Author Topic: John Lund interviews Ellen Boughn (Read 10059 times)

sharply_done · « **on:** March 19, 2009, 11:00 »

A pertinent point from an industry veteran:

The [traditional stock] industry has made the mistake of creating too many of the same images over and over again. This is because instead of nurturing the photographers who have vision to combine both art and commerce to produce unique images within the standard salable subjects, they let creative decisions be driven by previous sales results and creative research based all on the same sources. This has resulted in a glut of images that all look alike. I like to call them the image de jour…everyone runs out and shoots the same style and subject with the same look on the same day, it appears.

I believe that one reason that microstock had explosive growth aside from the price point was that users could find one-of-a-kind images. Now that the major production companies are putting the same old, same old but ‘new’ images into micro in great volumes, the same problem could arise there.

Go here to read more, or here to read other interviews.

Karimala · « **Reply #1 on:** March 19, 2009, 11:57 »

Sure hope a couple of the Big 6 sites make note of Ellen's observation. I have the worst time getting anything even slightly creative online at those sites, while a couple of other sites gobble them up.

MikLav · « **Reply #2 on:** March 19, 2009, 12:48 »

Quote from: Karimala on March 19, 2009, 11:57

Sure hope a couple of the Big 6 sites make note of Ellen's observation. I have the worst time getting anything even slightly creative online at those sites, while a couple of other sites gobble them up.

same for me - and one of the 2 was the most welcome for creative pictures in not so distant past (~2 yrs ago).

I wonder if it's the same 2 for me as it is for you

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** March 19, 2009, 13:50 »

Quote from: sharply_done on March 19, 2009, 11:00

Now that the major production companies are putting the same old, same old but ‘new’ images into micro in great volumes, the same problem could arise there.[/i][/size][/font]

Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.

fullvalue · « **Reply #4 on:** March 19, 2009, 15:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 13:50

Quote from: sharply_done on March 19, 2009, 11:00
Now that the major production companies are putting the same old, same old but ‘new’ images into micro in great volumes, the same problem could arise there.[/i][/size][/font]

Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.

I think you're missing the point Sean.

thesentinel · « **Reply #5 on:** March 19, 2009, 16:05 »

Quote from: fullvalue on March 19, 2009, 15:22

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 13:50
Quote from: sharply_done on March 19, 2009, 11:00
Now that the major production companies are putting the same old, same old but ‘new’ images into micro in great volumes, the same problem could arise there.[/i][/size][/font]

Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.

I think you're missing the point Sean.

In what way? The point he's addressing is the flooding of some agencies by production line co-ops and suchlike which is limited at istock by the low upload limits that are complained about so much here.

fullvalue · « **Reply #6 on:** March 19, 2009, 17:34 »

I was under the impression that the point was that stock photos had a uniform look and subject matter across the various suppliers, which they did. Designers exchanged photos for free because they couldn't get what they wanted from established resources.

Istock's limitations on independent and how many old style photos go into the database at one time does nothing to address the issue that as microstock photographers mature in their craft they copy the old styles and subject matter (with modernization) and increasingly the microstock collections resemble the traditional RF collections. Istock Exclusives aren't immune to the influence of previous stock photographers so the limitation issue doesn't hold merit. What happens is microstock sites end up with 10,000 pictures of people wearing headsets under an oversaturated blue sky for ecommerce sites and not one of a sewer rat in a sewer for a political commenatary site.

In Istock's favor though, I will say that Istock is the most accepting of approaches which are different. Other sites are quick to whip out the old "not suitable for stock" whereas Istock accepts the photo as long as it meet technical specifications and lets the buyer decide. Or, if it's a unique subject matter, it might get some leeway (at least it did in the old days).

Freedom · « **Reply #7 on:** March 19, 2009, 17:56 »

Well said.

Quote from: fullvalue on March 19, 2009, 17:34

I was under the impression that the point was that stock photos had a uniform look and subject matter across the various suppliers, which they did. Designers exchanged photos for free because they couldn't get what they wanted from established resources.

Istock's limitations on independent and how many old style photos go into the database at one time does nothing to address the issue that as microstock photographers mature in their craft they copy the old styles and subject matter (with modernization) and increasingly the microstock collections resemble the traditional RF collections. Istock Exclusives aren't immune to the influence of previous stock photographers so the limitation issue doesn't hold merit. What happens is microstock sites end up with 10,000 pictures of people wearing headsets under an oversaturated blue sky for ecommerce sites and not one of a sewer rat in a sewer for a political commenatary site.

In Istock's favor though, I will say that Istock is the most accepting of approaches which are different. Other sites are quick to whip out the old "not suitable for stock" whereas Istock accepts the photo as long as it meet technical specifications and lets the buyer decide. Or, if it's a unique subject matter, it might get some leeway (at least it did in the old days).

null · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2009, 18:05 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 13:50

Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.

This kind of short-sighted protectionism will turn sour on IS sooner or later.

null · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2009, 18:21 »

Quote from: thesentinel on March 19, 2009, 16:05

The point he's addressing is the flooding of some agencies by production line co-ops and suchlike which is limited at istock by the low upload limits that are complained about so much here.

That's purely from the view point of the contributor. As it happens, microstock doesn't live from contributors but from buyers. If microstock will get flooded with top quality work and IS shuts it out to keep its own serfs happy, that's great for the serfs in the beginning, but less so for the buyers.

They will discover that you can get the same or better quality and a far larger set to choose from outside IS and for less. If the relatively small proportion of exclusives on IS gets outnumbered by quality outside IS, the monopolist strategy of IS will simply collapse.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2009, 21:00 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 19, 2009, 18:05

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 13:50
Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.

This kind of short-sighted protectionism will turn sour on IS sooner or later.

Why would it?

loop · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2009, 21:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 21:00

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 19, 2009, 18:05
Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 13:50
Which is nice about iStock, because they are all independent, they can't fill the queue with their entire portfolio at once.

This kind of short-sighted protectionism will turn sour on IS sooner or later.

Why would it?

In fact, it's exactly the reverse. Several clonic-content sites , one site with different content. Maybe if not sure who will win, but it's easy to tell who can't ever lose.

null · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2009, 00:40 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 19, 2009, 21:00

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 19, 2009, 18:05
This kind of short-sighted protectionism will turn sour on IS sooner or later.
Why would it?

It's pure math. If high-quality shooters from traditional RF and RM enter microstock in large numbers and they stay independent, they will upload their port fast to agencies with less limited upload and less time needed to submit. On IS, they can only upload 15 or 20 images/week plus a penalty of 5 mins per shot to go through the tedious disambiguation stuff. The average quality and choice on the non-IS agencies will inevitably rise faster than on IS and (part of the) buyers will notice this sooner or later.

So this protectionism might be a good thing for contributors in the short term (as you stated) but not for the agency as a whole in the long term.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2009, 06:32 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on March 20, 2009, 00:40

not for the agency as a whole in the long term.

Depends if buyers enjoy not churning through the same same from the factories everytime they search. They get a better variety from more contributors on iStock. Since exclusive contributors will enjoy more sales, you'll find more variety, also satisfying the buyer.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2009, 09:24 »

Flemish, you seem to be caught up on the fact that they have quantity.

The point is no one wants stupid business shots anymore. And thats all these RM guys have in humongous quantities. iStock has an amazing varied portfolio. And thats why they are very good. Plus they charge a premium for their exclusive content. Which is also where its at.

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2009, 10:33 »

Thanks sharply_done for bringing to our attention that interview of Ellen Boughn. I am to new at this game to inter in the discussion,but she is a veteran who's views i respect.Also I learned from the other interviews you guided us to.
thanks Smiling Jack

null · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2009, 16:12 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on March 20, 2009, 09:24

Flemish, you seem to be caught up on the fact that they have quantity.
The point is no one wants stupid business shots anymore. And thats all these RM guys have in humongous quantities.

Well of course, I made some assumptions that are questionable. I was just reacting to Slocke's reply that keeping people out was per se a good thing. Formally (mathematically) it's not but content (variety, newness etc...) can change the picture.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: John Lund interviews Ellen Boughn (Read 10059 times)

sharply_done

Karimala

MikLav

Sean Locke Photography

fullvalue

thesentinel

fullvalue

Freedom

null

null

Sean Locke Photography

loop

null

Sean Locke Photography

ichiro17

Smiling Jack

null

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors