MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Would You Pay $35,000 to Buy the Only Print of This Gorgeous Cape Town Photo"  (Read 3248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 31, 2014, 16:37 »
0
The super macro approach!!

"Given this rapidly worsening status-quo, wedding and commercial photographer Greg Lumleys latest venture is either incredibly ballsy, or incredibly nave: hes trying to sell a single print of his viral aerial photograph of Cape Town for $35,000 no we didnt add a zero by mistake."


http://petapixel.com/2014/07/31/pay-35000-buy-print-gorgeous-cape-town-photograph/


« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2014, 18:08 »
0
whether we pay this for it is moot. but the good news is that there is still someone willing to pay that kind of money for you or me. the secret is find him/her and having that image.
still, a rare proof (no pun intended) to dispell the going trend that photographs are only worth pennies.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2014, 23:29 »
0
interesting, but the cost of a chopper flight (heck, 5 chopper flights to get good weather) is far, far less. I know he says "right place, right time" but still... $35000?  has that been converted to US$? that's a lot of money for a South African. good luck to him.

« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2014, 01:20 »
0
If Peter Lik can do it. He sells his images at very high price. This photographer can also do it. If you have a buyer, everything explains for itself.

« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2014, 01:28 »
+1
Image brief just licensed USD30,000 photo http://blog.imagebrief.com/. So it happened.

« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2014, 02:36 »
+1
Image brief just licensed USD30,000 photo http://blog.imagebrief.com/. So it happened.


Interesting, that image is mediocre at best. The subject is spectacular tho, and most can't look beyond that for advanced, exotic concepts like "composition" :) I see taht all the time, some of my best sellers are my poorest shots. Just mind-numbingly boring shots selling dozen times daily.

« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2014, 03:54 »
+1
Kudos to the agency and the photographer but I think the buyer is a fool too easily parted from his money. I'd fire him.

« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2014, 07:57 »
0
That image would be perfect for a Cape Town business to hang in their lobby - I wonder what size print he sold.  Kudos to the photographer for pulling that off!

Shelma1

« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2014, 10:11 »
+1
Kudos to the agency and the photographer but I think the buyer is a fool too easily parted from his money. I'd fire him.

It totally depends on the buyer. If it's a major ad agency getting a buyout, the price may very well be a bargain. We paid more than $30,000 to the photographer who shot the image for my last cat litter ad.

« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2014, 10:26 »
0
Image brief just licensed USD30,000 photo http://blog.imagebrief.com/. So it happened.


Interesting, that image is mediocre at best. The subject is spectacular tho, and most can't look beyond that for advanced, exotic concepts like "composition" :) I see taht all the time, some of my best sellers are my poorest shots. Just mind-numbingly boring shots selling dozen times daily.


wa, topol u say the :right-est" thing as usual.  it used to be in the 8x10,4x5 view camera, mid format to 35mm days where we used to be paid handsomely for excellent work , with inspiration from greats like Karsh , Adams, Eugene-Smith, Avedon (in those fields). then as the media became more accessible, so did the standard or needs fall. analogy would be music , jazz music for example is nowhere close to what they were in that same era of photography.
and as we look to our own earnings in micro, yes, it took reflects as you say, mind-numbingly boring shots, selling hundred of times, and even more mind-numbing boring shots paying biggest single download in my own portfolio.
when the ones you take pains to composition for colour, shades, lighting, ambience,etc..
i think some of them are still waiting for that big payoff in the sky.

what the clients take is not necessarily what we photographers would consider worth that much.
as richie blackmore say in one of his concert,... lady gaga... blows everyone away in crowd pulling,
but i would not even call that music.
going back to the old times, we also know the masters of painting were all starving , and only after death, they became "masters". long after worm took over their corpses, after they died of lead poisoning etc...  suddenly everyone calls them the great painter till today we even study them.

i think photography , microstock at least, is no different. although i don't think in 200 years, we will be talking about Y*** S****** etc.  then again, we might, as we still talk about Sam the Sham Wooly booly, and the Archies, Monkees,etc.. the microstock of music   ;)

back to the photograph in topic, i think they will recoup that with advertising . in the same way, why would say in his heydays of tennis, Bjorn Bork was given free Mercedez, etc as endorsement? his name makes Mercedez money in return.
  and i am sure they are still doing it with today 's tennis heroes.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 10:51 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2014, 12:48 »
0
Just had to design a brochure for one of my clients and purchased this file:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-92510755/stock-photo-overall-aerial-view-of-cape-town-south-africa.html?src=ck7lrqW1qoXtN6IdCAmA6Q-1-0
Paid 35 Cents ...

« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2014, 12:55 »
0
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:11 by etudiante_rapide »

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2014, 13:38 »
0
I'm not in that income bracket, but that image is many times better than that flat canal shot that sold for a fortune, IMO. But whatever floats your boat.

« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2014, 14:02 »
0
ok, now that i looked properly, it is not quite the same. same place differently shot. aerial shot vs canal.
the aerial shot would take a lot more stabilizing and meet with other factors like the movement of the plane, airdrift,etc. canal, i would think it was taken on a ferry which is pretty stable like many we used to make on the  Ferries . the vantage point is different. i guess u can say the same thing about many lifestyle micros shots vs a paid shoot.
still, the extra 000 does not hurt the photographer one bit. i would not complain either  ;)
buys me a lot of Curvee Brut... maybe a whole winery cellar
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 11:11 by etudiante_rapide »

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2014, 10:32 »
0
Just had to design a brochure for one of my clients and purchased this file:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-92510755/stock-photo-overall-aerial-view-of-cape-town-south-africa.html?src=ck7lrqW1qoXtN6IdCAmA6Q-1-0
Paid 35 Cents ...

I wonder if the SS guy (different tog AFAICS) can even begin to meet his expenses selling on SS. Maybe they are 'leftovers' from commercial shots. No way would I make that sort of image just to sell them on micro.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 13:37 by ShadySue »

stocked

« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2014, 10:51 »
0
I'm not in that income bracket, but that image is many times better than that flat canal shot that sold for a fortune, IMO. But whatever floats your boat.
Well you never did aerial photography the fortune shot is much harder to achieve because of the long exposure the SS-shot is very easy and just average. The rest is a matter of taste but I like the fortune shot much more.

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2014, 11:00 »
0
I'm not in that income bracket, but that image is many times better than that flat canal shot that sold for a fortune, IMO. But whatever floats your boat.
Well you never did aerial photography the fortune shot is much harder to achieve because of the long exposure the SS-shot is very easy and just average. The rest is a matter of taste but I like the fortune shot much more.
The flat canal shot? As I said, whatever floats your boat.
Note that my post that you quoted does not mention the SS-shot - only comparing the image in the OP to the flat canal shot. I don't see why you're referencing it in a reply apparently to my post.
And what makes you think you know anything about what I "never did"?
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 13:41 by ShadySue »

« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2014, 13:13 »
0
IMHO the wedding photographer's shot is far superior to the ss shot, but the ss shot is worth more than 35 cents. I'd guess it was a commercial shoot outtake but this does show how micro has devalued what we do - volume has to make up for a reasonable license fee.

My best sellers on micro and even on some other sites are often the more mundane shots. But there is still a market for better work. I realized how much shooting stock has affected my perception of what's a "seller" when a shot I love but just thought of as something artsy and more taken for the love of photography than as something I intended to license as stock was licensed by Smithsonian magazine. Those with a good budget and a knowledge of photography know what they're getting and looking at sites like  Image Brief and Stocksy shows that there are still buyers out there who want something more original. Sometimes people shop at WalMart and sometimes they shop at Neiman-Marcus. If the quality is worth the difference to the buyer, then they are getting what they pay for. 

« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2014, 13:27 »
0
... commercial shoot outtake but this does show how micro has devalued what we do - volume has to make up for a reasonable license fee.

excuse me, but ...unless something has changed since then.. .

here is something that has been bothering me.
u know, some keep repeating that outtake bit. but it depends too.
if the shoot is  "for-hire", the client owns all the images, not the photographer. so out-takes from food shots, aerial shots,etc... may well be not the property of the photographer(s) to licensed.

.
 or there is a written agreement that the "for-hire" contract allows the photographer to retain the out-takes and the ownership...

but as long as i remember it, all materials belong to the client in a "for hire" shoot. if it is on-spec
the client will pay for what they take, then maybe just maybe,  out-takes can be up to the photographer to use to his discretion .
still, i do not think a client who pays 35K would expect your out-takes to be used elsewhere either.

and furthermore for SS and other stock matters, neither would an employer who pays a photographer who shoots food, aerials,etc.. on their payroll.   it is intellectual property of the employer, not the salaried photographer.  unless the photographer is doing it on the sly and under a pseudonym .

still, even if it is the property of the photographer such as a wedding photog, i doubt if the family , bride and groom would like to see the outtakes being used as stock, and would sign the MRs . i wouldn't as a grand-dad.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 13:50 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2014, 13:58 »
0

excuse me, but ...unless something has changed since then.. .

here is something that has been bothering me.
u know, some keep repeating that outtake bit. but it depends too.
if the shoot is  "for-hire", the client owns all the images, not the photographer. so out-takes from food shots, aerial shots,etc... may well be not the property of the photographer(s) to licensed.


It definitely depends on the contract. Personally, I don't sign "for hire" contracts. I make it clear when working on an assignment what rights I retain and what rights the buyer owns. Usually, the client will get exclusive rights to all photos they choose and similars for a certain period of time, if it's a subject I think will be worthwhile for stock.
 
I can't imagine someone shooting an aerial photo on spec for the micros, the costs would just be too high I'd think, but it could be someone shooting for pleasure and trying to make a few bucks. Don't know anything about the photographer so it was just an assumption and when you assume... :-[

Anyway, I get your point, but I don't need a lesson in contracts. I work as a freelance writer and photographer for a living and spent 15 years as an attorney in NYC, so please don't assume I'm ignorant of what a "for hire" contract is. I also worked as a staff writer and reporter for a newspaper right out of college and regretfully I know they own the copyright to that work. 8)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 14:04 by wordplanet »

« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2014, 13:59 »
+2
A lot of for hire contracts have a limited exclusive use clause after which you are free to re-sell. Depends on the client and contract. If it's product shoot, they likely will need lifetime exclusivity, but editorial magazine shoots usually only require a month of two. 

« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2014, 14:09 »
0


Anyway, I get your point, but I don't need a lesson in contracts. I work as a freelance writer and photographer for a living and spent 15 years as an attorney in NYC, so please don't assume I'm ignorant of what a "for hire" contract is. I also worked as a staff writer and reporter for a newspaper right out of college and regretfully I know they own the copyright to that work. 8)

my posting had nothing to do with assumption, nor directed at you. I would have assumed you had photography under the belt with an attorneyship in NYC (dealing with for-hire and intellectual property), rather than an ignoramus in the said issue ;)

it was made in general as most discussion and comments are here on the forum.
of which to solicit insightful general responses such as the one volunteered by OP jrwasserman .
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 14:19 by etudiante_rapide »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
7357 Views
Last post July 14, 2012, 10:34
by RacePhoto
25 Replies
13332 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
2 Replies
1406 Views
Last post January 27, 2015, 01:45
by StockPhotosArt.com
2 Replies
1054 Views
Last post January 04, 2018, 17:14
by emjaysmith
5 Replies
2299 Views
Last post May 29, 2018, 12:25
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results