I don't know, would it really be so confusing (at least not more than RM/L)?

If a stock site would be able to properly manage a "you get what you need for the best/appropriate price" approach, everybody would be happy.

Prices could range from 1$ to maybe thousands of dollars depending on the use of the image. And all this heated microstock vs. macrostock discussion would just implode and vanish.....

Maybe that's naive - but being naive is one privilege of newbies...

I agree with Leaf.
I'm a contributor to micro and macro, and macro is not just Alamy for me i also have a (much smaller) RM-Portfolio at one of the biggies and several other RM- and RF-Portfolios at smaller Trads.
My Portfolios at micro and macro are extremely different (you probably wouldn't believe it it's the same photographer).
In general i like the idea of microstock and i also see the need for it, but i always had reservations against the nearly unlimited usage restrictions this is in my opinion completely unneccessary because a stricter restrictions for big usage wouldn't destroy the idea of microstock at all.

My personal experience of the last four years is that microstock was in the beginning very easy money no trad could compete with it even the biggies.
But these days are gone the trads in the middle (like Alamy) did suffer from microstock no doubt about it, but microstock become so competitive that even Alamy now can nearly compete the earnings possibilities of the micros (but please don't expect very typical microstuff bought through trads these times are gone) the earnings possibilities at the biggies are now much better than the micros unfortunately it is extremely hard to get anything in their collections.
Another note is that all my trads treat me much much fairer than the micros they all offer reasonable commissions (my lowest is 40%) and don't trying to fool me like FT did with how they introduced subsription etc. I feel very respected by them and not just like a number like the micros treat me.
I still produce stuff which simply perfectly fit in the microstock-market so i won't give up microstock completely but i put much more energy in the traditional market.
One advice for all which wanna go this way - you have to be very patient everything goes much slower there and you need reasonable sized portfolios to see any results.

Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.

That statement is fast becoming redundant.

Quote from: RT on June 06, 2008, 05:37

Quote from: Gizeh on June 06, 2008, 05:10

Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.

That statement is fast becoming redundant.

Meaning what? Do you disagree or do you feel this is already common knowledge?

No I mean that there aren't many sites that focus on single sales now, they're all adding subscription packages.

Wow you guys moan a lot... He didnt just get 20 dollars for it- he sold it probably hundreds of times. Time only pays a few bucks for this because that's what images are worth now! Nothing wrong with that. I certainly enjoy my massive payslips. We all obviously think it's worth it or we wouldnt keep doing it.

Wow, you obviously know more about my sales than I do.  This image have brought me about 40 dollars in total so far, $22.22 of those being the EL that Time bought from iStockphoto.    While it would be superb for a standard microstock image, for something that appeared on the Time cover it's nothing to write home about.  Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.

... Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.

Tearsheets don't count for one iota in the stock business. Sure, it's nice to get a prominent placement, but the only thing to benefit will be your ego. If you were a client-driven commercial photographer, this would probably open a few doors, and you could certainly approach a few notable and well-connected agents with it.

As it stands, though, with you being a part-time amateur, the only thing you'll get out of it is bragging rights and a feeling that you should have been paid more. I can imagine the look on people's faces when you tell them that you received only $22.22! Kind of embarrassing, huh?

On the flip side, this is the kind of publicity that may really benefit IS. Potential customers that may have previously dismissed microstock as being "amateurish" may now take a serious look at it. Which is good for all of us.

Though i understand your post i don't know what iota actually mean?

I used it in an abbreviated context. It's normally used in the common English phrase not one iota of difference to signify a meaningless distinction.

For me the drama would be the lack of the "credit" not the money.

I have done a few front covers on assignment and got $450 each so the $ is not enough to make you rich.

Also, despite those front covers, I have never had another assignment job ...

I also found it funny that a rock band had paid $1 for a photo for their CD cover and then had the nerve to complain about iTunes selling individual songs off the album "for a few cents".

Wow you guys moan a lot... He didnt just get 20 dollars for it- he sold it probably hundreds of times. Time only pays a few bucks for this because that's what images are worth now! Nothing wrong with that. I certainly enjoy my massive payslips. We all obviously think it's worth it or we wouldnt keep doing it.

i will have to agree. 22 dollars is still a lot more than say 50 cents.
what if you were paid 50 cents, or 5 dollars without having seen your image was used on TIme.
i think you would be celebrating.

the way i see it ... i wouldn't moan, and the more you moan, the more ppl like Time will look at it and stop using your images.
then ... perharps, you will have a justified reason to moan

catch my drift?

Hi SGC

Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html

I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.

NOW, that's just the thing I despise about newspapers,magazines,etc.
They charge their readers for a reprint and the photographer knows nothing about that.
I think in this case, the selling of framed prints,etc... is copyright infringement, or worst, hijack of an artist's work.
Booo!

Quote from: Adeptris on June 07, 2008, 10:41

Hi SGC

Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html [nofollow]

I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.

NOW, that's just the thing I despise about newspapers,magazines,etc.
They charge their readers for a reprint and the photographer knows nothing about that.
I think in this case, the selling of framed prints,etc... is copyright infringement, or worst, hijack of an artist's work.
Booo!

Thanks for the link, guys, I'll ask Time about why it does not work.
As for reprinting for profit etc., the iStock extended license allows all of that, so there is nothing illegal in their actions.  See the appropriate item in here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/extended_license_provisions.php [nofollow]