Quote from: gostwyck on June 02, 2013, 20:16

Quote from: shudderstok on June 02, 2013, 19:43

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.

I come from a completely different perspective than you. Eight, seven, six, five, etc years ago my income and my RPD was a fraction of what it is now. Things have only been getting better for me.

If I divide the total number of images in my portfolio now by the total sum I've earned in microstock since I started then it works out at about $50 per image. I'm pretty confident that if I were to die tomorrow (or stop uploading anyway) then my existing portfolio would eventually go on to double the amount currently earned ... even if it took another 20 years to do so (though I doubt it would take that long). On that basis every image I've ever produced for microstock has probably made me and/or my descendants about $100+. If you knew the sh!t that I'm shooting, and how little it costs me to do so, then that's utterly amazing!

Why on earth cretins old-timers like you are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth at their inability to earn money from stock photography utterly alludes me. The truth is we've had a Klondike-like gold rush in earnings potential in microstock. Where were you, with your supposedly wonderful skills, six, seven, eight years ago? You could have cleaned up. I only wish that I had the skills then that I have now back then. It would have been ludicrously easy money.

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: gostwyck on June 02, 2013, 05:35

....Your images would probably average $1 per image/month at SS, possibly better given time to become established in the default sort order. In other words if you uploaded 10K images to SS then they should generate an income of $10K+ per month...

Every uploaded image * $1/month? That calculation is doesn't make much sense. SS is good money tho.

Quote from: gostwyck on June 02, 2013, 05:35

....Your images would probably average $1 per image/month at SS, possibly better given time to become established in the default sort order. In other words if you uploaded 10K images to SS then they should generate an income of $10K+ per month...

Every uploaded image * $1/month? That calculation is doesn't make much sense. SS is good money tho.

If he wants to replace his iStock earnings from the micros then I'm pretty sure the only way to do it is to follow that path Yuri was on until recently and flood every single site with everything you can.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 03, 2013, 00:36

If he wants to replace his iStock earnings from the micros then I'm pretty sure the only way to do it is to follow that path Yuri was on until recently and flood every single site with everything you can.

Didn't Yuri end up deciding the exact opposite though and remove his port from everywhere?