pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

If you are a microstock contributor, did you start out with the micros, with the trads, or did you turn to micro after being rejected by traditional agencies?

I was a contributor to traditional stock agencies before I started selling on microstock
15 (16.5%)
I applied to traditional agencies before microstock but was rejected
10 (11%)
I went straight to selling on microstock without trying traditional agencies first
66 (72.5%)

Total Members Voted: 83

Voting closed: June 16, 2009, 11:23

Author Topic: POLL: Did you try Trad Agencies or Micros First?  (Read 8674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« on: June 06, 2009, 11:23 »
0
Some long time pro photographers selling on traditional stock agencies seem to resent microstock photographers for lowering the perceived value of photography.   We hear this over and over again.

We also hear repeatedly about microstock photographers who tried applying to the trads and were rejected. 

It would be interesting to see how many micro contributors tried the trads first.  I know I did and was turned down.  Heck, I was turned down by istock the first couple of times too but that's not part of this poll :)


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 11:27 »
0
Hi Lisa,

 The battle between Macro and Micro photographers has come from both sides with out a doubt a complete waste of everyones time. Interesting post, I added my answer.

Jonathan

« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2009, 11:40 »
0
interesting poll.

My first sites were Alamy, Myloupe, & a couple other sites whose name I forget.  Due to low sales on the start up macro sites I managed to join and medium sales on Alamy, microstock looked intriguing and I joined Dreamstime and iStock, then came shutterstock, eventually Fotolia and the rest.

I am not really surprised that only start up sites were interested in my work though.  When I look back at it now it is pretty painful to see :)  I guess I have learned at least a little bit in the last few years, micro gave me the opportunity to sell my crappy photos and learn and become better.  Micro still pays the bills and is very enjoyable so I don't see myself quitting before I have to.

« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2009, 11:47 »
0
Hi there - interesting post indeed!

I run a small traditional agency dealing with travel images. Alamy and their 16 million and counting images has seen my market disintegrate. I hedged my bets about 18 months ago and stated with mico.

I could not care less about the old devalue macro rubbish - the customer pays what they want, and I have to earn a living.

I stopped accepting contributors for traditional licensed images - they got frustrated when we did not sell enough, and spent more time shooting my own pics rather than representing other photographers.

Bottom line for me, 18 months ago income was 100% macro, 0% micro. It's now around 60% macro, 40% micro - trend continuing.

Aplogies of the anonymity, it's because of those macro competitors left.

People still approach me to represent their material at macro level - I send them to Alamy (myself as well now) and micro, trad earnings are drying up for small agencies rapidly.

Best way to make money in this game, high volume shooting of sellable pics distributed to Alamy, micro, last few big trad agencies left. Note the high volume, not the Istock 15 or 20 a week,-  hundred minimum.

Rant over,

Oldhand

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2009, 11:48 »
0
interesting poll.

I am not really surprised that only start up sites were interested in my work though.  When I look back at it now it is pretty painful to see :)  I guess I have learned at least a little bit in the last few years, micro gave me the opportunity to sell my crappy photos and learn and become better.  Micro still pays the bills and is very enjoyable so I don't see myself quitting before I have to.

So true!!  

At the time I thought my photos were genius (lol) and was highly insulted that stock agencies didn't want them.  Now I cringe when I look at the type of stuff I was submitting!   :P

That's one thing I will be forever grateful to istock for.  They gave me a shot and taught me a lot about how to make stock photos.  

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2009, 11:52 »
0
Hi there - interesting post indeed!

I run a small traditional agency dealing with travel images. Alamy and their 16 million and counting images has seen my market disintegrate. I hedged my bets about 18 months ago and stated with mico.

I could not care less about the old devalue macro rubbish - the customer pays what they want, and I have to earn a living.

I stopped accepting contributors for traditional licensed images - they got frustrated when we did not sell enough, and spent more time shooting my own pics rather than representing other photographers.

Bottom line for me, 18 months ago income was 100% macro, 0% micro. It's now around 60% macro, 40% micro - trend continuing.

Aplogies of the anonymity, it's because of those macro competitors left.

People still approach me to represent their material at macro level - I send them to Alamy (myself as well now) and micro, trad earnings are drying up for small agencies rapidly.

Best way to make money in this game, high volume shooting of sellable pics distributed to Alamy, micro, last few big trad agencies left. Note the high volume, not the Istock 15 or 20 a week,-  hundred minimum.

Rant over,

Oldhand

Very interesting perspective Oldhand.  Thanks for sharing it. 

By high volume, do you mean 100/week minimum every week - 50-52 weeks a year?  IMO that is nearly an impossible target for a one person operation. 

Does that mean you foresee the stock industry becoming more and more dominated by stock "factories" and less by individual producers?

« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2009, 12:07 »
0
I'm one of those folks the macro and other pro shooters love to hate. 

I was a true amateur when I first found SS...had owned a refurbished P&S camera for only a few months, found a referral link on a college football forum, and just wanted to see if I had what it takes to sell photos.  I didn't seek out microstock at all...microstock found me...and thank God it did, because it changed my life.  Lost my job 10 months after getting serious about photography and microstock, and 2 1/2 years later I still haven't had to go back to the old boring desk job. 

Milinz

« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2009, 12:13 »
0
Never mind....  ;)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 03:07 by Milinz »

« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2009, 12:44 »
0
Best way to make money in this game, high volume shooting of sellable pics distributed to Alamy, micro, last few big trad agencies left. Note the high volume, not the Istock 15 or 20 a week,-  hundred minimum.

I'm pleased if I upload more than 100 in a month to be honest!

I've been analysing for some months now how much money my images make in their first year. At about the 20th of a month (effectively half-way through the month including the acceptance time) I go My Uploads on Istock and add up all the income from those images uploaded a year before. I then multiply that figure by 3 as IS is normally about 33% of total revenue and divide that figure by the total number of images uploaded. It's a bit crude but it's close enough for my needs, essentially  to work out how much I make per hour doing this.

What I have found is that the revenue-per-image decreases almost in direct proportion to how many images I uploaded in that month. I assume that when I am going for volume then I tend to be less selective about each image. Having said that I'll still have made a lot more money if I uploaded 120 images rather than 50.

« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2009, 13:09 »
0
My first attempt was at Shutterpoint, which is not a traditional agency, but let us set prices for our images more in the midstock range.  The only macro I saw at that time was Alamy, but they did not accept online uploads and their standards seemed quite high, especially at a time in which my digital camera was only 2MPix and I knew my scanned slides would never look good at very high resolutions.  

So I wasn't rejected by the macros, but I didn't start at micros either.  Should I pick the first option or just skip voting?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 13:11 by madelaide »

« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2009, 13:19 »
0
I tried one traditional agency years ago and was rejected.  As I had no idea what they wanted, I didn't try again.  Luckily SS and istock accepted me first time, I would probably be doing something else if they hadn't.

« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2009, 14:17 »
0
"Very interesting perspective Oldhand.  Thanks for sharing it.  "

By high volume, do you mean 100/week minimum every week - 50-52 weeks a year?  IMO that is nearly an impossible target for a one person operation. 

Does that mean you foresee the stock industry becoming more and more dominated by stock "factories" and less by individual producers?

Hi LisaFX - that's exactly what I mean, more if possible. I produce 100 per week, every week. As the mico revenue has increased, I have increased output. Plan for the next six months, double that again.

I am lucky in that stock photography is my full time profession, the most time consuming bit in production of images is the taking off pictures themselves. With a decent camera, there is not much editing to do in photoshop, captioning is starightforward, uploading (send overnight), categories etc, again straightforward.

As a one man band, I devote considerable hours to micro, this is where I would agree with the stock factory concept.


Saturday - cheap flight to Vienna from UK early morning, back Sat night. Full day shooting stock.

Sunday - download 600 pics from card, select 150. Caption, edit, upload, all done by tuesday.

People pics go to alamy, other editorial outlets. Rest go to micro.

Cost - 50 ($80) for flight, expenses (tax deducatble as well)  50 ($80)

One sale on alamy will pay for it all, micro is pure profit. Over a year I would expect to make a sustabtial return.

I have worked in macro for nearly 20 years, same priciples appled then as with micro - high output of good material, doesn't have to be excellent, just good saleable stuff.

Rgds

Oldhand

Dook

« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2009, 14:36 »
0
Thank you for this info.
"People pics go to alamy, other editorial outlets. "
Can you please tell us what are other editorial outlets, if possible?

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2009, 15:51 »
0


Hi LisaFX - that's exactly what I mean, more if possible. I produce 100 per week, every week. As the mico revenue has increased, I have increased output. Plan for the next six months, double that again.

I am lucky in that stock photography is my full time profession, the most time consuming bit in production of images is the taking off pictures themselves. With a decent camera, there is not much editing to do in photoshop, captioning is starightforward, uploading (send overnight), categories etc, again straightforward.

As a one man band, I devote considerable hours to micro, this is where I would agree with the stock factory concept.


Saturday - cheap flight to Vienna from UK early morning, back Sat night. Full day shooting stock.

Sunday - download 600 pics from card, select 150. Caption, edit, upload, all done by tuesday.

People pics go to alamy, other editorial outlets. Rest go to micro.

Cost - 50 ($80) for flight, expenses (tax deducatble as well)  50 ($80)

One sale on alamy will pay for it all, micro is pure profit. Over a year I would expect to make a sustabtial return.

I have worked in macro for nearly 20 years, same priciples appled then as with micro - high output of good material, doesn't have to be excellent, just good saleable stuff.

Rgds

Oldhand

Thanks for the explanation.  

I do this FT too, but there is no way I could produce 100 images a week of the type of images I do for micro - model released lifestyle shots.

My experience is the opposite of yours.  Actual image capture is only a tiny fraction of my working hours.  The majority of my time is spent post processing and keywording, uploading, arranging and story boarding shoots, securing props and models, tracking sales and payouts, etc. 

Unfortunately it takes me every bit of 8 hours to get 15 shots processed and uploaded.  I am happy if I manage to get 30-50 online in a week.  

Maybe it would be different if I did landscape, or travel type stuff.  But then in micro those are low demand areas, so you might need much higher volume of those subjects.

Your workflow certainly seems to be working for you.  Hats off to you that you can produce that kind of volume week after week! 
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 16:08 by lisafx »

« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2009, 17:13 »
0
yeah, interesting to hear how others work.

That is some quick editing there OldHand.  Perhaps I am spending too much time in front of the computer.  If I shoot for a day i will be editing, uploading, and keywording for a week easy.

« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2009, 18:41 »
0
yeah, interesting to hear how others work.

That is some quick editing there OldHand.  Perhaps I am spending too much time in front of the computer.  If I shoot for a day i will be editing, uploading, and keywording for a week easy.

Yep...same here.  I've actually tried to hire a Photoshop person to help me with the editing, but kept violating the TOS at the freelancers site I was using.  LOL  I'd love to get to the point of scheduling two shoots per week.

« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2009, 20:00 »
0
The issue that old macro shooters never seem to consider is the barrier to entry. Sure, they want their market protected, but I suspect many very successful micro shooters were 'given the chance' on micro and ran with it. These people would never have been given the chance to sell images 'for what they're really worth' on macro sites, but guess what - they turned out to be good enough anyway (with a little encouragement and opportunity).


« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2009, 20:17 »
0
interesting poll.

My first sites were Alamy, Myloupe, & a couple other sites whose name I forget.  Due to low sales on the start up macro sites I managed to join and medium sales on Alamy, microstock looked intriguing and I joined Dreamstime and iStock, then came shutterstock, eventually Fotolia and the rest.

I am not really surprised that only start up sites were interested in my work though.  When I look back at it now it is pretty painful to see :)  I guess I have learned at least a little bit in the last few years, micro gave me the opportunity to sell my crappy photos and learn and become better.  Micro still pays the bills and is very enjoyable so I don't see myself quitting before I have to.

very similar story to mine :) rejected when trying to go for more than alamy / myloupe etc (and now I see why :))  - some useful advice at the time, rather than coming across some rather rude individuals I possibly would have persisted with macro :)

« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2009, 20:21 »
0
Hi there - interesting post indeed!

I run a small traditional agency dealing with travel images. Alamy and their 16 million and counting images has seen my market disintegrate. I hedged my bets about 18 months ago and stated with mico.

I could not care less about the old devalue macro rubbish - the customer pays what they want, and I have to earn a living.

I stopped accepting contributors for traditional licensed images - they got frustrated when we did not sell enough, and spent more time shooting my own pics rather than representing other photographers.

Bottom line for me, 18 months ago income was 100% macro, 0% micro. It's now around 60% macro, 40% micro - trend continuing.

Aplogies of the anonymity, it's because of those macro competitors left.

People still approach me to represent their material at macro level - I send them to Alamy (myself as well now) and micro, trad earnings are drying up for small agencies rapidly.

Best way to make money in this game, high volume shooting of sellable pics distributed to Alamy, micro, last few big trad agencies left. Note the high volume, not the Istock 15 or 20 a week,-  hundred minimum.

Rant over,

Oldhand

thanks for this, some food for thought.


« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2009, 20:42 »
0
I'm not too sure who you would have to be to actually get a contract from one of the big 2 trad agencies these days. I can say unequivocally that there are many awesome images offered on micro that would, even today, make way more if offered for sale in a good trad agency than on micro. I can also say with near equal certainty that these images would never have a chance of being represented there. Too bad for everyone.

« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2009, 01:21 »
0
..Best way to make money in this game, high volume shooting of sellable pics distributed to Alamy, micro, last few big trad agencies left. Note the high volume, not the Istock 15 or 20 a week,-  hundred minimum...

I started off doing 100 a week but couldn't keep that up.  It was no fun and a lot of the 100 were not going to make much.  I have slowed down a lot but my sales have carried on increasing, perhaps because I am starting to work out what sells.  I still upload far too much junk, perhaps  thinking too much about the size of my portfolio.  I am going to stick with a low number of uploads and try to increase the quality.

« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2009, 06:28 »
0
I am lucky in that stock photography is my full time profession, the most time consuming bit in production of images is the taking off pictures themselves. With a decent camera, there is not much editing to do in photoshop, captioning is starightforward, uploading (send overnight), categories etc, again straightforward.

As a one man band, I devote considerable hours to micro, this is where I would agree with the stock factory concept.


Saturday - cheap flight to Vienna from UK early morning, back Sat night. Full day shooting stock.

Sunday - download 600 pics from card, select 150. Caption, edit, upload, all done by tuesday.

People pics go to alamy, other editorial outlets. Rest go to micro.

Cost - 50 ($80) for flight, expenses (tax deducatble as well)  50 ($80)

One sale on alamy will pay for it all, micro is pure profit. Over a year I would expect to make a sustabtial return.

I have worked in macro for nearly 20 years, same priciples appled then as with micro - high output of good material, doesn't have to be excellent, just good saleable stuff.

Rgds

Oldhand

Interesting post but I'm struggling to accept some of the actual practicalities.

I've never heard anyone say "the most time consuming bit in production of images is the taking off pictures themselves" before. How that that be? It takes 1 second to point the camera and click the shutter but much longer to process, keyword and upload that same image to several agencies. In your example you took 600 images in one day but it took a further 2-3 days to select, process and upload 'just' 150 of them. Obviously that contradicts your original statement.

I do a fair bit of travel photography but I certainly don't get 150 saleable images in one day. I'd be delighted to get that many in two weeks shooting to be honest. If I spend a month 'on assignment', getting up at dawn and out shooting for 11 hours of daylight every single day (which becomes truly exhausting after a couple of weeks), then I might come back with about 7000 images of which maybe 200-300 will eventually be uploaded. I reckon I need to produce 7-10 images per day to ensure a reasonable payback for the trip and it's not that easy to achieve it. Even then I tend to regard such work as something of an indulgence commercially-speaking. I do it because I love it and microstock pays the bills whilst I'm doing it. I know that if I'd stayed at home and worked anything like as hard in my studio I'd have made a lot more money for a lot less cost.

The most productive (highly successful) microstocker was probably Hidesy in her hey-day. Incredibly she averaged 6-7 new images accepted every single day for nearly 3 years although she admitted in an interview that she normally worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week to achieve it. That equates to about 200 images per month and, by doing so, it gave her by far the largest portfolio on IS. The idea of any individual being able to consistently produce quality stock images at double that rate makes no sense to me.

There's no way you can fly from the UK to Vienna and back in one day for 50 either (or virtually any other continental destination) __ I wish you could. The few cheap carriers that operate in that price range send out one plane out per day, turn it around in 30 mins and then fly back. The next scheduled flight will be either the next day or 2-3 days later. To get those fares you have to book well in advance too so you'll be taking a chance on the weather. Grey skies will probably reduce the saleability of the images by 80%. Flying out early in the morning and back in the evening is also the premium time for business travellers so you'll either be paying a lot more for your flights or staying overnight (almost certainly the cheaper option). I live 10 miles from an airport from which two low-cost carriers operate to several European destinations but there's no way I can fly there and back in one day to any of them and still have enough time to do some photography __ not even close.

I don't doubt your credentials Oldhand but you appear to be painting a fantastic picture of an envious lifestyle which is unfortunately riddled with inconsistencies and impracticalities.

« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2009, 09:34 »
0
Why do all these old hippies need to be anonymous?  What is it they fear?

Quote
I produce 100 per week, every week. As the mico revenue has increased, I have increased output. Plan for the next six months, double that again.

Are these 100 planned out and executed shots, or are you just walking around shooting anything that moves, like most of what is on Alamy?  I can't imagine you are scheduling locations and models in foreign countries every 3 days.

« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2009, 09:39 »
0
I started stock about 4.5 years ago with Alamy and My Loupe, and about 3 years ago with Acclaim. I made one sale in one year on Alamy with around 600 images. I bought into the hype that micros were evil, but I was desperate to make money, and because of circumstances in my life (which I wont bore you all with the details) basically helping a family member, I couldnt work a full time job and needed a very flexible part time job which I couldnt find. So I started uploading to the micros and low and behold, I started bringing in money right away. So I kept shooting low-budget (to no budget) production still lifes and my income continued to build almost every month. I was also occasionally assisting a professional music, fashion, and Digital Vision / Getty stock photographer so I got to see behind the curtain of Getty production shoots and some were north of $20,000.

About 2.5 years ago I submitted my images to Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, Masterfile and a few boutique, high-end stock agencies. All turned me down. Getty (paraphrasing) wanted photographers who had advertising experience, had worked with art directors, and were willing to fund their own productions that were directed by Getty art directors. So basically, the Getty AD says heres what we want you to shoot, but you pay the bill and take all the risk. Jupiter basically said the same thing but wanted only paid for hire contracts. Corbis never replied to a number of inquires. One of the boutique agencies told me to go to iStock, the other wanted 1000 slides to consider, and all insisted on a photographer exclusive contract. I was blown away, I mean micros were cutting into the trades big time by this point and all were making the entry into traditional photography that much more difficult.

Continued micro, my income continued to rise. I continued with Alamy and Acclaim and started to make monthly sales with Alamy but still the two together only amounts to 1/8 of my total sales. A year and a half ago I started with Getty under their Lifesize collection, now Photographers Choice (the pay to play scheme) and technically make a lot more on a per image basis than with everyone else combined but the caveat is the $50 per image entry fee and that some of my images do not sale so its very daunting to consider placing a lot of images with Getty at $50.00 per image. I could easily lose a lot of money in placement fees.

Nine months ago I submitted a select group of images to Masterfile, Getty (asking for entrance into a different collection that I didnt have to pay for) and Corbis. Corbis didnt even look at my images, they just told me to send stuff to Snap Village. Getty said no, and Masterfile said no thanks. So, more for the micros.

Now I know my stuff is low production, and mostly still-life, but much of it is comparable to stuff I see on the big agencies, and clearly some people are paying top dollar for it (hence the sales on Alamy, Acclaim and Getty.) If the top agencies want to stem the micro flood they need to be more willing to help photographers get into their agency, a trial basis with a select number of images perhaps, some system and not just an entry barrier to all but the most experienced.

Anyway, I love shooting stock, I dont make a lot but I dont work that hard, very low key, part time job that pays the bills and allows me a lot of freedom and free time. I wish I could get into the better agencies but I see the barrier as more of a production costs issue than a talent issue. The photographer I assisted had assistants do everything. She would just show a tear from a magazine and say I want this lighting and the assistants created it for her, she didnt know how to do it. She had more of a directors perspective than what most of us think of a photographer. I helped her out on a few small projects that didnt require any technical lighting assistants and her stuff was just OK. I believe 90% of her success was being able to throw enough money at the problem. Im not saying she wasnt creative but I think many of us could recreate her success under similar circumstances and with enough money.  Ill keep trying for Masterfile and Corbis and slowly submit to Getty but Micro is paying the bills and without it I wouldnt be a photographer.


« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2009, 10:20 »
0

Stock Shooter,

You have the right attitude, never give up. I still keep a file of rejection letters I've received from agencies over the years. Many many of them. As opportunities present themselves there is a good chance you'll be there to benefit. I've found that in the assignment business half the trick is knocking on the clients door just as they are thinking of a project.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
55 Replies
17904 Views
Last post December 12, 2008, 18:29
by nebojsak
15 Replies
5915 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 15:34
by vonkara
8 Replies
5556 Views
Last post April 23, 2009, 09:27
by tan510jomast
12 Replies
5404 Views
Last post October 08, 2009, 18:18
by vonkara
47 Replies
14770 Views
Last post March 10, 2012, 18:02
by wut

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors