[Leica] Re; Buying Leica

[images at comporium.net (Tina Manley)]

I worked on assignments in Guatemala for many, many years.  That's where I
got the photos that I now lease as stock.  Stock is here to stay.  If you
think doing away with stock would bring back photographic jobs, you are
living in the past.  Micro-stock has destroyed many of the markets for
stock.  I hate micro-stock and will never lease RF. Micro-stock is here to
stay and will never go away, no matter how many photographers boycott it.
 No one is going to pay to send a photographer to Guatemala today.  If they
don't lease stock, they will hire a Guatemalan photographer.  There are
plenty.  That's what the agencies I used to work for are doing.  And they
are not hiring still photographers - it's all video. Do you think the
agencies that lease my photos - mostly textbook publishers - are going to
hire a photographer and send them out to take photos?  Of course not.  The
photos I lease are not taking jobs away from any photographers.  Those jobs
are not there.  Newspapers are not using stock instead of hiring
photographers.  They are giving cell phones to their reporters and telling
them to take snapshots.  They are posting videos on their websites.  They
are not hiring photographers or using stock.

Tina


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:33 AM, <lrzeitlin at aol.com> wrote:

>  So Ted,
>
>
> We're into speech censorship now. No one criticizes your right to
> pontificate on photographic matters so why should you criticize Chris for
> expressing his opinion. Leicas are not holy relics. They are optical,
> mechanical, and now electronic devices. You have a feeling for them, GOOD.
> But don't disparage someone else's different opinion. The LUG is an open
> forum. Not a church. I admit that Chris was not as deferential in his
> response to Tina as you might like but neither were you particularly
> politic in your response to him.
>
>
> But I want to criticize Tina on another ground. She justifies her
> adherence to Leica equipment on the grounds of meeting the criteria for
> stock agencies. She should realize that stock agencies are the curse of
> working photographers. Every sale by a stock agency takes the bread out of
> the mouth of a working photographer who would otherwise be employed to take
> a similar picture. The availability of stock photos of almost every
> description is the justification of the mass layoffs of working
> photographers from newspapers and magazines. If you want to show how poor
> folk live in Guatemala, don't pay to send a photographer down there. Just
> buy one of Tina's photos from an agency. It will be much cheaper and the
> magazine will not be troubled by transportation or medical costs.
>
>
> She can justify the purchase of a $7000 camera on the grounds that it
> makes her sale of pictures to stock agencies possible. But how does the
> laid off photographer from the Chicago Sun-Times explain not being able to
> afford milk for his children. Or for Chris for having to downplay a
> profession that he clearly loves to support his own family. Blame it on
> Tina?
>
>
> The answer is not to criticize Chris for his attack on the LUG faith but
> to chastise Tina for her subversion of full photographic employment. And
> you Ted. You should be ashamed. Youv'e got yours. You were fully employed
> for years and received many honors for your work. Suppose many of your
> 250,000 photos had been available from stock agencies. What then?
>
>
> Don't boycott Leica. BOYCOTT STOCK AGENCIES. Photographers should maintain
> exclusive copyright to their pictures. One shutter click equals one
> publication right. Else photographers are dooming themselves to
> technological unemployment. I've seen it happen on newspapers, on TV, in
> college education, now in photography.
>
>
> Larry Z
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>


-- 
Tina Manley
http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com