pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Article about the decline in income for nature photographers  (Read 11777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« on: May 09, 2015, 12:20 »
+4


marthamarks

« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2015, 20:17 »
+2
Thanks for sharing this, Michele. It's grim but shows that the state of the art is changing for wildlife photographers, as for everybody else.

I'm lucky in two ways: old enough that I don't have to make a living shooting critters, and love doing it so much that I'll keep at it as long as I can, whether it ever pays for my gear and travel or not.

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2015, 21:27 »
+5
"Two months on, Le-May has no regrets he gave it away."

Says the guy living in a van down by the river.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2015, 21:40 »
+3
Everyone, every subject, every area, and print media doesn't pay what it used to, because they can't afford to, or they are gone.

Professionals still take the best and have the background and understanding of their field. Now put 24 million DSLRs into people hands, and good news, they are dead, replaced by cell phones. (according to some?)  ;)  That doesn't account for P&S or Bridge cameras and people Hoot about cell phones?

Wait... I owned a SLR 50 years ago for film and I'll still own a DSLR forever. I don't feel threatened by crowd sourcing, web viral images, or people with cell phones. Sure the market has changed. The reliable income isn't there. Even Microstock has been diluted to the point of difficult or earnings that don't support, doing this for a living wage.

But a good photo, planned, lighting and taken, will always beat the random catch of the millions of digital snaps.

ps Viral images make the news, make the web, are seen by millions, but don't seem to make any income. Do they?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2015, 07:43 »
+1
ps Viral images make the news, make the web, are seen by millions, but don't seem to make any income. Do they?

Publishers seem to be in love with Viral content they get for free, there are already many TV shows made up of viral youtube videos, and soon you will see blogs and magazine made mostly of stolen/lifted/viral images.

actually i remember similar things in the past century about shareware games and apps for 8 bit computers, it's really nothing new.

but yeah, the author never makes a dime out of that, and to top it off sometimes he's not even credited properly or at all !

in the end it's really a matter of "vanity" to stick free stuff on the web just for the sake of enjoying your 30 seconds of fame.

you could probably earn a few sales adding a watermark with your web site URL in your viral images but who knows, people nowadays are so used to the free lunch culture that i see no way back at this point unless we talk of selling physical things like a framed print.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2015, 08:42 »
0
ps Viral images make the news, make the web, are seen by millions, but don't seem to make any income. Do they?

Publishers seem to be in love with Viral content they get for free, there are already many TV shows made up of viral youtube videos, and soon you will see blogs and magazine made mostly of stolen/lifted/viral images.

actually i remember similar things in the past century about shareware games and apps for 8 bit computers, it's really nothing new.

but yeah, the author never makes a dime out of that, and to top it off sometimes he's not even credited properly or at all !

in the end it's really a matter of "vanity" to stick free stuff on the web just for the sake of enjoying your 30 seconds of fame.

you could probably earn a few sales adding a watermark with your web site URL in your viral images but who knows, people nowadays are so used to the free lunch culture that i see no way back at this point unless we talk of selling physical things like a framed print.

I remember the amazing feeling when I saw my first photo published online. I still like seeing published stuff but it has worn off a bit and the gratification is more toward getting paid.

I'm hoping over the next couple of years that the free social usage thing hits critical mass and there's a backlash. I think there are two things that may lead to the backlash. The first is that so many companies are rushing to use free social stuff that being able to say "look my picture/video is on TV" will eventually mean nothing because so many people's stuff is being used. At that point the euphoria may have worn off and people will not care enough to offer their work or will start to feel taken advantage of.  The second part is that licensing is going mainstream with VSCO, 500px, and so many new places that will cause Joe/Jane Happysnapper to realize they can make money and stop giving their work away. It may mean more competition for traditional contributors like me but that's fine. I'll just need to adjust to compete. The sooner we get away from businesses and consumers expecting free media the better off we'll all be. 

Not really a surprise nature photographer income is declining. It's easy to take great pictures anywhere with a cellphone so photographers need to step up their game. I've had to make changes. My stuff from five or more years ago is easily copied with a cellphone today.

marthamarks

« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2015, 09:26 »
0
Not really a surprise nature photographer income is declining. It's easy to take great pictures anywhere with a cellphone so photographers need to step up their game.

No, it's not a surprise that nature photographers' income is declining, except possibly those at the very top.

But I take issue with your statement that "it's easy to take great pictures anywhere with a cellphone..."

There is (not yet anyway, or not to my knowledge anyway) no cellphone on earth that can make a crisp portrait of a skittish, fast-moving Western Tanager momentarily perched in a Palo Verde tree 30 feet away from the photographer. Only a quality DSLR attached to a quality lens (preferably a prime like my 500) can do justice to a subject like that. And a rank amateur just isn't likely to have a set-up like that on him when he happens to spot the bird.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-275144264/stock-photo-male-western-tanager-in-breeding-plumage-amid-palo-verde-flowers-in-southern-arizona.html?src=QxIjgs2m2cbHVmO7eDSTcQ-1-17

Sorry for the link, but I've never figured out how to insert an actual image into a comment here.

« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2015, 09:29 »
+5
Yes, but demand for a random or even s specific bird is tiny, so even three people with images of the subject can oversupply.

marthamarks

« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2015, 09:41 »
0
Yes, but demand for a random or even s specific bird is tiny, so even three people with images of the subject can oversupply.

This is true, unfortunately.

Still, it seems good critter images do sell, just not on the scale of other subjects. That's where the thrill of the chase comes in.  :)

And that, BTW, has nothing to do with cellphones versus DSLRs. Just with the market.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 09:58 by marthamarks »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2015, 10:16 »
+1
Not really a surprise nature photographer income is declining. It's easy to take great pictures anywhere with a cellphone so photographers need to step up their game.

No, it's not a surprise that nature photographers' income is declining, except possibly those at the very top.

But I take issue with your statement that "it's easy to take great pictures anywhere with a cellphone..."

There is (not yet anyway, or not to my knowledge anyway) no cellphone on earth that can make a crisp portrait of a skittish, fast-moving Western Tanager momentarily perched in a Palo Verde tree 30 feet away from the photographer. Only a quality DSLR attached to a quality lens (preferably a prime like my 500) can do justice to a subject like that. And a rank amateur just isn't likely to have a set-up like that on him when he happens to spot the bird.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-275144264/stock-photo-male-western-tanager-in-breeding-plumage-amid-palo-verde-flowers-in-southern-arizona.html?src=QxIjgs2m2cbHVmO7eDSTcQ-1-17

Sorry for the link, but I've never figured out how to insert an actual image into a comment here.


I probably should have been more clear about the step up the game part. What I meant was offer something unique that can't be replicated by a cellphone yet. Mirrorless technology has already caught up to DSLRs. It may not be too far down the road that sensor and zoom technology in cell phones will allow "rank-ameteurs" to get that shot. 

Out of curiosity, if you have what seems to be a rare and difficult shot to capture with probably low demand, why are you selling it on a subscription site to pocket a few cents? Has nature declined that much where there are no longer buyers for that shot on macro sites?


marthamarks

« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2015, 10:57 »
0
Out of curiosity, if you have what seems to be a rare and difficult shot to capture with probably low demand, why are you selling it on a subscription site to pocket a few cents? Has nature declined that much where there are no longer buyers for that shot on macro sites?


Actually, Paulie, that's a very good question!  8)  And the answer lies in who I am and why I've just been out on the Mexico-Arizona border in search of migrating Western Tanagers when most other women my age are happily knitting booties for their latest great-grandbaby.

First off, I don't have great-grandbabies (or even grandbabies) to knit booties for. Which is just fine with me.

I've been married for almost 50 years to a fine artist who happens to share my love of nature. So last month, while I was out shooting tanagers and quail and orioles and gray hawks *mostly for the pure joy of it*, my artist-husband was out making fabulous watercolor sketches for the even-more-fabulous oil paintings he'll produce (and likely sell) from the same Arizona desert. (See http://bernardmarksfineart.com/ )

I'm retired from a career as a college professor. Started shooting critters decades ago as a relief from the work pressures, and I honed my skills and upgraded my gear a lot once we had time for extensive travel, starting about 10 years ago.

I'm proud of the images I produce now, but I've never even attempted to get into a macro site. I don't do this for the money, as I've said many times before. I'm happy producing good photos for other people to use and perhaps (I hope) even inculcate my love of nature into younger people who may not have had the good fortune yet to discover it for themselves.

So, for me, SS and DT (my two current agencies) are just fine. At times in the past, I've also had my work in iStock, Fotolia, Veer, and PhotoDune, but I've dropped out of all of those, either in protest at their shenanigans or in disgust at the low rate of sales.

But still, even with just those two agencies, my work pops up in neat places, like National Geographic's Birds of North America and Britannica Online.

Fun surprises happen too. A couple of years ago, a bird-loving friend of mine from Chicago sent me a ***cellphone photo*** she'd taken inside the Hall of Birds exhibit in the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas. Wandering around the exhibit, she stopped to admire a large photo of a Golden-fronted Woodpecker (a Texas specialty). She looked at the credit and read: photograph Martha Marks/Shutterstock. She was thrilled, so she shared it with me, which thrilled me too.  I made $28 from that sale (and plenty more since then from that image). I hope it's caught the eye of lots of young bird lovers and future conservationists around the world.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 11:16 by marthamarks »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2015, 12:41 »
0

I'm hoping over the next couple of years that the free social usage thing hits critical mass and there's a backlash.

as much as the medias keep raving about Facebook or Twitter i'm seeing some disruptive changes already, lots of users moved to WhatsApp 2-3 yrs ago and then switched to Telegram once WhatsApp started asking 5$/year, and if we talk about Asian users most of them are hooked on QQ, LINE, and Tango, with FB/Twitter being just a minor player, and what about Russia where VKontakte is nr.1 and they've also many other less known russian-centric apps ?

and young users seem to reject FB at all, they're on Snapchat and other trashy social apps as FB now is perceived as something obsolete, just like MySpace not long ago ...

as for Sharing and Spamming and the whole Viral content debate, maybe it's me but i've the clear feeling people is using these Socials only as a messenger in 90% of the case, very very few are wasting time to share or cut/paste ... moreover the attention span of the average user is getting shorter and shorter and thanks god many are realizing Socials are a huge waste of time, no surprise considering they're nothing more than a glorified revamp of the ancient IRC and Usenet with bells and whistles, i mean chat and instant messaging and groups/forum were already a fad in the 80s but good luck telling it to the young guys i was chatting on a BBS on my C64 and Amiga before they were even born ... oh and we even had FTP and EMail and Gopher and VideoTel/TeleText hahahaha .... i remember reading about a few cases of people on VideoTel dating and getting married ... i'm feeling like an old fart writing this ! :)



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2015, 12:48 »
+1
What I meant was offer something unique that can't be replicated by a cellphone yet.

for starters, anything shot with a 15mm or 20mm lens, and/or shot in F1.4.

cellphones are such a joke, they're basically webcams, and it makes my blood boil thinking so many photo editors think that sh-it is even remotely "good enough" ! the only reasonable explanation is that nowadays even a dog can be hired as a photo editor and this is more than obvious looking at some of the top selling magazines and newspapers.



« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2015, 14:35 »
+1
Viral business is earning a HUGE money and it is easy to set up and duplicate - because you do not have to create anything, you simply steal it. Big Google Ads and Facebook turn blind eye because you bring them millions of visitors and load of cash. This is why these viral crap is extremely dangerous unless it becomes slapped by copyright issues and heavy fines.

« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2015, 14:39 »
+2
Good quality content can still be licensed for more, but most traditional buyers these days seem to go to the micros when they can find "good enough" (and often very good) and then they go to the traditional sites/photographers for the rest - they also use a lot of user generated copy. It's a shame but not surprising. I was looking at Travel and Leisure's online stuff (not nature but travel images have gone through the same changing market) and there are usually a handful from users and iStock but slightly more from Alamy and Getty.

Martha, I'm surprised you don't have your images on FAA or Alamy as both would seem good outlets - FAA for bird lovers and Alamy for those difficult to find subjects. Alamy isn't great for concept stock in my experience but for work like your, it's really worth a look.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 14:42 by wordplanet »

marthamarks

« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2015, 14:57 »
0
Martha, I'm surprised you don't have your images on FAA or Alamy as both would seem good outlets - FAA for bird lovers and Alamy for those difficult to find subjects. Alamy isn't great for concept stock in my experience but for work like your, it's really worth a look.

Thanks for that, Wordplanet.  :-*

Actually, I am on FAA: http://martha-marks.artistwebsites.com/ Just forgot to mention it in my bio-essay above.

I once signed up for Alamy but never followed through with actual submissions. But that was a bunch of years ago, and my stuff is better now.  Maybe I'll take your advice especially now that SS has become such a PITA and DT isn't generating the sales it used to.

Thanks again, and I'll come back with a report if anything happens for me at Alamy.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2015, 15:28 »
0
I'm sure I've said this before, but many nature photographers are true amateurs, meaning they do it purely for love. Many are more than happy to give away their images to 'give back' for the hours of pleasure nature has given them. And contrary to Martha, I've met several with 500mm primes (which I couldn't possibly justify for myself). Many are at the top of their game and win international salons etc. Most of the rest fare well in the Camera Club circuit.

In fact, the time, serious struggle and extreme effort involved in making many of the finalist images for last year's Wildlife Photographer of the Year (open competition, pro and amateur) could never pay for themselves with sales. Maybe through exposure - who knows?

As for the macros, I've looked into some who provide images for the publications I read (magazines and books: many) and they all require 100-200 unique images upfront (no similars elsewhere), have an ongoing submission requirement, so many per month or per quarter, and the real downer 'of subjects we do not currently hold', which essentially is deep water subjects   https://www.facebook.com/quartznews/videos/953507631349606/?fref=nf or insects in long term war zones.

I have a rare photo I'm currently sitting on, partly because although I can describe clearly what happened, I have no definitive explanation for it, and also because it won't sell on micro, macros (that I know of) don't take one-offs and as no-one that I've contacted so far has heard of the behaviour happening before, the chance of anyone searching for it on Alamy (or, indeed, anywhere) is virtually nil. And it's not as visually exciting as the weasel on the woodpecker's back!

I think that's the main difference. People will always love making nature images; I have an acquaintance who has become almost addicted to astro-photography and there are several other photographic areas people could be really passionate about.
I guess that's why model lifestyle 'set-ups' in studios will be the last bastion of paid-for photographs, because (most) people wouldn't do that for love.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 15:50 by ShadySue »


marthamarks

« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2015, 15:42 »
0
As for the macros, I've looked into some who provide images for the publications I read (magazines and books: many) and they all require 100-200 unique images upfront (no similars elsewhere), have an ongoing submission requirement, so many per month or per quarter, and the real downer 'of subjects we do not currently hold', which essentially is deep water subjects   https://www.facebook.com/quartznews/videos/953507631349606/?fref=nf or insects in long term war zones.

You make very good points, Sue. Andnow that I think about ityour snip above reminds me why I did not follow through with Alamy years ago. Might be able to do it now, with more quality images on offer, but it still may not be worth the bother.

To go back to Paulie's comment: those amateur 'togs you mention (including me, I guess, since I don't make my living this way) with their/our treasured 500mm lenses will still likely produce much better wild-bird images than somebody clomping around in the woods or desert with a cellphone.

Quote
I guess that's why model lifestyle 'set-ups' in studios will be the last bastion of paid-for photographs, because (most) people wouldn't do that for love.

I wouldn't do that for love, or even for money, for sure!
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 15:47 by marthamarks »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2015, 15:52 »
0
Martha, no real problems with Alamy, they have no submission size requirement other than whatever you need for initial evaluation. Their acceptance policy is much looser than iStock's was before the new 'accept anything except that which needs releases' policy.

Give it a whirl; but be aware that some sales can be shockingly small in value, and as their rep James confirmed on here, there is no way you can 'protect' any image from the small sales. It's not about the quality or rarity of the image, it's about the clout of the buyers. (Conversely, I believe he said that someone had got a huge value sale for a photo of the dirt outside his door, or similar. Presumably that was RM.)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 16:50 by ShadySue »

marthamarks

« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2015, 15:58 »
0
Sue (that's not your real name, I know), I appreciate your follow-up info. Haven't looked into Alamy in so long I've no clue what their policies are now.

Maybe I will. Maybe not. We'll see. But thanks for the additional insights.

ETA: I might just give it a try if, as you say, their approach is less obnoxious than long-ago iStock's was, especially since I made it into IS on my first application and it was the first agency I ever applied to, in 2008 I think.  So  hmmm  maybe Alamy.  ;)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 16:02 by marthamarks »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2015, 16:16 »
0
Martha, did you go ahead with Stocksy, or do you have to wait until their door opens again?

marthamarks

« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2015, 16:20 »
0
Martha, did you go ahead with Stocksy, or do you have to wait until their door opens again?

Haven't made any moves in that direction. Not sure my work would come anywhere close to matching the look they want.

Do you have an opinion about that?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2015, 16:34 »
+1
Martha, did you go ahead with Stocksy, or do you have to wait until their door opens again?

Haven't made any moves in that direction. Not sure my work would come anywhere close to matching the look they want.

Do you have an opinion about that?

Nope, not a clue.
I also have no idea how well nature would sell there.
I don't really follow anything Stocksy now, though I'm sure it's working really well for those whom it suits.

One thing I was interested to read here last week was that they have a group of photographers still shooting film. That explains why I've often said, "I've got a cupboard full of old 35mm slides that look like certain Stocksy images".

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2015, 16:46 »
+1
As for the macros, ... the real downer 'of subjects we do not currently hold', which essentially is deep water subjects   ...] or insects in long term war zones.

Actually, that's an exaggeration. I read about some entomology professor who had discovered a large number of insects new to science in her own garden.
But there again, if I found my own 'new' beetle, and called it Mylabris Shadysuenia, how would anyone know about it to look for it?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2015, 18:41 by ShadySue »

« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2015, 19:19 »
+2
Quote
"I've got a cupboard full of old 35mm slides that look like certain Stocksy images".

Forget about those old 35mm slides. I looked at some of mine, and although in those days they looked OK on a projection screen, they can't compare in quality to the new digital wonders. With exception of some primes, the old lenses were not that sharp, and the slides which sat 30-40 years in the cupboard lost also some of their luster.

The larger formats fared much better, and I suspect that's what you see today accepted by some agencies.

« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2015, 14:01 »
+1
Most birders are starving artists... they don't do it for the money, but rather the recognition in Audubon magazine or the warm fuzzy feeling of nailing the focus with their super-telephoto setups.  It's not easy, and I give them a lot of credit for the passion they have for their craft.  I give even more birders credit who can actually find ways of making a living solely on that niche.  Covering their gear cost is probably doable.  They basically are like hunters who use lenses instead of rifles.  No thanks.  Not my cup 'o tea

marthamarks

« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2015, 14:32 »
0
Most birders are starving artists... they don't do it for the money, but rather the recognition in Audubon magazine or the warm fuzzy feeling of nailing the focus with their super-telephoto setups.  It's not easy, and I give them a lot of credit for the passion they have for their craft.  I give even more birders credit who can actually find ways of making a living solely on that niche.  Covering their gear cost is probably doable.  They basically are like hunters who use lenses instead of rifles.  No thanks.  Not my cup 'o tea

No argument with most of what you wrote. And I suspect the vast majority of people who "hunt" birds with a camera instead of a rifle would agree with it too.

Fortunately, very few of us are "starving artists." If we were, we'd be buying studio lights and waxing euphoric over our latest attempts to shoot an isolated peach, pile of cashews, or antique teacup.

And in that regard, I definitely agree on one thing you wrote:  No thanks.  Not my cup 'o tea    ;D


« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2015, 14:51 »
+5
Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.

marthamarks

« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2015, 15:37 »
0
Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.

Bingo!   ;)

JanetCA

  • i am me!
« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2015, 21:48 »
+3
There is something satisfying about nature photography that inanimate shoots dont provide. i am glad to have a backyard bustling with feral activity

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2015, 18:26 »
+1
I just caught up on Monday's Springwatch Unsprung (A BBC nature programme).
Martin LeMay, the weaselpecker bloke, was on, and his image raised over 2000 for charity from the newspapers who published it.
So it wasn't as if he undercut other photographers, he just didn't take the money himself.

« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2015, 22:47 »
+1
I just caught up on Monday's Springwatch Unsprung (A BBC nature programme).
Martin LeMay, the weaselpecker bloke, was on, and his image raised over 2000 for charity from the newspapers who published it.
So it wasn't as if he undercut other photographers, he just didn't take the money himself.

Good to hear that someone benefited from the use of the photo.

I had a good laugh at the term "weaselpecker." Great coinage -- both apt and hilarious.

marthamarks

« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2015, 23:25 »
-1
I had a good laugh at the term "weaselpecker." Great coinage -- both apt and hilarious.

Me too. Gotta love it!!

Uncle Pete

« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2015, 23:30 »
0
This isn't just wildlife it's Microstock. Just like you wrote, time, equipment, skill, to make money on Micro does not match up with the return.

Maybe people hoped it would, but the days of pay for a few thousand, stock images, are OVER!

Make photos for love, not for money.

Most wildlife photographers are not starving artists only because they have some other source of income. The time and equipment (not to mention skill) required to get top notch wildlife pics do not match up with the return, especially from microstock. Lots of people spend their time and money on things that do not provide an adequate monetary return.

marthamarks

« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2015, 23:55 »
+2
Make photos for love, not for money.

Yep, Pete, love is it. Stock sales only pay for a new lens every now and then.  ;)

And I realize how I'm lucky I am to be able to say that. Most stockers can't.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3372 Views
Last post October 11, 2007, 10:53
by rinderart
2 Replies
3272 Views
Last post July 16, 2008, 06:48
by RT
59 Replies
24333 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 23:00
by No Longer Cares
36 Replies
14134 Views
Last post May 15, 2010, 23:00
by ap
1 Replies
3202 Views
Last post August 23, 2018, 13:22
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors