Author Topic: Ellen Boughn - quit reasons (Read 4235 times)

xst · « **on:** October 18, 2011, 09:06 »

http://www.asmp.org/strictlybusiness/2011/04/an-a-ha-person-from-sb3/

"I was writing for a difficult client who subjected my writing to a panel of editors that squeezed the personality out of my words and with it all joy in writing. I realized after reading Colleen’s post that every week I continued to write for that client, I was further damaging the confidence I needed to continue to do my all important personal work. I quit the job the day after reading her post."

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:50 »

Wise words and the connection to microstock is all too obvious.

FD · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2011, 09:57 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 18, 2011, 09:50

Wise words and the connection to microstock is all too obvious.

Hmmm, do you mean people staying with sites that scr*w them all over because they need the peanuts?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2011, 14:34 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on October 18, 2011, 09:57

Quote from: stockastic on October 18, 2011, 09:50
Wise words and the connection to microstock is all too obvious.
Hmmm, do you mean people staying with sites that scr*w them all over because they need the peanuts?

Peanuts, it's not peanuts it's spare change. I could pick up more walking the streets of a large city, but OT.

xst is right. Editors that are to that point aren't just taking out the heart and soul, they are constricting any creativity at the same time. Lets make everything plain vanilla and off white. An oppressive situation like that is a relief to get away from.

I know it's easy for me to say, if you don't like it, then leave, for Micro. It's not my main source of income or second source and probably not third either. Could be if I wasn't so lazy, but I started wondering if I could get accepted, then after I was on SS and IS and Alamy I wondered why I was wasting time with the rest. If it was just for the money, I would have needed to be earning something... conclusion, not worth the time, effort or constantly changing and variable rules, low commissions, acceptance/rejection variance, and basically unprofessional way many of the smaller agencies were run on the whims of someone up top. I could work one day at something else and make what I did at the small agencies in a year. Forgeta-boutit

I quit and I feel better for doing so.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #4 on:** October 19, 2011, 07:38 »

I don't really see the connection to stock. This writer had a job and was told what to write. Was it within the rights of her employer to take her words, edit them and "squeeze the life out of them"? Yes. Absolutely. Was it her right to quit that job because she didn't like it? Yes! Absolutely. I applaud her for having the guts even if I think she might be a bit of a primadonna.

That's not the same as microstock. We produce anything we want and submit it to be sold. The only catch is editors judge whether it is of sufficient quality to be marketed by them. They don't change anything of the work. If you produce quality work then 9 times out of 10 you will get accepted and then it's up to the buyer to decide if he/she wants to pay money for it. Welcome to the world of art.

There are a few artists out there that sell their work before they even touch brush to canvas, a waiting list of buyer for anything they produce. For the rest of us we shoot on spec, put it out there and hope for the best. There is freedom in that, we're not told what to photograph and our work is not edited, only judged. Completely different.

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** October 19, 2011, 08:24 »

I'm guessing it was posted here because she is a stock photo consultant, has a long history in stock and wrote a book on microstock

http://www.ellenboughn.com/bio

djpadavona · « **Reply #6 on:** October 19, 2011, 10:21 »

Correct. And the obvious connection is, if editors consistently steer you toward a small window of acceptable stock, you are having creativity and confidence squeezed out of you.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #7 on:** October 19, 2011, 10:38 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on October 19, 2011, 07:38

That's not the same as microstock. We produce anything we want and submit it to be sold. The only catch is editors judge whether it is of sufficient quality to be marketed by them. They don't change anything of the work. If you produce quality work then 9 times out of 10 you will get accepted and then it's up to the buyer to decide if he/she wants to pay money for it. Welcome to the world of art.

For the rest of us we shoot on spec, put it out there and hope for the best. There is freedom in that, we're not told what to photograph and our work is not edited, only judged. Completely different.

If the judging is setting the standard at Photo Factory Microstock images, and much of the heart and soul and creativity is removed, because it won't get accepted or sold, you claim that's not going to change what we shoot? Buyers may choose what people shoot but at least that's optional and based on needs, not some "stock - stock", closed and limited mindset.

OK I'm free to shoot all the shots of things I like and enjoy that I like, Free to submit them and they will refuse every one. Somehow I don't see that as freedom of expression.

Maybe some people think a hamster running on a treadmill is going some place, because, hey, it's running and the wheel is spinning. In the end the scernery and where you are is the same, and that's pretty much what shooting Microstock has turned into. Repeat best sellers, if it sells, make more. If it sells, copy it. The agencies don't want expression and creative shots, they want Microstock style and images that sell.

So I'd disagree, if I want to make some money I am forced to create and upload what the agencies have predetermined in their narrow perspective, they want. In that way we are "told what to photograph" and how, and how many.

Sure we can produce anything we want, it won't get accepted and won't sell. If the idea is to earn money, in Microstock, the freedom and artistic side needs an outside income for living and paying the bills.

But maybe that's just me.

When I shoot what I like it goes to Alamy. It's that simple.

cthoman · « **Reply #8 on:** October 19, 2011, 11:26 »

Sounds more familiar as a freelancer than working on stock. Working on stock art is more like a break from clients for me. I feel sorry for people that don't enjoy doing it, but do it anyway. I like doing contract work too, but you have to be careful choosing your clients.