jeepers creepers.... You put Poland in the same basket with Ukraine ? I congratulate you on the knowledge of the contemporary world.... and invite you to Poland, you would be surprised that girls do NOT have 'Eastern' faces in a way you connotate it.

What you mean under term the "Eastern faces"...?

In which group of nations belongs  Ukraine and Poland ?! As well as Croatia ...
Faces do not change so easily , especially in neighboring countries ...Living standards maybe...

What are you talking about!!!?
Have you ever been somewhere in Eastern Europe, especially in shopping...?
I live and Croatia, so...

I have been debateing this here over and over. There is an illusion that life in a 3rd world country is very cheap.  In some aspects, it is (food here in Brazil is very cheap), but in anything that is not very basic - as it is the case with electronics and comm services - prices are huge (taxes are a big culprit in that).  I pay about US$70/mo for a 6Mbps internet connection, cameras & acessories cost at least twice the price in USA, gasoline costs the same as in Europe (even being self-sufficient in oil).

Rio is currently world's 3rd in the Big Mac index.  Gladly I find McDonald's totally unappetizing. 

Of course we need to keep out of comparison the bigger cities, because cost of life in them, especially housing, is so out of the average.  Even here in Rio, the difference in price for living in a decent 2-bedroom apartment varies absurdly between different middle-class neighbourhoods.

Though I am not a photographer I have been following these forums for some time as I believe stock photo sales are a good way to take the pulse of the economy.  In addition, I am an occasional image buyer for both commercial and personal use.  The intent of this posting is to express my pet peeves with the current microstock model and to offer an opinion from the non-pro buyer position.  I am not sure if I am typical, but hopefully this may offer some insight into buyer behavior.

Based on my own experience I cannot stand the following aspects of microstock buying and this has greatly limited my purchases to absolute essential buying:

Indirect, cumbersome buying  -  Why can't I just purchase an image and agree to a license like on itunes.  Instead I am greeted by having to figure out credits or buy an expensive subscription.  This one aspect alone reduces my purchases by at least 80% because it is a pain in the $&^^%

Keyword spamming  -  There should be zero tolerance for contributors that include all types of unrelated keywords.  Search for almost anything on typical microstock sites and you gets tons of unrelated stuff.  For example I recently searched for images of children playing basketball for a local youth newsletter.  Probably 70% of the results contained only adults.  After page 3 of results it was bye, bye.

Junk and more junk  -  I agree totally with an earlier post.  After a certain period of time with minimal or no sales images should be removed from the search and only included in the photographer profile.  The way it is currently, you find the spectacular (though often completely staged looking and seen everywhere on the web) images in the beginning pages and then you get to go through tons of pages of results to find something high-quality but "real".

Too expensive for non-commercial  -  Sometimes an image is beautiful or artistic and you just want a digital copy.  For anybody that does not have a subscription the price is too costly in a depressed economy.  Now I know some may be inclined to give me the lecture on production costs, etc... but the reality is customers don't care about this and for such an impulsive purchase they will simply walk away and look elsewhere.

Sorry for the sarcasm and being so blunt.  My intention is not to offend anyone.  It is to awaken some that are receptive to the message.

On one final tip, more and more I, and probably many others are beginning to do their image searches on google.  This way I can search all private sources and agencies at once.  I believe global searches will dominate in the next few years.

On one final tip, more and more I, and probably many others are beginning to do their image searches on google.  This way I can search all private sources and agencies at once.  I believe global searches will dominate in the next few years.

Agree. But you'll have to wade through much more garbage since GI doesn't have QC, and that's what sets the sites apart. What's more, on most images on GI isn't any licensing info.

I agree with all of your points, imgbuyer. As a contributor, I don't have a problem removing files that don't sell. Except for the guys who have been photographers their whole life, those of us who cut our teeth in microstock had some stinkers in the beginning. If I were asked to remove them, I would. If I'm not asked, I'm going to leave them there, on the off chance somebody decides to buy one. And that has happened.

As a buyer (not a huge buyer), your #2 and 3 points are right on.

On one final tip, more and more I, and probably many others are beginning to do their image searches on google.  This way I can search all private sources and agencies at once.  I believe global searches will dominate in the next few years.

I'd agree with a lot of what you're saying but the agencies are the ones you should be directing this at.

Could you elaborate on you use Google images? I tried using it to find stock images and it was pretty frustrating. The results were mixed with everything. Some agency stuff, blog photos, Flickr, website images, and you name it. Didn't seem like an efficient way to find a licensable image.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on August 10, 2010, 22:29

Could you elaborate on you use Google images? I tried using it to find stock images and it was pretty frustrating. The results were mixed with everything. Some agency stuff, blog photos, Flickr, website images, and you name it. Didn't seem like an efficient way to find a licensable image.

Agreed.  ^^

I always assumed people that searched for images via google images were not really looking to license images - just take them.  Hard to believe that professional image buyers would want to slog through that mixed bag to find an image for a legitimate project. 

Anything for a freebie.

Thank you everyone for responding.  I will try to answer a few of the questions posted.

I started using google image search mainly out of frustration using the microstock sites.  Yes, it is more cumbersome but you can find some great "original stuff".  In most cases the owner will grant permission for free or for a small fee.  At the established agencies you get to see what the gate keepers approve of and nothing else.  Because of this much of the stuff looks the same--perfect and fake.  Also google image search gets better and more targeted everyday.

The reason why itunes works so well is because you are converting music thieves and traders into music buyers.  Because songs became so cheap and easy to purchase they became an "impulse" purchases and it was no longer worth the hassle of trading them.

Microstock seems to be going the exact other way and the only people impulse buying are those with subscriptions.

Microstock sites need to come of their high horses or they will rapidly become irrelevant.  The world is rapidly changing for better or worse.  They need to accept this.

In reality their main value added is:
- They ensure a certain level of quality
- They ensure the images are properly released

Search is of little benefit because of rampant keyword spamming and it is becoming obsolete because of global search alternatives.

I started using google image search mainly out of frustration using the microstock sites.  Yes, it is more cumbersome but you can find some great "original stuff".  In most cases the owner will grant permission for free or for a small fee. 

that's really great for you, but it doesn't help us contributors at all. to be quite honest, you don't seem like a bona fide buyer or designer who's willing to purchase others' honest hard work.

Slightly off topic but not really.
A little over a year ago I attended a function where the speaker was the Editor in Chief of National Geographic Traveler Magazine. We were seated at the same table for dinner. We were discussing stock photography and he said they use Flickr more and more all the time to find images.
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.

They used to use Getty and Corbis but have come to realize they can find what they need on Flickr - if they can't then the go to another source. He also said they rarely commission a shooter to go out and shoot "Joe's Inn" unless it's the only way to get an image.

So I can see why some buyers may be searching via Google.

Food for thought.

Steve

Slightly off topic but not really.
A little over a year ago I attended a function where the speaker was the Editor in Chief of National Geographic Traveler Magazine. We were seated at the same table for dinner. We were discussing stock photography and he said they use Flickr more and more all the time to find images.
His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.

They used to use Getty and Corbis but have come to realize they can find what they need on Flickr - if they can't then the go to another source. He also said they rarely commission a shooter to go out and shoot "Joe's Inn" unless it's the only way to get an image.

So I can see why some buyers may be searching via Google.

Food for thought.

Steve

That's very interesting. I would have never thought they would buy off of Flickr. Guess we learn something new everyday.

Quote from: sc on August 11, 2010, 15:24

His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed. NG wouldn't care what the rest of your portfolio looked like if they found the image that worked for them.

The problem is you can't find that kind of pictures on stock since it will be rejected for lack of PR or LCV. Even as Editorial it won't be accepted since it's not newsworthy.

Maybe we all need to travel all over the world photographing every "Joe's Inn" out there and put them up for sale on Flickr. The rate microstock is going it couldn't be any worse..

His example was that if they needed a picture of "Joe's Inn" in Sonoma and they didn't have one, they would look on Flickr first and negotiate directly with the photographer. His statement was anybody can take "one good picture" and that was all they needed.

Exactly why Alamy makes money.  Basically, all it is is people walking around Britain shooting absolutely everything they see.