I don’t disagree with your point that the commoditization of images makes the business more difficult. Mediocre photography is fast becoming a commodity. The only way to ensure you don’t fall into the commodity race to the bottom is to continually produce better and better work. I like to think though that the increased use of mediocre images makes the demand for outstanding images even stronger.

Not so much about the usage fee level in relation to the exposure the image gets. But I think the distinction you’re trying to make between commodities and IP is off a bit. It seems to me that commoditization is one of the processes that is making the photography business increasingly difficult. What I mean by that is essentially the same as what you are talking about when you discuss quality, technique and the blurring of perceived differences between ‘amateur’ and ‘professional’ results (and players.) Images in general have become a commodity. There are just so many of them it’s almost impossible to take them in in a meaningful way. In addition, you tend to commoditize your own images the more copies you sell and the more widely they are distributed. And you commoditize them to the extent that they reflect the preoccupations of the market you are targeting rather than your own preoccupations. The fact that you might make some more money as a result, through IP doesn’t make the work any less of a commodity. The petroleum companies make money with each tank they fill, gallon that is pumped. What’s the difference?

I think the true distinction between commodity images and non-commodity images has more to do with the degree to which an image can be identified as yours — call it personal style or vision or what have you. IP is simply an administrative and/or legal recognition of that uniqueness.

The problem, I think, is that because of the commoditization of images, there is less of an appetite or demand for personal style unless it is so… what’s the world? …vivid or surreal that it, in a sense, screams out to be noticed above all the other images. Successfully. The marketplace for this type of image is shrinking because the print venue is shrinking. So there is a positive feedback loop happening where personal style becomes more and more, in a sense, distorted in order to get the attention of less and less market. On the other hand, the Internet is a kind of undifferentiated wasteland where the ability to really perceive personal vision, i.e., non-commodity images, is almost impossible because of the blizzard of other stuff that surrounds it. It may be that the ability to *make* non-commodity images is similarly affected. And we spend hours and hours trying to game the web with search engine optimization and all the social networking techniques. In a way it just seems to get noisier and noisier. And our sense of sight seems to get duller and duller as a result.

Not a happy scenario but perhaps an indication that ‘small planet’ or ‘local’ thinking may be a healthier (if not necessarily more profitable) recipe for doing what you love and with a smaller PITA markup.

…edN

She just called it “PIA,” though. If asked, she would explain that it stood for “Purchased Inventory Allowance,” and that it covered the costs of supplies that couldn’t be itemized easily: rub-down type, spray mount, mat boards, diskettes, and other things that have to be kept in stock and used as needed. Nobody ever complained about it!