Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit about the bank manager discussing all the ways that they make change. When asked how they make a profit, his answer was that "they do it in volume."

It may be good for Dreamstime and for their buyers, but for photographers? Somehow, I doubt it.

Take a good look at what is being offered? I still believe the best will survive. Which of these would you expect to see in some of the better magazines or on your wall?lol
Although -- if mediocre keeps being accepted; eventually it will become accepted as being standard. Such as much of the happenstance crap of today. A lot of the good past being washed away. The legacy will be some plastic ... .

Sorry, I am an old-timer and remember Life and Look magazines, as well as many others, when the photography was a key element provided by great talents like W. Eugene Smith. Today the reproduction technology is better than ever, but the photography I see today does not impress as it did. In part it is economic, still photographers are not a part of the leading and most important media anymore, and they are not likely to be replaced because it is now a very different world we live in. All I am saying is corporate schemes to promote a business with no thought to the associated consequences, just makes it worse and further lessens the opportunities of young new talent who like still photography. Do we want them all now to be creating video games, or whatever new fad that comes along?

I am glad that I am an old timer; can not say any sorrows, except for others in the coming generations; should things continue as they appear to be doing.

In the company I happened to be part of (notice not worked for) one of the questions in our economic analysis was formost: "How will this decision affect our fellow man".
We featured Gaifull and Living wage employment, were assets (Not A _ _ _ S) to the communtities where we were, did not tax-dodge, and were appreciated and admired. We had a charter that was alomost unchangeable -- Not as mission statements that are changed at will to bend the way things are going and never seem to do anything but promixe.

Hope the spiral downward without ideology, commitment, ethics, simple morals, drag us down as some predicted that we would eat ourselves from within with the coming greed of the upper crust; that we woulde hang ourselves -- given enough rope. Too ... . Fill it in.

Within this context, the whole of the nation's culture does have an effect on photography, and we are now trying to recover from what Alan Greenspan referred to as a period of blind economic insanity, in his more elusive language. Some want to get back to where we were riding on a bubble, but that bubble will not be re-inflated. However, in time the fantasies will be replaced with how to get things done realistically. Where that is taken is a future or a denial of reality that will be a sad devolution everyone will suffer.

The old adage " nothing in life is free" . A professional is worth the value of his work. Occasionally truly great photographers have for charity or prosperity provided free services for the benefit of the public But as a regular thing, well keep it up and the great work we view each month will disappear for good.

If it's all about the money, then photogaphy as an art is in deep doo-doo. But I don't think it works that way. People will always create good art, occasionally great art, because they are driven to do just that. Satisfaction is primary, compensation is secondary. Of course, lacking compensation means photography probably won't be your day job. Where are all the wealthy patrons who kept the Renaissance painters working?

In any case, a really good photographer's work will, someday, get the recognition and money it deserves. Who was it that said an artist is never appreciated until after his death?

I posted that news-piece about free images by a company that is a part of the UPS organization apparently, because it serves the image world and young people interested in a career in photography negatively.

But I would also agree with your perspective too. And a story that was on local TV news in California however make the bias of the contemporary culture apparent. A man acquired an old box of glass plate negative of very well photographed California scenes back in the 1920-30's. There was some speculation that maybe it was early Ansel Adams photographs, so that would make the discoverer's find valuable, and that' all that was talked about. The images were good what I saw of them, and maybe are valuable in themselves even if they aren't Ansel Adam's work, but the current culture only thinks about something of value if it has a dollar value.

I believe the value of something is truly what it means to any individual. Money states its worth to society but true worth is valued by the person. When I did art shows for a couple years they were small shows but what I found was it was not how good your art was that mattered it was what was easy to carry out. Like small items. As times have changed the value of the past and relationship to that has been lost in an computer based reality.

I disagree. It is up to the individual as to whether they make computer technology a way to be more and better connected. Recently I joined FaceBook and although I don't currently keep up with my page, I was able to re-connect with people I have been out of touch with for years, and get reacquainted. It is up to the individual whether they take advantage of a computer positively or not. So I believe less is lost and more can be sustained. But then some people are just lazy - and that is nothing new.

David, I thought about what you said here. and you know you are right in that sense. More people can be part of your life. I just realized all of you I have met here on this site would not be possible without the computer. So I have to admit I was a little short visioned there.

I am troubled by the stubborn trend of giving away content. At some point, people need to be paid fairly for their work or they stop working.