Photo libraries are devaluing photographers..

Disclaimer: my girlfriend is a photographer / photo editor who has worked at photo libraries and also for magazines.. so I have some bias in this department. Background: what am I ranting about now? I used to work at a web firm that was responsible for the web site of Sun Microsystems in Australia/NZ, and part of the process we provided was to source high quality stock photos from Getty images to feature on the Sun home page. These images were quite cheap – back in the day. Since then many stock websites that are far cheaper have cropped up, providing (again in my opinion) lower and lower quality control and cheapening the photographer’s work. Photography is an artform that I have dabbled in at as hobby for years. I love good photography. BUT I know that I am not a professional, at best I am a hobbyist. Further to that, I love great photography in advertising and media. More than just giving me something to analyse and think about while i’m moving around the city, good use of photography is (in my opinion) an imperative part of most advertising and publication creative work. How the creative community is cheapening photography Why is it that we, the creative community, are actively cheapening photography? (i know also that this goes on in all facets of creative work, but today we’re just focussing on photography). Websites like istockphoto cheapen photography to a degree that the only way a photographer could possibly earn what they are worth for the creation of an image is if that image were used in SO many campaigns that it would lose all it’s creative...