Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian
There's a huge difference between earning money and making a living. I would rather see the ones with talent push the untalented hacks out, due to hard work and using the internet to promote themselves, rather than reduce the value of photography through volume and their being chosen, down more to keywords than image.
With music and the digital age, the smart artists have realized that with the internet, they don't need big business to distribute their work and make the lion share of the profits.
The opposite seems to be happening with photography.
|
All I'm saying is that if you're sole income is stock photography, now is the time to diversify. Yes, these stock photo guys had it good for a long time, but the reality now is that anyone with a digital camera can snap a stock worthy shot. I'm a prime example, a good chunk of my shots on Getty were taking with a point and shoot before I knew anything about photography. Aim, point, shoot.
The opposite is only happening with stock, and like the mainstream music industry, it's a dying business model that has, for the most part, seen its day. Stock is but a small part of the photography profession and a good portion of it is filled with hacks anyway. There's some really talented pros out there and the majority of them can't be bothered with Getty et al. They're making money in real ways. Be it corporate clients, weddings, portraits, fashion, news, sports, etc.
You can't change what is happening, so there's no point in being bitter like Brooker up there.