MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do Micros really lower the value of Photos in every other field???  (Read 27953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2009, 18:57 »
0
Actually I would like to see list of agencies I can submit and get $200 per photo as this guy claims :-)


« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2009, 19:00 »
0

I haven't seen anyone else respond to this, and I don't have much work on macro agencies yet, but isn't $20-30 per sale rather pathetic for RM macro??!  I get more than that on most EL licenses through the micros.

Again, forgive my ignorance, but I thought the range for RM royalties through macro agencies was more like $200-300 and up into the thousands.  To sell RM for that low a royalty is shocking.  Particularly when there is no volume to compensate the low price. 
  

I thought exactly the same Lisa __ but in fact there are so many holes in his various stories that most likely he is just talking nonsense about a world of which he knows nothing. BS basically.

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2009, 19:05 »
0
__ but in fact there are so many holes in his various stories that most likely he is just talking nonsense about a world of which he knows nothing. BS basically.

Ah.  Now that makes sense.

I will have to be more careful about feeding trolls... ;)

« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2009, 19:08 »
0
I haven't seen anyone else respond to this, and I don't have much work on macro agencies yet, but isn't $20-30 per sale rather pathetic for RM macro??!  I get more than that on most EL licenses through the micros.

He may have meant as a minimum ("at least 20-30$ each").

« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2009, 19:10 »
0
Actually I would like to see list of agencies I can submit and get $200 per photo as this guy claims :-)

true, until we see some names and portfolio, oldfart could well be tooting air from his ar$ehole
... just a lot of loud noise (no pun intended).

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2009, 19:12 »
0
poor microtards.

RM can pay 20$ as it can pay 2000$ depending on many factors.
if you sell in third world countries dont expect more than 30$ for instance.

if you sell a double page editorial expect at least 200$ up to 400$.

and if you sell for Getty you can go up to the 1000s of $.



@melastmohican :

Alamy is a good start, then there are many specialized agencies depending on
what you shoot.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #56 on: May 26, 2009, 19:30 »
0
poor microtards.

RM can pay 20$ as it can pay 2000$ depending on many factors.
if you sell in third world countries dont expect more than 30$ for instance.

if you sell a double page editorial expect at least 200$ up to 400$.

and if you sell for Getty you can go up to the 1000s of $.



@melastmohican :

Alamy is a good start, then there are many specialized agencies depending on
what you shoot.

was at Alamy looking for 'mumbai beggar' and 'elephant indonesia', don't see no elephant or beggars,  only bulls

helix7

« Reply #57 on: May 26, 2009, 20:18 »
0
vectors are vectors, illustration, graphic design, but not art, sorry...

Illustrations are no less art than travel photos.



« Reply #58 on: May 26, 2009, 20:24 »
0
vectors are vectors, illustration, graphic design, but not art, sorry...

Illustrations are no less art than travel photos.


I doubt that he considers travel photos art either. He sounds to me that he has more of a 'technical' mindset about this whole business.
But then again, physicians refer to their craft as the 'art' of medicine... so there ya go.

« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2009, 01:15 »
0
if you sell a double page editorial expect at least 200$ up to 400$.
and if you sell for Getty you can go up to the 1000s of $.

Oh man, how do I wish one of my images had paid me hundreds or even thousands of dollars. That would have been worth my time, really... And the only thing I'd have to do for it was to submit thousands and thousands of blurred and underexposed images and wait for five years to have five of them sell.

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #60 on: May 27, 2009, 02:55 »
0
macrostock never paid quickly.

a photo can take months, or even 2 years to make a single sale.

but it's once again a matter of concept : when and if it sells, it's gonna be paid the RIGHT price
and used with the right licence.

therefore, you're not hurting other photographers, customers pay good prices, the agency gets its
share, everybody is happy.

on the other side, nobody knows where the microstock industry will be heading in 6 months.
you can't make a solid long term business with the actual micro trends.

the future of micros is going free or lower even more the pricing.
read again this thread in 2010 and check if i'll be wrong.

« Reply #61 on: May 27, 2009, 03:51 »
0
...the future of micros is going free or lower even more the pricing.
read again this thread in 2010 and check if i'll be wrong.
Look back and people have been saying that for years but microstock prices are much higher than they were a few years ago.  istock started out as a free site, StockXpert grew out of a free site, that is the past and I don't see any logical reason why they would go back there.

« Reply #62 on: May 27, 2009, 04:04 »
0
read again this thread in 2010 and check if i'll be wrong.

Ok, agreed. Let's leave it at that for now and come back to it next year.

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: May 27, 2009, 05:08 »
0
no need to wait for 2010.

read some comments posted by your hero Yurj in this very forum some time ago...

« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2009, 05:56 »
0
no need to wait for 2010.

At least it would give enough time to at least collect some facts. Might make for an interesting conversation then. At least you'd get some credibility.

Xalanx

« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2009, 06:30 »
0
no need to wait for 2010.

read some comments posted by your hero Yurj in this very forum some time ago...

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep spelling his name this way? It's Yuri, not Yurj. I know "i" comes near "j" on keyboard but it appears you're doing it on purpose. There are people here who don't like him, but this kind of trying to minimalise him by repeatedly spelling his name wrongfully looks childish, isn't it.
Besides, his pessimistic posts from long ago do not really apply today. Search on forums, there is a place where he says how much he made from this abominable microstock last year. It'll pop out your eyes.
He is not the only one person who got rich by microstock-ing. In fact some of the people with whom you "exchanged opinions" on this forum make lots of money. Multiple times your revenue, I'm quite confident. Imagine they're simply having fun reading your wisdom-overwhelmed posts.
And again, as many others said already - you're new here, you're not backed up by a portfolio which people can see, or at least a name. Hence - no respect, no credibility.

I wonder where Yurj is now, maybe desperately taking some shots trying to survive in the market. Yo, Yurj, come here and play, man!

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #66 on: May 27, 2009, 06:57 »
0
no need to wait for 2010.

read some comments posted by your hero Yurj in this very forum some time ago...

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep spelling his name this way? It's Yuri, not Yurj. I know "i" comes near "j" on keyboard but it appears you're doing it on purpose. There are people here who don't like him, but this kind of trying to minimalise him by repeatedly spelling his name wrongfully looks childish, isn't it.
Besides, his pessimistic posts from long ago do not really apply today. Search on forums, there is a place where he says how much he made from this abominable microstock last year. It'll pop out your eyes.
He is not the only one person who got rich by microstock-ing. In fact some of the people with whom you "exchanged opinions" on this forum make lots of money. Multiple times your revenue, I'm quite confident. Imagine they're simply having fun reading your wisdom-overwhelmed posts.
And again, as many others said already - you're new here, you're not backed up by a portfolio which people can see, or at least a name. Hence - no respect, no credibility.

I wonder where Yurj is now, maybe desperately taking some shots trying to survive in the market. Yo, Yurj, come here and play, man!

Maybe the old dude really meant YURJ not Yuri. WHich Yurj? dude???
if you mean Y-U-R-I, he has his own blog, why not post your voice that and face off with him instead?


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #67 on: May 27, 2009, 07:01 »
0
Furthermore, when Y-U-R-I does come in here, he backs it up what he says with concrete evidence of what he writes. Even sends us a video once in a while.
How about doing the same , OLD HIPPO !

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #68 on: May 27, 2009, 07:05 »
0
in russian it's written YURJ, his spelling might be a nordic variant.

« Reply #69 on: May 27, 2009, 07:19 »
0
poor microtards.

GettyImages distributes images from flickr, which is not a lot more than a place to upload snapshots., thru RM and RF channels.

GettyImages bought iStock, the (prob. disputed) leading agency in micro and invited all contributors with more than 10,000 downloads to contribute images to the parent site.

Bottom line, the world's largest supplier of images is paying heed to both microstock and the massive power of user generated content on the internet (thru flickr).

Plus, most macro shooters are struggling or looking at expanding into micro with mixed results. Its an evolution, get used to it.


 

« Reply #70 on: May 27, 2009, 07:31 »
0
poor microtards.

GettyImages distributes images from flickr, which is not a lot more than a place to upload snapshots., thru RM and RF channels.

GettyImages bought iStock, the (prob. disputed) leading agency in micro and invited all contributors with more than 10,000 downloads to contribute images to the parent site.

Bottom line, the world's largest supplier of images is paying heed to both microstock and the massive power of user generated content on the internet (thru flickr).

Plus, most macro shooters are struggling or looking at expanding into micro with mixed results. Its an evolution, get used to it.


 


That's right Old Hippy, it's evolutionary, and pretty much like MACROphages, seek and destroy ! Hmm?

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #71 on: May 27, 2009, 07:31 »
0
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.

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #72 on: May 27, 2009, 07:43 »
0
it's still to be proven that Getty makes ANY profit from Flickr.

they're doing it for the monopoly in order to kill the direct competitors

(see Jupiter Images and many other less known macros and local agencies
bought in the last 2 yrs)

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.


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #73 on: May 27, 2009, 07:46 »
0
it's still to be proven that Getty makes ANY profit from Flickr.

they're doing it for the monopoly in order to kill the direct competitors

(see Jupiter Images and many other less known macros and local agencies
bought in the last 2 yrs)

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.



Why wait and see , dude? Look into your crystal ball and tell us the future , man !

« Reply #74 on: May 27, 2009, 08:24 »
0

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.



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..

I recently had a talk with a photog who is in the top 10 sellers in macrostock (how he knew his rank, i don't know). He was at a loss to know what to do with a few 1000 images that were 5-6 years old and were being released by the agency where they were being sold. Theres no easy advice, some of it was shot on film and would have a tough time getting thru QA, at any micros. Is that relevant to your situation? Perhaps researching and producing for micro is a better way of testing the waters..


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4526 Views
Last post November 21, 2006, 11:48
by FunkMaster5
9 Replies
6343 Views
Last post December 05, 2007, 15:58
by ManicBlu
143 Replies
43732 Views
Last post August 29, 2011, 04:03
by sharpshot
7 Replies
6699 Views
Last post July 25, 2015, 11:24
by Dodie
10 Replies
6974 Views
Last post January 19, 2017, 21:42
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors