creative copyright, ease of getting images, photographers pricing, talent, good images, bad images. This got me thinking a bit about the purchasing of images, and what motivates people to spend their dollars to buy an image or the use of an image. Just to get me started I scribbled up a list of things I use as a classification of some of the forces that might make me pick item A over item B ..and see if it applies to photos too. convenience / availability quality / suitability familiarity / reliability desire / need price / value We really need few things in life and an image isn't something that falls under the category of necessity, so I guess I find myself striking 'need' from the list, which leaves desire. From a corporate perspective, it is a need to sell rather than a desire, but there are *creative forces* at work which go beyond such base drives, often leading the corporate identity into some pretty bizarre territory - clearly illustrated in some pages I was looking at recently <http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0712/gallery.dumbest_advertising.fortune/index.html> A company may well perceive *need*, but why do they need you? Familiarity is a funny one. It differs from individual to individual and place to place. Familiar brands evoke a sense of reliability and safety but *Images* of the familiar can reduce to the mundane so there's a fine line to walk. Familiarity of name, or trademark if you like, is a powerful force but it can lead to a perception of being common very easily. An image seen everywhere isn't something some one will pay top dollar for, now would they commission a photographer to make such a picture.. However with music, familiarity is a selling point which is why radio stations used to be paid to play songs - one may also wonder why the recording industry fears P2P so much, given the recording industries biggest increase in sales EVER were the years immediately after Napster came online. But we don't sell on mass. I'm sure those who produced images that sold as wall posters did nicely in years gone by but that fad has died down as far as I can tell. Quality and suitability are not the same thing but for an image they suffice. Why buy a well lit, high resolution exquisitely crafted image of a spanner by a highly respected photographer to use in a newspaper ad when an outline drawing will suffice to sell the product? Well it may evoke in the viewer a perception of quality - heck, the company has gone to great effort to illustrate their product so lovingly, they MUST be worth spending my $$ to buy. Would Chanel sell so well if they advertised with a hand drawn scribble and the tag line "covers you're body odour"? possibly, but they'd also need to spend dollars elsewhere propping up that ad campaign! Ignoring the corporate side and looking at 'art' one might buy, art is quality anyway, art is 'crafted' but that's not to say someone will buy it no matter how well crafted an image - it has to be found suitable to match the desires of the prospective buyer, and that (for us) is tantamount to luck. Either way, it's not going to guarantee they'll part with their dollars even if it IS what they want. Convenience and availability *are* big reasons for me to spend my dollars on Item A instead of item B.. if item A is easier to find! Why would I drive all over town to trying to find a store which may stock an item I want when I can buy online? Sorry store, you're not convenient any more.. But images? Well if I were someone charged with the task of providing images for MoneyGrubbers Inc® I'd be looking for a place where I can find images easily and at minimum cost. D*mned photographers are just a pack of bloodthirsty leaches anyhow - it's much easier to deal with Flickr than some prima donna image maker.. unless you look at the reverse of convenience and availability - that works for art! :) Downside is you have to be a good business person. Ansel was a good business person, Weston was not. Both were exceptional photographers. The above is all pointless rambling really as we know what the photographer is up against. It has always been hard to get your name around, it's been hard to convince someone you're worth more than some Joe with a camera who'll shoot it for a fraction of the price. The pro clearly desires to make money with a camera while the amateur enthusiast is happy often just to work for recognition - some don't even aspire to recognition and the quality of their work will never be known Rather than trying to extract some new gem of knowledge from a heavily worked pile of rubble, might it instead be worth while looking at the question 'what is working *against* the professional photographer?' This might guide the pro in deciding where to direct their efforts in overcoming some of the modern hurdles. What's the problem? The masses might be a good answer. Sure there were always people shooting against the pros, but these were only usually a few aspiring pros, some heavy duty enthusiasts and a couple of family friends - and unless the buyer of services and the seller of services chanced to cross each others paths, there was pretty much no way their images were available to a prospective buyer. which leads us to the phenomenon of: 1. Digital Photography 2. Dissemination via the web. Unlike in the film days where you really had to be at least moderately good to get a decent image, digital cameras allow shooters to hit the shutter button far more often at far lower shot by shot expense than film - result? they learn quicker. In film days the road to success was to shoot, shoot, shoot. easy now. Those enthusiasts, even casual shooters are getting far far better results than ever before - they're close to pro level and they are CHEAPER than the pro. Not only that, but the web means they can dump MASSES of images, in searchable places too (thanks Flickr). I just decided I want an image of someone jumping in a puddle so typed in 'gumboots rain puddle' and got this: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=gumboots+rain+puddle the second image down is almost exactly what I wanted! (OK so I really had red gumboots on my mind, but I like this image better ;) the fullsized image is here: <http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=123534646&size=l> and guess what? CC licensing! he's not a pro photographer, but go look at his images, this guy is good! (Chris Darling is his name, I know him not) 1. Digital Photography 2. Dissemination via the web. 3. Searchable image repositories Years gone by you used to have to stand out. Standing out from the crowd is going to be a lot harder now the crowd has grown so much. worse still, the crowds images are title word searchable! Years gone by you needed a lot of dollars and skill on these newfangled computers to get a grip on digital imaging. Not so any more. kids today at primary school can photoshop the guts out of images with more skill than people who did their diplomas in photography 10 years ago. As we come up to speed with the technology, those new into the pool come up to speed faster. We used to send word processor staff on a minimum of 2 day training courses whenever a new version of a program came out, now days they can drop a new PC with a new OS and new software on the average user and they'll be away and running in minutes. Guess what? corporate image buyers have discovered Flickr. They've discovered the search facility, the floodgates are open and it's too late for us to shut them. So what can we do aside from complain about the situation, what can one do to elevate their reputation or become recognised, what can one do to 'be seen' and be paid appropriately for their works? How does one compete with the avalanche of *good* images available for free? We can't delude ourselves that simply being good is enough.. it wasn't enough to sell Westons prints! we can't expect buyers wont sooner or later stumble across the mountains of free images on Flickr. We cannot even expect the devotee of your work will even have the print made at a proper lab (those are shutting shops all over) , after all inkjet printers are cheap, and for $70 anyone can buy a 6 or more colour photo printer! Face it, the manufacturers of these things have been trying to make everything as easy to use as possible to sell *volume* - they care not a wit about professionals .. the only time they've ever allowed pros to come into the picture was to use the professionals profile to elevate their own sales. 1. Digital Photography 2. Dissemination via the web. 3. Searchable image repositories These are your enemies. Learn to recognise them. I've been told the college I taught at has had to change the entrance requirements this year.. It was one of the two most respected courses in the country, drawing students from around the globe. In years gone by the prerequisites were science and maths at high school,a submitted portfolio and an interview - literally thousands would apply for the small number of positions available. no longer. first was dropped was the maths and science - odd given it is an advanced diploma of science course. this year coming the college will be accepting students without an interview or even a portfolio. They have to apparently as they can't get the numbers of students any more Why would the numbers have dropped so? Digital was SUCH a sought after addition to the course initially? In days gone by access to a computer was limited, scanners hard to manage and digital cameras hideously expensive and the software (!) what a nightmare! Of couse film was harder - and training with people who really new photography inside out helped students come up to speed in a minimum of time, at minimum cost (mistakes ;) now? Go look at what school kids can do with Bryce. What's the big deal about buying a DSLR, they're cheap now.. and given PJ's can take out highly prized photo awards with P&S cameras, why should they be considered a *lesser* camera? Were we so arrogant that we believed rangefinders were lesser cameras than SLR's way back when? After all, it's about the image right? Phones. What's the best camera? the one you have with you. Mine is a 5Mp I-Mobile with a sony CCD, it takes very acceptable images and a quick tweak with neatimage and there we go. Sure I have an 8x10 - but I'm not lugging it with me 'just in case' (!) Perth's biggest pro outfit who used to shoot for all the mining companies and did a lot of offshore work closed shop some years after digital came out because they couldn't *afford* to compete with the new breed of shooters. The school shooters and wedding photographers are doing OK, but the commercial market is collapsing fast, actually it's pretty much gone here. A few board shots if you're cheap enough, PJ work, not a lot of dollars around even in the supporting industries as most of the labs are gone. Even camera stores don't really seem to want experienced photographers and more The ones who are making the most are the ones who are seen as 'special' who can do things others can't. Oddly, these people are film shooters, often with manual focus cameras. They seem to stand out in peoples minds. They seem worth the extra wait and the extra dollars. People (The Masses) look at those cameras and quickly recognise that they'd have a hard time getting anything decent out of one. Somehow this seems to reassure tem that the extra dollars they pay is worth it. I know I come across as a digi-phobe but I'm not, I have a few and I use them for what they're best at - getting images out quickly and at minimum cost. excellent for illustrative purposes when someone at point B needs an image of an item at point A *now*. Film has qualities beyond digital irrespective of the inconvenience, and that is where I make the small amount I do with images. Flickr and other searchable sites coupled with CC can't be fought when the masses love it Digital can't be put back in the box (even for those who REALLY hate it) But as I see it, anyone who wants to be a professional photographer in years to come has to find a very tight niche market and clutch onto it for dear life, or be prepared to shoot a lot more for a lot less, on demand when needed, where needed. Personally I have stepped back from all that. I don't want to be a pro anymore. I'm rather more enjoying taking pics for fun and working in a supporting industry but I really feel for pros, you guys have got a tough ride ahead.. </2c> karl
