BLOG | FEBRUARY, 2010 The Democratization of Stock Photographyby Justin
I love that there are millions of professional-quality, high-resolution stock images available for download; priced so I can purchase multiple images for a single client. But it wasn't always this way. The first design firm I worked for back in the early nineties had a bookcase full of stock photo catalogs. These thick, heavy catalogs were updated every few months and contained only a couple thousand images, categorized by general terms such as "business," "sports," or "family." There was no such thing as a royalty-free images; each image was licensed for a single use and a limited period of time. The costs could run into the thousands of dollars for a single image. Once you selected a stock photo, you called or emailed the stock company and requested the image. The image would arrive via FedEx either as a 35mm slide or 4x5 film. There was a seal affixed to the plastic sleeve encasing the film; if you broke the seal you were agreeing to the terms of the license. You would scan the film in-house for low-res comping purposes and eventually send the film out, (along with the job files) to a pre-production house to be scanned professionally and placed inside the project file. The film had to be returned to the stock company once the project was complete. If you lost the film, the stock company would take your first born child. Early attempts at providing images online were clumsy. The industry went from phonebook-sized catalogs to expensive CDs containing just a few dozen images, to online stock agencies offering selections basically mimicking their physical catalogs with no means of downloading high-res images (few agencies or design firms had anything faster than a 56K modem). In the 2000s, online stock photography came into its own. Stock companies like Getty and Jupiter Images offered hundreds of thousands of images to choose from (including royalty-free) with intelligent search capability (images tagged by keyword, color, image composition) and the ability to download non-watermarked comps. But the real democratization of stock photography began with micro stock sites like iStockphoto* that open their collections to amateur and semiprofessional photographers and sell royalty-free images as cheaply as a few dollars (as opposed to hundreds). Free stock sites like morgueFile and stock.xchng* have leveled the playing field even further. Even large stock companies like Veer and Getty Images have entered the micro stock market. Veer offers inexpensive images from their Marketplace collection and Getty sells photos selected from Flickr, the photo sharing site, starting at $5 each. Just as blogging brought publishing to the masses, inexpensive, high-quality stock photography is quickly becoming the standard as a valuable resource to the design community. * Getty Images owns iStockPhoto and recently acquired stock.xchng. |
It took me until the second to last paragraph to figure out why the newsboy is hawking a paper called "Morgue."
Here's another new model: www.focalpop.com
Similar to microstock except the process is flipped around. Image seekers specify what photo they what, how soon and for how much. Next, photographers submit their photos that meet the request. The seeker reviews the photos submitted and picks a winner.
Microstock sites had the right idea in opening it up to more photographers (hence making it more affordable, to your point), but FocalPop takes it a step further and makes it easier to find the right photo without having to dig through image libraries for hours.
I'm waiting for the democritization of web development...
@Becky,
Thanks for the link. The focalpop.com model is an interesting one but it seems the photographers are asked to work on spec, a philosophy of which I am not an advocate. However, there's a company that does very inexpensive product photography with quick turnaround. You can check them out at www.picupartist.com.
@Rob,
Really nice photo work on your site. The democratization of web development... hmm, what would that look like?
The only downside I see to the microstock sites is that it makes it a lot harder for a photographer to make a living with stock photography and may push away some of the better stock photographers thus diluting the market with mediocre images.
I was listening to an interview with Pro Photog Mark Robert Halper, who said "...now days 'good enough is now good enough'".
Also, sending specs to awaiting photographers may very well help with the efficiency...but, buyers don't even want to take to the time to solicit pricing. If they can't pay and download immediately, they move on... Speed today is a big driver...
@Jacqueline,
I agree that buyers of photography have taken on a fast-food mentality: quick, cheap and filling.
I've had the pleasure of working with professional photographers and the quality of work and attentiveness to detail goes way beyond what you could hope for in a stock image. But "money talks" as the saying goes, and 98% of our clients are hesitant to expand their project budgets to include custom photography.
It's similar to a client choosing between paying a professional designer $5,000 to develop an corporate identity and buying a generic logo for $50 from pixellogo.com.