On Stock Photography

A million or two years ago, when I was a magazine art director, stock photography was an expensive proposition. Today, "thanks" to services like iStockPhoto, a print-quality full-page photograph can be had for as little as $5. This paradigm shift is a mixed blessing for full-timephotographers, forcing them to adopt the Walmart strategy of making money through selling/licensing in volume. At the same time, though, it exposes their work to a global audience, expanding their potential customer base much larger than could be accomplished through individual marketing efforts.

Many photographers I know are resigned to occasionally shooting stock work on common themes (such as money, business, family, lifestyles, etc.), but certainly don't consider any of the resultant work "fine art".

It's their personal work that are labors of love. These fine art images are more creative and imaginative than stock images. What's more, their commercial value is far lower a consideration in their creators' minds. In these cases, personal expression is paramount.

As a photographer, I hate how falling prices have commoditized the art form to the point where a Starbuck coffee costs more (and is often perceived as having greater value). But as a graphic designer, I love the ability to purchase usage rights for all photos for a 12-page brochure for only $40 (then repurpose them for my company's web site at no extra cost). Yes, I'm now my own worst enemy.

I can only hope that the ubiquity of decent-quality photography will raise awareness of how the right photo can effectively communicate with its viewer.