Author Topic: Microstock or not? (Read 14243 times)

Noodles · « **on:** August 31, 2009, 07:31 »

This weeks featured photographer on Dreamstime.com - Konradbak - beautiful work but is it Microstock?

cidepix · « **Reply #1 on:** August 31, 2009, 07:42 »

I just had a look at it. The first thing I thought was "Do you really have nothing better to do than question this guy?"

He is a good artist. Don't be jealous. He has very good download numbers as well. Not only is it art, but also it sells well.

All I will say is, congratulations to him.

Microstock or not? It is non of my business. It is better than most crap trying to get into dreamstime or other sites.

kaycee · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2009, 07:46 »

WHY NOT???

I like if some one dare to take a turn or twist at the usual stock stuff.
I think with me alot of designers too.

Noodles · « **Reply #3 on:** August 31, 2009, 08:09 »

No need to be antagonistic guys - I admire his or her work - but is it MS?

Perry · « **Reply #4 on:** August 31, 2009, 08:45 »

If it's sold on a microstock site it is microstock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** August 31, 2009, 09:18 »

Quote from: Perry on August 31, 2009, 08:45

If it's sold on a microstock site it is microstock.

There ya go

Noodles · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2009, 09:20 »

Quote from: Perry on August 31, 2009, 08:45

If it's sold on a microstock site it is microstock.

true - * shame, guy could do a lot better than selling there IMHO (and from some experience too) - testing the water or hard up I guess!

cidepix · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:26 »

Quote from: Noodles on August 31, 2009, 08:09

No need to be antagonistic guys - I admire his or her work - but is it MS?

Yes.

Anything sold for pennies on microstock sites qualifies as microstock. Doesn't even have to be a photograph.

Maybe you had some of your images rejected for "not microstock" reason?

"not stock" in their language translates to "rubbish work" . But only, kindly put!

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** August 31, 2009, 10:45 »

I just took a brief look. If that's "microstock", then the term no longer has any meaning.

dunsmore · « **Reply #9 on:** August 31, 2009, 11:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 31, 2009, 10:45

I just took a brief look. If that's "microstock", then the term no longer has any meaning.

It never did have a meaning other than stock sold on the cheap. Great portfolio I don't care how it's defined.

takestock · « **Reply #10 on:** August 31, 2009, 14:43 »

Well, this artist may have some images that you might not consider microstock, but if you go further into the portfolio, there is ceratinly a lot of micro stuff there as is evident for the number of sales made.

I have always considered DT to be more open to creative work and I like that.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #11 on:** August 31, 2009, 15:07 »

I guess the real question here is "how do you define microstock."

I'm of the opinion that it's "whatever the buyers on a microstock website want."

Clearly Konradbak is meeting a need... he has some good sales, especially considering he/she has been on Dreamstime only 5 months.

What I think others are getting at is the fact that this is a top-notch, talented artist offering breathtaking work for pennies. Clearly there's an evolution happening between stock and microstock that's been argued to death in this forum.

What this debate tells me is that there are a lot of people shooting models for microstock who are concerned that as the world's most talented photographers start uploading their ports to the microstock sites, it raises the bar for everyone else. For every Konradbak who jumps into this crowded pool, several whose skills don't measure up will be pushed into obscurity.

Adeptris · « **Reply #12 on:** August 31, 2009, 15:18 »

If it on sale on a microsite then it is microstock, the microstock model does not mean sub-standard or low quality, but quality, lower prices and higher volume.

What is a product worth, as much as a buyer will pay or as little as a supplier will accept, in this example it is the latter.

David

Noodles · « **Reply #13 on:** August 31, 2009, 17:58 »

Quote from: PowerDroid on August 31, 2009, 15:07

What this debate tells me is that there are a lot of people shooting models for microstock who are concerned that as the world's most talented photographers start uploading their ports to the microstock sites, it raises the bar for everyone else. For every Konradbak who jumps into this crowded pool, several whose skills don't measure up will be pushed into obscurity.

I think it just goes to prove its not what you know, its who you know - because if he knew the right people he would have no need to sell on MS

cidepix · « **Reply #14 on:** August 31, 2009, 18:22 »

Quote from: Noodles on August 31, 2009, 17:58

I think it just goes to prove its not what you know, its who you know - because if he knew the right people he would have no need to sell on MS

I am sure he is doing good outside of microstock as well. Every penny counts. Why not get the extra money, microstock has to offer?

Even the right people are having problems now that internet has taken businesses to a whole new level. Don't underestimate microstock. There are some world class images here taken by so called amateurs (!)

The right people were scared to death that these so called amateurs (!) were about to swallow them and took necessary precautions (Getty buying IS, Corbis turning to Veer)

Microstock is no longer amateur. All the image giants are involved.

Noodles, "you not making money" does not mean good microstockers are not making money. The money is pretty professional for some people. Microstock is not "hobbyist business" anymore.

Of course there are some daydreamers with sweet illusions but they don't change the fact that microstock produces some very professional images.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2009, 18:35 »

Quote from: Noodles on August 31, 2009, 17:58

I think it just goes to prove its not what you know, its who you know - because if he knew the right people he would have no need to sell on MS

It doesn't prove anything __ we know next to nothing about the guy. He may have only been on DT for a few months but he's obviously been using a camera, and probably selling images commercially, for far longer. Just look at the first few images he uploaded. For all we know he might just be experimenting with micro; it's no secret that revenues have been dropping elsewhere.

You could always site-mail him and ask if you're so intrigued!

hoi ha · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2009, 21:16 »

Quote from: Noodles on August 31, 2009, 08:09

No need to be antagonistic guys - I admire his or her work - but is it MS?

we discovered his portfolio about 2 weeks ago and jumped for joy - then downloaded a ton of his pics ... so yeah, it is microstock and it is good!!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** September 01, 2009, 15:26 »

Quote from: Noodles on August 31, 2009, 07:31

This weeks featured photographer on Dreamstime.com - Konradbak - beautiful work but is it Microstock?

Finally found the page and looked.

Anything that sells as stock is stock, if it's on a micro site, it's microstock.

Nice work, the models and lighting are very well presented. I don't see why glamor or green or purple hair, aren't micro? Maybe someone can explain more about why they think it's not micro?

HermanM · « **Reply #18 on:** September 01, 2009, 21:28 »

he raises the bar, but still is getting underpaid for the quality he offers. How many of his clients will pay top money for his photos out of the microworld once they find out they can get the "good enough" pic from Dreamstime for what would amount to less than the VAT of a comissioned work? And I hace to admit that in his case a "good enough" pic is a superlative pic! The problem I see is that many of us don`t see beyond the micros... Yes, they are here to stay. Yes, pros are entering every day and rising the bar. And yes, there is work that, despite being at micros, shouldn`t be, at least for the prices currently being paid at most sites and the cost of producing high quality images.

cidepix · « **Reply #19 on:** September 02, 2009, 05:06 »

Quote from: HermanM on September 01, 2009, 21:28

How many of his clients will pay top money for his photos out of the microworld once they find out they can get the "good enough" pic from Dreamstime for what would amount to less than the VAT of a comissioned work?

Too late!

I think his clients already moved to dreamstime and told him they can't buy his images anymore because they can get a fairly good quality from dreamstime and for only pennies!

That's maybe why he moved there. There was no longer a point to think if the clients would go to dreamstime. They already went to dreamstime and he thought "I might as well go there and make my clients buy my pictures again"

Noodles · « **Reply #20 on:** September 02, 2009, 07:44 »

well, ummm, yep - cheers

cidepix · « **Reply #21 on:** September 02, 2009, 08:10 »

Quote from: Noodles on September 02, 2009, 07:44

hmm, it's obvious some people here are clueless about photography earnings outside of MS - long may it continue I'm still curious why this guy in question has taken such a step - I'm going to PM him and see if I can find out!

I thought you were more curious "If it was microstock or not" but now you are curious about why he joined MS

U turn? I see!

Of course there are good earnings outside of microstock. That's what I said in one of my earlier replies.

But also he might have had a decrease and thought microstock is the reason, so he followed the trend and joined microstock before decrease became even bigger.

Because sooner or later the internet is going to kill all the businesses trying to keep alive outside of internet.

Noodles · « **Reply #22 on:** September 14, 2009, 07:54 »

Quote from: cidepix on September 02, 2009, 08:10

Because sooner or later the internet is going to kill all the businesses trying to keep alive outside of internet.

MS will kill or seriously injury Trad Stock - that's a given but there's heaps of work that require non-stock photography - always will be.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 18, 2012, 21:01 »

Quote from: Noodles on August 31, 2009, 07:31

This weeks featured photographer on Dreamstime.com - Konradbak - beautiful work but is it Microstock?

no LOL but after 3 years he has 17k sales at DT

rinderart · « **Reply #24 on:** January 18, 2012, 22:02 »

Conrad has been around for quite awhile and one of my Long time Favs and i have had him bookmarked for sometime along with Lev Dolgachev and quite a few other Pros in this business to use as examples for students and trust me this isn't all they do and it shouldn't be for anyone else either going forward if you have the stuff. If ya don't keep shooting isolated Kiwi or something. It's called Branding Guys. And when people look at someones work you can say Oh, That looks like a Bak Image. How many can claim That? it used to be you could spot a Yuri a mile away,Now you can't unless you see a familiar model. Don't worry about Conrad, he's doing His art and will have a career for a long time other than Microstock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Microstock or not? (Read 14243 times)

Noodles

cidepix

kaycee

Noodles

Perry

Sean Locke Photography

Noodles

cidepix

stockastic

dunsmore

takestock

PowerDroid

Adeptris

Noodles

cidepix

gostwyck

hoi ha

RacePhoto

HermanM

cidepix

Noodles

cidepix

Noodles

luissantos84

rinderart

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors