PetaPixel

Infographic Maps Out the Landscape of the Photography Industry

photographygeneral

The company LUMA Partners has gotten in the habit of occasionally mapping out various industry landscapes to show how a product or service gets from Point A (i.e. the creators, marketers, businesses, etc.) to Point Z (i.e. the buyers, brands and publishers), going through the rest of the alphabet in between.

Taking a leaf out of their book, director of kbs+ Ventures, Taylor Davidson, decided to borrow their format and do the same thing for the photography industry, mapping out how content gets from the photographers out into the world of consumers, brands and buyers.

The graphic covers everything: you’ve got your camera manufacturers (and phone manufacturers, of course) leading out to stock photo, advertising and e-commerce agencies through a combination of post-production software, photo management sites and sharing networks. Simple as “point and click” may be, the industry itself is actually pretty packed and complicated.

Here’s the infographic (clicking on it will get you to a high-res version):

photographyindustry2

According to Davidson, the infographic does a particularly good job pointing out all of the companies and market segments that only exist because of the advent of digital and smartphone photography. The most striking changes in the photography landscape have taken place within the last 5-10 years, and they keep coming faster and faster.

Davidson makes sure to note that the graphic shouldn’t be considered a comprehensive list of every company that inhabits this Serengeti of photography. What he hoped to achieve with the graphic is to show investors and the curious alike a visual representation of how the industry has evolved, where it is growing most voraciously, and where the best investment opportunities lie.

To find out more, head over to Davidson’s website for the full breakdown.

The Photography Industry Landscape [Taylor Davidson via The Next Web]


Image credit: Through the Lens by JustinJensen


 
  • Paul Melcher

    Jupiterimages, in the Stock Photo Photography box, has been sold to Getty Images in 2008. Bigstockphoto has been sold to Shutterstock in 2009.

  • lidocaineus

    The way that dude is holding his camera in the article photo is painful.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ksuwildkat Rob S

    Left off Pentax? Really? Lytro but not Pentax?

  • Leonardo Abreu

    Yes… It was the first thing that I saw.

  • Steve

    No photographs shot with dedicated cameras (not phones) on G+ Flickr etc – that is interesting.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ksuwildkat Rob S

    Had not noticed that. “Non-Consumers” apparently dont make prints either. Something that would surprise WHCC and Richmond very much.

  • Mantis

    I think they’re owned by Ricoh, who isn’t there either.
    Neither is Leica.

  • tirzhaz

    That was my first thought! Where’s Pentax? I know it’s not a household name, but it’s still a decent company putting out decent product that plenty of photographers use (myself included…I own three bodies, several lenses, and three P&S cameras from them.)

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Hasselblad anyone? Sigma? many many others? Heck, I’m not even a fan of Lomo, but I’d put them before Lytro… (someone already mentioned Leica)

  • worker88

    Keep in mind, some of the most important companies involved in photography don’t make cameras or equipment.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ksuwildkat Rob S

    You are right. Didn’t even think about Sigma and Tamron. Heck Lensbaby has more reason to be listed than Lytro.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com Taylor Davidson

    Goal wasn’t necessarily to pick the largest companies, but to be representative of innovative approaches. Thus it’s important to show innovative companies, and that’s why Lytro is on there. Representative, not exhaustive.

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com Taylor Davidson

    Good points. Some of the companies on the landscape have green boxes around them to signify they had been acquired (not well footnoted), but good points on those specifically.

    To be frank I’m more interested in the buckets than the specific companies. The companies to me are examples of the major areas of the industry, looking at the value chain of how the industry works. And for that kind of thinking, picking every company is less important than the groupings of business models, and finding innovative or differentiated companies within groupings is more important than noting every company that provides the same service.

    But while some omissions were intentional, others (like Leica) were not intentional. I made a couple edits based on the comments in these discussions, thank you to everyone.

  • DafOwen

    PR/attention seeking rubbish.
    Please don’t give them any attention – inaccurate and meaningless.

  • vivanteco

    DXO, Schneider Kreuznach, Zeiss, ACDSee, Leica?

    I understand you can’t put everything but the above have made considerable and long term contributions to the field yet room is made for memoto, webstagram and autotag.me – wtf?

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com Taylor Davidson

    As I pointed out above and in my writings about how to use the landscape, I’m more interested in the structure of the buckets and pointing out innovative companies within each business model bucket than pointing out each company in each bucket. Picking out companies is just a way to provide examples for the higher-order thinking around the buckets and the value chain it represents.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ksuwildkat Rob S

    Thank you for the explanation and the edits.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ksuwildkat Rob S

    Ok, makes sense. I would sill give Lensbaby the nod for bringing selective focus into the semi-mainstream.

    P.S. Thanks for putting Pentax (Ricoh) in!

  • http://www.taylordavidson.com Taylor Davidson

    Pentax / Ricoh was a good suggestion. And you’re probably right on Lensbaby. There are many accessories companies that could be included…