Years ago, before the advent of the digital camera (or at least at the point where digital cameras were inaccessible to the vast majority of consumers) companies paid for talented, creative and imaginative photographers to create images to represent their businesses and products.
These images were carefully set-up, photographed, developed/processed by the chosen photographer. Even before the images were created, much planning occurred. Location, lighting, timing, etc ... all long discussed and considered.
Photography had a value. Being a photographer was a special and talented role, requiring patience and an eye for detail.
... I'm going to cut a VERY long story short (and as a result shorten my rant ...)
The advent of affordable digital cameras meant that every Tom, Dick & Harry could take a shot. Photo editing software made that worse. Hence was born the idea that there was a market in 'stock photography'. If you took enough pictures and made them available for a low enough cost, companies would rather buy your images in bulk than hire a photographer. Put all those images in one place, and you could monopolize the graphic needs of large companies.
Who makes money? The hosting companies of these directories.
Rarely a photographer with enough 'stock' in their account, might command a good price for their photographs.
Who loses? The independent local photographer.
I think photographers understand why stock photography is appealing. I do ... and I have used stock photography for small projects for my school and for website projects for others too. It's convenient, quick and yes ... inexpensive.
But it's sad when large, wealthy companies pay $1 for a photo that 'kinda' represents their product, rather than invest money in creating their own 'look & feel' that is unique and creative and very, very special.
The balance tipped the wrong way ... in my humble opinion.
Can it be fixed? Probably not ...
Can you help? Absolutely ... hire your local photographer
