MicrostockGroup

I normally complain about the rejections I get or lack of sales or low commissions.   But I got blown away on this one.  Someone bought this for $228??   The image is ok but...... I rate my images on my computer from 1-5 stars.   Everything below 3 stars gets trashed.   This is a 3 star image the corner of an enclosed parking lot with an elevator shaft in one corner??

Its been my highest single sale since I started about 3 years ago.   So while I am not complaining.....its just hard to believe.

There is no way in heck that is a 3 star image!!








I give it a solid 4 

Congratulations!

Yes Alamy is making surprising... sales .

What I thought would sell there never does... and I sold something I never sold to any other site and I got my first 235$ sale.

Let's be happy for that Good to see we are not independent for no reason, each sites has their different market and clients preferences it seems ;p

I'm working on a commercial job at the moment where we've bought a number of stock images like these (not we didn't buy yours) because the company makes a product that's used in commercial buildings and the result of their product is reduced energy and hence is kind to the environment, we needed shots of office buildings with trees in the image and a space to drop their product and some copy, so you see unknowingly you've created what could be (and obviously is) a very commercially viable image.

On most it would, iStock had loads which is why the client chose to use them. This is however a perfect example of the difference in using reviewers that know the industry and those with no experience that just follow a simple set of rules.

We actually bought a couple from a user on iStock who also has their portfolio on Dreamstime (as a contributor myself I tried to favour the better commission paying site) , surprise surprise the one the client wanted wasn't in their DT portfolio - victim of the naive "too similar" policy I guess.

I cant remember the specifics, but a there was an image sold on Alamy for something like $20,000. It was an image of a fish market (if my memory serves me correctly) just a snap shot, it wasn't any production image or a famous photographer. I wish I could find the forum post of this but I cant even remember which forum it was on, I read so many and this was a good four or five years ago but it was legit. There was a lot of hoopla over it at the time.

Tin of tuna, I have to see that one.

Haven't you got that the wrong way around? Surely the very occasional image selling for thousands distorts the view some photographers have of their work's true value.

Stock photography, from a commercial perspective, is about total earnings for a portfolio over a given amount of time. It's not about once-in-a-blue-moon spectacular sales, as nice as they might be if/when they happen.

It strikes me as a bit like using your savings to buy lottery tickets in the belief that a win will be much better than the slow steady earnings of an investment account.

What you mean winning the lottery isn't the answer? Darn, do I have to stop buying tickets?

How about taking everything I have and betting it on one spin in Las Vegas. Better chance than the lottery, 1 in 38?  And I get a vacation out of the deal too.

Fact is I still make more on Alamy than MicroStock, but that has more to do with what I shoot than any generalization people might make about what sells and where.

I will admit that what sells on Alamy for me, much of the time, is something that I didn't think would ever sell, and what I think should be a good seller, has never sold.

I don't have a tin of tuna, burned out hot water heater or poorly exposed fish market shot. I don't think I ever will. I'd like one of my food photos to sell, that would be encouraging?

hi gostwyck - re your response to "Micro prices can give a sadly distorted view of what the right photo can be worth to the right client...."

"Right photo" and "right client" were crucial parts of my statement. I simply don't find it amazing that a client would find that image, or virtually any one specific stock photo not easily found on micros, worth $228.  

I wasn't addressing what one should expect all stock photos -- regardless of apparent versatility or technical/aesthetic quality -- to sell for, NOR where one should offer all stock images.  

At this point in stock imagery history, I doubt it's a question of micro OR macro. Some stock photographers shoot virtually all images best offered on micro, some "all" on macro, some split between both...  and there's likely a 3rd option to what we know as macro and micro in the works.