Interesting article. Thanks. But the author writes about flickr ...

Millions of photos. Some by professional, some by amateurish. Some terrible, some unforgettable. That description fits iStockPhoto ...

I disagree there. Strongly. Whatever you may think about IS, you've got to agree that the vast majority of their images are of a very high, professional standard.

Flickr, on the other hand, is stuffed to the gills with junk. There are good images there, but it's a tough job to find them.

So it won't just be a question of switching the whole collection to a stock agency. As the author recognises, they're going to have to create something separate, with inspectors and submissions procedures, etc., etc. and build up a workable collection of images. And IS ... and SS, and DT, and BS, et al ... have a major start on them there.

It may have no review process or QC, but people regularly sell stuff on Flickr.

Cases in point: My gf today sold an image to a major film (by Robert Redford, called "The Unforeseen"). "Rebekka", a Flickr superstar, was approached (i.e. she didn't bid for it) for and accepted a five-figure contract to shoot the new Toyota Prius. I accepted a proposal to use a dozen of my shots as reference material for a popular book on portrait photography. The Washington State Tourist Authority decided to use images from Flickr photographers rather than hunt for stock imagery or hire professionals. The list goes on and on and on.


Maybe QC isn't that important. Maybe people care more about the emotion behind a photograph than its technical prowess. Perhaps the stock industry, which has already gone through a huge shakeup, is about to go through another one ...

Maybe QC isn't that important. Maybe people care more about the emotion behind a photograph than its technical prowess. Perhaps the stock industry, which has already gone through a huge shakeup, is about to go through another one ...

Great thoughts!  We can only hope.  I'm still not sure whether to laugh or cry when I have to spend hours working on noise, isolation, etc., on images that may or may not sell for 25-cents, sometimes even a whole dollar.  What drew me to photography to begin with was its ability to express emotions through images, images that left a personal memorable impression both on myself and others.  I started with film and never cared whether I was using the sharpest, most colorful, lowest-grain, or most popular film.  All I cared about was whether the images I captured moved me and others.  Wish there were good profitable venues for images that are more about substance than pixels.  Maybe Flickr is worth looking into.