Russell Watkins Posted May 12, 2023 Share Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) 35 minutes ago, MDM said: You haven't mentioned the fact that Apple is introducing a subscription model for the first time for Logic Pro (and Final Cut Pro) on the iPad (about $50 a year each). The desktop versions are a one off purchase with free updates for a very reasonable price considering the power of the programs. Hopefully that will continue but it might be wishful thinking. There's lots of things I haven't mentioned! I think music plug-in prices on the iPad are likely to rise in the future as devs ensure cross-compatibility between macOS and iPadOS. It's also not exactly clear what the subscription will mean. The likeliest outcome will be stop paying and lose the app but there is an "upgrade subscription" model that has garnered plaudits in the iPad music-making world. This is where you keep the app but lose future updates and upgrades once you stop paying (the obvious example is Loopy Pro). I can't see Apple being that generous though. But then for something as powerful as Logic Pro, £4.99 a month or £49 a year is good value. Edited May 12, 2023 by Russell Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted May 12, 2023 Author Share Posted May 12, 2023 This is what Bard ( experimnetal Google AI) comes up with: There are a few reasons why stock photography may not appeal to young people. Stock photography is often generic and uninspiring. It is created to appeal to a wide audience, which can make it feel impersonal and boring. Young people are more likely to be drawn to photography that is unique, creative, and visually appealing. Stock photography is often outdated. The images are often years old, which can make them feel dated and irrelevant to young people. They are more likely to be interested in photography that reflects the current trends and culture. Stock photography is often expensive. The cost of stock photography can be prohibitive for young people who are on a budget. They are more likely to turn to free or low-cost alternatives, such as user-generated content or their own photography. In addition to these factors, young people may also have different preferences when it comes to photography. They may be more interested in photography that is personal, authentic, and relatable. They may also be more likely to appreciate photography that is visually experimental or challenging. Overall, there are a number of reasons why stock photography may not appeal to young people. If you are looking for photography that will resonate with this demographic, it is important to consider their unique needs and preferences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted May 12, 2023 Author Share Posted May 12, 2023 Add to which young people don't tend to buy newspapers, magazines, guide books and other printed media. Their use of imagery is very different to older people - much more about online sharing in and about new trends and aesthetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted May 12, 2023 Share Posted May 12, 2023 14 minutes ago, geogphotos said: There are a few reasons why stock photography may not appeal to young people. Great, less competition moving forwards! 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted May 12, 2023 Author Share Posted May 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, Steve F said: Great, less competition moving forwards! 🙂 How far forward you want to look?? Far fewer stock photographers I'd guess in 20 years. Mortality and age will take care of that. Also, quite likely less demand for stock images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKuzmin Posted May 12, 2023 Share Posted May 12, 2023 59 minutes ago, geogphotos said: There are a few reasons why stock photography may not appeal to young people. Stock photography is often generic and uninspiring. It is created to appeal to a wide audience, which can make it feel impersonal and boring. Young people are more likely to be drawn to photography that is unique, creative, and visually appealing. Stock photography is often outdated. The images are often years old, which can make them feel dated and irrelevant to young people. They are more likely to be interested in photography that reflects the current trends and culture. Stock photography is often expensive. The cost of stock photography can be prohibitive for young people who are on a budget. They are more likely to turn to free or low-cost alternatives, such as user-generated content or their own photography. Agree with each! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKuzmin Posted May 12, 2023 Share Posted May 12, 2023 47 minutes ago, geogphotos said: Add to which young people don't tend to buy newspapers, magazines, guide books and other printed media. The same about me even though I'm close to 60. I see most of reasonable licenses of my images going to books and magazines for little kids who are not covered by computers/tablets/phones yet, to some museum expositions, TV shows and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sooth Posted May 12, 2023 Share Posted May 12, 2023 (edited) . Edited October 19, 2023 by sooth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted May 12, 2023 Share Posted May 12, 2023 3 hours ago, geogphotos said: Overall, there are a number of reasons why stock photography may not appeal to young people. If you are looking for photography that will resonate with this demographic, it is important to consider their unique needs and preferences. There's nothing like an AI to find every cliche on line and paste them together. Stock photography is about how the photography is distributed and paid for, not about artistic or not. Composition can draw the eye -- stock, gallery. Couple of people told me not to write for the market but to write what mattered to me and find an editor who was part of my natural audience. The market is fashion and sales driven. Creating obsolescence in merchandise is the market side of things. A great photo from 1860 is still a great photo. A lot of what photography does is connect to the past in ways that drawing and painting can't quite. See Roland Barthes CAMERA LUCIDA for a fuller exploration of this. I can stand in front of a painting that John Keats saw at the artist's opening in the early 19th Century and that's kinda awesome, but if I see a photo of a slave market, I'm seeing what light that fell on that real scene imprinted onto a tintype or daguerreotype plate, or a wet glass plate. That scene was reality for the people in it. The market wants merchandise to become obsolete. The artist wants to create thing that outlive one's time. And this is also part of why forgeries are accepted in the time they were created and look obvious when what we see in a painting changes (I still believe the Met in NYC has a fake Vermeer, but the excuse is that it's very early). How we look at art is probably shaped by fashions of the day, but a good artist is more complex than that. At least one of us has sold the same sea otter several times a year for at least a couple of years. Nobody is going to look for this year's sea otter over hers unless there's more to the photo than the date. By the way, Keats had some intense criticisms of the painting that I saw later in Philadelphia. He was right. Benjamin Robert Haydon's https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_Robert_Haydon_-_Christ's_Entry_into_Jerusalem_-_WGA11207.jpg Keats thought the faces were not real enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now