For The Collective Good by Fred Licht

INTRODUCTION

I helped to found SAA (Stock Artists Alliance) about five years ago. I am not and never have been a stock shooter. That said, I recognized the harm that the stock industry was doing to the photographic profession and wanted to learn more about it and, to some degree, become active in assessing the problem and finding a way to limit the damage. I became a member of SAA's first board and I have been an official and unoffical advisor since then.

The stock industry is in complete turmoil, primarily, but not solely, the result of the business dealings of Getty Images. As a result, the product and service that professional photographers offer has been negatively impacted both in terms of it's perceived value as well as it's economic potential. The situation has become so fluid that, recently, Getty Images announced that they are seeking the work of rank amateurs as contributors and microstock sales rates can be as low as one dollar per licensed usage.

This situation is also to be blamed on the end user as well. Even the more sophisticated end user, which would include graphic designers, art producers/buyers and art directors, have chosen to use generic, modular image solutions as an easy way out. In some cases, an agency or design firm may choose to use cheap stock and bill their client for a higher end product.

The end result of this progression has been a lowering of the bar in terms of quality and a reduction of price point in terms of sales.

I remain in touch with the SAA forum and will keep STDS contributors abreast of any major developments that are of importance to all of us.

Ron has asked me to quote from a reply that I shared with him that I recently posted on the SAA Forum:

RESPONSE

You cannot be all things to all of your potential customers. I have no intention of diluting my message and deluding myself by thinking that the images that I create will work for everyone. I am especially not interested in creating crap simply because someone might want it. I would rather create something that I can be proud of and, hopefully, it will find it's own audience.

Mike S. wrote in an earlier post the notion of attempting to create "cutting edge, perfectly relevant, timeless images" as a way of reinventing RM. I think that "cutting edge" and "timeless" are mutually exclusive notions and "perfectly relevant" is impossible because no generic solution (generic by definition as is the case with any image made specifically for stock usage) can be perfectly relevant all of the time. There seems to be this notion that one can
proceed without risk simply by taking information from focus group research and placing all of your eggs in that basket. When you ask someone what they want they will always give you an answer just to shut you up. But what they really want is the thing that you show them that they haven't seen before (or so it seems in the moment).

Someone is paying for your vision, not your technical prowess. Digital technology is just another invention - albeit, a powerful one - that will eventually be overtaken by something else. Digital cameras may allow a rank amateur the opportunity to create an image that is well exposed and in focus most of the time, but none of this makes the image worth looking at. At least snapshots had the soul of someone wanting to innocently reveal the innermost secrets of their family, friends and personal adventures. Amateurs copying artists will eventually lead the serious amateur towards the revelation that they have a long way to go before they achieve what they are looking for.

If Getty really feels that they can use the droppings from digital cameras as a way to fill their image library then they are even more stupid then I give them credit for.

Fred Licht