^^^ sean we all need to abolish subscription sites. that is about as low as one can get in this industry, and will eventually kill it. good to hear you are not supporting subscription sites. i wish everyone did that.

Quote from: Mantis on June 02, 2013, 15:40

Quote from: shudderstok on June 02, 2013, 15:15

^^^ sean we all need to abolish subscription sites. that is about as low as one can get in this industry, and will eventually kill it. good to hear you are not supporting subscription sites. i wish everyone did that.

Unfortunately "everyone" doesn't mean us.  If I went to DP and asked that they would say no you must close your account if you don't want to participate in SUBS.  Honestly, if they made that optional I'd bet most core contributors would do it. DP would and could never do it because of the competitive MS environment (most sites do it and would have to offer opt out).  I am ALL FOR KILLING SUBS if all sites would offer opt out AND most contributors opted out, driving buyers to OD (PAYGO).

You can upload selectively. You don't have to send every file to every site.

Most people don't do that though, they can't resist putting everything everywhere.

TBH, SS started me down this path by rejecting many good selling images as out of focus, when we went back there last year after quitting IS exclusive. At the time, I thought, if I can't put them on SS, there's no point having them on any micros. I thank them for it, I think it put us in a stronger position

DP has always made special deals for large portfolios. But in the end cutting deals happens everywhere. Yuri cut a deal with IS/GI, people will always have something to say about it. But in the end, big selling ports give you power.

You will no doubt say that many subs images are never used, and that may be true, but we could all have a much better living if we sold less images for just a bit more money.

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 02, 2013, 18:13

I believe its impossible to put subs out of the scene these days unless SS goes that direction (and all other agencies too), contributors won't leave a big part of their income (most doing from 30 to 60% at SS) dreaming with money they have no idea if other agencies would make up or not

I wouldn't say it wouldn't be better to remove subs from all agencies (maybe it would) but putting everything in the equation (other agencies income, strategy, etc) I believe that is impossible (once again sorry!)

You are probably right Luis, but that takes me back to my original point - you don't have to upload every file to every site.
I have decided which files I'm willing to sell as subs, and which not. The nots only go to non subs sites, and it's only common sense, as they aren't going to be big sellers anyway.

I agree with a lot of what you say Gostwyck, but Shudderstock has good points too.

Producing a cornish pasty on white for the little guy and selling it in large numbers for a few dollars is fine, but the big buyers are buying that image on subs for even less.

You will no doubt say that many subs images are never used, and that may be true, but we could all have a much better living if we sold less images for just a bit more money.

Much as IS was doing, until they overdid the more money part.

Quote from: gostwyck on June 02, 2013, 17:26

Quote from: shudderstok on June 02, 2013, 15:04

... now you just submit 3 images and anyone can be a "pro" as long as you spend your days on forums like this thinking you are a pro and complaining about everything.

But you are one of the few 'old-timers' (aka 'dinosaurs') who do "spend all your days on forums like this complaining about everything". Oh, the irony! I don't.

Personally I don't even consider myself a "pro", although I do earn my entire income from photography. As far as I'm concerned I'm merely a technician producing technically acceptable commercial images, at low cost, to be (hopefully) sold in sufficient volumes to generate profitability in weeks rather than months or years. It isn't art but it does pay the bills and it certainly beats working for a living.

If someone needs a picture of a Cornish f^*king pastie, or whatever, then I am more than happy to spend a couple of $'s buying one, photographing it in a variety of ways (then usually eating it) ... and then letting it generate the money to buy many more good meals over the next few months or years ... whilst I'm on the golf course.

What's wrong with that? I don't think we need fancy 'artistes' producing images of Cornish pasties, that require to be licenced for hundreds or even thousands of dollars per use, for them to able to make a living. Like all dinosaurs, they have to either adapt to the new world ... or die.

not to worry, i am one of those dinosaurs that did adapt. but i am also very glad i got my start when images of Cornish F^*king Pasities were worth more than just a free meal and I could invest the proceeds from a very profitable business income from photography. I do like your analogy though, and my bet is you won't be making a living shooting stock within the next ten years, and very few of us will, including myself. The writing is on the wall it's just a matter of time my friend. The agencies will most certainly be making tons of money, but the suppliers will shoot themselves in the foot by submitting to subs and creating a complete oversupply of images that are basically free.

i don't think i am pessimistic at all, rather realistic in where the industry is heading in terms of profitability for individual photographers.
As for being a clairvoyant, we all know prices for images won't really go up, so you more or less have to be realistic and accept this fact, and using a diversion like currency is not what the discussion is about. Once you start raising prices in this environment, buyers will shift, as happened with IS, of which is also trying to get into the sub game.
This combined with the technology involved and the total lack of editing at micros, means you get the deadly combination of over saturation of imagery. Sure the agency owner will make huge profits, but the supplier will get an ever declining slice of the pie, it's already happening and has been for years, and I really don't see that improving.
I hardly think a royalty of 0.38c as one friend got for the cover of an in-flight magazine is worth what you are deeming to be realistic - i think this image is worth much more and should be "highly distorted".
I am only suggesting that things will go south for most if not all photographers in the stock industry within 10 years based on technology, stagnant to declining prices of images, oversupply of images, a slowly diminishing print media, and an overall acceptance that photos are as you suggest more realistically priced at less than 0.50c for royalty free usage.
I really don't think you need to be a clairvoyant to see this one coming, low prices are here to stay, and oversupply is here to stay.

well i guess we are a bit different, or maybe a lot different. firstly i don't classify my work as sh!t, I prefer to think of it as very high end work, you know, the type of work that enabled me to cash in huge on the first gold rush pre getty, during the getty reign, and unlike your assumption, during the second gold rush at the micros, only IS. so please, don't speculate about me, and also, i am not gnashing my teeth as i have made a very good living shooting stock - better than most i'd say, and still continue to do so. i am also not clear where you read that I had the inability to earn money from stock so that is throwing me off a bit, i am however very clear that the returns for individual photographers will slowly diminish over the next ten years, and i think it will start with the ones who proudly shoot what they deem to be "sh!t", they are a dime a dozen on the micros. it will take the quality shooters longer, but they too will slowly have their returns diminish over the next ten years.

Quote from: shudderstok on June 02, 2013, 20:46

well i guess we are a bit different, or maybe a lot different. firstly i don't classify my work as sh!t, I prefer to think of it as very high end work, you know, the type of work that enabled me to cash in huge on the first gold rush pre getty, during the getty reign, and unlike your assumption, during the second gold rush at the micros, only IS. so please, don't speculate about me, and also, i am not gnashing my teeth as i have made a very good living shooting stock - better than most i'd say, and still continue to do so. i am also not clear where you read that I had the inability to earn money from stock so that is throwing me off a bit, i am however very clear that the returns for individual photographers will slowly diminish over the next ten years, and i think it will start with the ones who proudly shoot what they deem to be "sh!t", they are a dime a dozen on the micros. it will take the quality shooters longer, but they too will slowly have their returns diminish over the next ten years.

To be honest I'm finding that the real goldmine nowadays is to shoot sh!t ... but obviously to shoot it well. You'd be amazed how many popular subjects (i.e what the buyers actually buy) are staggeringly under-represented. All the money nowadays is in Cornish f^*king pasties. Well ... maybe not all of it ...  but most of it anyway.

Quote from: Travelling-light on June 02, 2013, 17:59

You will no doubt say that many subs images are never used, and that may be true, but we could all have a much better living if we sold less images for just a bit more money.

That's kind of how I see it. I'm not interested in leaving micro. I just want to get a little more out of it. After selling at a variety of prices, I have a pretty clear idea of where the best value/price of my work.