Authentic and Real Images
Posted on 12/23/2014 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version |
Comments (4)
The not so new buzzwords in stock photography are “Authentic” and “Real.” In theory, a photo can’t be authentic or real unless it is captured as a grab shot of something that happened in front of you as you move through life. Many would like for you to believe that if the image is staged in any way by a professional it can’t be authentic or real, no matter how hard the professional tries to make it look that way.
Part-timers take a high percentage of the photos that are considered authentic or real. They photograph what they see that interests them. The fact that 99% of what they shoot isn’t of interest to anyone other than a small collection of their Facebook friends doesn’t make the images any less real.
Professionals who want to produce images that sell probably need to strive for what the world has defined as authentic and real. Part-timers that produce authentic and real images need to keep a few other things in mind if they really hope to get the image used. If the image involves people the photographer better make sure they have a model release because people who are photographed in unguarded moments on the street may get upset if an image of them is used to promote a product or service they don’t like.
Image creator also needs to take the time to properly keyword their images so they can be found. For most the keywording effort is not the fun part of taking pictures.
The problem is that there are millions of people producing millions of these “uniquely real and authentic” images every day. The more there are the less likely it is that a willing buyer will find what they are looking for -- even if it is keyworded. With all the images being produced millions will end up with the same general keywords. Since most search algorithms will show the most recent shot first (if no editing is involved) then if someone doesn’t want to use that image within a few hours of the time it is uploaded there is a good chance it will be buried so deep in the pile that it will never be seen (except by Facebook friends).
Part-time image creators may find that they have to produce thousands of images just to make one sale. It seems likely that most will very quickly get bored with the whole exercise and move on to something that is more fun.
To try to solve this problem for the part-timers organizations like Foap and Scoopshot offer interested customers the opportunity to create “missions.” With a mission image creators know that a willing buyer is looking for something specific. The part-timer can then go out and look for that subject, take pictures of it and submit them. This is a lot like what the professional photographer does, but maybe because a part-time amateur is doing it the image will be more authentic and real than one a professional might shoot.
However, even when they are working on a mission there are some additional problems for the part-timer. If the subject is not very specific and one that only a handful of people on earth have the capability of shooting, then there is a great likelihood that many shooters will be competing for the same sale. The customer is not obligated to buy anything if they don’t like what they see, and finally, even if the customer buys an image they will pay significantly less than any professional would expect to receive. Thus, the part-timer has to decide if it is worth the trouble, or if it is more fun to just take pictures, post them on Facebook for their friends to see and be done with it.
My prediction is that lots of part-timers will try selling their work (certainly lots of people have downloaded the apps), but very quickly most will get tired of bothering with this activity. It is too much effort for too little reward.?
There is also an organization called ImageBrief that daily lists missions from major professional image buyers. The minimum price for an accepted image is $250 with 70% going to the image creator. Many of the requests offer much higher fees. These are definitely aimed more toward the professional, but the missions suffer from some of the same problems listed above. If the image is easy to shoot there may be lots of competition. In many cases the need is so unique and the time to produce it so short that the photographer either has the image on file, or he doesn’t. Still it takes time to find and submit the image. A few photographers have had some good success, but many find that the time it takes to review all the requests and submit something for consideration when they have it (there is no obligation for the buyer to accept anything) is not worth the trouble.
Long range these user-generated sites are not likely to be any great threat to photographers who plan and organize their shoots. The planner will try to create images that look more authentic and real even when they use paid models and props. They will extensively keyword their images and post them on sites that make it easy for customers to drill down and find the best of what is available on a particular subject.
Customers who want something specific that they can’t easily find on a major stock photo site will still need to identify a photographer who can do the job and guarantee a reasonable fee when the work is delivered.
Copyright © 2014
Jim Pickerell.
The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail:
wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz