Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I would like some enlightenment on how stock photography works. I had been under the impression that it is no longer a viable source of income because of the existence of a population equipped with cameras on their phones. Then, I read Tina's piece about income from stock photography, including mention of a student of her's who quit a job because of stock photography income; this appeared to be a current event. Also, as a docent at the Computer History Museum, I met a school teacher who told me that a substantial part of his income was stock photography. So, if any of you has the patience to explain to me a bit about how it works, or to refer me to a web site that would explain, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Herb Herbert Kanner kanner at acm.org 650-326-8204 Question authority and the authorities will question you. On Jul 3, 2013, at 10:50 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:20 PM, lrzeitlin at aol.com wrote: > >> For every artist who is exhibited, I know 10 equally talented artists who >> never found an outlet. Look at the LUG. The Gallery is replete with >> excellent photographs, most taken by "non-professionals" whose pictures >> will be seen only by close friends and on the web. Ted, Tina, and some >> few others have managed to break the barrier but there are plenty of >> other LUGGERS whose work is equally as good. >> >> >> In my day if you wanted to get paid for taking pictures, you did one of >> two things. You worked for a media outlet, newspaper or magazine, or you >> tried to establish an independent freelance or "professional" business. >> While some "professionals" managed to live quite nicely, most barely >> scraped by or failed completely. I bought most of my cameras from failed >> professionals. Sometimes "security" is better than starving. > > Larry, > > We seem to be talking past one another a bit; not unusual as we've had > different experiences. > > I began my visual art career at 14, in 1960, as an assistant in a > successful commercial studio. > The studio catered to Advertising Agency and Corporate Clients. > Between 1967 and 1972 or 3 I earned my living, and my way through college > as a free lance photo journalist, and graphic designer, selling to local > newspapers and magazines. > > Since 1973 and through the late 90s I managed to earn fairly well doing a > combination of; > editorial photography, corporate photography and graphic design, gallery > shows and print sales. > > Each of those markets has had its ups and downs over the years and decades. > > In every case protection of the right to use and license the work remained > important; > not only to me but to all of my peers working in photography, illustration > and graphic design. > At the height of my career I was a member of both ASMP and the Graphic > Artists Guild. > Both organizations have worked tirelessly at protecting and valuing > creative work. > > My first wife, of 25 years, also made a good living as a fine art painter. > I have many friends who are professional artists, photographers, painters, > sculptors, metal workers, and musicians. > I know how the art markets have worked historically as well as currently. > > Tina's career or mine or many others do not fit the model that you seem > feel is the only rigid view of how things worked > "in your day" "my day" or "to day." > > We could discuss any creative market in terms of blue chip international > "history book" success, > regional success and/or local success; > as well as several other parameters and paradigms. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george at imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information