Olivier Parent

SCISSOR SISTERS : Jake Shears and Ana Matronic

English punk rock band The Toy Dolls. From left to right : Michael Algar known as Olga (guitar, lead vocals), Duncan Redmonds (drums, vocals) and Tom Blyth known as Tommy Goober (bass, vocals).

Belgian rock band Triggerfinger. From left to right : Ruben Block (guitar, vocals), Paul Van Bruystegem (bass) and Mario Goossens (drums). Ruben Block

🤣

Japanese alternative rock band Bo Ningen : Taigen Kawabe (bass and vocals)

As my mother uses to say, one should not ask questions without wanting to get answers…

Then, fortunately, we do not sell pictures to Alamy but to clients through Alamy… 😉 What a relief! 😅

A few years ago, wise photographers on this forum told me that if Alamy allowed us to set our own minimum price for our pictures, no doubt this would start the race to the lowest possible income… So true.

I already answered. I would rather find another way to make money than sell 80 images for $100.

Interesting choice of words. Easy? No, it is not easy. It is never easy to say no to money. Never easy to say no when a client asks for much lower prices, knowing I could end up with nothing at all. Wouldn't it be "easier" to say yes and think "at least I got something"? Wouldn't it be easier to submit to every single website selling images, trying to get every single possible penny, and blame the digital revolution without involving myself in the process? It somewhat makes me think of the way we take care of environmental issues. We could throw anything in the same trash bin, never think of recycling, buy things that have been produced 10.000 km from where we live just because they are cheaper than the same things produced in the neighbourhood, and still blame the overcrowded world for pollution and climate change as if we were not part of the equation. I am not clinging to the past, on the contrary, I am just not willing to agree that photography as a professional activity is a thing of the past. Is it foolish to earn pennies that add up to $1,000's? I can't answer this of course. Will you be able to grow your collection as fast as the entire collection of available images grows just to maintain your level of income? How will you compete with images already available for free? I tell you, I prefer you get $100 form a single sale than me selling 100 images for $1 each. But of course I may change my mind one day, who knows? To me, it is just a race to the bottom, and I am still not ready to be part of it, but I do not mean to be harsh, I am just expressing my own opinion.

OK, well… It seems you know better than a lot of people who have been doing this for a very long time… I wish you luck.

As Chuck said: WOW, you are so wrong… Digital cameras and the internet have never been a problem, on the contrary, it has been an opportunity. And competition has never been a problem either. So many amazing pictures from so many talented photographers all over the world should just invite us to get better at what we do. You seem to think that $0.50 is some sort of market price and, again, you are so wrong. I also do commissioned work and I can tell you for sure: this is not! Even for general purpose images, such as the ones I have on Alamy, my average price is still about $50 per license. Believe it or not, $0.50 per license is just the price you accepted, nothing else. And please stop comparing image licenses to physical products (house, car, cloth…), this is irrelevant. If you absolutely want to be part of some race to the bottom, then that's your own choice.

Let's be clear, when you sell your images through an agency, it has nothing to do with your memories or the ability to see how you improved your skills over time… You do not need an agency for that. And yes, some people wish to value their photographs for the money others are willing to pay for them, just as in any job. I'm glad you are OK with that. When so many photographers sell their images for almost nothing, not only it sets the value of their work, but it also affects the value of photography in general. Honestly, what's the chance for a photographer to earn a decent living selling RF pictures for $0.50? Between 2 pictures, one that is sold at a price that allows the photographer to pay the bills and one that is sold for 99% less, which one will the buyer choose? The one the buyer thinks is the best? Or the so much cheaper one that costs virtually nothing after all… Competition is healthy. But there is no real competition here. That said, you are right, we all have different priorities, values, and ways of assessing things.

We cannot (and should not) make much difference in our pricing scenarios between the images that cost us a lot and the ones that cost much less. As said before, there is no direct correlation between value and effort. Our average price should be somewhere in the middle… When you sell aerial photography, you will have a hard time justifying the cost of a helicopter flight in the price of your images… On two recent shootings, I had to bring almost 100kg of gear, including 2 pro FF cameras and a set of lenses, boom stands, C-stands, studio strobes, 150cm deep octaboxes, radio triggers, a Macbook pro and tethered shooting gear, a slate table, backgrounds, electric cables… and rent a car to bring all this on location ; still my prices had to remain somewhat rational, more or less on par with what my clients are used to pay. Selling "snapshots" allows to reach some sort of balance point. At least that is the way I see things.

Exactly! The "final click" on the shutter is only the final stage of an extensive period of hard effort and constant renewal of expensive gear.