Stock photographs are photos that are taken and then given (leased? sold?) to an agency. This agency serves as source/reservoir for photographs. Companies (and whoever else) that need photographs that depict something, but don't want to higher a photographer to do it, will go to a stock agency and look for suitable pictures. One example would be when a business is setting up a website or brochure and needs photos of people "brainstorming" in a business meeting.. they would go to a stock photography agency, which would already have photos like this that have been taken by professional photographers with models. Hope this was a proper explanation, and hope it helped.
Much of the recent talk about it has been related to the fact that stock photos are typically very straightforward photos - technically great, but little interpretation is needed.
I think I'm still dense on the whole thread of how dpc is like that but what do I know.
I'm not sure why so many people are so dissatisified as of late with the challemges & winners. It seem sto me that people complian when they don't get the shot and when they do.
It seems to be the noisy minority. If not, then the winners would not be winning. I have not been here long but, the griping is starting to get on my nerves.
It takes talent, skills, and dedication to be a decent stock photographer. Everyone that is whining is just jealous.
It is about everyone spending their time writing congratulatory notes and fawning over the winners instead of offering constructive suggestions to the non-winners.
It seems to be the noisy minority. If not, then the winners would not be winning. I have not been here long but, the griping is starting to get on my nerves.
It takes talent, skills, and dedication to be a decent stock photographer. Everyone that is whining is just jealous.
I kinda agree with you that it is a tad whinny. Afterall one of the threads was began with a member comlainging about the comments he/sge got & how folks didnt get it.
As for the comments, not every one wants to or can comment on the technical aspects of photography & would like to say that they liked it. Whats the harm with that? I do that & like to hear from folks that like or dislike my shots as well. You know what they say about sore losers. I lost & i aint sore about it. Super Congrats to those who did win a ribbon. Obviously pople liked tham so they won! What's the big deal anyway. No one wins money or grand prizes or anything. Just a tiny ribbon. It's not even a real ribbon!:)
Everyone should try & have fun. This is supposed to be a fun learning experience within a community. Let's not spoil it by bitchin' 'cause we lost or bc someone didnt get what we were trying to say.
"Stock Photography" should not be associated in any way with something negative. It is not. Stock photography requires skill to produce. Or maybe I should say it requires skill to produce stock photos that will sell regularly.
"Stock Photography" should not be associated in any way with something negative. It is not. Stock photography requires skill to produce. Or maybe I should say it requires skill to produce stock photos that will sell regularly.
I didnt get that feeling from some of th rants that have been going on but I have read from others participating that it does indeed take skills to do stock photography. It seems it is being used as a diss. Maybe I misinterpreted it but that was my feeling.
I do think that in some cases refering to an image as a stock photo is a way of belittleing it. Many people feel that "stock" photo's are a genre that is not as good as "art" photos.
If you have the skills to create an exceptional stock photo, it means just that, you have SKILL. Many if not most photographers that do art photos also do stock as a way of paying for the less saleable arty ones they do.
I'm just starting, and have a couple of small jobs doing product shots. They are very hard to do right and well. And the skills I learn doing them allow me to create even better art shots, that probably will never sell.
I have a lot of respect for people that can consistently shoot great stock shots.
I think the threads on this issue stem from someone's artisic vision. Stock photography and fine art photography can be one in the same, but they generally aren't. It takes no more or no less skill to produce either one. I think that too many people are classifying studio type setup shots as 'stock'. Stock photography consists just as much of candids and outdoor shots as it does studio work.
For a photo to be considered 'fine art', all you have to do is put that label on it :) Everyone may not agree with you, but if you say it is fine art, then it is. There is no set of specifications that you must achieve to end up with 'fine art'. I think that fine art photography is much MORE subjective than stock work. I suppose that one true way to determine if something is actually fine art is to put it up for auction or sale in a gallery somewhere. If someone pays an exorbitant price for it, then you have achieved fine art status.
I'm not sure why so many people are so dissatisified as of late with the challemges & winners. It seem sto me that people complian when they don't get the shot and when they do.
The short flippant (and grossly unfair) answer is that they're dissatisfised because they weren't the winners :-)
The slightly longer and (I think) more accurate answer is that because stock photography is popular and in some way 'commercialised', it's not arty enough for them. It has recently become socially questionable to strive to produce technically clean pictures with a broad-base appeal because thats "just stock photography".
And god help you if you're foolish enough to make it a studio picture too! :-)
[ok, I admit I drifted off the "accurate answer" a bit there!]
