Through the Pro's Viewfinder: Getty & Corbis Photographer Chase Jarvis
Straight from the Pro: Getty and Corbis Photographer Chase Jarvis
Daniella Zalcman interviews Chase Jarvis via telephone May 22nd
Thus far, we've largely been speaking with the key players within the world of crowdsourcing. Chase Jarvis is on the other side of the fence: He's a photographer working for large stock agencies and primarily licensing images to advertising agencies. But Jarvis also has been keeping a close eye on the evolution of microstock — smaller photo companies that are selling royalty-free images for as little as $1 each. Here's what he has to say about the convergence of the two kinds of stock houses.
Daniella Zalcman: How did you get your start in stock photography?
Chase Jarvis: I’m a contributor to Getty and Corbis — but stock is just one part of the business. I’m primarily a commercial ad photographer. With Getty, I’m on an image-specific contract where I create images and then Getty licenses them. When I create stock, I shoot stuff that I think is going to do well in the marketplace.
Q: How do the microstock houses fit into the broader trend of crowdsourcing?
A: I separate microstock and crowdsourcing into two different piles. Crowdsourcing, to me, tends to be more news-focused and locational. You look at the train bombing in London, where everyone had their camera phones at the ready and all of these images surfaced immediately after, and that’s an example: You had to be there at the moment. There’s no press announcement where Michael Jordan is going to speak to the media. You just had to be there.
IStockphoto, in my opinion, is a section of people who are out there shooting images and saying, ‘You know, I think this might be worth something to someone.’ And whether they’re aspiring pros or amateurists or full-blown professionals, the only difference is that it’s just another price point in the image game.
Prior to the iStockphoto model, you could license some low-end image for a hundred bucks or you could buy an Andreas Gursky print for $3.3 million. There was this massive range. So iStockphoto came along and brought that range from the mid- to low-hundreds to one to five bucks. And at first it was only a few people playing the game, but now there are a lot of people saying maybe these photos are worth something in the ad market.
Q: How have those microstock agencies affected the larger companies such as Getty, and, more important, how have they affected professional photographers like you?
A: I look at microstock as another revenue source that’s a complement to what’s already out there. It’s another price point for the consumer, and it rounds out what historically has been missing.
But generally, my attitude is that it’s sad for a lot of the old-school mentality in photographers to fear this model. My thought is that if you’re really afraid of an 18-year-old with a cell phone camera or an amateur with a point-and-shoot, that’s actually the least of your problems. You should actually be more focused on becoming a better photographer or a better businessman.
Commercial professional photography is very competitive, and yes … this does breed and add another layer to what’s already there. But if you’re alone with your friend in the woods and a tiger’s chasing you, you don’t have to be faster than the tiger — you have to be faster than your friend. Ultimately, I think competition is good. And if you’re a photographer and you can’t thrive in photography, you need to work smarter, not necessarily harder, and take better pictures.
Q: What are the fundamental differences that distinguish iStock photographers from Getty photographers?
A: It’s hard to say. The person who just took that photo with his cell phone or his Nikon Coolpix and is hoping to make 100 bucks — that’s kind of a one-off for him. There’s a different mentality when you’re professional and you have to get up and do this every day.
But the quality’s there (on iStockphoto); there are some beautiful pictures on that site, and I’m always impressed with what people can do.
Q: How do you think the large stock houses and microstock agencies are going to react and adapt to each other? How have you been adapting?
A: I’ve been doing this for about 10 or 12 years. I don’t participate in microstock — not because I don’t think it’s a great revenue stream or that it’s interesting, but because I’m just watching it right now and waiting to see at what point it’ll be worth investing in it.
This industry is changing so much that you should never say never. There are people who once said, ‘Oh, I’ll never put my images in royalty-free,’ and now they are. Those people who were saying, ‘Never microstock!’ are going to eat their words in the near future.
I’m waiting for that tipping point and then I’ll probably step into the market.
Q: On a more general note, do you really think there's wisdom in crowds?
A: I think there’s a lot of wisdom in crowds. It’s especially interesting for me from the news standpoint, where eventually we’re all going to have video camera phones in a matter of years that will be able to record and stream video really quickly. There’s that old saying, ‘If a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around to hear it.’ But that won’t exist fairly soon because everything’s going to be recorded.
Are all of us photographers going to be replaced by crowds? I doubt it, because there are still people who have to get up and go to work every day and show up at those press conferences and the like. I was recently on a dance floor at 2 in the morning in Manhattan, and maybe 50 percent of the people there had phones or cameras or video cameras in their hands. As a photographer, you can look at that and go, ‘Oh, my God, I’m losing my job,’ but it’s not worth it.
For “new school” photographers — people who have a vision of where this is going — the image is becoming so pervasive in our culture that we’ll need to have photographs of everything at all times. And if I can stay ahead of the tiger, so to speak, I can feel confident that I’ll be able to stay ahead of most of the amateurs and students with cameras, and there will be more for everybody. The rising tide floats all the boats.
Q: What will the next phase of crowdsourcing look like? Have we hit its true potential?
A: Microstock is going to become more prominent. It also has a life cycle: People have a set of expectations of what they’re getting when they’re paying five or 10 dollars an image, and those expectations are going to rise as time goes on. But all of the other areas, I think, are going to thrive as well as our culture becomes more attached to images, as moments become more a part of our lives and as recording images become more a part of our lives.
I can’t think of a more exciting time to be a professional, and I’m very optimistic about where it’s all going. Sadly, there’s going to be some attrition. There will be people who have a hard time adapting to the technology, and it’s sad to see some pros going away, but I suppose there’s attrition in every industry. I think that’s just part of the recipe. You’ve got to pay to play, you know?
(Edited by Rich Mathison)
