PDA

View Full Version : The joys of stock photography


Nermal
Jan 12, 2004, 12:54 AM
Compare this...

Nermal
Jan 12, 2004, 12:54 AM
With this:

iGav
Jan 12, 2004, 06:14 AM
it's no biggie using Stock photography, you can always buy exclusive usage rights if you're that bothered about some other comapny using the same image.

On the ad boards on the Underground you see it relatively frequently, then you emerge from the depths and you see the same image on the side of a bus.

Over here, photographers have really priced themselves out of the mainstream, so companies use stock images instead, and you can usually get the exact image you want for a tiny fraction of the cost it would require to comission a Photographer to grab a similar kind of thing.

If you're lucky enough to be working on a serious budget Nike campaign for instance, then of course it has to be bepoke, but for less brand centric stuff, Stock is the way to go.

There's a guy with a Kojak that keeps cropping up alot in London.... heheheh

eyelikeart
Jan 12, 2004, 07:09 AM
That's what royalty free stock will do for u. ;)

iGav
Jan 12, 2004, 08:04 AM
I have to admit though, the Microsoft treatement of the image is far more aesthetically pleasing than the banner thingy....;)

Mr. Anderson
Jan 12, 2004, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by iGAV
I have to admit though, the Microsoft treatement of the image is far more aesthetically pleasing than the banner thingy....;)

well, it might just be the people doing the work - if they had managed to get the white outline off of the woman in the banner it would look a lot better.

But design wise, the MS one is better.

D

Moxiemike
Jan 12, 2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
well, it might just be the people doing the work - if they had managed to get the white outline off of the woman in the banner it would look a lot better.

But design wise, the MS one is better.

D

Good point. Although I rarely see times in real life where people are posing in front of grey and black graduated tones. haha

Mr. Anderson
Jan 12, 2004, 09:31 AM
A little better :D

Stelliform
Jan 12, 2004, 12:44 PM
LOL Mr. A, you should e-mail that to them and then offer your freelance service for ad cleanup. ;)

Nermal
Jan 12, 2004, 02:32 PM
I guess I should have mentioned this in the original post: OSDN Personals is run by the Open Source Development Network. And, as we all know, Microsoft is probably the least open-source company out there! Just makes it all the funnier :D

Nermal
Jan 12, 2004, 06:00 PM
And now it's disappeared from MS' website!

Mr. Anderson
Jan 12, 2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Nermal
And now it's disappeared from MS' website!

Conspiracy?

Seems a bit odd - how long had it been there?

D

5300cs
Jan 13, 2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by iGAV
...Over here, photographers have really priced themselves out of the mainstream, so companies use stock images instead, and you can usually get the exact image you want for a tiny fraction of the cost it would require to comission a Photographer to grab a similar kind of thing.

If you're lucky enough to be working on a serious budget Nike campaign for instance, then of course it has to be bepoke, but for less brand centric stuff, Stock is the way to go.
... When I was in art school, the teachers steered us away from doing any type of stock work unless desperate for cash. I was in Illustration, but this was taught to the Photo students as well. If you do a lot of work and turn it over for a stock album, you're pretty much just giving your work away. Unless you luck out and someone buys the rights, all you get are royalties.

I've never done stock work myself though, so I only know one side of the coin.

Nermal
Jan 13, 2004, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Conspiracy?

Seems a bit odd - how long had it been there?

D

Since Macworld. I was going to post it earlier, but I had to wait until I saw the "meet someone" banner to roll around again so that I could take a copy of it.

iGav
Jan 13, 2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by 5300cs
When I was in art school, the teachers steered us away from doing any type of stock work unless desperate for cash. I was in Illustration, but this was taught to the Photo students as well. If you do a lot of work and turn it over for a stock album, you're pretty much just giving your work away. Unless you luck out and someone buys the rights, all you get are royalties.

I've never done stock work myself though, so I only know one side of the coin.

But you wouldn't turn over all of your work though would you??

I know some photographers that only send off images for Stock Library inclusion that they know they'll never use, and or aren't as good as other images they've taken of that particular subject. In which case they receive an income for something that would normally have never seen the light of day.

From my experience though, in design agencies, it's a rare, rare day when you get a project in which allows a budget for bespoke photography.... or atleast decent quality photography.

The cost is simply too high when you can get exclusive rights, and the images you want for far less from an Stock Library than the cost of comissioning a photographer, who may not get 'that' shot, budget requirements dictate the projects, and photographers have (not all of them mind) priced themselves out of the market for lower-mid budget projects.

If I need a image of the Sahara, it's alot cheaper to buy from a Stock Library then to comission a Photograper to actually go there, and it can be too time consuming to track down a photographer who may just have a Sahara shot in their collection, in which case it's the same as sourcing from a Stock Library, just on a smaller scale.

If however I'm doing a project for Nike for example, they'll likely have an X budget, and will require their product in shot, that's when bespoke comes to the fore, and the Photographers budget will likely reflect that and I can send them to a desert/mountain/forest for that new Nike Zoom Air 3 Trail running shoe in situ.... ;)