MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This sold for $228 ???  (Read 5251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 23, 2011, 19:18 »
0
I normally complain about the rejections I get or lack of sales or low commissions.   But I got blown away on this one.  Someone bought this for $228??   The image is ok but...... I rate my images on my computer from 1-5 stars.   Everything below 3 stars gets trashed.   This is a 3 star image the corner of an enclosed parking lot with an elevator shaft in one corner?????

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


« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2011, 19:25 »
0
Amazing! Was the shutter button pressed by accident or by your dog or what?

nruboc

« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 19:37 »
0
There is no way in heck that is a 3 star image!!








I give it a solid 4  ;D

« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2011, 20:08 »
0
must like the clouds. I have similar sales on Alamy. It is totally different type of client

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2011, 20:12 »
0
Congratulations!

Ed

« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2011, 20:37 »
0
...and this...it's why I like selling RM over RF Microstock.

Some people will bitch about the contributors with the 76,000 image portfolio of snapshots on Alamy...and others will realize that that person is making at least 3 times the average U.S. household income on that portfolio selling RM images.

I know this will be a snide comment but....learn from the experience  ;D

« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2011, 21:01 »
0
Yes Alamy is making surprising... sales :).

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

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

« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2011, 02:34 »
0
What pleases us aesthetically and what buyers want are often two different things.  This is why the microstock sites letting relatively inexperienced reviewers decide what's commercial are making a big mistake.

A buyer might be attracted by the copyspace, they might see that they can crop an image, they might just want something that looks like a snapshot, not art.  It's great having alamy and mostphotos.  They both seem to be doing better as their collections get bigger, unlike the sites that are rejecting much more.

RT


« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2011, 03:27 »
0
I'm working on a commercial job at the moment where we've bought a number of stock images like these (not we didn't buy yours) because the company makes a product that's used in commercial buildings and the result of their product is reduced energy and hence is kind to the environment, we needed shots of office buildings with trees in the image and a space to drop their product and some copy, so you see unknowingly you've created what could be (and obviously is) a very commercially viable image.

« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2011, 04:39 »
0
unknowingly you've created what could be (and obviously is) a very commercially viable image.

At micro sites this image would still be rejected because its "low commercial value"... :)

RT


« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2011, 06:17 »
0
At micro sites this image would still be rejected because its "low commercial value"... :)

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

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

rubyroo

« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2011, 06:21 »
0
Thanks RT for favouring sites with better commissions.  I have some designer friends who do the same, and I think that's wonderful.

@ the OP.  I wouldn't judge the choice, just enjoy it  ;)

Your port contained the image they felt best matched their needs.  That's all there is to it.  Do the happy dance :)

« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2011, 08:37 »
0
I cant remember the specifics, but a there was an image sold on Alamy for something like $20,000. It was an image of a fish market (if my memory serves me correctly) just a snap shot, it wasn't any production image or a famous photographer. I wish I could find the forum post of this but I cant even remember which forum it was on, I read so many and this was a good four or five years ago but it was legit. There was a lot of hoopla over it at the time.

RT


« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2011, 10:21 »
0
I cant remember the specifics, but a there was an image sold on Alamy for something like $20,000. It was an image of a fish market (if my memory serves me correctly) just a snap shot, it wasn't any production image or a famous photographer. I wish I could find the forum post of this but I cant even remember which forum it was on, I read so many and this was a good four or five years ago but it was legit. There was a lot of hoopla over it at the time.

Yes you're correct, it sold to a large merchant bank in the US, there was also a tin of tuna that sold for a lot (search Alamy for 'tin of tuna' and you'll see that loads of desperados uploaded their own shots after that sale, some people are so dumb!), and last year a terrible photo of Windsor castle with a blown out sky sold for thousands.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 10:23 by RT »

« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2011, 22:34 »
0
I cant remember the specifics, but a there was an image sold on Alamy for something like $20,000. It was an image of a fish market (if my memory serves me correctly) just a snap shot, it wasn't any production image or a famous photographer. I wish I could find the forum post of this but I cant even remember which forum it was on, I read so many and this was a good four or five years ago but it was legit. There was a lot of hoopla over it at the time.

Yes you're correct, it sold to a large merchant bank in the US, there was also a tin of tuna that sold for a lot (search Alamy for 'tin of tuna' and you'll see that loads of desperados uploaded their own shots after that sale, some people are so dumb!), and last year a terrible photo of Windsor castle with a blown out sky sold for thousands.

Tin of tuna, I have to see that one. :)

« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2011, 09:39 »
0
Your photo was worth $228 to the client. Micro prices can give a sadly distorted view of what the right photo can be worth to the right client.

BTW, recently on A, a client licensed a photo of a smashed monitor or TV set for thou$ands, and used tiny bits of the glass in a Harry Potter poster.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 09:42 by ann »

« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2011, 09:56 »
0
Your photo was worth $228 to the client. Micro prices can give a sadly distorted view of what the right photo can be worth to the right client. BTW, recently on A, a client licensed a photo of a smashed monitor or TV set for thou$ands, and used tiny bits of the glass in a Harry Potter poster.

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

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

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

Microbius

« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2011, 10:17 »
0
I've just been doing some design work for a client in the engineering industry and their attitude was just pay whatever you need to get the images you want. A few hundred dollars was nothing to them. If a big business happens to spot something you've got that they want the time wasted trying to find it cheaper is worth more than the few hundred they'd save.

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2011, 13:55 »
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

graficallyminded

« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2011, 14:26 »
0
One man's junk is another man's treasure sometimes... and beauty is in the eye of the image buyer.  That's why rejections for images not technically improper, has always been kind of redonkulous.  It's just a way for agencies to trim the fat.  Alamy doesn't do that; and yet lots of mediocre images still sell for hundreds of dollars more than really amazing stock photos.

« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2011, 13:19 »
0
hi gostwyck - re your response to "Micro prices can give a sadly distorted view of what the right photo can be worth to the right client...."

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

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

At this point in stock imagery history, I doubt it's a question of micro OR macro. Some stock photographers shoot virtually all images best offered on micro, some "all" on macro, some split between both...  and there's likely a 3rd option to what we know as macro and micro in the works.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 19:35 by ann »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1487 Views
Last post November 20, 2011, 17:21
by madelaide
16 Replies
5028 Views
Last post January 16, 2012, 00:22
by ann
0 Replies
1795 Views
Last post April 19, 2012, 20:34
by RacePhoto
8 Replies
2914 Views
Last post September 21, 2012, 12:52
by mtkang
4 Replies
2652 Views
Last post March 11, 2013, 08:01
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results