<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Photography, Design &amp; the Mayhem of the Creative Process</title>
	<atom:link href="http://welikeitfresh.com/2010/03/03/photography-design-the-mayhem-of-the-creative-process/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://welikeitfresh.com/2010/03/03/photography-design-the-mayhem-of-the-creative-process/</link>
	<description>Home-squeezed goodness with no added pulp. Ideas and inspiration from the eROI creative team.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:21:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Elliot</title>
		<link>http://welikeitfresh.com/2010/03/03/photography-design-the-mayhem-of-the-creative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-304</link>
		<dc:creator>Elliot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://welikeitfresh.com/?p=2341#comment-304</guid>
		<description>Becky, you make some very good points. I did not mean to make it sound like stock photography is always a terrible option. I think that in many cases stock photography is a great option. In fact I think that much of the stock on sites like Veer and Getty are down right fantastic but often times cost as much as a custom shoot. As always it seems like the decision must be made while taking a lot of things into account and the answer is different for every project.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Becky, you make some very good points. I did not mean to make it sound like stock photography is always a terrible option. I think that in many cases stock photography is a great option. In fact I think that much of the stock on sites like Veer and Getty are down right fantastic but often times cost as much as a custom shoot. As always it seems like the decision must be made while taking a lot of things into account and the answer is different for every project.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Becky</title>
		<link>http://welikeitfresh.com/2010/03/03/photography-design-the-mayhem-of-the-creative-process/comment-page-1/#comment-303</link>
		<dc:creator>Becky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://welikeitfresh.com/?p=2341#comment-303</guid>
		<description>Very good points on an interesting decision for both designers and photographers.

I think in addition to being cheaper/easier, some designers go with stock because they know exactly what they are getting before they buy. I have been in a position where we didn&#039;t love the photos we ended up with after a custom shoot (even thought the photographer had done great work before) and didn&#039;t have the budget for a re-shoot so we&#039;re kind of stuck with what we had.

I co-founded a new site, FocalPop (www.focalpop.com), which offers another option. It&#039;s similar to stock photography but the buyer starts by submitting a request for the shot they want, budget, &amp; deadline and then we crowdsource photos for their request via a network of photographers.
We&#039;re looking to add another option to our service which allows buyers to crowdsource bids for comissioned work from photographers in order to open up their cutom photography options globally. I&#039;ll be sure to keep you posted once we have that new service available in case you&#039;re interested in checking it out.

The introduction of microstock and resulting commoditization of stock photography has certainly made some photographers reconsider which side they&#039;re on (stock vs. assignment), so it will be interesting to see how the quality of stock photography is impacted over time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good points on an interesting decision for both designers and photographers.</p>
<p>I think in addition to being cheaper/easier, some designers go with stock because they know exactly what they are getting before they buy. I have been in a position where we didn&#8217;t love the photos we ended up with after a custom shoot (even thought the photographer had done great work before) and didn&#8217;t have the budget for a re-shoot so we&#8217;re kind of stuck with what we had.</p>
<p>I co-founded a new site, FocalPop (www.focalpop.com), which offers another option. It&#8217;s similar to stock photography but the buyer starts by submitting a request for the shot they want, budget, &amp; deadline and then we crowdsource photos for their request via a network of photographers.<br />
We&#8217;re looking to add another option to our service which allows buyers to crowdsource bids for comissioned work from photographers in order to open up their cutom photography options globally. I&#8217;ll be sure to keep you posted once we have that new service available in case you&#8217;re interested in checking it out.</p>
<p>The introduction of microstock and resulting commoditization of stock photography has certainly made some photographers reconsider which side they&#8217;re on (stock vs. assignment), so it will be interesting to see how the quality of stock photography is impacted over time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
