Art Morris -- The Fact$ of Life

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

A

agrumpyoldsod

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery

In his most recent blog (at the point I post this) Art Morris included a short section titled "The Fact$ of Life": the following is the extract - but do follow the link to view Arts site:​

"The market for editorial sales of natural history images has virtually disappeared. The incomes of the world’s top stock photographers are down by at least 90%. Like me, most depend on income from photo trips, the sale of educational materials, and income from this or that affiliate program.
In 2001, BAA sold the publication rights to images for nearly one-quarter million US dollars. That amount dropped to about $20,000 by 2011, and in 2017, to slightly more than $2,000.00. We’ve stopped counting. IPTs used to fill within days. Now I am happy to go with one or two folks, but I’d much rather have you along. And so it goes. In 2009, I turned to creating educational blog posts, now to the tune of 4026. Yes, 4026 educational blog posts."

Is Art's experience common ? -- is the trend towards ever lower and lower image values now inevitable -- and to avoid a lengthy AI debate -- but some folk just do not look for real natural images any more.

Of course we are bombarded by images and clips and whole productions these days -- my hope was this would expand demand for great images not seemingly curtail it.

I know that prices for genuine works of art - the ones one might hang on a living room wall - like those sold by David Yarrow in the Maddox Galley appear to still be selling and on offer for high prices. BUT - the market for stock images appears to have gone and so I see galleries closing, Fine art photographers "giving up" having to move on.

Now that cameras are all great, that lifestyle and traveling is a career in itself (amazing to me) and there are just so many images out there - has the value (to others) of an image trended to zero (or close to it) and as a result many folk who used to make a living are struggling to sell their prints or images.

Is it that the genre that sells or are acceptable have changed?

I assume there is still a market for the unique - the unique action moment we have not seen many many times before. Are these not simply flooded out by someone on a cell phone capturing some human doing something stupid shots -- particularly (since we are talking wildlife) if it involves them being hurt by an animal and the image can be played around the world in a news feed or similar.

Beyond that have people's tastes simply moved away from the real and natural to these faked over processed constructed images and body shapes - I see across exhibitions like the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. If the image does not have a save the planet message or virtue signalling then it will not be accepted.

It is not enough for an image of a snow leopard up a cliff in the hindu kush that took an extreme wildlife photographer months to capture - no it has to be the sequence of the one where the leopard tries to take down a blue sheep, falls 400' and walks away. And now it is the video not the images that sell -- or are just posted.

[Yes the people's choice for 2022 WPY at the NHM was of a snow leopard - but the people do not award cash prizes; but ANAND NAMBIAR'S image capturing an unusual perspective of a snow leopard charging a herd of Himalayan ibex towards a steep edge did -- Roz Kidman Cox, chair of the judging panel for Mammals - Portraying memorable, unusual or dramatic behaviour; , writer and editor said, 'The power of this extraordinary picture is in the energy of desperation of all involved in this life-or-death race']. [see details below -- the common question is "Can you see the Leopard" and "How long did it take YOU"?]

The question for the community is -- what prints would you buy -- yes excluding you own work -- and have your tastes changed to reflect these current times?

Is it now just simpler and easier to hang an abstract image on your walls so "you do not have to explain it"?

BTW -- to put my marker down -- I do not remotely like impressionism, cubism or any "ism" - I enjoy natural realistic images; like I enjoy great live music where I can hear a melody (so NOT MIles Davis or Mahler); nor to I bother with any """"art"""" that requires the artist to write an essay about their intentions -- the work should stand for itself without explanation.
Sure tell me what you did to capture the image, take the shot -- and I will read it if the image has captured me first.
I lived through a pile of bricks being called art !! And do not get me started on the Hirst frankensheep and series of similar revolting objects. Having to read why a pile of bricks was art.... well "say no more......."


Anand Nambiar - Anand's interest in flora and fauna began as a child through books, including ones written by Jim Corbett. As a child he spent a lot of time birding around his neighbourhood, and over time this evolved into photography. As a professional in the banking industry, Anand struggles to juggle priorities and annual leave to spend time in areas where he can photograph big cats and other rare fauna found in India.
Image details - Nikon D500; 200–500mm f5.6 lens at 500mm; 1/1600 sec at f18 • ISO 400; Kibber Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, India
Anand had no special gear -- but put himself in a spot (a difficult spot) and was able to take an uncommon shot.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I briefly ran across Mr. Morris earlier this month, when I was on my photo trip around parts of Florida. He had two or three other photographers with him, so I suppose that they were his "workshop" clients. Shortly afterward, I read this entry from his blog, and do believe that he is asking the right questions to provide food-for-thought for anyone thinking about trying to make money by selling photographs of natural subjects. It possibly applies to anyone planning to generate their income from photography.

To answer his community question(s), I've seen several prints I thought about buying, but didn't, because my wife was, should I say, less than enthusiastic about them. One of the issues I see at art shows is that there are often no mid-sized prints of the shot I wish to buy. Often the offerings are of a choice between a large framed print upwards of $2/3k, and a 4-by-6 or 5-by-7, and possibly post or greeting cards, with the sale of post and greeting cards being what most likely paid for their booth at the show. One of the photographers at the latest show I attended stated that she knew her work was likely making framing galleries more money than she did.:(

Have my tastes changed? Yes, but not that much. What I like in a photo I'll put on the wall or my desk is mainly either family or familiarity. Family is, or should be self-explaining, but familiarity? Show me a local scene, or one of my past, especially one that evokes memories of my earlier life. Yes, I wax nostalgic; and easily so.

On the other side of it, I have a portfolio book that I share with my neighbors; it's filled with 13-by-19 and larger prints of my bird and nature shots. Most of the neighbors tell me that they really like them and that I should sell them. But when I ask them if they would like to purchase any of them, they decline; maybe they don't like them that much, or maybe they just aren't keen on purchasing a photo. However, show them a good photo of their grandchild, and they want to know how they can get a print and how much they need to pay for it!

Maybe it's not just that our tastes have changed, but that society has changed much more. If any photography genre illustrates this more than wedding photography, I'm not aware of it. The consumer is ever more demanding, really "DEMANDING!", and most often wants to pay nothing, or next to it, for the photographers efforts. Our local photographer's guild dissolved several years ago, with the primary reason being the main income source of the group, weddings, was gone. Too many MWACs, (yes a very derogatory term, but used most vociferously by the women photographers in our guild) shooting for next-to-nothing. Often, they weren't even charging enough to maintain their equipment. If their one camera broke, they had no backup and no money for a new one or a repair. Also, the wedding photo, from the back of the venue, showing every guest with a cell phone out to take a picture, is no longer cliche, but the most frequent reality. Locally, a recent photography growth area, orgainzed childrens sports team photos has met the same fate, with parents being too difficult to please and unwilling to pay for the product, opting to ask for a copy of a team photo from one parent that purchased one.

Which leads back to why nature photos are no longer worth what they once were, as Mr. Morris' stated data highlights. Maybe there's too much available to the consumer who likely doesn't really know much about photography. They can either get it for free off of the internet, or take the shot themselves, so why pay for it. And maybe it really is more about the experience of the scene, or in many of our cases, the experience of getting the shot, that really matters.

After writing and then reading this, my first thought is to delete it and forget about it, as it is too long and rambling. But, no, I'm going to post it instead, and hope I haven't killed another thread...:oops:
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Its useful for people to ask if the photos they think are beautiful are the same as the type of photos other people want on their walls. I see dozens of spectacular wildlife photos everyday. Absolutely stunning photos. The number of those photos that I want on the walls of my house is very, very small. Its like this with all forms of art. Is it not possible that wildlife photographers are too interested in technical purity and not as much on creating something moving and artistic?
 
Member's gallery
The real world: there are now so many good amateur photographers that the market for professional photos has correspondingly diminished. Add to that the reality that most people's exposure to nature photos today is via the computer (or tablet or phone) screen, not from a "print" that hangs on the wall. Digital images fly by rapidly; people see the "nature photo of the year" online and then scroll on in anticipation of the next one. There are fantastic images that end up (for example) in Flickr's "Explore" gallery. One can look at these for free, and then wait until the next day for some more.

A big part of this change is of course, that the technology/gear has improved so much. There are a few acquaintances who see my humble attempts at bird photography (on Facebook or Flickr, the only two places where I post these) and ask whether I am a professional or strive to be. I tell them that if the best of my recent photos had been taken forty or even thirty years ago I might have been rewarded with great acclaim. But today, I am just another bozo on the bus, and that's ok with me.

I do remember when professional nature photographers would scold (us) amateurs for "giving away" what they are trying to sell. I have not given away images, at least not knowingly, except for to nonprofits, but let's face it, trying to prevent the untrammeled dissemination of digital nature images is like trying to plug a dam leak with your finger.

Times have changed; I think Mr. Morris is realistic in his appraisal of the situation of "professional" photographers. Lead trips and workshops, publish a book (such as Glenn Bartley's recent one about hummingbirds), or sell your expertise in an online guide or in YouTube videos (like Steve does). I think it's unrealistic to try to shame amateur photographers into refraining from sharing their images for the sake of protecting the income stream of a few professionals.

Personally, I have never aspired to be a "professional nature photographer" and I never will. Even if I were talented enough to produce and possibly sell professional-quality images, I would not want to approach photography as a "job"; to me, it's all about enjoyment with no pressure to market, deal with fussy clients, or fight with people who violate copyright. I think a lot of us so-called "serious amateurs" feel the same way.

Doug Greenberg
 
Member's gallery
Stock sales were viable in the days of film (when stock agencies kept slides on file). Digital online stock agencies killed the profits because it is too easy to upload photos and too many amateur or part-time pros are willing to accept payments of next to nothing. The decline of print publications doesn't help.

Leading photo workshops or tours is the primary means of making a living as a nature photographer. I base this on the number of big name pros who do them (Art Morris, Moose Peterson, Daniel J Cox, etc). I can't imagine they would have a year-round schedule of tours if they could make a living shooting on their own and selling prints.

As noted above, traditional revenue streams like weddings and portraits have also crashed because too many enthusiasts are willing to photograph them for little or nothing. For over two decades I worked at a photo lab and when I started in mid 1990's they had a separate entrance just for professionals who generated the bulk of the company income. With digital that dwindled and when I left for a non-photo job in late 2015 they were down to half a dozen professional clients. Three months ago the lab went out of business altogether after more than 70 years.

I collect the Wildlife Photographer of the Year portfolio books and the quality has gone down in the last three years. They now place uniqueness and rarity above aesthetics, to the point that they sometimes award mistakes over good photos. (One example is a pair of guanacos that are grossly out of focus because the camera locked on the mountain behind them). I prefer the annual competition from Nature's Best Photography magazine, which still places aesthetics above all else.

Art galleries have always been a different beast, one that I confess I often don't get. I am with @Andy Miller Photo UK on this one: a lot of what passes as fine art is not my cup of tea. What the gallery owners perceive as a unique or different vision is rewarded, often (in my humble opinion) with little regard to the actual quality of the images. Take the infamous case of the "artist" who upsized people's Instagram (or was it another social site?) profile photos and had a major gallery exhibition.

In any case, several years ago I finally took the advice my late mother gave me a long time ago and got a government job.
 
Member's gallery
GrandNagus50 said:
Personally, I have never aspired to be a "professional nature photographer" and I never will. Even if I were talented enough to produce and possibly sell professional-quality images, I would not want to approach photography as a "job"; to me, it's all about enjoyment with no pressure to market, deal with fussy clients, or fight with people who violate copyright. I think a lot of us so-called "serious amateurs" feel the same way.
Click to expand...

I tried to make a go at being a professional nature photographer about 15 years ago. Like you it was more a job running a business and less about being out in nature taking pictures all that time that so many non-photogs romanticize it as being. When the stress of having to produce new work began to crush the peace and joy of being in nature, I knew I was done with being trying to be a pro. Even now, I get told occasionally that I should be a professional photographer. I just smile and tell them thanks for the compliment, but I take pics of nature to escape from the daily grind of keeping a roof over my head and food on my table.
 
Member's gallery
I would add, to cross an other thread, that when IA enter the game and gives people without knowledge possiblility to get with only one pushed button the result experienced proffessionnels needed years to manage, it is an euphemism to say it doesn't help matters.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
Stock sales were viable in the days of film (when stock agencies kept slides on file). Digital online stock agencies killed the profits because it is too easy to upload photos and too many amateur or part-time pros are willing to accept payments of next to nothing. The decline of print publications doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

When I started my business I was shooting slide film and among other revenue streams I regularly submitted slides to stock agencies. Back in those days the typical process was to submit several pages of slides which the agency would hold for a defined time period (often six months). During that time if the agency had a request for a type of photo represented in my submission I'd sometimes get a licensing sale. At the end of the hold period my slides would be returned. The same applied to other photographers so if for instance the agency had a request for Bald Eagle images and some I had submitted were being held mine would be offered to the client along with others from other photographers and I had a fighting chance to license an image.

I transitioned to digital with Nikon's D1H over 20 years ago and sold most of my film cameras. The digital advantages were clear right away as things like histograms and blinkies during image review were complete game changers for getting the shot in the field. It was simply easier to nail my shots in the field or to know when I missed and take some more and images were basically free so I could experiment with things like crazy slow shutter speeds and other stuff I wouldn't do a lot of with slide film.

The downside that accelerated as digital cameras evolved was that now instead of holding images for a few months at a time the stock agencies can hold massive numbers of images covering all kinds of subjects and they're instantly available for all time. Now instead of having a page or two of eagle images competing against some other photographers now the agencies can have literally thousands or tens of thousands of different images of the same subjects at their fingertips at all times and we're all competing against a huge pool of other images that don't get cycled every few months.

Add to that the decline in print media, the move towards video and the huge number of enthusiasts, many willing to donate work for publishing credits alone and the stock market for working photographers took quite a hit. For a while I continued with my editorial and assignment work, taught classes and ran workshops and did all right but I eventually folded the business and transitioned to shooting for my own pleasure as it's really the time in the field with interesting wildlife that's the big draw for me. I still make the occasional image sale or shoot a local assignment but haven't actively marketed my business for many years now. Heck I currently don't even have my own website though I may tackle that project one of these days.

The world changes and though I still love photography and love the advantages digital photography has opened up it's become tougher and tougher (though not impossible as several working pro friends remind me if you find and develop the right niche) to make a living doing it.
 
Member's gallery
More than thirty years ago this was a topic of discussion. There were too many photographers producing the same kinds of pictures. Publishers were looking for the unique and exotic. Galen Rowell was popular and his pictures were the standard against which most landscape and nature photography was judged.

Most of my income came from architectural photography. Landscape at that time was just too crowded, and still is. Architects and big contractors were willing to pay for pictures of their trophy buildings. Not sexy or exciting but it paid the bills.
 
Member's gallery
Andy Miller Photo UK said:
Is Art's experience common ? -- is the trend towards ever lower and lower image values now inevitable -- and to avoid a lengthy AI debate -- but some folk just do not look for real natural images any more.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes.
I have a friend who ranks fairly high at Alamy specialising in back-lit fungi (collected and taken home), medicine packets and empty beer bottles!
She says it is what sells that matters - and she has never managed to sell a landscape.

She used to make over £100 a month, then £50 a month - then her dogs left home when the new owner of Alamy sold 16 of her pictures at less than £1 each - before commission.

She now makes more money from photographing ancient violins for clients who want to establish the approximate age of the violin from the tree rings in the wood.
 
Member's gallery
GrandNagus50 said:
The real world: there are now so many good amateur photographers that the market for professional photos has correspondingly diminished. Add to that the reality that most people's exposure to nature photos today is via the computer (or tablet or phone) screen, not from a "print" that hangs on the wall. Digital images fly by rapidly; people see the "nature photo of the year" online and then scroll on in anticipation of the next one. There are fantastic images that end up (for example) in Flickr's "Explore" gallery. One can look at these for free, and then wait until the next day for some more.

A big part of this change is of course, that the technology/gear has improved so much. There are a few acquaintances who see my humble attempts at bird photography (on Facebook or Flickr, the only two places where I post these) and ask whether I am a professional or strive to be. I tell them that if the best of my recent photos had been taken forty or even thirty years ago I might have been rewarded with great acclaim. But today, I am just another bozo on the bus, and that's ok with me.

I do remember when professional nature photographers would scold (us) amateurs for "giving away" what they are trying to sell. I have not given away images, at least not knowingly, except for to nonprofits, but let's face it, trying to prevent the untrammeled dissemination of digital nature images is like trying to plug a dam leak with your finger.

Times have changed; I think Mr. Morris is realistic in his appraisal of the situation of "professional" photographers. Lead trips and workshops, publish a book (such as Glenn Bartley's recent one about hummingbirds), or sell your expertise in an online guide or in YouTube videos (like Steve does). I think it's unrealistic to try to shame amateur photographers into refraining from sharing their images for the sake of protecting the income stream of a few professionals.

Personally, I have never aspired to be a "professional nature photographer" and I never will. Even if I were talented enough to produce and possibly sell professional-quality images, I would not want to approach photography as a "job"; to me, it's all about enjoyment with no pressure to market, deal with fussy clients, or fight with people who violate copyright. I think a lot of us so-called "serious amateurs" feel the same way.

Doug Greenberg
Click to expand...
Before going back to school to become a lawyer, I also thought I could make a living doing what I loved -- photography. But after a year or two in the 70s shooting weddings and Bar Mitzvhas, I soon came to the conclusion that I loved photography as a hobby and not as a profession. That being said, I'm glad that I did well enough in my decision to go back to school in my 30s to fund my passion in my 70s.
 
I find the more time I spend trying to sell it, the less time I have to make it. I think galleries and agents really earn their keep even at 50%. But even then the chances of getting in with a gallery is a crap shoot.
 
Member's gallery
Years ago I read an essay titled "Are the Arts only for the Wealthy" (I don't remember the source) The author cited a study of Art School graduates to see what could predict commercial success for young, well trained artists. Most of the graduates were not working as artists. some had part time art related careers, less than 10% were working as professional artists. As far as prediction, the strongest correlation to working as professional artist was.....parent's net worth. Rich kids could afford to make art because they had outside support. I did a fair amount of fashion photography. There was an endless stream of teenagers that grew up sketching dresses and suits. Few ever found buyers for their designs. They were often passionate and good, but there simply was no profit in selling or creating their designs. When I was in college, there were numerous local bands in every town. They supplemented their income working the bars with live music every weekend. Most bars had live music. Now a handfull of musicians make a living selling very expensive concert tickets and the semi-pros have withered away. What happened? I see two contributing trends.

The middle class has shrunk, at least in the United States. A small group of wealthy individuals can and do pay top dollars for concerts, designer clothes and wall art. Most listen to YouTube videos, buy cheap imported clothes at Wal-Mart and don't have wall art.

In my youth (1960s) a larger percentage of the population had stronger connections to nature. We are increasing urbanized. Having a bald eagle try to take my trout on a stringer three feet from my kayak gives me a strong emotional connection to eagle photographs. My young friends just don't have those growing up experiences, or the same appreciation for nature. You don't value what you don't experience.
 
Saw this recently.

www.saatchiart.com

2022 Artist Report | Saatchi Art

We surveyed 500 artists to gather data about their experience and their income, as well as their outlook on the role NFTs can play in furthering their career. As we did, we found that artists may not be making as much as they could, but that tech innovations may offer valuable opportunities for...
www.saatchiart.com
 
Member's gallery
Interesting and complex questions. As someone who started photography 9 years ago, and decided after a couple of years to make money at it some day (strictly wildlife back then), I knew right away that selling stock photos didn't make sense. Millions of them out there for free or cheap. The money had to come from workshops. My first safari was to India, because I wanted to learn how to take and process images like Sudhir. I believe the reason you stilll want to take great images without worrying about what others are doing, is because you want people to be inspired by yours, and want to learn from you. I'm now trying to promote my own trip to CR, but it's hard and the marketing and website management/cost makes me question if it's worth it. I'm still hopeful, but as time goes by, I need to supplement my income with other genres that are always in demand, like portraits, also challenging since everyone with a phone is a photographer these days.
As for what would I buy to hang on my walls? I only want to hang my pictures. If I buy something, it will be a non-photo art.
I agree with you regarding abstract art, I don't get it, it's not for me. As for photo contests, I don't enter them and I don't follow them. The whole process is too ambiguous and it's just frustrating to see the decisions they make. If I love one of my images, I share it in case someone else likes it too. That's it.
 
Member's gallery
In my experience for any form of art probably the least important element of success is talent. Due to sheer population density there are talented people all over the place. I see images on forums like this every day that are as good/better than those in any professional gallery that I've ever visited. One common thread I've noted when visiting galleries/shows with the photographer present is that all of the successful ones are extroverts. Marketing is a lot more important than skill/talent for financial success. And that includes gaining access to the right people.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Marketing is a lot more important than skill/talent for financial success. And that includes gaining access to the right people.
Click to expand...
You are probably right in that "marketing" rather than actual skill itself generates up to 80% of any profit.

Any skill has to be sold in a way that persuades reasonable numbers of buyers to pay whatever the price point needs to be to make a profit.
 
Member's gallery
Corporate and product photography and portrait photography and wedding photography can still generate income for photographers but even then the individual needs to be very business savy and be in right geographic area.

Long ago photographers found that they needed to write and illustrate articles to sell to print publications. Setting up travel tours is profitable but the business is not going to make anyone rich and there are risks as with the Covid epidemic and civil unrest in many destination areas.

One area that seems to be expanding is wildlife videos but this requires a much greater cash investment in video and audio gear and a team approach with a camera operator, audio person, editor, dialog writter, and producer to sell the finished product.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
Most Lindblad Expeditions cost $20K or more per person and sell out continuously. I have to think Sven-Olof Lindblad is doing all right financially. ;)
Click to expand...
Assuming the net profit is 15% a person - a good living is being made - but can you name 10 others with similar turnover?

Back to marketing - going ashore on an inflatable (where it is safe and easy to land them if the weather is OK) for 2-3 hours is a very different wildlife experience to spending 3 weeks on the Falklands getting to understand the wildlife, shooting when the light is good etc. Persuading the often "well-healed" to pay mega bucks for a second rate experience is part of marketing.
 
Member's gallery
Andy Miller Photo UK said:

In his most recent blog (at the point I post this) Art Morris included a short section titled "The Fact$ of Life": the following is the extract - but do follow the link to view Arts site:​

"The market for editorial sales of natural history images has virtually disappeared. The incomes of the world’s top stock photographers are down by at least 90%. Like me, most depend on income from photo trips, the sale of educational materials, and income from this or that affiliate program.
In 2001, BAA sold the publication rights to images for nearly one-quarter million US dollars. That amount dropped to about $20,000 by 2011, and in 2017, to slightly more than $2,000.00. We’ve stopped counting. IPTs used to fill within days. Now I am happy to go with one or two folks, but I’d much rather have you along. And so it goes. In 2009, I turned to creating educational blog posts, now to the tune of 4026. Yes, 4026 educational blog posts."

Is Art's experience common ? -- is the trend towards ever lower and lower image values now inevitable -- and to avoid a lengthy AI debate -- but some folk just do not look for real natural images any more.

Of course we are bombarded by images and clips and whole productions these days -- my hope was this would expand demand for great images not seemingly curtail it.

I know that prices for genuine works of art - the ones one might hang on a living room wall - like those sold by David Yarrow in the Maddox Galley appear to still be selling and on offer for high prices. BUT - the market for stock images appears to have gone and so I see galleries closing, Fine art photographers "giving up" having to move on.

Now that cameras are all great, that lifestyle and traveling is a career in itself (amazing to me) and there are just so many images out there - has the value (to others) of an image trended to zero (or close to it) and as a result many folk who used to make a living are struggling to sell their prints or images.

Is it that the genre that sells or are acceptable have changed?

I assume there is still a market for the unique - the unique action moment we have not seen many many times before. Are these not simply flooded out by someone on a cell phone capturing some human doing something stupid shots -- particularly (since we are talking wildlife) if it involves them being hurt by an animal and the image can be played around the world in a news feed or similar.

Beyond that have people's tastes simply moved away from the real and natural to these faked over processed constructed images and body shapes - I see across exhibitions like the Wildlife Photographer of the Year. If the image does not have a save the planet message or virtue signalling then it will not be accepted.

It is not enough for an image of a snow leopard up a cliff in the hindu kush that took an extreme wildlife photographer months to capture - no it has to be the sequence of the one where the leopard tries to take down a blue sheep, falls 400' and walks away. And now it is the video not the images that sell -- or are just posted.

[Yes the people's choice for 2022 WPY at the NHM was of a snow leopard - but the people do not award cash prizes; but ANAND NAMBIAR'S image capturing an unusual perspective of a snow leopard charging a herd of Himalayan ibex towards a steep edge did -- Roz Kidman Cox, chair of the judging panel for Mammals - Portraying memorable, unusual or dramatic behaviour; , writer and editor said, 'The power of this extraordinary picture is in the energy of desperation of all involved in this life-or-death race']. [see details below -- the common question is "Can you see the Leopard" and "How long did it take YOU"?]

The question for the community is -- what prints would you buy -- yes excluding you own work -- and have your tastes changed to reflect these current times?

Is it now just simpler and easier to hang an abstract image on your walls so "you do not have to explain it"?

BTW -- to put my marker down -- I do not remotely like impressionism, cubism or any "ism" - I enjoy natural realistic images; like I enjoy great live music where I can hear a melody (so NOT MIles Davis or Mahler); nor to I bother with any """"art"""" that requires the artist to write an essay about their intentions -- the work should stand for itself without explanation.
Sure tell me what you did to capture the image, take the shot -- and I will read it if the image has captured me first.
I lived through a pile of bricks being called art !! And do not get me started on the Hirst frankensheep and series of similar revolting objects. Having to read why a pile of bricks was art.... well "say no more......."


Anand Nambiar - Anand's interest in flora and fauna began as a child through books, including ones written by Jim Corbett. As a child he spent a lot of time birding around his neighbourhood, and over time this evolved into photography. As a professional in the banking industry, Anand struggles to juggle priorities and annual leave to spend time in areas where he can photograph big cats and other rare fauna found in India.
Image details - Nikon D500; 200–500mm f5.6 lens at 500mm; 1/1600 sec at f18 • ISO 400; Kibber Wildlife Sanctuary, Himachal Pradesh, India
Anand had no special gear -- but put himself in a spot (a difficult spot) and was able to take an uncommon shot.
Click to expand...
1. When I started with Stock photography - Shutterstock had something like 3 000 00 images in the library. Now they host more than 300 000 000 million images. It is simply a numbers game. You cant compete with the volume like you did 15 years ago

2. People now take their own photos. Previously a limited amount of people could produce images to the market - now the market is flooded

3. 15 years ago you might not have found a single image of a specific subject - now there are 100's of the same thing. Not much "new" emerges - it has all been done kind-of-thing. You might have purchased an image of a kingfisher diving - due to it's uniqueness - it is no longer that unique. It no longer holds the same appeal

Stock libraries put many photographers out of work. Just like digital did to film - and just like Ai will do. etc etc etc - It's evolution
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top