Big banner on the home page at DP

Locke with DP??   I find that extremely hard to believe, surely not with their set base royalties? I thought he was dead against low-based royalty places as a code of honor.

The guy probably has a mortgage to pay.  Reality has a habit of trumping ideology. Presumably he will be on all the sites now.

"reallity has a habit of trumping ideology".  Yep thats for sure.

Quote from: falstafff on June 01, 2013, 02:14

Locke with DP??   I find that extremely hard to believe, surely not with their set base royalties? I thought he was dead against low-based royalty places as a code of honor.

I find the pricing and royalty level ok and on par with GL, for instance.  So, I'm OK with that.  No plans for "every" site.

have you opted out on subs? (if that is even allowed)

Cant help thinking. here comes Sean placing thousands of highly skilled images with a bunch of Micros thats has never had his images before.
Man!!  I would just hate to be a lifestyle, model shooter right now with all these smaller agencies. Got no chance in hell. Good thing is, some 75% specializing in this category will have to go back to the drawing-board and raise their standards or else. Goodbye Mr. Chips.

Healthy competition.

Quote from: falstafff on June 01, 2013, 02:14

Locke with DP??   I find that extremely hard to believe, surely not with their set base royalties? I thought he was dead against low-based royalty places as a code of honor.

I find the pricing and royalty level ok and on par with GL, for instance.  So, I'm OK with that.  No plans for "every" site.

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. Because of the high-volume it is also remarkably steady income too. If you can find a better return than that elsewhere, as an independent contributor, then I'd love to hear about it!

Quote from: sjlocke on June 01, 2013, 06:17

Quote from: falstafff on June 01, 2013, 02:14

Locke with DP??   I find that extremely hard to believe, surely not with their set base royalties? I thought he was dead against low-based royalty places as a code of honor.

I find the pricing and royalty level ok and on par with GL, for instance.  So, I'm OK with that.  No plans for "every" site.

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. Because of the high-volume it is also remarkably steady income too. If you can find a better return than that elsewhere, as an independent contributor, then I'd love to hear about it!

Maybe, but I'm in place right now where I don't need to support sub programs, and would rather not.

Congrats, Sean. I took some time to view your latest work and what a WOW factor it continues to be. You are a very talented artist.

Thanks!  I'd rather be shooting then keywording 8 years of images....  I quite like the new garden center series - I'm going to do a BTS blog sometime this week.

You're pretty good at analysing these things Sean - I and quite a few others would be interested to read your thoughts on which sites pass the 'Locke Test'.

Congrats Sean! I feel DP is a great site!

so this is what the industry has come to... guys like sean who produce decent work for a few bucks per pop. i would give anything to have the days back where we all get what an image is worth. get what you can now kids. if you asked me ten years ago, i would have never guessed we'd be selling work of this caliber for a couple of bucks per pop.

You'd never have guessed that they would sell in such volumes either ... by the tens of thousands per month if your stuff is good enough.

That never happened with the closed-shop, protective practices of "the good old days" did it? It was good for the chosen few that were allowed in but very bad for buyers and everyone else.

But don't DP have subs? We put a few hundred on there, but got very few sales (although I'm sure that won't happen to you Sean) - almost all sales were 30 cent subs.

In fact when we asked them to remove our photos, they offered a higher level, but with so few POD sales, it would have made little difference.

Has something changed?

Sean's images don't appear to be available to download via subscription on DP. Presumeably there's either an opt-out or they did Sean a special deal.

Quote from: Travelling-light on June 02, 2013, 14:57

But don't DP have subs? We put a few hundred on there, but got very few sales (although I'm sure that won't happen to you Sean) - almost all sales were 30 cent subs.

In fact when we asked them to remove our photos, they offered a higher level, but with so few POD sales, it would have made little difference.

Has something changed?

Sean's images don't appear to be available to download via subscription on DP. Presumeably there's either an opt-out or they did Sean a special deal.

It wasn't something I asked for.  I had told them I wasn't interested in licensing there since they sold via subscriptions. 

It was something they offered and on that condition (and partner distribution opt out), I accepted.  If others took the same approach at the Middle and Low Tiers, maybe it would make a difference.  I don't know.

half of the modern day shooters i see on all these microstock sites would have never seen the light of day in the good old days, and that was not due to closed shop protective practices, it was based solely on skill.

And many of the photos that I see on trad sites would never see a sale in microstock. There are literally thousands of skilled photographers that wouldn't have been accepted by trad agencies that now make their living with microstock.

If the buyer sees value in your work and you pay your bills, where is the problem?

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.

... 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.

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.

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!)

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.

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.

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'm not as pessimistic as you. The market should see out. It was highly distorted before "in the good old days" however time and technology has now caught up and provided a much more realistic value on the price of imagery.

I couldn't possibly predict the value of stock licenses in a decade from now any more than I could predict the value of any stock equity, commodity or currency over the same timescale. If you think you can do so then you certainly shouldn't be wasting your valuable time taking silly photographs! You should be making a fortune with your amazing clairvoyant skills.

Quote from: shudderstok on June 02, 2013, 18:48

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'm not as pessimistic as you. The market should see out. It was highly distorted before "in the good old days" however time and technology has now caught up and provided a much more realistic value on the price of imagery.

I couldn't possibly predict the value of stock licenses in a decade from now any more than I could predict the value of any stock equity, commodity or currency over the same timescale. If you think you can do so then you certainly shouldn't be wasting your valuable time taking silly photographs! You should be making a fortune with your amazing clairvoyant skills.

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.

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.

going to buy one of those pastries tomorrow at Morrisons

If one is in the pot above fire, one will feel nice at first, than a bit hot, then too hot  end eventually  jump out before it gets boiling and hurts that one.

Unless one is a frog, frog would stay in the pot and die slowly.   


 







 


 

DP - 49% income from subs
SS - 62%

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.

Put high-end work where it belongs, its rightful place and you will earn good money. As far as the rest, Gostwyck is quite right. It certainly dont belong in micro.
You wouldnt go to Marks&Sparks to buy Versace would you.

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.

using Yuri's father numbers (from SS forum)

4k downloads x 30 days = 120k downloads x 1$ (RPD) = 120k $ month / 60k files = 2$ per file/month

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.

Sean and I started microstock at about the same time and historically his images, relative to portfolio size (and before IS started messing about with the best match with exclusive bias, etc), sold about 5x more than mine. I currently average about 33c per image/month at SS so if that ratio still applies then he should actually be north of $1.50 per image/month.

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?

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?

I rather think that Getty is an option that is not open to Sean, so the best thing available to him could be Yuri's pre-Getty strategy (and I can't help wondering what was discussed that the Yuri-Getty meeting over Google Drive .... was he told that Sean was on the way out, so Getty was willing to make Yuri a very special offer to fill the gap? Of course, we will never know).