Flickr and the photographic elite
Aug 8th, 2007 by Laurie
I love flickr. It is a tool that has allowed anyone with the ability to make a digital image to upload it, share it and leave it there for others who might have similar interests to find it, form groups and learn from each others’ work. It is brilliant.
Until recently photography has been an art form of the elite. It was a sustainable business for generations. I have friends who made a very good living at the beginning of their careers because they could sell enough commercial work to pay the rent and fund their personal projects. Those days, it seems, are over for the majority of photographers.
With the onset of istockphoto.com, the idea of paying thousands of dollars in stock photography seems a bit ridiculous. As a result, my friends can’t make a living doing commercial work anymore. I feel for them, it is a shift in how they make a living.
However, the unabashed shaming of sites like istockphoto.com and flickr.com in the name of the cheapening of photography is a defensive reaction of those photographic elite who feel the market slipping away beneath them.
The market has changed. The masses create the images we see now. Grasping onto a time gone by will not bring it back.
I couldn’t agree more with your last statement.
I love flickr too. It’s a bit of new PR for my business. Lot’s of people forget that advertising assignment photographers are still making fantastic incomes. As long as there are new products to sell, there will be new images needed.
I don’t rely on a income from stock photography. I do however, receive an small monthly income from Getty. I was approached by Photonica (now a Getty Subsidiary) in 1993 to add a number of my images to their catalog. I gave Photonica 10 images and they accepted them all. Over the years I’ve added a few images and now have a collection of 47 images with Getty (all are “Rights Managed”). It’s not a lot of images but a few sell well and bring in close to $10,000 a year. The horrible “70/30 deal” I have with Getty means that the images are generating just a bit more than $30,000 a year in income.
Perspectively, I spend close to $60,000 a year in film, polaroid, processing and scanning on my advertising assignments. Add in the production costs of stylists, crew, gear rentals, location fees, travel expenses, models/talent fees, shipping, feeding everyone, post-production, my shoot/usage fees and model/talent usage fees, it gets to be quite expensive. All of which I finance up front and then wait close to 90 days to get paid.
Now, I’m just your average joe advertising shooter, there is nothing “elite” about me. I’m not particularly well known in the industry, but I am known to a small handful of clients that I’ve cultivated over the years. I have quite a few friends that are strictly advertising shooters also, and like all businesses, each of ours have had their ups and downs, but the “…ability to make a digital image to upload it, share it and leave it there for others…” has only increased our exposure to a broader market place, it hasn’t in the least bit had a negative affect our incomes.
Photographers like Stephen Shore and Alec Soth blow the pants off of anyone posting their photographs of kittens and rainbows on flickr. Just because people are now easily able to share their snap-shots doesn’t make them artists.
Andrew: but it’s not all kittens and rainbows. that’s the biggest misconception about flickr, that it’s all people who don’t care a lick for fine art photography.
You need to spend some time on the site, but once you’re there you’ll find a very enthusiastic crowd of passionate photographers who are putting out interesting work.
…and they’re reaching a wider audience.
[…] Read More… […]
Going along with Bryan’s comment, there’s a feature on Flickr called Interestingness where they highlight the most interesting photos posted in a particular day.
http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
No kittens, no rainbows.
lol, i clicked your link amelia and saw a f***g kitten.
Yes, no kittens alright… Just this masterpiece:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/romy87/1059539182/
Of course that page is dynamic so I’m sure there will be an equally great photo of a dog in its place when you click on it.
There is great work on flickr. Most of it by people who are not giving it away. Its the lower end crap that is usually being given away. The photographers that are doing good work on flickr and don’t know they could get more for their money wouldn’t be giving it away if they knew what it was worth.
Jeff
And another perfect example of the kind of photo on Flickr that get a lot of comments about how great it is:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/francois_lafite/1065081189
Jeff