dan_bailey2

<p>C Watson- If you're looking for a real world analysis of the X-T1, I suggest you <a href="http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/the-fujifilm-x-t1-full-review-and-field-test/">read my X-T1 full review and field test.</a> I can understand not wanting to hear the same rehashed specs and press clippings, but I assure you, I'm hardly a "privileged Fuji spokesman" as you put it. I'm a full time pro shooter who has put the X-T1 through two months of real world use in a variety of extreme conditions and wrote an honest review of the camera's capabilities. In fact, having gotten one of the very first models, I've put the X-T1 through more abuse than just about anyone. </p>

<p>Yes, it's true that Fuji brought me on board as an early tester of the camera since it fits well with my style of photography, but they don't pay me to say nice things about their gear. They expect me to use the stuff as intended and give my honest evaluations, which is what I did in my review. I just happen to think that Fuji hit one out of the park with this camera, hence the overly positive tone in my article! :)</p>

<p>I disagree with your assessment that larger publishers are not seriously reducing their photography budgets. Perhaps they're not all going RF or microstock, but the with prices that they're looking to pay these days, it might as well be RF.</p>

<p>Two months ago, I was negotiating with a national magazine with worldwide offices that charges $41,000 for full page ad space. They were only willing to pay $100 for up to a two page spread photo use. A use like that should be at least $400-500, if not more. Not the first time this has happened lately.</p>

<p>And this pas May, Time Inc. reached an agreement with Getty to license any image, regardless of size or placement for $50. This applies to Time, Sports Illustrated & Fortune.</p>

<p><a href="http://rising.blackstar.com/dont-give-up-hope-against-photographys-dark-forces.htm">http://rising.blackstar.com/dont-give-up-hope-against-photographys-dark-forces.htm</a>l</p>

<p>Obviously, magazines are looking hard to cut costs, but agencies like Getty are writing these deals, so who's to blame? </p>

<p>The editors I'm referring to are my agency editors, and that's what my article focuses on: Can photos still make money through stock agencies? Whether they can still make money by licensing stock directly to magazines is an issue for another article. </p>

<p>Mikael,<br>

Having a very defined niche where the photos you sell are in demand, but not widely available is definitely a good way to ensure steady income. Stock photography is like any other business, if you have a unique product and can find a market for that product, you'll do well. Those with a more common product will struggle and have to compete with the masses to reach the same customers. In those cases, the laws of supply and demand play themselves out in true form.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting a link to my post and starting a discussion on this. I'll try to address the issues that each of you has brought up. The third in the Big Three is Photolibrary. They're an Australian based agency that has offices all over the world. A few years ago, they entered the US market by buying Index Stock. When Getty bought Jupiter, that left Photolibrary in the #3 spot.<br>

<br />As for Alamy, Brian is correct. They don't edit for content, and so they have an enormous and somewhat overwhelming collection. Photographers do make money with Alamy; I've made a few thousand and some shooters make a whole lot more. I kept them somewhat separate because they are not a traditional agency where you have to get approved by an editor. Essentially, anyone can get in as long as they have pass QC.<br>

<br />Kevin, you're right, I presented no hard evidence that photo buyers have turned towards microstock and RF during the past few years. I'm only going by what trends I've seen with the US economy during the past few years and by what I've heard in talking with photo editors. And, actually, some very large companies have been going to RF and sites like Flickr, where they have gotten photos on the cheap from some amateurs who don't know what to charge. That said, I realize that there are many pros on Flickr who DO know what to charge.<br>

<br />Usually, large corporations don't go that route, but so many magazines and other companies have who used to be former RM buyers have drastically slashed their budgets and often the photography money is the first thing to get cut. <br>

<br />You're also right on this: We hear the term the "Good Old Days" alot, but often times those who actually lived through them know the reality, which is that things were tough back then too, just in a different way.</p>