Jump to content

Robert Brook

Verified
  • Content Count

    643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

361 Forum reputation = neutral

About Robert Brook

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={7D028C8C-0461-4800-B27E-A3AD09AB333D}&name=Robert+Brook
  • Images
    1029
  • Joined Alamy
    12 Dec 2002

Recent Profile Visitors

932 profile views
  1. Thanks Ian. I have just done one on this forum topic - bloke jumping out of a high window. Can't give a link here though
  2. The elephant in the room here is CGI. Technically flawless commercial imagery - products, interiors, even creeping into fashion - are now increasingly done in CGI. .
  3. One of the ones I mentioned got removed by the moderator, so I had better not say. Needless to say, those that place technology (programming, apps, platforms, neural networks are just round the corner) at the heart of their operation rather than editing, curation, art direction, etc. Traditional agencies were, possibly still are, created by photographers, tech companies by programmers, or are bolted onto existing tech operations like this one (computers, cancer research etc.). I agree about your comments on cameras. The dominant trend in commercial photography at the moment is 'aut
  4. Ian Nothing wrong with fodder which you describe accurately, and is essential sustenance for the media world to munch away on, and I produce a quite pungent variety myself. But I now mainly place it on micro sites (or midstock as they may now more accurately) because they pay. As simple as that. The tech companies now control most of the business, and there is nothing anyone can do about that. If you are looking for a cause, the issue now is the survival of RM, and I don't see anything in your position which is supportive of this. If RM is to survive then it requires very considered w
  5. I said 'the model'. It takes photographers to do the damage, placing their best work there, while others fill traditional agencies with piles of fodder that is largely unsaleable, then complain because it has to be sold for peanuts. Do it the other way round and many of the current problems in the industry would be resolved. The tech companies now seem to be creating a structure whereby this becomes easier. (Examples would be close-ups of signs or basic images of generic objects. Why on earth would anyone pay more than a few dollars for these or think it appropriate to place
  6. I mean both Ian. It might be that the micro companies have woken up to the fact that their model is causing the whole industry to crash, and that they will go down with it, which is causing this new trend. It's mirror image in the trad world is that you have pile 'em high sellers and smaller niche collections generally selling for more. The micros, however, are creating their own niche collections, sometimes setting higher prices than the trad agencies, and more importantly, actually selling for those prices. Buyers don't have much in the way of bargaining chips when there is a whopping gr
  7. I'm seeing the opposite, Ian. I only put in my best material, have a near 100% acceptance rate, and the higher fees. But the majority of my output, whether I like it or not, is, in comparison, low value - unless it's news orientated. That's just reality: if we get one good piece for every twenty duds, we are doing really well. Well I am. So - is it better to put the duds in the place where they are needed, or just swell the ranks of trad agencies with useless material that makes searches such a joy for buyers? Well ... maybe actually a joy if they can use them as bargaining chips.
  8. Hello Richard It goes right across the board, but it's the tech companies that are doing it. The problem with the traditional sector is that it has tied itself in knots treating each buyer as a separate entity, and in effect doing bespoke pricing. This can only go one way. One of the things the microstock companies got right was to set their price points at a level where they didn't have to bother with haggling, essentially a waste of resources. Which means that where the price happens to be high, that's what the customer pays. I have sales in all three are
  9. Hello Ian – I may be just passing by. BTW - I thought you made some interesting points on another forum about PA etc. You wouldn't think, would you, that the unique selling point here is documentary and specific? The front page is full of the sort of images small design companies, etc., running on a shoestring, scoop up from Adobe etc. in great sackfuls. Whether that is a problem or not I don't know, but from the smidgin of business I do here I detect more of a price fall than anywhere else. I know PA is driving us all insane, but still I have much more frequent good two and three
  10. Get too hung up about the problems that microstock has caused – old news – we are likely to miss what is happening in the wider industry now: stratification. Long gone are the days when all pictures could be sold for the same price. Most of the major players now have price differentials, albeit in some cases through different brands and platforms - SS has Offset and Rex, Adobe represents Reuters plus a clutch of boutique collections from partner agencies, and so on. In my experience, and from comments by others, buyers pay what it says on the tin. In some cases these are prices you will see he
  11. It's not the type of image, but the buyer and the job that determines price. All my four figure sales here and elsewhere, bar one, have been commercial ones (and others will tell you he same): images used in brochures, mailers, print adverts etc. Image will only be used commercially if you have releases for visible people,and company logos are removed. Property is less of a problem.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.