MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do Micros really lower the value of Photos in every other field???  (Read 19038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2009, 10:34 »
0
Free Enterprise.

I'm free to make and sell my work to anyone I want.

Free Market.

I can sell my labor and products for whatever price I want.

The guy who asked this question supports price fixing and restraint of trade.


Thats about how I feel. Unless Someone wants to pay me the price they feel I should be selling for... then they can handle their work how they want. I will handle mine my way. Got to pay for food and Diapers somehow.


« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2009, 11:13 »
0
...every other field. I doubt that wedding photographers are charging less because of micros.

The economics could cause greater competition among wedding photographers as more stock photographers seek outlets for the use of their time and the equipment they have already purchased for stock photography.

fred

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2009, 11:18 »
0
Oh great. "iStocker makes $10,000 on a single photo!" Story on Good Morning America yesterday. :(

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769

Let the next flood of applications begin...

(And get ready for all the excellent photographers to come here ranting because their perfect photos are getting rejected!!)

« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2009, 11:25 »
0
...every other field. I doubt that wedding photographers are charging less because of micros.

The economics could cause greater competition among wedding photographers as more stock photographers seek outlets for the use of their time and the equipment they have already purchased for stock photography.

fred

The wedding photography biz is already quite crowded and competitive.
The Yuris of that field charge an arm and a leg, but the rest have to scrape along and just settle for the table scraps ;)
A close and frugal friend of mine had her wedding shot for a mere $500.00
I saw the results and they were quite good. They downside was, he just gave them a disk of their shots and that was it. No Album, no slideshow no framed prints... nada.

I have shot a couple of weddings. I made more on each one than i do in a month of sales in Micro.

« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2009, 11:28 »
0
Oh great. "iStocker makes $10,000 on a single photo!" Story on Good Morning America yesterday. :(

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769

Let the next flood of applications begin...

(And get ready for all the excellent photographers to come here ranting because their perfect photos are getting rejected!!)



OMG, and it is JJRDs photo.!
ETA: I just watched the video. This was just a free advertisement for IS. Good for them. It will drive a lot of looky-loo traffic to the site.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 11:33 by nosaya »

bittersweet

« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2009, 11:37 »
0
Oh great. "iStocker makes $10,000 on a single photo!" Story on Good Morning America yesterday. :(

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MakeMoney/story?id=7667769

Let the next flood of applications begin...

(And get ready for all the excellent photographers to come here ranting because their perfect photos are getting rejected!!)



OMG, and it is JJRDs photo.!
ETA: I just watched the video. This was just a free advertisement for IS. Good for them. It will drive a lot of looky-loo traffic to the site.


Not if the comments are any indicator. The geniuses just can't figure out the link for that site in the video! Isn't someone going to post it for them????:D

KB

« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2009, 12:15 »
0
There was a graphic that said you earn $1 to $6 per sale.

Hey! I'm being cheated!!!  ;D  ;D  ;D

« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2009, 13:11 »
0
 I believe anyone that shuts the door to innovation based on emotional decisions rather than calculated ones are always going to be a step behind. I imagine his reluctance to invest in Micro is he saw it diminish his Macro returns and is a bit shy of trying new things. Many people resist change to the bitter end. On the other hand having your images in all portions of the industry makes the most sense as a business person invested in the stock industry, diversity. One person on this post said they would love to hear more about Macro here. That is a wonderful attitude I am sure he will grow from his open nature in his business. I have found that there is quite a division from both Micro and Macro towards each other especially on this site. I hope his statement shows the migration of the entire industry instead of the two models standing on their soapboxes denouncing each other. Now let me climb down off of mine : )

« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2009, 18:15 »
0
An average of almost US$3 per dld.  Geez, I'm jealous!

PS: did the sites pay to have their names at the end of the article??

bittersweet

« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2009, 18:57 »
0
PS: did the sites pay to have their names at the end of the article??

I wondered the same thing... a strange assortment, I thought.

« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2009, 19:14 »
0
Quite the group of intellectuals reading the GMA site there...

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2009, 19:24 »
0
I believe anyone that shuts the door to innovation based on emotional decisions rather than calculated ones are always going to be a step behind. I imagine his reluctance to invest in Micro is he saw it diminish his Macro returns and is a bit shy of trying new things. Many people resist change to the bitter end. On the other hand having your images in all portions of the industry makes the most sense as a business person invested in the stock industry, diversity. One person on this post said they would love to hear more about Macro here. That is a wonderful attitude I am sure he will grow from his open nature in his business. I have found that there is quite a division from both Micro and Macro towards each other especially on this site. I hope his statement shows the migration of the entire industry instead of the two models standing on their soapboxes denouncing each other. Now let me climb down off of mine : )

^^ This is so true.  I think the natural evolution is for macro photographers to become curious about participating in micro.  I also think it is natural for micro photographers, as we develop our skills and learn this trade, to want to place some of our more high production shoots in macro stock. 

So far my modest foray into Alamy is not paying big dividends, but I am hopeful it will over time.  If I see it starting to pay off I may shoot some concepts just for macro.

More and more there will just be a "stock industry" and the divisions between micro and macro will be more about production value and price point, rather than between shooters.  I hope :)

But then this is all speculation on my part.  My crystal ball has been in the shop, after all ;D
« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 19:30 by lisafx »

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2009, 11:55 »
0
i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).

i understand for many amateurs micros are way better than giving away their pictures for free on Flickr but if we talk about business it's a bad bad bad idea.

on the other side, i wouldn't be so sure that micros are "ruining" the market :
i shoot editorial travel photography and my sales are on the rise.

micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms
of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines.


as a rule of thumb, micros will erode the market for pictures that are easy to take but don't expect much more : buyers used to buy from macros will laugh at the choice of images they would find on iStock & friends.

« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2009, 13:17 »
0
i shoot editorial travel photography and my sales are on the rise.

micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms
of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines.


as a rule of thumb, micros will erode the market for pictures that are easy to take but don't expect much more : buyers used to buy from macros will laugh at the choice of images they would find on iStock & friends.

At last you're talking a little sense. Relatively few microstock sites will accept 'editorial travel', certainly not Istock, so you couldn't sell them there even if you wanted to. Also editorial travel is one of the 'low forms of photography' __ it's much harder to get those cumbersome MRs and PRs required for commercial uses.

Microstock will probably never be a good place to sell the vast majority of travel imagery because by nature they are so location-specific they are never likely to sell in the volumes required to justify the cost of obtaining them.

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2009, 13:50 »
0
exactly, that's why i'm not afraid of micros, at least for now :

what happens if one day micros decide to sell editorial as well ?

i'm not gonna sell my images for 0.25$ but there certainly are 100s of amateurs willing to do it,
even just for fun as they do it already on sites like Flickr.


« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2009, 14:07 »
0

what happens if one day micros decide to sell editorial as well ?



Some already do!

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2009, 14:13 »
0
yes but no serious editorial photographer can live with micros earnings.

they will get tons of holiday pictures, but this is scaring, as it can escalate quickly
and erode macros market share.


« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2009, 14:19 »
0
yes but no serious editorial photographer can live with micros earnings.

they will get tons of holiday pictures, but this is scaring, as it can escalate quickly
and erode macros market share.


Too many threads, same problem! Could we have one big gripe instead of several small ones? Makes it more easy to help  ;)

Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2009, 14:23 »
0
nevermind.

i'm off for a sh-it.

see ya tomorrow.

« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2009, 14:26 »
0
nevermind.

i'm off for a sh-it.

see ya tomorrow.

Thought you had already been doing that!

« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2009, 14:57 »
0
i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).


Out of interest, when you undertake a travel photography trip, how long do you expect it to take for the commission from image license sales to recover the basic costs of doing that trip?

When I say 'basic costs' I mean just the direct cost of travel and accomodation, etc not food & drink and paying yourself a wage.

Selling my travel images on microstock I reckon it probably averages about 2 years. I don't consider it to be a particularly commercial use of my time (although it will turn a profit eventually) in comparison to other subject matter but it is something I enjoy so it is largely an 'indulgence' and a rewarding means of reducing my tax bill.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2009, 15:13 »
0
This forum is named 'microstockgroup' right?  I think anonymous people who come here to troll the whole idea (old hippy) should get some enforced time off? What is the point in allowing people to debase the other members, especially without id'ing themselves.   Why not go to bodybuilding.com and tell everyone they are a steroid meathead? Nothing better to do anyhow right?

helix7

« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2009, 15:54 »
0
...micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines...

Those "low forms" of art like vectors have a higher ROI than photographs by a huge margin, usually between 8 and 10 times per image.

And what market was there really for vectors before microstock? If anything microstock gave vector artists new life in stock that hardly existed before.


Old Hippy

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2009, 16:42 »
0
vectors are vectors, illustration, graphic design, but not art, sorry.



p.s.
i'm talking about micros in a micro forum, can't see what's wrong about it.
and im not gonna link my portfolio on a public forum, thanks.

lisafx

« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2009, 18:49 »
0
i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).


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 have to say, this doesn't in any way persuade me that selling RM would be at all worth my time.   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2834 Views
Last post November 21, 2006, 11:48
by FunkMaster5
9 Replies
4552 Views
Last post December 05, 2007, 15:58
by ManicBlu
143 Replies
29020 Views
Last post August 29, 2011, 04:03
by sharpshot
7 Replies
2857 Views
Last post July 25, 2015, 11:24
by Dodie
10 Replies
3020 Views
Last post January 19, 2017, 21:42
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results