Has StockShlock Run

Its Course?

What attracted you to photography? Was it taking "staged" pictures of commercial models? Or was it taking real-life pictures of the world around you? If it's the latter, then examine the direction you're going with your photography.

History shows us that all aspects of creative expression goes through phases, as styles and public preferences change. Sure, fads and crazes, not to forget approaches in art, come and go. And as the ability to gain new information speeds up, thanks to the Internet, we're seeing preferences change even more rapidly, whether it's in women's fashions, men's hairstyles, or photography.

Here at Photosource International, our editorial customers require photos that reflect (in a real-life way) the world around us. We aren't photojournalists whose customers are usually news outlets, TV, and websites that pay high fees for disaster pictures (the kind we see nightly on the news hour); nor are we paparazzi who get paid well for photos of celebrities and their doings.

"Maybe we've run our course in "StockShlock." Real-life people won't qualify anymore, and like Hollywood, we stock photographers will have to resort to avatar figures."

And especially we are not commercial stock photographers who specialize in wishful imagery (the world according to Getty, iStock, or Corbis). The Internet is now drowning in this kind of imagery. Check out any of the on-line portals. They're all there, the generic lovely blonde with green sunglasses; an executive throwing documents in the breeze; day-glow chartreuse tennis balls; a close-up of a wind-swept fashion model; and of course, the ipod guy.

Ho-hum, yawn. Is this the kind of subject matter that attracts an emerging photographer to photography? In the majority of instances, people decide on a photographic career because of their love of capturing something meaningful or poetic with their camera. They win a prize, they take a photography course, and then they search for ways to make money with their talent, to provide for themselves and their family.

They encounter a fork in the road. They learn about Royalty-Free, microstock and Rights-Managed images. They embark on a career of supplying generic images, copying the style and content of the major stock houses.

Are these generic stock images the easiest pictures to take for emerging commercial stock photographers? Next to snapshots, they are, if the photographer takes the copycat approach. Most commercial stock shooters have found that the effortless way to produce a bunch of commercially acceptable stock images is to capitalize on the ideas of the leading stock houses that have done the market research and know the trends.

This has always been the formula for the fashion industry, the commercial music industry, and most other industries where taste and trends guide production. The recipe in the commercial stock photo industry is to keep the successful concept the same, and add favored locations, clothing, hairstyles, and currently preferred color and tints.

Am I being too critical? I'm asking, "Is this how you want to spend your creative life?" It seems to me that this kind of photographic activity takes not much more talent and creativity in photography awareness, than photographing fireworks, or hot air balloons, or sunsets and rainbows.

Maybe we've run our course in "StockShlock." Real-life people won't qualify anymore, and like Hollywood, we stock photographers will have to resort to avatar figures. Check out the advertising photographic ten years ago-this'll give you an idea of the shelf life of such commercial stock.

Dig deeper. If someone can easily copy your idea, then it's not much of an idea.

Don't be the stock photographer who wakes up one day and asks, "What have I been doing? Am I on the wrong track?"

Sure, some of the major stock agencies call attention to real-life editorial images, or even historical images. Getty Images, for example, features the TIME-LIFE Magazine collection; Corbis features the Bettmann Archives. But these are not contemporary images.

Contemporary "editorial photographs" are usually interpreted as disaster pictures or photos that are newsworthy, taken by photo journalists. Everyday-life photographs are left to be produced by individual editorial photographers, who choose to interpret the world around them, free of any influence by art directors or monetary pressures. If he lived today, would Getty Images accept the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson in today's stock photography climate? Probably not. "Too narrow, too focused in subject matter..." an art director would say. "Incapable of selling product."

Can you wear two hats-- that is, take meaningful, long-lasting photos, and also engage in stockschlock to put bread on the table? Probably not. A few have tried, but speaking two languages at the same time is near impossible.

But you can make money in editorial stock. Worldwide, an estimated $700 million is spent annually for "editorial stock photography." Three fourths of that is "commercial editorial" stock, and about a quarter of that is what I define as true-life editorial stock, $17 million. That translates to about $50,000 a day spent on non-commercial editorial stock.

Some publishers (of coffee table books, textbooks, etc.) spend $150,000 a month for photography. They're rarely interested in Royalty-Free or microstock images. They need appropriate editorial stock that reflects the quality of the word content in their projects.

In short, if you follow the big money trail in stock photography, you'll land at the major agencies and begin producing a commodity for them. But there are plenty of alternatives in today's visual society. The choice is yours. You can follow your original dream.

Rohn Engh, veteran stock photographer and publisher of PhotoStockNOTES has provided on-line targeted information for photobuyers, photo researchers and editors for three decades. No other newsletter brings photobuyers such up-to-the minute information on how to find stock photos. For more info: 800 223-3860.