Author Topic: ...been a photographer for 25 years! (Read 18771 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** June 08, 2009, 17:06 »

It's true - advancing technology dilutes and ultmately erases the perception of hand-crafted value in many ways. Today it's so much easier to produce a well-exposed, focused, color balanced image. And composition is easier in a sense because we can afford unlimited trial-and-error.

But some values don't erode. There is still the small matter of getting something interesting in front of the camera. And beyond that, turn it inot something that pleases the eye, and maybe says something too. Those things always have a market, and not everyone can do them.

Mormegil · « **Reply #26 on:** June 08, 2009, 17:18 »

That last bit in the article about 42 sales is a bit silly. If he were selling that image on microstock, he'd likely get something like 4200 sales over the same period of time, giving him at least as much royalty income. Nor is there a mention of the vast number of stock images that never sell.

All of the old books I've read that mentioned stock photography mentions you get very few sales per image (average was about once per century) at a high cost, averaging $0.50 to $1.00 per image per year. Not corrected for inflation, microstock typically does better than that for me.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: ...been a photographer for 25 years! (Read 18771 times)

stockastic

Mormegil

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors