The AI thread

[Drew Wiley]

Pieter - stock agencies were equipped to handle a wide range of subject matter and clients in a manner that few individual photographers were, who often had to travel. Websites didn't exist. And clients in big markets like NYC wanted to assess original chromes atop light boxes with their own eyes at familiar and trusted locations. There were a few magazines that had their own stockpiles of images to choose from, from preferred photographers. And the better agencies certainly didn't ream their contributors, or else they wouldn't get serious work. My own brother got over $4,000 for one-time rights to publish a particular 4X5 image or another, which was a helluva lot of money back in the mid-60's. I wouldn't be surprised if lower fees and shoddier business practices arose once 35mm images became more commonly accepted; but still, it wasn't an outright crash in stock income like now with still digital stock imagery. I don't know anyone making a living at that.

[Pieter]

Pieter - stock agencies were equipped to handle a wide range of subject matter and clients in a manner that few individual photographers were, who often had to travel. Websites didn't exist. And clients in big markets like NYC wanted to assess original chromes atop light boxes with their own eyes at familiar and trusted locations. There were a few magazines that had their own stockpiles of images to choose from, from preferred photographers. And the better agencies certainly didn't ream their contributors, or else they wouldn't get serious work. My own brother got over $4,000 for one-time rights to publish a particular 4X5 image or another, which was a helluva lot of money back in the mid-60's. I wouldn't be surprised if lower fees and shoddier business practices arose once 35mm images became more commonly accepted; but still, it wasn't an outright crash in stock income like now with still digital stock imagery. I don't know anyone making a living at that.

I bought or was involved in the selection of thousands of stock images over my career as an advertising art director. I never met a photographer who did well selling stock, most did it as a sideline. Thick color catalogs were published and distributed for free to agency art buyers and art directors, graphic designers and probably magazine photo editors. I had bookcases filled with them. Stock agencies charged a fee for research--$75 if I recall. This was before the internet and the results came by courier or FedEx with page upon page of transparencies. All were dupes, so they weren't the best technical quality to start with. Until Photonica came along, most stock photography was generic schlock. FPG was founded to give photographers a fairer share of the usage fees. Then Gates bought The Bettmann Archives and included it in his new agency, Corbis. And Getty (yes, that Getty) got into the game and ended up pretty much buying or obliterating everyone else. Somewhere along the way, royalty-free images came into play and most were mediocre at best. The few photographers I knew who did well selling stock--Galen Rowell comes to mind--were head and shoulders better than whoever else was out there. Of course, if a photographer had a unique shot they could charge a premium for it, but most stock back then was handshakes and sunsets.

But the bottom line was stock was not necessarily a preferred choice, more a matter of budget. Or the need for a photo of something that no longer was available to photograph, like an event. An assignment with a first-rate photographer was always the goal if the money was there.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, if Galen was head and shoulders above the competition, I'd hate to see what their work was like. But you're not saying anything I already didn't, and speaking about conditions already into the era of 35mm acceptability in publication. I drove past Galen's last venue a couple weeks ago - now a massage parlor on one floor and a used mountain gear exchange on the other. It was basically his own stock agency in its day in an old bank building, and the gallery side of it a minor sideline, even if taking up most of the space. He came into his element at the exactly the right time when there was a big demand for outdoorsy SUV-related and ski stills and so forth. Then the demand shifted to GoPro videos, where people wanted to see someone walk out of their SUV, jump off a cliff in a bat suit, and then splatter. He was respected as a climber and travel guru in this neighborhood, but really didn't have any weight as a photographer, and he knew it.

[jnantz]

Pieter - stock agencies were equipped to handle a wide range of subject matter and clients in a manner that few individual photographers were, who often had to travel. Websites didn't exist. And clients in big markets like NYC wanted to assess original chromes atop light boxes with their own eyes at familiar and trusted locations. There were a few magazines that had their own stockpiles of images to choose from, from preferred photographers. And the better agencies certainly didn't ream their contributors, or else they wouldn't get serious work. My own brother got over $4,000 for one-time rights to publish a particular 4X5 image or another, which was a helluva lot of money back in the mid-60's. I wouldn't be surprised if lower fees and shoddier business practices arose once 35mm images became more commonly accepted; but still, it wasn't an outright crash in stock income like now with still digital stock imagery. I don't know anyone making a living at that.

$4,000 from 1967 is worth $37,000 today. He was an astronaut or have images of a Kennedy assassination ? Stock agencies used to be picky 300 chromes 4x and then they let u in.. really embarassing what people Sell as stock these days. I'm sure ai is head and shoulders and worth it as a customized image, it's just photo illustration. As mentioned only directing, not even touching a camera, has been OK since the 90s wrangling key words is probably harder than that. I mean, " feed the tuna mayonnaise before you put it in a can, I'm an idea man "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtPmJ_quMo

[angusparker]

Maybe the whole wedding will be done virtually with neither the engaged nor their guests having to show up. They'll all be inserted into AI created photos and videos. The newlyweds could even have the program automatically email thank you notes for the wedding gifts extracted electronically from their uninvited guests' bank accounts. "Thanks for your gift. Wish you could be here."

Some parents would be very happy to reduce the cost of a wedding! I’m glad I saved money and avoided a rubber chicken dinner by holding my wedding in another country!

[Alan Klein]

Well, if Galen was head and shoulders above the competition, I'd hate to see what their work was like. But you're not saying anything I already didn't, and speaking about conditions already into the era of 35mm acceptability in publication. I drove past Galen's last venue a couple weeks ago - now a massage parlor on one floor and a used mountain gear exchange on the other. It was basically his own stock agency in its day in an old bank building, and the gallery side of it a minor sideline, even if taking up most of the space. He came into his element at the exactly the right time when there was a big demand for outdoorsy SUV-related and ski stills and so forth. Then the demand shifted to GoPro videos, where people wanted to see someone walk out of their SUV, jump off a cliff in a bat suit, and then splatter. He was respected as a climber and travel guru in this neighborhood, but really didn't have any weight as a photographer, and he knew it.

I liked Galen Rowell. I waited patiently for every issue of Outdoor Photographer Magazine to see his 35mm photos and read his articles and most of all inspiration.

[Drew Wiley]

I had little patience for the manner scenes got gussied up, like with colored neutral grads where reflections in streams were more intensely colored than the sky itself. And then the Photoshop hanky-panky arrived, though his son might have been responsible for that after the move to Bishop. He was a fairly egregious self-promoter in some of his writings; but that was a deliberate marketing persona which wasn't present in personal conversation. It wouldn't have gotten him far in a neighborhood filled with even better climbers, and certainly numerous photographers who were way more serious than him. He lived right next door to a pal of mine who was especially familiar with his machine-gunner shooting habits, and throwing away hundreds of slides at a time. But some of us were more annoyed at his enviro hypocrisy than anything else. No sense going into detail. Those of us who know, know. Hard to say how much of his seeming commercial success was due to his photography, and how much due to marrying a rich gal the second time around (he wasn't the only climber who did that).

[wclark5179]

Towards the end of my career, I witnessed changes, especially in the attitude of some, thinking that the electronic gizmo used would more than cover for their inability to make quality photographs. And, some think, if the device used to make the photograph(s) doesn’t do the job then a desktop or laptop computer loaded with Photoshop will surly make things look great. Low and behold how about the person using the device?

Then there is always the machine gun approach some use. Some will turn out, won’t they?

Ha!

[Pieter]

AI can be abused, certainly. But where does one draw the line as far as enhancing an image? Filters in the camera? Dodging and burning during printing? Paper contrast grades? IR photography? Alternative processes? The choice of film, camera, lens, and angle. The moment of exposure, the depth of field, the length of exposure. All of that is manipulation or enhancement of some sort. So some need to get off their high horses and not make hard and fast rules on what constitutes a legitimately good photograph. Each needs to be taken on its own merits, not how it was produced.

[Tin Can]

For 6 decades I shot 35 Pentax never a flash

I expected only a few keepers

No mentor

1998 I took WET DR college class and did all assignments with DIGI and 35

Learned a lot, especially Dry Mounting

I have all 35 shot from that era

12 inches from my left knee