Author Topic: Do Micros really lower the value of Photos in every other field??? (Read 32427 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #75 on:** May 27, 2009, 08:30 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 07:31

what i would like to do is monetize my images that don't sell well or at all on macros.

but i'm afraid their payout is simply not worth it, i'll see how it goes, now i'm on shutterstock uploading some junk made years ago.

Yeah, I'm sure that will pay out in spades. You should be out traveling, shooting "editorial" of random, unsuspecting people and monetizing that. Why are you still here?

willie · « **Reply #76 on:** May 27, 2009, 09:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2009, 08:30

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 07:31
what i would like to do is monetize my images that don't sell well or at all on macros.

but i'm afraid their payout is simply not worth it, i'll see how it goes, now i'm on shutterstock uploading some junk made years ago.

Yeah, I'm sure that will pay out in spades. You should be out traveling, shooting "editorial" of random, unsuspecting people and monetizing that. Why are you still here?

Mr. Sjlocke, petrol (gasoline) costs money nowadays . 200 bucks don't go very far in a Volkswagen
van anymore . Old Hippy needs more editorials of beggars and elephants. Do you have a clue where to find them HERE?
:p

Old Hippy · « **Reply #77 on:** May 27, 2009, 09:41 »

if you're rough enough you can live pretty well with 6-700$/month in india, china, and indochina, all inclusive.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #78 on:** May 27, 2009, 10:16 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 09:41

if you're rough enough you can live pretty well with 6-700$/month in india, china, and indochina, all inclusive.

How is this useful information? Your not one of those guys who got kicked out of Freak Street in Kathmandu are you?

Nero the Fiddler · « **Reply #79 on:** May 27, 2009, 10:21 »

Everyone is allowed to say what they like on this forum within the sites rules even if you completely disagree. However remember when you attack someone without data and substance it makes you look threatened and weak. This poster should not be a threat to anyone here. To post just to be mean supports nothing and keeps people away from posting their thoughts here. There have been some good debates on this topic but please use your brains when making judgements instead of just useless banter it is far more helpful to the readers. If you don't have anything nice or informative to offer maybe just don't hit the send button.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #80 on:** May 27, 2009, 10:31 »

I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.

Xalanx · « **Reply #81 on:** May 27, 2009, 11:02 »

Quote from: pixdeluxe on May 27, 2009, 08:24

Perhaps researching and producing for micro is a better way of testing the waters..

That's the best advice you can get, Old Hippy.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #82 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:44 »

Quote from: Nero the Fiddler on May 27, 2009, 10:21

Everyone is allowed to say what they like on this forum within the sites rules even if you completely disagree.

Well, it's not up to me to make the rules here but calling people "naive" (at least that's what I read in "Microtards", maybe some native speaker can convince me that this can have a different meaning as well) is verbal abuse against everybody and - in my opinion - shouldn't be allowed on any forum. You can disagree with people but still keep some manners.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #83 on:** May 27, 2009, 13:00 »

Quote from: Nero the Fiddler on May 27, 2009, 10:21

Everyone is allowed to say what they like on this forum within the sites rules even if you completely disagree. However remember when you attack someone without data and substance it makes you look threatened and weak. This poster should not be a threat to anyone here. To post just to be mean supports nothing and keeps people away from posting their thoughts here. There have been some good debates on this topic but please use your brains when making judgements instead of just useless banter it is far more helpful to the readers. If you don't have anything nice or informative to offer maybe just don't hit the send button.

This from Wikipedia;

"One travel experience, undertaken by hundreds of thousands of hippies between 1969–1971, was the Hippie trail overland route to India. Carrying little or no luggage, and with small amounts of cash, almost all followed the same route, hitch-hiking across Europe to Athens and on to Istanbul, then by train through central Turkey via Erzurum, continuing by bus into Iran, via Tabriz and Tehran to Mashad, across the Afghan border into Herat, through southern Afghanistan via Kandahar to Kabul, over the Khyber Pass into Pakistan, via Rawalpindi and Lahore to the Indian frontier. Once in India, hippies went to many different destinations but gathered in large numbers on the beaches of Goa,[70] or crossed the border into Nepal to spend months in Kathmandu. In Kathmandu, most of the hippies hung out in tranquil surrounding of a place called Freak Street[71] (Nepal Bhasa: Jhoo Chhen) which still exists near Kathmandu Durbar Square"

Only Old Hippy could tell me if he was offended or not. I rather thought I paid him a slanted complement.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #84 on:** May 27, 2009, 13:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2009, 10:31

I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.

True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll.

bittersweet · « **Reply #85 on:** May 27, 2009, 13:32 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 27, 2009, 13:04

Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2009, 10:31
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.

True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll.

Come on, Leaf. Help him realize his dream of being a perfect 10!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #86 on:** May 27, 2009, 13:48 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 27, 2009, 13:32

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 27, 2009, 13:04
Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2009, 10:31
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.

True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll.

Come on, Leaf. Help him realize his dream of being a perfect 10!

I really don't think people should be banned for opposing opinions. OH may be a clown and a troll, but he's not as rude as some people who have "hit the road".

bittersweet · « **Reply #87 on:** May 27, 2009, 14:06 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 27, 2009, 13:48

Quote from: whatalife on May 27, 2009, 13:32
Quote from: RacePhoto on May 27, 2009, 13:04
Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2009, 10:31
I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.

True, but as trolls go, this one rates a nine. It would only be a ten if he not only caused a disruption, got people boiling, tweaked our noses with absurd insults and then... got banned. So he's only a nine. Or as a nine, a successful troll.

Come on, Leaf. Help him realize his dream of being a perfect 10!

I really don't think people should be banned for opposing opinions. OH may be a clown and a troll, but he's not as rude as some people who have "hit the road".

No, it's unlikely he'll be banned now that he's purporting to want to participate in microstock. When all he was doing was spouting off nonsense and calling us retards, there was a chance.

Nero the Fiddler · « **Reply #88 on:** May 27, 2009, 23:17 »

Zeus,

My comment wasn't directed at you we just posted at the same time and yours came up first. You are very informative on this site. Thank you for the Hippy info really interesting.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #89 on:** May 28, 2009, 01:57 »

Quote from: Zeus on May 27, 2009, 10:16

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 09:41
if you're rough enough you can live pretty well with 6-700$/month in india, china, and indochina, all inclusive.

How is this useful information? Your not one of those guys who got kicked out of Freak Street in Kathmandu are you?

Freak Street is now a joke, you better stay in Thamel, and even there it's becoming a sort of disneyland actually.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #90 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:28 »

Quote from: Xalanx on May 27, 2009, 11:02

Quote from: pixdeluxe on May 27, 2009, 08:24
Perhaps researching and producing for micro is a better way of testing the waters..

That's the best advice you can get, Old Hippy.

yes i'm testing the waters but the more i test the more i realize my photos arent cut at all for micros.
i've no glossy and marketing friendly stuff.

my stuff is good for travel editorial and nothing more.
i think i've zero chances of selling food and other niches on micros judjing from the ones on sale
on istock and others, all very "micro style" and done in industrial quantity.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #91 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:28 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2009, 10:31

I don't think anyone here takes posts from anonymous posters very seriously.

nowadays you better keep an eye on your personal data, not just in forums but also
on social networks and many more other services including stock sites.

there's people for instance that searched for my images and concluded i'm a sort
of junkie tripping in asia and getting sick staying close to beggars or poors o whatever
other crap ... be very careful unless you only shoot neutral
subjects like food or sunsets etc .. i've got a friend asking me if i checked myself for HIV
after all this time in poor countries... that's not what you like to hear after proudly showing
around your best pics, but hey people in the west is often like this, so you better keep a low
profile.

pixdeluxe · « **Reply #92 on:** May 28, 2009, 07:03 »

Quote from: pixdeluxe on May 27, 2009, 08:24

Good point, however the closure of istock, in the long term wouldn't be any more beneficial for Getty, the company. I believe Getty realizes the potential in istock for opening up the market and tapping into the 99% of the internet thats not buying images. The price point makes it more accessible for everyday people to buy images..

Just quoting myself here..

And, more relevantly, read this quick statement this morning. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photography_buyers_more_choosy_as_credit_crunch_bites_news_283384.html

Old Hippy · « **Reply #93 on:** May 28, 2009, 07:35 »

Quote from: pixdeluxe on May 28, 2009, 07:03

Quote from: pixdeluxe on May 27, 2009, 08:24

Good point, however the closure of istock, in the long term wouldn't be any more beneficial for Getty, the company. I believe Getty realizes the potential in istock for opening up the market and tapping into the 99% of the internet thats not buying images. The price point makes it more accessible for everyday people to buy images..

Just quoting myself here..

And, more relevantly, read this quick statement this morning. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photography_buyers_more_choosy_as_credit_crunch_bites_news_283384.html

that's not a problem for macros :

buyers can be more choosy but prices for macro images are rising.
Alamy lost 30% of earning in december according to their blog,
but it's still alive and kicking, opening up new office in NY and India,
Getty is still king of the hill, Corbis is surviving, and the list goes on.

what is really decreasing is the perceived value of photography as a whole.
photo journalists are getting miserable payouts nowadays, even sport
shooters in many cases due to extreme competition and cheaper prices.

problem is, photography was way over-rated before and it's right that
now it settles on normal prices since it's getting easier and easier to produce
hi quality pictures unlike just 5 or 10 years ago.

jayreilly · « **Reply #94 on:** June 03, 2009, 08:24 »

its probably not worth the debate. i doubt you will change his mind and i doubt your gonna stop contributing to micro channels. so whats the point?

jay

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #95 on:** June 05, 2009, 23:38 »

Diversification is the smartest move for any industry as it changes and matures. You all need to have your work in as many places as possible from RM to Micro to motion to music to what ever comes next. This market is producing more returns from the buyers than ever before.
Stock business sold 1.8 billion in Commercial and Editorial combined this past year a record year, RECORD!. Getty expects to do almost that by 2012 on there own, still tons of money to be made if you work hard and think smart. A very big growth in a year were few industries made any increase in sales or even survived. What would help everyone from the Hippy dude to all stock photographers is to spread your work to as many of the top paying outlets as possible, no not Alamy. Shoot your high end for RM ( Getty/Corbis and profitable third party agencies) and your bang it standard stuff out to the top ten Micro sites. Start looking into new markets you haven't tried like motion or music or graphics. Many hats keep you dry in the storm.
None of us should be thinking one or the other, it is all the same market and business that we share. The photographers did not build Micro they only supplied it with their work. If you really feel the need to blame someone blame the right people. The non photographic business owners that came in and screwed up the beginning of Micro from the start with their pricing structures. Always easy to drop your prices much harder to raise them.
I love a really good Filet and I am willing to pay for it. I also like a good greasy burger and the price set for these products even though they both come from a cow are very different yet neither product threatens the others sales. There are a million scenarios that support this.
If you don't like Micro that is cool don't shoot it. If you do like it then cool go ahead and shoot it. No patrol or police force out there telling us what we can't and can shoot. Play at your own level of enjoyment and capability.

Best,
AVAVA

ShadySue · « **Reply #96 on:** June 06, 2009, 04:36 »

My perspective (apologies to those who have read this before on the iStock forum):
Years ago I was accepted to Corbis, by sending them three trial slides, which they paid me about £35 each for to use on one of their very early RM CDs, IIRC. They then sent me a list of photos they wanted, based on my location and required 100 images on my next submission. Because of work and weather etc, this took me several weeks, and when I labelled them, and made up a submission sheet etc and posted them off, they were returned unopened (i.e. they'd skimmed the submission sheet but hadn't opened the slide parcel) saying they were no longer accepting 35mm. I was furious, as you can well imagine, as I'd gone to the places and shot the images specially, wasting time and money. There was no way I could justify a MF camera.

It took me a while to accept microstock for the reasons mentioned in the OP, but eventually I joined iStock, and while I'm never going to be a big player there, I've earned enough to get a 5DMk2 and two lenses, and I'm now submitting RM/Editorial to two midstock sites, which was what I wanted to do in the first place.

(Only one sale so far, but it's early days!)

What the 'big guys' didn't recognise was that there was an emerging market for smaller images for websites, and a market for images from smaller companies which just couldn't afford the high prices, and didn't require exclusive use of images.

F'rinstance, on of my images was chosen as the front cover of a book. It's a small, specialist publisher, and I doubt very much if the book will sell even 1000 copies (maybe not ven 500, but do they really print books with such a small print run?), but what do I know? If they'd bought an image at 'trad' prices, they'd probably have had to add about £2 on to the cost of the book, which might have pushied it too high for the target audience. I didn't get even an EL on that sale, but in fact that particular photo has sold 296 times on iStock so far.

But yes, I'm cool about that because it's a small publisher, the designer did IMO a lovely job on the cover, I'm very interested in the subject matter (and may even buy the book!). I'd be much less chuffed if it was a huge company which had paid peanuts for the image, but that's the way the game goes.

Perry · « **Reply #97 on:** June 06, 2009, 05:22 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 28, 2009, 07:35

prices for macro images are rising.

That shows you don't have any clue. Troll-meter 92%.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #98 on:** June 06, 2009, 11:24 »

To general a statement from the hippy about RM rising. However my RM is rising now again after a dip. It comes down to quality and knowing what to shoot. Rm is very strong if you are distributed properly and are a strong photographer that can play the game and follow the rules.
To Shady Sue. It often takes far more than one attempt to make it to the Corbis / Getty companies. Try not to let them get you down. There's is no doubt your RPI would be higher at Corbis with the right images than it will be right now at Micro. I understand it is frustrating I have been there as well. If you get a second chance to diversify to other models and income producing sites I would be willing to jump a few hoops to get there if I was you, just a but of friendly advice. Remember there is very little back end work in Macro than there is in Micro so you can spend your time shooting more and key wording less. Keep swinging for the fences, good post.

Best,
AVAVA

Mormegil · « **Reply #99 on:** June 09, 2009, 17:00 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 07:43

but talking about profits ... Getty is in deep crap at the moment.
last i heard was they were making huge profits with iStock
and losing a lot with macros, shooting in their foot, but hey
they call this "strategy", we'll see.

Better for Getty to shoot themselves in the foot, and have iStock as a good foot (stretching your analogy), than having somebody else buy iStock and shoot Getty in the foot.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do Micros really lower the value of Photos in every other field??? (Read 32427 times)

Sean Locke Photography

willie

Old Hippy

PeterChigmaroff

Nero the Fiddler

Sean Locke Photography

Xalanx

MichaelJay

PeterChigmaroff

RacePhoto

bittersweet

RacePhoto

bittersweet

Nero the Fiddler

Old Hippy

Old Hippy

Old Hippy

pixdeluxe

Old Hippy

jayreilly

Jonathan Ross

ShadySue

Perry

Jonathan Ross

Mormegil

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors