> I would love to see some figures from people who make a living, or > part living, from sales through agencies. For example, the agencies > who demand 100mb files, how many actually sell 100mb, 50mb, 30mb, > 20mb, 10mb, 5mb of the same file? Follow that through with feedback > from the customers to see if the ones who downloaded your 100mb file > whether they actually used it at that size or downsized it! I strongly > suspect the latter. Also, do the clients pay twice as much for a 100mb > as opposed to a 50mb? I doubt it. > > Just being a devil's advocated here. I fully understand the agency is > entitled to set whatever standards they like and for the photographers > to meet them or go elsewhere. If you know how to take a photograph and > know how to handle a digital camera, you "should" be aware of simple > market forces and demands or just the notion of supply and demand.
Shangara: Here are my own numbers: My own rapidly aging collection at AGE generates about five dollars per picture per year. At Corbis, which is much more demanding on a technical level, but accepts a slightly higher percentage of submitted images, I see about forty dollars per picture per year - eight times more. However, there are some points worth noting here - My AGE collection is "Rights Protected" which means its subject to very low priced sales in the Third World. (where AGE did a big chunk of its business years ago). My Corbis work is mostly in Royalty Free, which means that the price is fixed by file size - exactly the phenomenon you seem to doubt. Next, while this seems to be about as high as my skills will allow, there levels above this - Corbis's own Rights Protected collection and the work in Stone and Photonica are all reputed to earn far more than what I'm seeing. Now here's the issue - Photonica, the agency that demand 100MB files does far better than any number I've presented here. Many contributors report averages of over $100 per year per image - do the math here. > And I still don't buy size=quality. If you are doing "extensive" > editing to the file, yes, there is something to be said for working on > the largest file and then downsampling for output. The point I was > making, and AGE are too, is that the large file sizes are "rarely" > required and just consume resources unnecessarily. Shangara - you don't have to buy because it's not how you earn your living, but it is what I did for a long time and still a good portion of what I do. I know my market and I see the forces that power it - believe me, the opinions of technical gurus count for zilch. Brian Yarvin Food Photography, Writing, and Recipes http://www.brianyarvin.com http://www.farmsandfoods.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
