From the article:
It then goes on to talk about the appeal of editorial photography.In short: commercial stock photography offers high upfront money, but questionable artistic reward and little opportunity for long-term photographer/buyer relationships.
Editorial stock (photo illustration) receives lower fees, but the photos enjoy longer shelf-life and multiple sales over the long haul. Editorial stock is generally more introspective, sensitive, and universally appealing, and eventually can become historically significant. And the nature of most editorial markets, with less turnover of personnel, provide photographers with opportunities for long-term sales associations with buyers. All that marketing homework has a chance to reap more mileage.
Given that I'm not inclined towards studio shots, and find myself increasingly attracted to the candid/artistic aspects of photography........found the article quite interesting.........
Another interesting article on editorial photos in microstock:
ReplyDeletehttp://microstockinsider.com/guides/editorial-microstock-images
Very interesting - two fairly independent markets, this one being potentially the easier one to submit photos to.
ReplyDeleteNo reason why we can't have a foot in both camps. What doesn't sell in one market might be better suited for the other.
No model release forms! Might convince me to buy that 200mm prime or 70-200mm zoom I've been thinking about... :)
As an aside, this picture I posted:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeisametaphor/3838628376/
has been viewed 23 times in only a week or so. Maybe it's being downloaded to serve in an editorial context (illegally). If so, it would suggest there's a market out there...