When I was an assistant (early 90's - before the 'revolution') I worked for a photographer who said the industry had shot it's self in the foot by supplying to image libraries as it would stop agencies and companies commissioning new work. But even without image libraries, digital cameras have made everyone into photographers, so increasingly I find people who are doing it themselves...or getting a 'friend who has a camera' to do it. I even know of a bus driver who is a wedding photographer on a weekend! Mind you, I still think there is truth in the saying 'you get what you pay for'...if you're stupid enough to pay a bus driver to do your wedding photo's then you may not get the wedding album of your dreams. Jonathan. On 19/5/08 02:13, "karl shah-jenner" <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Stock digital photography. Have a peek at the MSI and Acer ad images in the > link below > > http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/18/asus-and-msi-have-some-splaining-to-do/ > > > > > And the comments: > > <quotes> > "I forget where, maybe the Wall Street Journal, but some newspaper had an > entire article on companies losing branding quality due to internet stock > photo usage (and many companies using the same stock photos). This is pretty > common though; I'm not sure why it deserves an Engadget article. Neither > company did anything wrong, per se." > > *** > > ""License type: Royalty-free" > > > *** > > "Anyone pr their dog can take a picture of this "quality", suitable for the > web, with a $100 camera. I'd do it for a $5. Companies get so tied up with > "professionalism" but the standards of "professionalism" change as technology > improves. They're stupid to use stock footage when an original photo would > have taken any random employee 5 minutes at a school or home." > > *** > > I'm not sure which strikes me the most. The fact that the average engadget > reader sees professionalism changing based on technology (!) , that they see > commercial photography being reduced to a 5 minute operation worth $5 , that > they see nothing worthy of comment in a multi-million dollar company using > free images for their advertising or that it's so *common* it's not worthy of > comment. > > We have Virgin using images found on flickr, now we have these two companies > using free images in what I could only assume are advertising campaigns > costing $$$.. > > I can understand say a one off image of something special found on a royalty > free image library or flickr being used in an ad campaign, but we're talking > about the marketting of an actual product - a new product, something which in > times gone by one would not expect to find in a stock image library. > > This 'digital revolution' must be saving these companies a fortune by cutting > those greedy photographers out of the loop (!) :( > </quotes> > > > > Karls new photography business model ©: > Get the family members together pre-wedding and shoot the heads against a > white background (the Red One 12Mp cine cam would be good cheap way to get > shots at all angles in one quick smiling rotation), find out where they want > their wedding album shot.. Tahiti, the Whitsundays, Rome.. wherever! Head > to Flickr or the royalty free image sites and gather the shots then hunker > down in the computer room and set to creating the dream wedding > > packages start at $60 for 12 images! > > golden days.. > > > > k > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Jonathan Turner Photographer e: home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx t: 0113 217 1275 m:07796 470573 7 Scott Hall Walk, Leeds, LS7 3JQ http://www.jonathan-turner.com
