference rooms looking engaged. I already had a job that didn't excite me creatively but paid a lot better than shooting stock; I didn't need more work that didn't stimulate me. Now I shoot what feeds my soul and any sales I make along the way are a bonus.
Actually, if you were smart, you'd leave photography altogether. Besides photojournalism, the only other genre that's safe is wedding photography, an offshoot of photojournalism. Even travel photography isn't. It is oversubscribed or can be created using AI.
With all the AI images and stuff being fake, the old school newspaper photojournalist in me has to wonder… if shooting film will be one way to verify authenticity?
Sure the print can be manipulated by editors etc but we would still have the negative to prove what we saw, documented and submitted for publication.
Does it even matter anymore to society?
It matters to me!
Journalism ethics and all that old school value stuff.
That is a really interesting idea I had not considered. I have to assume it would be logistically challenging enough as to be impossible, but if the "problem" gets bad enough, in theory I could imagine an old gray lady saying "That's it. We are going all film all the time." Saying it even sounds impossible. But I like your thinking! Thanks for reading.
I started stock photography when Alamy came online in 2003ish and remember the days when a single photo could make £1000, ok not all at once, though I did make £800 in one go on a particular shot. I paid off a camera at the time this way and for awhile it became my sole income. A very short while, so I had to find other things. I just didn’t have a massive library to push into their system like some people did. I switched back to my career in software development. I stopped taking photos full-stop and it hurt to see what was happening to my old industry.
Thanks for commenting, Nick. The idea of earning a living solely from stock strikes me as winning the lottery. That it seems impossible now is incredibly sad. I’m glad you were able to enjoy it even briefly.
My largest sale in the 90s was for $10,000 and I received half of that. The photo was not extraordinary, but was exactly what the client needed. It is amazing how far things have gone downhill. Today I have a niche collection of stock images and I market those to very specific people who need them. The usual sale is $250 - $500 and it is all mine. I do not put much effort into it since I am busy with assignment work, so sales are not frequent. But, it is nice to have a collection of images I can be proud of and it generates extra income.
Agreed about the death of stock.
Back in the mid late 90s I was with an outfit called Photonica, and was able to do quite well for myself with stock. They were subsequently bought by Getty and my profits went way down very quickly. I hung on with them for a little while, and finally gave up the ghost about eight years ago. Now, I’ve moved on to licensing on my own, and there has been more of a positive up tic. But not like the mid-nineties.
It really does sound like it was the golden age. I often say the mystery of film was very good for photographers. It was a real challenge to do this thing in the dark that involved film and chemistry and strobe lights and... If you needed something done well, you'd pay well for the assurance.
And the challenge was FUN (imho) in Boston anyway, we were all in it together. Sharing darkrooms, putting on shows in studios.
Hi Bill-
My second job in photography was with the stock behemoth Thre Image Bank in the mid-1970's. Among our many successes was the sale of Pete Turner's shot of Devil's Postpile to the "Close Encounters" movie. I believe we got $9,000.00 for that - a new benchmark in the business. Those days are long gone, just like the fees I used to earn out of my south-of0-Market studio in San Francisco.
The problem is this: there is little creativity left in the profession. How many flower/sunset/redwood-grove/homeless-people-on-the-street/sexy woman and otherwise don't-you-feel-bad-about-the-way-it-is shots are out there? There is truly nothing new under the sun when it comes to shooting with a camera. And there are more cameras out there than ever before, regardless of the talent, or lack of, that wields them.
The only thing that keep me going is a deep love of the craft - that is why it is analog for me!
-Robert Buelteman
Thanks so much for commenting, Robert. I appreciate it. I hope it's less a problem of lack of creativity and more an issue of signal-to-noise ratio. There is surely an awful lot of noise out there. I'd argue that's most "content" after all.
For anyone interested, Mr. Buelteman is responsible for some incredibly creative work himself—particularly his "engergetic photograms." Which, incidentally, have deadly potential if not executed to perfection. https://www.buelteman.com/energetic-photograms
Sorry for my cynicism. Another factor is that there is no investment required to make photographs in the digital realm. No Risk: No Reward. The absence of a cost in making digital images invites carelessness and a deficit of thought. As in, "I can always fix it in post-production." More options don't equate to more creativity.
Ha! No apology necessary. I think you're 100% correct about the idea of fixing it in post being damaging to creativity, and especially with the idea that there's no investment required in the digital realm. Same goes with words. You used to have to be pretty serious to dedicate the cost of ink and paper to printing what somebody was gonna say. Now any idiot can publish his thoughts weekly in a charming newsletter format ostensibly about photography and the business of being creative.
Sadly, I realized years ago that stock photography wasn't for me. I'd have to shoot subjects I really wasn't interested in like thumbtacks and diverse groups of people in corporate conference rooms looking engaged. I already had a job that didn't excite me creatively but paid a lot better than shooting stock; I didn't need more work that didn't stimulate me. Now I shoot what feeds my soul and any sales I make along the way are a bonus.
That sounds like the ideal place to be. Shoot what you love and get paid for it. Heavenly.
Actually, if you were smart, you'd leave photography altogether. Besides photojournalism, the only other genre that's safe is wedding photography, an offshoot of photojournalism. Even travel photography isn't. It is oversubscribed or can be created using AI.
Luckily I am not smart and have no other skills. So we're gonna ride the lightning!
With all the AI images and stuff being fake, the old school newspaper photojournalist in me has to wonder… if shooting film will be one way to verify authenticity?
Sure the print can be manipulated by editors etc but we would still have the negative to prove what we saw, documented and submitted for publication.
Does it even matter anymore to society?
It matters to me!
Journalism ethics and all that old school value stuff.
That is a really interesting idea I had not considered. I have to assume it would be logistically challenging enough as to be impossible, but if the "problem" gets bad enough, in theory I could imagine an old gray lady saying "That's it. We are going all film all the time." Saying it even sounds impossible. But I like your thinking! Thanks for reading.
I started stock photography when Alamy came online in 2003ish and remember the days when a single photo could make £1000, ok not all at once, though I did make £800 in one go on a particular shot. I paid off a camera at the time this way and for awhile it became my sole income. A very short while, so I had to find other things. I just didn’t have a massive library to push into their system like some people did. I switched back to my career in software development. I stopped taking photos full-stop and it hurt to see what was happening to my old industry.
Thanks for commenting, Nick. The idea of earning a living solely from stock strikes me as winning the lottery. That it seems impossible now is incredibly sad. I’m glad you were able to enjoy it even briefly.
Every stock image that does not need to be factually truthful… is ripe for AI replacement.
And unfortunately I think this may prove true for high end commercial assignment photography too. I’m holding my breath.
I'm hopeful that the "high end" part of that might save you.
My largest sale in the 90s was for $10,000 and I received half of that. The photo was not extraordinary, but was exactly what the client needed. It is amazing how far things have gone downhill. Today I have a niche collection of stock images and I market those to very specific people who need them. The usual sale is $250 - $500 and it is all mine. I do not put much effort into it since I am busy with assignment work, so sales are not frequent. But, it is nice to have a collection of images I can be proud of and it generates extra income.