Yuri on Stock Photography

What do you feel you're trying to achieve when you shoot?

I’m on a constant hunt for authenticity and images that I would buy myself, I hate the bleak classic stock look, I don’t see myself buying those type of images at all. I’m constantly on the hunt for a natural, genuine moment that I can keep technically crisp and perfect in terms of photography. It can be imperfect when it comes to lighting and set ups. But in terms of the authenticity and believability of the moment it must be perfect. That is what I hunt for.

Do you craft stock images to appeal to specific markets?

Absolutely, very much so. We target very specific pharmaceutical type industries, insurance images, etc. sometimes when we shoot a kids shoot we will include concepts that could be used in business too. We cross reference the subject matter we shoot in interesting ways. That’s how we often come up with super sellers because we don’t shoot it black and white we know that a certain concept will sell and what we want to portray in our images, but we don’t necessarily shoot it directly. For example a business concept, we don’t necessarily shoot it as a business shot of people in suits, we use metaphors instead and rely on symbolisms and sometimes that works much better. If you look at Time Magazine (who by the way have used my images many times..:)) they often choose animals or crazy shots that don’t have a direct connection to the metaphor but are genius, because we understand the link when we read the copy and see the image. That is what we try to push for.

Do you consciously try to make your images look stock?

My most successful images and images that often sell well and therefore come to be the public representation of my work is not synonymous to what I like shooting, but what sells. There is a difference between knowing when you shoot a stock image that will be genuinely liked, not necessarily liked by yourself, but shooting it because it works, and then shooting and striving for the professionalism that you want to put into the images yourself. The biggest misunderstanding I would say from the general public’s perspective about my style is that I am synonymous with the look and feel of high selling stock images. I don’t necessarily like those images myself but they sell well to a broader audience that doesn’t have a too refined pallet.

What makes a photo "stock" like? How do you balance something to be generic enough to be stock yet still stand out for designers choosing images? Seems like an intriguing and difficult line to walk.

That’s a good question, that is a very difficult line to walk. The methods that we use to balance out generic elements towards what people will not find too generic are done by inserting elements of real emotions, authenticity, even real people and not models, real families not a model family put together. We use natural scenes, we use natural scenarios. If we have a family shoot where the kids are opening presents, we actually give them a present and see their reaction and take those shots. Our trick is to work more from a movie script than from a shoot list. Work more with the story and less at trying to copy certain images. That is more successful than just shooting from a list.

Overall, which do you find to be more important: Quantity or quality?

Quality by far. Quantity I believe you should only use as a means for getting yourself to work and getting you to go the extra mile. Put in the extra hours to reach a target. Having a number in the back of your head is a good exercise although the moment you start discarding quality and putting in bad images to hit that target, that’s where I would have said you should have put the extra hours instead. My numbers as far as production goes, do go up and down but I hold myself accountable for conducting 6-8 shoots a month. That’s my number, other people may have other numbers I know that people like Andres Rodrigues (otherwise know as the number two stock photographer in the world) is known to keep himself accountable for about six hundred files a month. Which is a very high number.

What is something that would surprise readers about the stock photo industry?

That the difference between doing well and doing mediocre is crazy big. If you are mediocre at stock photography you will barely scrape through, you will live on a student’s salary in terms of royalties and I would advise you to find another job. If you are fantastic at stock photography you will earn millions. The difference between being really good and really fine tuned in what you do and being is okay ,is much greater than any other branch of photography. The peak point for those that have a talent are huge since they basically have the world as their playground. As a normal freelance photographer, you can get away with mediocrity and you won’t really be punished by it too hard, but in stock photography you will actually lose money, because you just paid for that shoot yourself. I would advise people who are phenomenal to go into stock photography and advise people who are mediocre to stay in freelance photography. My own personal royalties have been in the range at their highest of about $500 000-$600 000 per month, but that was some years ago. It has become much harder and much more competitive. And remember, these are the numbers from the world’s highest earning stock photographer out of about 150 000 stock photographers world wide.