I’ve gotten so many stupid captcha words and symbols over time, that I decided I should start documenting some of these.  Okay… so here are some a doozies.  These instances made me want to mash that refresh button extra hard.

*FACEPALM* the joys of the internet.

How many times have you seen some pretty bad technical mistakes in print?  It can be pretty comical.  Low resolution graphics printed at 12 dpi in print, because they were upscaled the image so much.  Or, maybe it was because they started with a thumbnail graphics swiped off of the internet.

Recently I spotted a nationally run TV commercial that was such terrible quality that you could see artifacts all over the screen, even on a 480p TV set.  Or maybe it was really bad photography representing marketing materials or advertising for a reputable business. I’m not talking about bad design or photography in general, but mostly just bad technical execution.  Amazingly, these basic things that we all were taught in school are sometimes forgotten.  We’ve all messed up at some point in our jobs, but for the most part we quickly learned and improved.  Tight deadlines are no excuse for technically bad artwork, because at some point we all have to learn to squeeze out at least decent quality work under the most stressful of situations.  There’s no excuse for sloppiness, but it does still happen.  All you have to do is check out blogs like PSDisasters.net to see for yourself.  You can also just google “bad graphic design” or “bad photography” examples (but you probably don’t even have to look that hard.)

Here are some examples of some bad graphic design using watermarked comp graphics pulled from istock on a finished product.  Maybe they weren’t trying to steal them; let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.  They could have just screwed up and forgot to replace the low res comps with the high res stock images prior to print or publishing.

Are They For Real?
I was flipping through the newspaper the other day and came across an ad for a national restaurant chain. Looking closely at the photo of the sandwich on the plate, I immediately noticed how off the focus was. The entire front of the sandwich was OUT of focus and the only part IN focus was about a quarter inch in the center, entirely too shallow. If becoming a stock photographer has done one thing, for me, it’s taught me how to shoot properly.  I have definitely made many mistakes in the past, but that’s how I learned.  Some people are learning while they’re working for large corporations.  I sort of pity them, because these people obviously don’t have anyone to teach them the proper ways, or to correct them, if their images are getting published nationally.  I really wish I had saved it, so I could scan it up and post it here.  The same company that had the really bad photo in their ad, at least has a really excellent selection of images on their website.  Lots of depth of field, nicely lit compositions, and all professional food photos with no other mistakes in their lineup.  I wonder how an image so bad slipped through?  Maybe someone got in big trouble over it later on.

There are many photographers out there that make a living shooting things wrong.  These ones might only be making it because they have good business skills.  There are a lot of really bad graphic designers in the corporate world, too – probably making double the salary that their skill set really should be allowing them.  I’m not trying to be mean, I just get a little bit disgusted when I know lots of really talented people that are struggling.  In the meantime, these people that are highly skilled, are the ones finding themselves stuck in a rut with their creative careers.  Or maybe they are just living in the wrong area of their country, where creative jobs are scarce.

The Moral of the Story
Sometimes it’s out of the creative’s hands, when printers goof up, fail to provide an accurate proof for color or what have you.  But we can’t pass the blame onto the printers, those guys have enough stress as it is.  Plus, we are all human – prone to goofing up once in a while.  But what about those creatives who really are bad?  I think what it really comes down to, is that there will always be some people that are much better at certain jobs than the actual “so-called” professionals working these positions.  So here’s to the hacks, the hung over art directors, the technically untrained photographers of the world.  Don’t quit your dayjobs Best wishes, and we hope you shape up before you get shipped out.  For the rest of the real professional creatives that know what they’re doing, keep at it.  Some day your time to shine will be here.

I just feel like ranting this fine morning.

Has microstock devalued the industry? Sure it has. What once was a $500 photo sale has now turned into a $5 or even 50 cent photo sale.  But in general, the internet as well as digital photography have devalued the industry.  There are even websites being set up where people are posting links to our images, to download for free. One idiot buys them, and then shares them with the rest of the dishonest people that actually take part in the plundering and looting.  There’s really no stopping it, either.  There are contributors that can live comfortably off of a microstock income in many countries around the world.  Do you think these ones give a crap about devaluing the stock industry? Definitely not; they’re probably making a better living than they ever could before.

Traditional and old school photographers can sit around and whine about how much it sucks, or they can adapt to market trends.  Or, stay out of stock altogether.  Sure there’s still a market for macro stock, mid-stock, and rights managed. I personally dabble in a little of each.  Yes it’s nice when I make a photo sale for $400, but honestly if I relied just on those types of sales I wouldn’t be making enough to pay the bills.  Those sales for myself are few and far in between, compared to microstock sales, which are steady and in general, pretty reliable. Overall, the numbers for the rights managed and macro stocks are on the decline.  Getty was smart to acquire istockphoto (and they even recently bought stockxpert from Jupiter) so obviously they are trying to gain back their market share whatever ways possible.

Stock is only just one tiny corner of this incredible industry.  I started as a graphic designer, and even in that field it’s the same way.  You can focus on all sorts of corners of the creative industry…just pick one you enjoy doing the most, and obviously one you can pay the bills with.  If you can juggle a variety of things without trying to heat 6 pans on 4 burners, then go for it.  There are a lot of ways to make money in this business.  We can’t change how the market is, but we can fortunately pick and choose which areas we want to try and compete in.

It never ceases to amaze me…lately whenever I’m traveling every soccer mom, teenager, and senior citizen is rocking a DSLR of some sort.  If not a DSLR, then a state of the art point and shoot.  The technology is here, and it’s getting cheaper.  It’s so available, there is going to be a lot of competition in the future.  Thankfully for us there is a heck of a lot more to know in this business than just buying a camera and pressing the shutter.  BUT then comes the internet and google…where you can learn anything you want in a matter of minutes.  Maybe we’re all screwed

How long do you personally feel this microstock wave will last? A lot changes have happened in this business.  Agencies have come and gone, and there have been some buyouts and mergers.  I’ve been selling microstock for just 4 years now, and there have been changes galore.  The question is…how long will this microstock wave last? Will it continue the way it is for years to come, or will it eventually get to the point where it’s not even worth the time?  What do you guys think?  If anyone is reading this – I’d love to hear your predictions.