gallery sale $400, stock photo sale 30 cents. Why? because they can !

When one has no historical perspective... no context in which to consider his own work, we have this. To find the flaws in this photographer's thought process one would have to go way back. This is not what "Stock Photographers" ever did? They charged real money for their work. Because it is worth real money. Some folks, like this photographer, have no historical perspective on what the pricing has been, or the context in which a single image can be used to sell millions of dollars of product... he just doesn't.

gallery sale $400, stock photo sale 30 cents. Why? because they can !:

"This profound answer made me think about our 'career' as stock photographers."

Profound? Dude, that isn't profound, that is business. And as for a "career" shooting images for Thirtyfriggincents... well, as I said. It's business. Cost factors. Cash flow. Value of the product. Market valuation. Perceived versus real value. Sheesh... Business!

"We have heard that during this recession, no one has the money to pay us the highest price of stock photography. Yet, someone just paid this lady $400 for her photograph. There is a recession here in my city as well, and the couple I am sure is not an alien who is immuned to the recession."

The "highest prices of stock photography"? What? Like a dollar? I never made a sale under $400 with a little known stock agency. As a designer I have paid thousands, and in one case $11,000 for an image as a buyout for a company's advertisement. They spent $3 million in advertising placement, so the image itself was a tiny part of that cost.

Thirty fuckin' cents? To cover the cost of a cheapass lens you gotta sell 2000 images. WTF?

I really am not right for this stuff. Foolish people and foolish endeavors leave me speechless sometimes,