MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: LSD72 on May 22, 2009, 23:40
-
On a Forum I go to, a guy posted info about Micro Sites. Well, of course you got the killjoy who comes in and is all against it.
So My question is.. what would you say to a Person who states..
"I'm sorry, but there is nowhere that you can make 'money' with microstock
All you are doing it selling your work for a pittance and in the process lowing the value of photography in every other field.
If your photographs are good enough to sell, then you should sell them for the proper value and not like this."
I just made a Simple reply because past experience is it would be falling on deaf ears anyways... My Reply..
"Sell 50 Photos at $1000 or 1000 Photos at $50. If your happy at the way you make your money... Go For It.
No Matter which way you sell (Micro or Macro or Wedding or Auto.. ect.) there will be those who don't like the way your doing it.
Fen.. why don't you start a thread about Macro's to share your info? This section is about sharing knowledge on how to make money. I would love to know more about the Macros and what styles would work with them."
So..what would you say to him?
-
I would agree with him and tell him that he's absolutely correct there is no money to be made with micro. The more people that believe this the less competition for all of us ;)
-
I wouldn't say anything to him because in all likelihood there is nothing I could ever say that might cause him pause.
-
I think Whatever is the trendy reply.
-
So..what would you say to him?
Whatever ;D
-
Refer him to a basic economy course where he will learn that on the FREE MARKET the price of ANY commodity on this planet, be it food, cars, houses or stock photography, is subject to the simple principle of supply and demand. If the supply exceeds the demand prices will go down.
For a long time Stock Photography was not a totally free market. It was very difficult to get into the larger Macro stock agencies and these agencies could effectively manipulate the market with highly inflated prices. With the establishment of MicroStock the stock industry was for the first time put out in the open where market forces dictate price, hence the dramatic decline in prices.
He must also realize that an individual can do nothing about this trend, no matter how much he dislike is. Market forces that dictates this simple principle is so strong that it will happen no matter how much he or even a large group of people are against it. You play the game or go find something else.
In stock photography Microstock is the way of the future, whether we like it or not. It is not going to disappear away any time soon. There will however, remain a few nish markets with higher prices. He should pursue this (shrinking) market if he dislikes Microstock this much.
-
I used to try and argue but now I can see that it is best to agree with people that think there is no money in microstock. If you take away the top 10% of contributors, he is probably correct. I do think microstock has damaged the traditional agencies but they didn't move with the times and that was inevitable.
-
Yes, microstock photography DOES lower the value of photos and photography, that is just a plain fact. Even if the micros opened some new markets there's less money spent in photography than before, and the sum is divided with more photographers -> less money for each photographers, and that is a fact.
Many pro photographers have stopped photographing stock because it isn't worth it any more.
Also if a commissioned shoot would cost $500 and a microstock image (even if it isn't the perfect image for the purpose) costs $5, the customer may choose the latter, especially now when money is tight. I have seen many of my clients choose microstock images instead of my commissioned work. That makes me a bit sad (and broke) but I can't complain because I'm also selling microstock.
But it's also sure that money can be made from microstock (for how long? The market is saturating at a rapid pace) Microstock is a phenomenon that an't be stopped by just some individual photographers. Either you are in the micro business or you aren't.
Bottom line: I don't like people that shoot stock "just for fun" without thinking about their overheads or their time spent (you don't do other work "free" either, do you?). If someone is making good images but would earn more by flipping burgers, I recommend them to start flippin'. That would make microstock business-wise much better.
-
I probably wouldn't bother trying to tell him anything, he probably wont listen anyway.
but I think... (and its only my feeling)
yes people can make money in micro, but most wont make anything of note. In five years or so it will be many less (too many people, to many free images, too many subscriptions etc) - but I also see digital camera as a bit of fad, I know plenty of people that went crazy for a year or two and now barely get the camera out.
yes IMO micro has cheapened photography sales, everwhere I go I see Yuri's (and a few others) photos, being used by companies who could have afforded macro stock or commissioned shoots, but didnt and probably bought a subscription for a month. (I also plenty of poor stuff was sold way too high). (I also think if there had been more macro sites like alamy etc that would at least look at your images things may have been different)
but digital photography has cheapened photography immensely as well as micro. There a four journos in town each has a p&s, the one photojourno that there was now works in a private school as a media officer. digital has made it cheaper to produce and cheapened the perception of what an image is worth.
Phil
-
If you're seriously in the photography business, you know the fine line between each category of your trade. it's much like any other business, whether it's selling pop music like david foster, or making jazz music like herbie hancock. as my associate who is a painter once told me, " you don't sell original paintings at the waterfront during the summer, you sell lithographs. you would be nuts to give away an original for 20 dollars. you sell the original at the gallery for much more".
that more or less sums up the whole deal about microstock really. it's up to you , the creator of the image, to decide where you want to sell , and how much, or how little, you would settle for.
does it devalue your work if you give it to microstock? well, that's a personal and very very subjective question, only you can answer.
-
There are so many photographers "waiting" for job charging 100$/h excluding everything. If thatīs what they call good business. Feel free to continue.
Itīs not microstocs fault - Itīs the digital camera
-
"I'm sorry, but there is nowhere that you can make 'money' with microstock
All you are doing it selling your work for a pittance and in the process lowing the value of photography in every other field.
If your photographs are good enough to sell, then you should sell them for the proper value and not like this."
You say "You're right. Thanks."
Do you have the need to have others to tell you you're right? Let what works for you work for you.
-
There are so many photographers "waiting" for job charging 100$/h excluding everything. If thatīs what they call good business. Feel free to continue.
You propably have no clue about real life photography profession. $100/h (I charge more than that for studio work) isn't really that much if you pay for your equipment (real pros have even backup of almost everything), software, taxes, pension, marketing, rents, accounting. And only a part of work is billable hours. You might charge $100/h but get $25/h in average in your own pocket.
I think most of microstockers would earn less than $10 hour if they really did their maths.
I don't think microstock is sustainable form of photo business as it is. Something needs to happen. I'm seeing some form of transition going on.
I already see "happy snappers" complaining it's too difficult to get in some of the sites. It's not too hard to get in, they are just too bad photographers. I think soon the stock business is back to the pros. If RPI falls drastically from current level the images get too expensive to produce -> the prices have to go up or the amount of incoming images have to be decreased substantially.
-
There are so many photographers "waiting" for job charging 100$/h excluding everything. If thatīs what they call good business. Feel free to continue.
You propably have no clue about real life photography profession. $100/h (I charge more than that for studio work) isn't really that much if you pay for your equipment (real pros have even backup of almost everything), software, taxes, pension, marketing, rents, accounting. And only a part of work is billable hours. You might charge $100/h but get $25/h in average in your own pocket.
I think most of microstockers would earn less than $10 hour if they really did their maths.
I don't think microstock is sustainable form of photo business as it is. Something needs to happen. I'm seeing some form of transition going on.
I already see "happy snappers" complaining it's too difficult to get in some of the sites. It's not too hard to get in, they are just too bad photographers. I think soon the stock business is back to the pros. If RPI falls drastically from current level the images get too expensive to produce -> the prices have to go up or the amount of incoming images have to be decreased substantially.
I don't think it's just being a bad photographer. You could be a pretty good photographer but you now also need to be a Photoshop expert, have money for decent equipment (Good DSLR, lighting, tripod, computer, software, etc), have time committment, have some business savvy to run this like a business, and also understand marketing so you can figure out what buyers are looking for. Happy snappers probably have few to none of these qualities. And if you're missing any one or more of those and you should probably find something else to do because this will probably be nothing but frustration and disappointment for you.
Regarding devaluing in general, yes, but that's the way supply and demand works. If that person wants to sit tight on charging big money for his/her stuff I would like to see if their income has increased or decreased in five years. An increase in pricing would be great for all of us but I don't see it going that way.
-
There are so many photographers "waiting" for job charging 100$/h excluding everything. If thatīs what they call good business. Feel free to continue.
You propably have no clue about real life photography profession. $100/h (I charge more than that for studio work) isn't really that much if you pay for your equipment (real pros have even backup of almost everything), software, taxes, pension, marketing, rents, accounting. And only a part of work is billable hours. You might charge $100/h but get $25/h in average in your own pocket.
I think most of microstockers would earn less than $10 hour if they really did their maths.
I don't think microstock is sustainable form of photo business as it is. Something needs to happen. I'm seeing some form of transition going on.
I already see "happy snappers" complaining it's too difficult to get in some of the sites. It's not too hard to get in, they are just too bad photographers. I think soon the stock business is back to the pros. If RPI falls drastically from current level the images get too expensive to produce -> the prices have to go up or the amount of incoming images have to be decreased substantially.
Iīm talking about one of those thousands "top-photographers" without customers, complaining about microstockers devaluating their nonexisting work.
Itīs absolutely nothing wrong with charging 100 or more $. Btw this is a forum for real life photo business FOR microstockers.
-
There are so many photographers "waiting" for job charging 100$/h excluding everything. If thatīs what they call good business. Feel free to continue.
You propably have no clue about real life photography profession. $100/h (I charge more than that for studio work) isn't really that much if you pay for your equipment (real pros have even backup of almost everything), software, taxes, pension, marketing, rents, accounting. And only a part of work is billable hours. You might charge $100/h but get $25/h in average in your own pocket.
I think most of microstockers would earn less than $10 hour if they really did their maths.
I don't think microstock is sustainable form of photo business as it is. Something needs to happen. I'm seeing some form of transition going on.
I already see "happy snappers" complaining it's too difficult to get in some of the sites. It's not too hard to get in, they are just too bad photographers. I think soon the stock business is back to the pros. If RPI falls drastically from current level the images get too expensive to produce -> the prices have to go up or the amount of incoming images have to be decreased substantially.
Hear hear ! one heart to Perry for this one 8)
-
I agree with you Perseus, we still don't need harsh decision for now...
But profitability will always be the main direction what is worth of effort...
Microstock harm traditional stock, maybe something else will harm microstock ...
We will see,maybe...
-
I would agree with him and tell him that he's absolutely correct there is no money to be made with micro. The more people that believe this the less competition for all of us ;)
Ditto!!
-
Supply and demand... well yes and no.
An ex boss of mine was fond of saying 'perception is reality'.
Is there $30-40,000 more in parts and engineering in a Mercedes than in a Chevy?
Nope. It is a higher quality machine, but the rest you are paying for is prestige, service and the perception that is is worth more due to advertising.
Its the same thing with those pieces of sparkly carbon that most women demand on their finger for an engagement ring. It is a common element and not worth anything near what people are willing to pay for it.... except there is a perception that is has a lot of value due to advertising.
Traditional stock was kept at high perceived value.
The crowd-sourcing model has changed all that. it has also allowed many who would never have been accepted into traditional stock to sell their work. But make no mistake, this has changed the perception of the value of a photograph.
-
Of course we could all stop shooting for Micros to make this guy and others like him happy. Just put everything in Creative Commons on Flickr for Free. Bet they would stop B*tchin about Micros..lmao.
-
Yep, micro is heavily damaging prices. If there are only easy made simple pics for low price (where micro started), then its great idea. Those foolish talks about "free market" are just abit incorrect. Extremely low pricing in micro and little commision (sometimes even less then 20%!) hurts photographer in two major ways - they do 80% of work and get just 20% of final price which is really extremely low. Second it errodes prices of other photographs because clients often do not make much difference between easily made low-cost pics and difficult or rare shots where costs are up several hundred times higher and expect the same price as on micro. So if you are or are not on micro, it doesnt matter - it will decrease your earnings.
I would really like to see real costs (studio, staff, gear, locations, models...) of top-contributors and their revenue per picture. Even those $10/h. mentioned by Perry are far too optimistic for most microstockers, maybe top-contributors have such huge sells that it covers their costs but always remember that most of them shoots also contracts and many used to be pro before, they have many other sources of money to cover studio and gear - then micro could be extra income for them. Shooting only micro is a different story for most of us - my average revenue is just few $$ per picture on micro and I bet many others "small fishes" are on the same boat.
-
Yes, microstock photography DOES lower the value of photos ...
Value is a subjective judgment. A photo has a different "value" for each buyer. All I worry about is sales and that is out of my hands. It is determined by the market - i.e. how many buyers place a value on my photo that is greater than the price.
Microstock has dramatically increased the supply of images and this has lowered the cost of using images. This has made the value of images greater than the price for many more customers. Total demand for images has increased faster than supply - at least until the recent economic slump - and this has supported prices. I think we are now seeing supply start to outrun demand and I would expect prices to drop.
Your interlocutor can go on living in the past or deal with the reality of the changed marketplace.
c h e e r s
fred
-
Value is a subjective judgment. A photo has a different "value" for each buyer. All I worry about is sales and that is out of my hands. It is determined by the market - i.e. how many buyers place a value on my photo that is greater than the price.
Microstock has dramatically increased the supply of images and this has lowered the cost of using images. This has made the value of images greater than the price for many more customers.
That sounds like a great assessment of how markets work.
In addition I would mention that the cost of production has come down dramatically. The digital workflow requires more investment but reduced marginal cost. It has also led to a devaluation of know-how. Formerly, a photographer had to be quite sure how to set up an image before capturing it on film, otherwise his cost would rise. Nowadays someone can make 20 different shots within a few minutes, see the results immediately and use a trial-and-error approach to get the result he wants. This has allowed people without years of learning the techniques to enter the market as supplier.
And at the same time the demand for images has increased dramatically as well. Obviously, the lowered cost of media production within the WWW (anybody can put up a blog at zero or very low cost and try to sell ads via AdSense) has led to an explosion of content that is fighting for attention of the reader. But also print media have profited from digital workflows - do you remember how the next event in your local disco or the college party has been advertised with hand-drawn illustrations from a copy shop 10 years ago? Nowadays you see those ads in full color with professional imagery.
-
...every other field. I doubt that wedding photographers are charging less because of micros.
-
Free Enterprise.
I'm free to make and sell my work to anyone I want.
Free Market.
I can sell my labor and products for whatever price I want.
The guy who asked this question supports price fixing and restraint of trade.
-
Free Enterprise.
I'm free to make and sell my work to anyone I want.
Free Market.
I can sell my labor and products for whatever price I want.
The guy who asked this question supports price fixing and restraint of trade.
Thats about how I feel. Unless Someone wants to pay me the price they feel I should be selling for... then they can handle their work how they want. I will handle mine my way. Got to pay for food and Diapers somehow.
-
...every other field. I doubt that wedding photographers are charging less because of micros.
The economics could cause greater competition among wedding photographers as more stock photographers seek outlets for the use of their time and the equipment they have already purchased for stock photography.
fred
-
Oh great. "iStocker makes $10,000 on a single photo!" Story on Good Morning America yesterday. :(
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769)
Let the next flood of applications begin...
(And get ready for all the excellent photographers to come here ranting because their perfect photos are getting rejected!!)
-
...every other field. I doubt that wedding photographers are charging less because of micros.
The economics could cause greater competition among wedding photographers as more stock photographers seek outlets for the use of their time and the equipment they have already purchased for stock photography.
fred
The wedding photography biz is already quite crowded and competitive.
The Yuris of that field charge an arm and a leg, but the rest have to scrape along and just settle for the table scraps ;)
A close and frugal friend of mine had her wedding shot for a mere $500.00
I saw the results and they were quite good. They downside was, he just gave them a disk of their shots and that was it. No Album, no slideshow no framed prints... nada.
I have shot a couple of weddings. I made more on each one than i do in a month of sales in Micro.
-
Oh great. "iStocker makes $10,000 on a single photo!" Story on Good Morning America yesterday. :(
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769[/url] ([url]http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769[/url])
Let the next flood of applications begin...
(And get ready for all the excellent photographers to come here ranting because their perfect photos are getting rejected!!)
OMG, and it is JJRDs photo.!
ETA: I just watched the video. This was just a free advertisement for IS. Good for them. It will drive a lot of looky-loo traffic to the site.
-
Oh great. "iStocker makes $10,000 on a single photo!" Story on Good Morning America yesterday. :(
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769[/url] ([url]http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769[/url])
Let the next flood of applications begin...
(And get ready for all the excellent photographers to come here ranting because their perfect photos are getting rejected!!)
OMG, and it is JJRDs photo.!
ETA: I just watched the video. This was just a free advertisement for IS. Good for them. It will drive a lot of looky-loo traffic to the site.
Not if the comments are any indicator. The geniuses just can't figure out the link for that site in the video! Isn't someone going to post it for them????? :D
-
There was a graphic that said you earn $1 to $6 per sale.
Hey! I'm being cheated!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
I believe anyone that shuts the door to innovation based on emotional decisions rather than calculated ones are always going to be a step behind. I imagine his reluctance to invest in Micro is he saw it diminish his Macro returns and is a bit shy of trying new things. Many people resist change to the bitter end. On the other hand having your images in all portions of the industry makes the most sense as a business person invested in the stock industry, diversity. One person on this post said they would love to hear more about Macro here. That is a wonderful attitude I am sure he will grow from his open nature in his business. I have found that there is quite a division from both Micro and Macro towards each other especially on this site. I hope his statement shows the migration of the entire industry instead of the two models standing on their soapboxes denouncing each other. Now let me climb down off of mine : )
-
An average of almost US$3 per dld. Geez, I'm jealous!
PS: did the sites pay to have their names at the end of the article??
-
PS: did the sites pay to have their names at the end of the article??
I wondered the same thing... a strange assortment, I thought.
-
Quite the group of intellectuals reading the GMA site there...
-
I believe anyone that shuts the door to innovation based on emotional decisions rather than calculated ones are always going to be a step behind. I imagine his reluctance to invest in Micro is he saw it diminish his Macro returns and is a bit shy of trying new things. Many people resist change to the bitter end. On the other hand having your images in all portions of the industry makes the most sense as a business person invested in the stock industry, diversity. One person on this post said they would love to hear more about Macro here. That is a wonderful attitude I am sure he will grow from his open nature in his business. I have found that there is quite a division from both Micro and Macro towards each other especially on this site. I hope his statement shows the migration of the entire industry instead of the two models standing on their soapboxes denouncing each other. Now let me climb down off of mine : )
^^ This is so true. I think the natural evolution is for macro photographers to become curious about participating in micro. I also think it is natural for micro photographers, as we develop our skills and learn this trade, to want to place some of our more high production shoots in macro stock.
So far my modest foray into Alamy is not paying big dividends, but I am hopeful it will over time. If I see it starting to pay off I may shoot some concepts just for macro.
More and more there will just be a "stock industry" and the divisions between micro and macro will be more about production value and price point, rather than between shooters. I hope :)
But then this is all speculation on my part. My crystal ball has been in the shop, after all ;D
-
i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).
i understand for many amateurs micros are way better than giving away their pictures for free on Flickr but if we talk about business it's a bad bad bad idea.
on the other side, i wouldn't be so sure that micros are "ruining" the market :
i shoot editorial travel photography and my sales are on the rise.
micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms
of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines.
as a rule of thumb, micros will erode the market for pictures that are easy to take but don't expect much more : buyers used to buy from macros will laugh at the choice of images they would find on iStock & friends.
-
i shoot editorial travel photography and my sales are on the rise.
micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms
of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines.
as a rule of thumb, micros will erode the market for pictures that are easy to take but don't expect much more : buyers used to buy from macros will laugh at the choice of images they would find on iStock & friends.
At last you're talking a little sense. Relatively few microstock sites will accept 'editorial travel', certainly not Istock, so you couldn't sell them there even if you wanted to. Also editorial travel is one of the 'low forms of photography' __ it's much harder to get those cumbersome MRs and PRs required for commercial uses.
Microstock will probably never be a good place to sell the vast majority of travel imagery because by nature they are so location-specific they are never likely to sell in the volumes required to justify the cost of obtaining them.
-
exactly, that's why i'm not afraid of micros, at least for now :
what happens if one day micros decide to sell editorial as well ?
i'm not gonna sell my images for 0.25$ but there certainly are 100s of amateurs willing to do it,
even just for fun as they do it already on sites like Flickr.
-
what happens if one day micros decide to sell editorial as well ?
Some already do!
-
yes but no serious editorial photographer can live with micros earnings.
they will get tons of holiday pictures, but this is scaring, as it can escalate quickly
and erode macros market share.
-
yes but no serious editorial photographer can live with micros earnings.
they will get tons of holiday pictures, but this is scaring, as it can escalate quickly
and erode macros market share.
Too many threads, same problem! Could we have one big gripe instead of several small ones? Makes it more easy to help ;)
-
nevermind.
i'm off for a sh-it.
see ya tomorrow.
-
nevermind.
i'm off for a sh-it.
see ya tomorrow.
Thought you had already been doing that!
-
i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).
Out of interest, when you undertake a travel photography trip, how long do you expect it to take for the commission from image license sales to recover the basic costs of doing that trip?
When I say 'basic costs' I mean just the direct cost of travel and accomodation, etc not food & drink and paying yourself a wage.
Selling my travel images on microstock I reckon it probably averages about 2 years. I don't consider it to be a particularly commercial use of my time (although it will turn a profit eventually) in comparison to other subject matter but it is something I enjoy so it is largely an 'indulgence' and a rewarding means of reducing my tax bill.
-
This forum is named 'microstockgroup' right? I think anonymous people who come here to troll the whole idea (old hippy) should get some enforced time off? What is the point in allowing people to debase the other members, especially without id'ing themselves. Why not go to bodybuilding.com and tell everyone they are a steroid meathead? Nothing better to do anyhow right?
-
...micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines...
Those "low forms" of art like vectors have a higher ROI than photographs by a huge margin, usually between 8 and 10 times per image.
And what market was there really for vectors before microstock? If anything microstock gave vector artists new life in stock that hardly existed before.
-
vectors are vectors, illustration, graphic design, but not art, sorry.
p.s.
i'm talking about micros in a micro forum, can't see what's wrong about it.
and im not gonna link my portfolio on a public forum, thanks.
-
i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).
I haven't seen anyone else respond to this, and I don't have much work on macro agencies yet, but isn't $20-30 per sale rather pathetic for RM macro??! I get more than that on most EL licenses through the micros.
Again, forgive my ignorance, but I thought the range for RM royalties through macro agencies was more like $200-300 and up into the thousands. To sell RM for that low a royalty is shocking. Particularly when there is no volume to compensate the low price.
I have to say, this doesn't in any way persuade me that selling RM would be at all worth my time.
-
Actually I would like to see list of agencies I can submit and get $200 per photo as this guy claims :-)
-
I haven't seen anyone else respond to this, and I don't have much work on macro agencies yet, but isn't $20-30 per sale rather pathetic for RM macro??! I get more than that on most EL licenses through the micros.
Again, forgive my ignorance, but I thought the range for RM royalties through macro agencies was more like $200-300 and up into the thousands. To sell RM for that low a royalty is shocking. Particularly when there is no volume to compensate the low price.
I thought exactly the same Lisa __ but in fact there are so many holes in his various stories that most likely he is just talking nonsense about a world of which he knows nothing. BS basically.
-
__ but in fact there are so many holes in his various stories that most likely he is just talking nonsense about a world of which he knows nothing. BS basically.
Ah. Now that makes sense.
I will have to be more careful about feeding trolls... ;)
-
I haven't seen anyone else respond to this, and I don't have much work on macro agencies yet, but isn't $20-30 per sale rather pathetic for RM macro??! I get more than that on most EL licenses through the micros.
He may have meant as a minimum ("at least 20-30$ each").
-
Actually I would like to see list of agencies I can submit and get $200 per photo as this guy claims :-)
true, until we see some names and portfolio, oldfart could well be tooting air from his ar$ehole
... just a lot of loud noise (no pun intended).
-
poor microtards.
RM can pay 20$ as it can pay 2000$ depending on many factors.
if you sell in third world countries dont expect more than 30$ for instance.
if you sell a double page editorial expect at least 200$ up to 400$.
and if you sell for Getty you can go up to the 1000s of $.
@melastmohican :
Alamy is a good start, then there are many specialized agencies depending on
what you shoot.
-
poor microtards.
RM can pay 20$ as it can pay 2000$ depending on many factors.
if you sell in third world countries dont expect more than 30$ for instance.
if you sell a double page editorial expect at least 200$ up to 400$.
and if you sell for Getty you can go up to the 1000s of $.
@melastmohican :
Alamy is a good start, then there are many specialized agencies depending on
what you shoot.
was at Alamy looking for 'mumbai beggar' and 'elephant indonesia', don't see no elephant or beggars, only bulls
-
vectors are vectors, illustration, graphic design, but not art, sorry...
Illustrations are no less art than travel photos.
-
vectors are vectors, illustration, graphic design, but not art, sorry...
Illustrations are no less art than travel photos.
I doubt that he considers travel photos art either. He sounds to me that he has more of a 'technical' mindset about this whole business.
But then again, physicians refer to their craft as the 'art' of medicine... so there ya go.
-
if you sell a double page editorial expect at least 200$ up to 400$.
and if you sell for Getty you can go up to the 1000s of $.
Oh man, how do I wish one of my images had paid me hundreds or even thousands of dollars. That would have been worth my time, really... And the only thing I'd have to do for it was to submit thousands and thousands of blurred and underexposed images and wait for five years to have five of them sell.
-
macrostock never paid quickly.
a photo can take months, or even 2 years to make a single sale.
but it's once again a matter of concept : when and if it sells, it's gonna be paid the RIGHT price
and used with the right licence.
therefore, you're not hurting other photographers, customers pay good prices, the agency gets its
share, everybody is happy.
on the other side, nobody knows where the microstock industry will be heading in 6 months.
you can't make a solid long term business with the actual micro trends.
the future of micros is going free or lower even more the pricing.
read again this thread in 2010 and check if i'll be wrong.
-
...the future of micros is going free or lower even more the pricing.
read again this thread in 2010 and check if i'll be wrong.
Look back and people have been saying that for years but microstock prices are much higher than they were a few years ago. istock started out as a free site, StockXpert grew out of a free site, that is the past and I don't see any logical reason why they would go back there.
-
read again this thread in 2010 and check if i'll be wrong.
Ok, agreed. Let's leave it at that for now and come back to it next year.
-
no need to wait for 2010.
read some comments posted by your hero Yurj in this very forum some time ago...
-
no need to wait for 2010.
At least it would give enough time to at least collect some facts. Might make for an interesting conversation then. At least you'd get some credibility.
-
no need to wait for 2010.
read some comments posted by your hero Yurj in this very forum some time ago...
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep spelling his name this way? It's Yuri, not Yurj. I know "i" comes near "j" on keyboard but it appears you're doing it on purpose. There are people here who don't like him, but this kind of trying to minimalise him by repeatedly spelling his name wrongfully looks childish, isn't it.
Besides, his pessimistic posts from long ago do not really apply today. Search on forums, there is a place where he says how much he made from this abominable microstock last year. It'll pop out your eyes.
He is not the only one person who got rich by microstock-ing. In fact some of the people with whom you "exchanged opinions" on this forum make lots of money. Multiple times your revenue, I'm quite confident. Imagine they're simply having fun reading your wisdom-overwhelmed posts.
And again, as many others said already - you're new here, you're not backed up by a portfolio which people can see, or at least a name. Hence - no respect, no credibility.
I wonder where Yurj is now, maybe desperately taking some shots trying to survive in the market. Yo, Yurj, come here and play, man!
-
no need to wait for 2010.
read some comments posted by your hero Yurj in this very forum some time ago...
Just out of curiosity, why do you keep spelling his name this way? It's Yuri, not Yurj. I know "i" comes near "j" on keyboard but it appears you're doing it on purpose. There are people here who don't like him, but this kind of trying to minimalise him by repeatedly spelling his name wrongfully looks childish, isn't it.
Besides, his pessimistic posts from long ago do not really apply today. Search on forums, there is a place where he says how much he made from this abominable microstock last year. It'll pop out your eyes.
He is not the only one person who got rich by microstock-ing. In fact some of the people with whom you "exchanged opinions" on this forum make lots of money. Multiple times your revenue, I'm quite confident. Imagine they're simply having fun reading your wisdom-overwhelmed posts.
And again, as many others said already - you're new here, you're not backed up by a portfolio which people can see, or at least a name. Hence - no respect, no credibility.
I wonder where Yurj is now, maybe desperately taking some shots trying to survive in the market. Yo, Yurj, come here and play, man!
Maybe the old dude really meant YURJ not Yuri. WHich Yurj? dude???
if you mean Y-U-R-I, he has his own blog, why not post your voice that and face off with him instead?
-
Furthermore, when Y-U-R-I does come in here, he backs it up what he says with concrete evidence of what he writes. Even sends us a video once in a while.
How about doing the same , OLD HIPPO !
-
in russian it's written YURJ, his spelling might be a nordic variant.
-
poor microtards.
GettyImages distributes images from flickr, which is not a lot more than a place to upload snapshots., thru RM and RF channels.
GettyImages bought iStock, the (prob. disputed) leading agency in micro and invited all contributors with more than 10,000 downloads to contribute images to the parent site.
Bottom line, the world's largest supplier of images is paying heed to both microstock and the massive power of user generated content on the internet (thru flickr).
Plus, most macro shooters are struggling or looking at expanding into micro with mixed results. Its an evolution, get used to it.
-
poor microtards.
GettyImages distributes images from flickr, which is not a lot more than a place to upload snapshots., thru RM and RF channels.
GettyImages bought iStock, the (prob. disputed) leading agency in micro and invited all contributors with more than 10,000 downloads to contribute images to the parent site.
Bottom line, the world's largest supplier of images is paying heed to both microstock and the massive power of user generated content on the internet (thru flickr).
Plus, most macro shooters are struggling or looking at expanding into micro with mixed results. Its an evolution, get used to it.
That's right Old Hippy, it's evolutionary, and pretty much like MACROphages, seek and destroy ! Hmm?
-
what i would like to do is monetize my images that don't sell well or at all on macros.
but i'm afraid their payout is simply not worth it, i'll see how it goes, now i'm on shutterstock uploading some junk made years ago.
-
it's still to be proven that Getty makes ANY profit from Flickr.
they're doing it for the monopoly in order to kill the direct competitors
(see Jupiter Images and many other less known macros and local agencies
bought in the last 2 yrs)
but talking about profits ... Getty is in deep crap at the moment.
last i heard was they were making huge profits with iStock
and losing a lot with macros, shooting in their foot, but hey
they call this "strategy", we'll see.
-
it's still to be proven that Getty makes ANY profit from Flickr.
they're doing it for the monopoly in order to kill the direct competitors
(see Jupiter Images and many other less known macros and local agencies
bought in the last 2 yrs)
but talking about profits ... Getty is in deep crap at the moment.
last i heard was they were making huge profits with iStock
and losing a lot with macros, shooting in their foot, but hey
they call this "strategy", we'll see.
Why wait and see , dude? Look into your crystal ball and tell us the future , man !
-
but talking about profits ... Getty is in deep crap at the moment.
last i heard was they were making huge profits with iStock
and losing a lot with macros, shooting in their foot, but hey
they call this "strategy", we'll see.
Good point, however the closure of istock, in the long term wouldn't be any more beneficial for Getty, the company. I believe Getty realizes the potential in istock for opening up the market and tapping into the 99% of the internet thats not buying images. The price point makes it more accessible for everyday people to buy images..
I recently had a talk with a photog who is in the top 10 sellers in macrostock (how he knew his rank, i don't know). He was at a loss to know what to do with a few 1000 images that were 5-6 years old and were being released by the agency where they were being sold. Theres no easy advice, some of it was shot on film and would have a tough time getting thru QA, at any micros. Is that relevant to your situation? Perhaps researching and producing for micro is a better way of testing the waters..
-
what i would like to do is monetize my images that don't sell well or at all on macros.
but i'm afraid their payout is simply not worth it, i'll see how it goes, now i'm on shutterstock uploading some junk made years ago.
Yeah, I'm sure that will pay out in spades. You should be out traveling, shooting "editorial" of random, unsuspecting people and monetizing that. Why are you still here?
-
what i would like to do is monetize my images that don't sell well or at all on macros.
but i'm afraid their payout is simply not worth it, i'll see how it goes, now i'm on shutterstock uploading some junk made years ago.
Yeah, I'm sure that will pay out in spades. You should be out traveling, shooting "editorial" of random, unsuspecting people and monetizing that. Why are you still here?
Mr. Sjlocke, petrol (gasoline) costs money nowadays . 200 bucks don't go very far in a Volkswagen
van anymore . Old Hippy needs more editorials of beggars and elephants. Do you have a clue where to find them HERE?
:p
-
if you're rough enough you can live pretty well with 6-700$/month in india, china, and indochina, all inclusive.
-
if you're rough enough you can live pretty well with 6-700$/month in india, china, and indochina, all inclusive.
How is this useful information? Your not one of those guys who got kicked out of Freak Street in Kathmandu are you?
-
Everyone is allowed to say what they like on this forum within the sites rules even if you completely disagree. However remember when you attack someone without data and substance it makes you look threatened and weak. This poster should not be a threat to anyone here. To post just to be mean supports nothing and keeps people away from posting their thoughts here. There have been some good debates on this topic but please use your brains when making judgements instead of just useless banter it is far more helpful to the readers. If you don't have anything nice or informative to offer maybe just don't hit the send button.
-
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
-
Perhaps researching and producing for micro is a better way of testing the waters..
That's the best advice you can get, Old Hippy.
-
Everyone is allowed to say what they like on this forum within the sites rules even if you completely disagree.
Well, it's not up to me to make the rules here but calling people "naive" (at least that's what I read in "Microtards", maybe some native speaker can convince me that this can have a different meaning as well) is verbal abuse against everybody and - in my opinion - shouldn't be allowed on any forum. You can disagree with people but still keep some manners.
-
Everyone is allowed to say what they like on this forum within the sites rules even if you completely disagree. However remember when you attack someone without data and substance it makes you look threatened and weak. This poster should not be a threat to anyone here. To post just to be mean supports nothing and keeps people away from posting their thoughts here. There have been some good debates on this topic but please use your brains when making judgements instead of just useless banter it is far more helpful to the readers. If you don't have anything nice or informative to offer maybe just don't hit the send button.
This from Wikipedia;
"One travel experience, undertaken by hundreds of thousands of hippies between 19691971, was the Hippie trail overland route to India. Carrying little or no luggage, and with small amounts of cash, almost all followed the same route, hitch-hiking across Europe to Athens and on to Istanbul, then by train through central Turkey via Erzurum, continuing by bus into Iran, via Tabriz and Tehran to Mashad, across the Afghan border into Herat, through southern Afghanistan via Kandahar to Kabul, over the Khyber Pass into Pakistan, via Rawalpindi and Lahore to the Indian frontier. Once in India, hippies went to many different destinations but gathered in large numbers on the beaches of Goa,[70] or crossed the border into Nepal to spend months in Kathmandu. In Kathmandu, most of the hippies hung out in tranquil surrounding of a place called Freak Street[71] (Nepal Bhasa: Jhoo Chhen) which still exists near Kathmandu Durbar Square"
Only Old Hippy could tell me if he was offended or not. I rather thought I paid him a slanted complement.
-
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll. ;)
-
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll. ;)
Come on, Leaf. Help him realize his dream of being a perfect 10! ;)
-
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll. ;)
Come on, Leaf. Help him realize his dream of being a perfect 10! ;)
I really don't think people should be banned for opposing opinions. OH may be a clown and a troll, but he's not as rude as some people who have "hit the road". ;D
-
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll. ;)
Come on, Leaf. Help him realize his dream of being a perfect 10! ;)
I really don't think people should be banned for opposing opinions. OH may be a clown and a troll, but he's not as rude as some people who have "hit the road". ;D
No, it's unlikely he'll be banned now that he's purporting to want to participate in microstock. When all he was doing was spouting off nonsense and calling us retards, there was a chance.
-
Zeus,
My comment wasn't directed at you we just posted at the same time and yours came up first. You are very informative on this site. Thank you for the Hippy info really interesting.
-
if you're rough enough you can live pretty well with 6-700$/month in india, china, and indochina, all inclusive.
How is this useful information? Your not one of those guys who got kicked out of Freak Street in Kathmandu are you?
Freak Street is now a joke, you better stay in Thamel, and even there it's becoming a sort of disneyland actually.
-
Perhaps researching and producing for micro is a better way of testing the waters..
That's the best advice you can get, Old Hippy.
yes i'm testing the waters but the more i test the more i realize my photos arent cut at all for micros.
i've no glossy and marketing friendly stuff.
my stuff is good for travel editorial and nothing more.
i think i've zero chances of selling food and other niches on micros judjing from the ones on sale
on istock and others, all very "micro style" and done in industrial quantity.
-
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.
nowadays you better keep an eye on your personal data, not just in forums but also
on social networks and many more other services including stock sites.
there's people for instance that searched for my images and concluded i'm a sort
of junkie tripping in asia and getting sick staying close to beggars or poors o whatever
other crap ... be very careful unless you only shoot neutral
subjects like food or sunsets etc .. i've got a friend asking me if i checked myself for HIV
after all this time in poor countries... that's not what you like to hear after proudly showing
around your best pics, but hey people in the west is often like this, so you better keep a low
profile.
-
Good point, however the closure of istock, in the long term wouldn't be any more beneficial for Getty, the company. I believe Getty realizes the potential in istock for opening up the market and tapping into the 99% of the internet thats not buying images. The price point makes it more accessible for everyday people to buy images..
Just quoting myself here..
And, more relevantly, read this quick statement this morning. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photography_buyers_more_choosy_as_credit_crunch_bites_news_283384.html
-
Good point, however the closure of istock, in the long term wouldn't be any more beneficial for Getty, the company. I believe Getty realizes the potential in istock for opening up the market and tapping into the 99% of the internet thats not buying images. The price point makes it more accessible for everyday people to buy images..
Just quoting myself here..
And, more relevantly, read this quick statement this morning. [url]http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photography_buyers_more_choosy_as_credit_crunch_bites_news_283384.html[/url]
that's not a problem for macros :
buyers can be more choosy but prices for macro images are rising.
Alamy lost 30% of earning in december according to their blog,
but it's still alive and kicking, opening up new office in NY and India,
Getty is still king of the hill, Corbis is surviving, and the list goes on.
what is really decreasing is the perceived value of photography as a whole.
photo journalists are getting miserable payouts nowadays, even sport
shooters in many cases due to extreme competition and cheaper prices.
problem is, photography was way over-rated before and it's right that
now it settles on normal prices since it's getting easier and easier to produce
hi quality pictures unlike just 5 or 10 years ago.
-
its probably not worth the debate. i doubt you will change his mind and i doubt your gonna stop contributing to micro channels. so whats the point?
jay
-
Diversification is the smartest move for any industry as it changes and matures. You all need to have your work in as many places as possible from RM to Micro to motion to music to what ever comes next. This market is producing more returns from the buyers than ever before.
Stock business sold 1.8 billion in Commercial and Editorial combined this past year a record year, RECORD!. Getty expects to do almost that by 2012 on there own, still tons of money to be made if you work hard and think smart. A very big growth in a year were few industries made any increase in sales or even survived. What would help everyone from the Hippy dude to all stock photographers is to spread your work to as many of the top paying outlets as possible, no not Alamy. Shoot your high end for RM ( Getty/Corbis and profitable third party agencies) and your bang it standard stuff out to the top ten Micro sites. Start looking into new markets you haven't tried like motion or music or graphics. Many hats keep you dry in the storm.
None of us should be thinking one or the other, it is all the same market and business that we share. The photographers did not build Micro they only supplied it with their work. If you really feel the need to blame someone blame the right people. The non photographic business owners that came in and screwed up the beginning of Micro from the start with their pricing structures. Always easy to drop your prices much harder to raise them.
I love a really good Filet and I am willing to pay for it. I also like a good greasy burger and the price set for these products even though they both come from a cow are very different yet neither product threatens the others sales. There are a million scenarios that support this.
If you don't like Micro that is cool don't shoot it. If you do like it then cool go ahead and shoot it. No patrol or police force out there telling us what we can't and can shoot. Play at your own level of enjoyment and capability.
Best,
AVAVA
-
My perspective (apologies to those who have read this before on the iStock forum):
Years ago I was accepted to Corbis, by sending them three trial slides, which they paid me about Ģ35 each for to use on one of their very early RM CDs, IIRC. They then sent me a list of photos they wanted, based on my location and required 100 images on my next submission. Because of work and weather etc, this took me several weeks, and when I labelled them, and made up a submission sheet etc and posted them off, they were returned unopened (i.e. they'd skimmed the submission sheet but hadn't opened the slide parcel) saying they were no longer accepting 35mm. I was furious, as you can well imagine, as I'd gone to the places and shot the images specially, wasting time and money. There was no way I could justify a MF camera.
It took me a while to accept microstock for the reasons mentioned in the OP, but eventually I joined iStock, and while I'm never going to be a big player there, I've earned enough to get a 5DMk2 and two lenses, and I'm now submitting RM/Editorial to two midstock sites, which was what I wanted to do in the first place. ;D (Only one sale so far, but it's early days!)
What the 'big guys' didn't recognise was that there was an emerging market for smaller images for websites, and a market for images from smaller companies which just couldn't afford the high prices, and didn't require exclusive use of images.
F'rinstance, on of my images was chosen as the front cover of a book. It's a small, specialist publisher, and I doubt very much if the book will sell even 1000 copies (maybe not ven 500, but do they really print books with such a small print run?), but what do I know? If they'd bought an image at 'trad' prices, they'd probably have had to add about Ģ2 on to the cost of the book, which might have pushied it too high for the target audience. I didn't get even an EL on that sale, but in fact that particular photo has sold 296 times on iStock so far.
But yes, I'm cool about that because it's a small publisher, the designer did IMO a lovely job on the cover, I'm very interested in the subject matter (and may even buy the book!). I'd be much less chuffed if it was a huge company which had paid peanuts for the image, but that's the way the game goes.
-
prices for macro images are rising.
That shows you don't have any clue. Troll-meter 92%.
-
To general a statement from the hippy about RM rising. However my RM is rising now again after a dip. It comes down to quality and knowing what to shoot. Rm is very strong if you are distributed properly and are a strong photographer that can play the game and follow the rules.
To Shady Sue. It often takes far more than one attempt to make it to the Corbis / Getty companies. Try not to let them get you down. There's is no doubt your RPI would be higher at Corbis with the right images than it will be right now at Micro. I understand it is frustrating I have been there as well. If you get a second chance to diversify to other models and income producing sites I would be willing to jump a few hoops to get there if I was you, just a but of friendly advice. Remember there is very little back end work in Macro than there is in Micro so you can spend your time shooting more and key wording less. Keep swinging for the fences, good post.
Best,
AVAVA
-
but talking about profits ... Getty is in deep crap at the moment.
last i heard was they were making huge profits with iStock
and losing a lot with macros, shooting in their foot, but hey
they call this "strategy", we'll see.
Better for Getty to shoot themselves in the foot, and have iStock as a good foot (stretching your analogy), than having somebody else buy iStock and shoot Getty in the foot.
-
I recently unsubbed from a Yahoo group because of all the "Microstock is the end of the world" crying. I wrote a blog post about the complainers.
http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622 (http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622)
I hope it's ok to post this here. :)
-
I recently unsubbed from a Yahoo group because of all the "Microstock is the end of the world" crying. I wrote a blog post about the complainers.
[url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622[/url])
I hope it's ok to post this here. :)
actually you would be better to start a new topic as this is an OLD thread , supposed to be quite defunct or redundant
-
I recently unsubbed from a Yahoo group because of all the "Microstock is the end of the world" crying. I wrote a blog post about the complainers.
[url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622[/url])
I hope it's ok to post this here. :)
Are you a micro contributor? If so, then why would you waste time trying to persuade the old timers to enter the micro market?
I am perfectly happy to have them hate me. Better that than joining me ;)
-
I recently unsubbed from a Yahoo group because of all the "Microstock is the end of the world" crying. I wrote a blog post about the complainers.
[url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/blog_detail.aspx?id=622[/url])
I hope it's ok to post this here. :)
Are you a micro contributor? If so, then why would you waste time trying to persuade the old timers to enter the micro market?
I am perfectly happy to have them hate me. Better that than joining me ;)
rofl, now that's what I call mutual understanding, lisafx . why didn't I think of that as a suitable response. After all, hell if the old timers don't like micro that much, hey you know what? They really don't have to join us. We won't be sorry they didn't !
The feeling's mutual, lol.
-
I really think everyone should try to unite. Hating another shooter or model is so unproductive. I can understand if it is a personal issue with an individual not just a general hatred, but even that is so unhealthy, I should know. Don't stoop to their level.
If you are mad direct it at the agencies in a productive manner they are the ones getting rich here and constantly changing the game. The photographers are just scared of losing their lively hood. You sound like me a year ago ;) The battle is two sided without a doubt.
Best,
Jonathan