Or imagine the disaster ensuing by paying a wedding photographer to
drive your bus.
Jeff Saxman
Saxman Photography, Inc.
www.saxmanphoto.com
On May 20, 2008, at 11:40 AM, jonathan turner wrote:
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
