MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fed up to my ears with all the sites. And why!  (Read 27088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vonkara

« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2010, 11:36 »
0
50% of a microstock success is related to when you started for me. Of course there is exceptions. But the earlier people have joined, the easier their learning curve have been, easier sales due to a bigger exposure ect.

I hardly believe than most people who have started lately, will be able to even make a decent income to cover their expense. They compete with more than 6 millions images on most agencies now, while it was less than 3 millions in 2007 when I started. The acceptance of images was a lot easier back then ect.


« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2010, 11:49 »
0
^^^ Yes, I must admit I wouldn't want to be starting microstock today with the (lack of) skill and knowledge that I had 5 years ago.

When I started at Istock I was restricted to 'only' 10 uploads per day __ now it's 15 per week for a newbie. Combine that with much tougher reviewing standards and it must be very difficult to build up momentum.

« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2010, 12:22 »
0
I still don't understand the race to the bottom when prices keep going up.  Can someone explain that to me?  Istock started out as a free site, some images cost $250 there now.  Prices are much higher on all the sites I use than they were when I started in 2006.  Subscriptions haven't followed pay per download prices yet but I expect them to in the future.  DT have already increased subs commissions substantially for higher level images.  I started on $0.25 subs with SS and now get $0.38.  Thinkstock are paying less but they are new, we will have to wait and see if they raise prices and commissions when they have established some market share.  I don't see why they wont go the way istock have, raising prices when their sales increase.

« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2010, 13:04 »
0
I still don't understand the race to the bottom when prices keep going up.  Can someone explain that to me? 
Didn't you know that if you keep posting a catchy slogan, it becomes true?  ;) It works in politics anyway.

« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2010, 13:18 »
0
50% of a microstock success is related to when you started for me. Of course there is exceptions. But the earlier people have joined, the easier their learning curve have been, easier sales due to a bigger exposure ect.

I hardly believe than most people who have started lately, will be able to even make a decent income to cover their expense. They compete with more than 6 millions images on most agencies now, while it was less than 3 millions in 2007 when I started. The acceptance of images was a lot easier back then ect.

I agree.

lisafx

« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2010, 13:20 »
0
I think a major reason for so much disappointment and disillusionment with microstock is a result of unrealistic expectations to begin with.  Who told any of us we would be able to make a living at this??

When I started in 2005 there were no blogs, podcasts, books, news stories, etc. promising untold wealth from selling your "snapshots" like there are now.  Newsflash:  If the people spouting that nonsense were actually making any money in micro they would not be wasting time trying to sell the concept to everyone and their cousin.  People used to go into microstock just for the fun of it.  Did anyone starting the micros in 2005 - 2006 EVER expect to make a living at it?!  I know I sure didn't.

I feel blessed that microstock has exceeded the expectations I had when I started - which were pretty much none.  I hoped if I worked hard maybe I could eventually net $200/month.  

I do realize it is much more competitive now and I wish it wasn't. I enjoyed it more years ago, even though I was making less money.  Now I find I am having to force myself to work just to put my ONE child through (an insanely expensive!) college.  Wish I could still be doing it for fun....

Powerdroid has it right when he sad this:

It just doesn't make sense that masses of people will spend any energy on creating images for zero payout.  Sure, there will be hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't expect anything more than the thrill of sharing their stuff, but with few exceptions, the quality of work generated by a non-paid audience won't satisfy the business world.


If the sites want to continue to get high-production conceptual shots involving props, models, locations, etc.  they will have to continue to compensate photographers enough to make it worth doing.    If they don't, then they will go back to being libraries full of flowers, cats, and travel snapshots.  
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 13:26 by lisafx »

« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2010, 13:34 »
0
...If the sites want to continue to get high-production conceptual shots involving props, models, locations, etc.  they will have to continue to compensate photographers enough to make it worth doing. If they don't, then they will go back to being libraries full of flowers, cats, and travel snapshots.  

I agree. I hope the agencies are listening.

« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2010, 13:37 »
0
If they don't, then they will go back to being libraries full of flowers, cats, and travel snapshots.
My best selling photos are travel snapshots. Things went wrong when I bought lightboxes.  :P

vonkara

« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2010, 13:39 »
0

Powerdroid has it right when he sad this:

It just doesn't make sense that masses of people will spend any energy on creating images for zero payout.  Sure, there will be hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't expect anything more than the thrill of sharing their stuff, but with few exceptions, the quality of work generated by a non-paid audience won't satisfy the business world.


If the sites want to continue to get high-production conceptual shots involving props, models, locations, etc.  they will have to continue to compensate photographers enough to make it worth doing.    If they don't, then they will go back to being libraries full of flowers, cats, and travel snapshots.  
Nicely said, I think that while there is more offer (photographers), most people start earning less every year. Add to this that many agencies believe that subscriptions and lowering photographer share is genius and we are in this situation in 2010.

Lowering production cost is a wise move to achieve lately, at least for me. Since I had a budget of let say 80$ a month for stock, now I just don't shoot lol

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2010, 13:41 »
0
as a matter of fact they're already collections with cats, dogs, and flowers.

there's no way they can compete with RM on this, and obviously it will be harder and harder to get photos accepted
as micros are already more than saturated regarding many subjects, travel included.

and this once again will mean less money for the photographers.

lisafx

« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2010, 13:58 »
0

Lowering production cost is a wise move to achieve lately, at least for me. Since I had a budget of let say 80$ a month for stock, now I just don't shoot lol

Ouch!  Not shooting is definitely a way to lower your production costs ;)

If it becomes financially unfeasible to make money at this you will probably find a lot of us joining you! 

One thing about stopping shooting is that anything you make can be taxed as royalties and you don't have to pay SS tax on it.  According to my accountant the only reason I have to pay SS, self-employment tax, etc. on the money is because I am actively engaged in business to make it.  If I were to stop producing images then it would count as royalty money and be exempt from SS taxes.

Not that I intend to stop any time soon.  My daughter's going to be doing 5 years to get a Masters at a private college, so that's 5 more years of indentured servitude for me.  Sure hope the industry and/or royalties don't tank before then...!!

« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2010, 13:59 »
0
Lowering production cost is a wise move to achieve lately, at least for me. Since I had a budget of let say 80$ a month for stock, now I just don't shoot lol
Did medaillons become that expensive lately?  :P

« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2010, 14:04 »
0
as a matter of fact they're already collections with cats, dogs, and flowers. there's no way they can compete with RM on this...
Are the snapshots, cats, dog and flowers so much better then on RM? Do they surf the whitewater on a surf plank? As long as it isn't the creature of Bichon on SS, a dog is a dog.

vonkara

« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2010, 14:21 »
0
Lowering production cost is a wise move to achieve lately, at least for me. Since I had a budget of let say 80$ a month for stock, now I just don't shoot lol
Did medaillons become that expensive lately?  :P
LOL I have done what I could with medals. I can't even shoot them in perspective, because I will need to invest in more light power  :)

« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2010, 15:27 »
0
Eventually there has to be a return to quality - however you define it - in journalism, music, and stock imagery.  
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 15:29 by stockastic »

« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2010, 15:57 »
0
According to my accountant the only reason I have to pay SS, self-employment tax, etc. on the money is because I am actively engaged in business to make it.  If I were to stop producing images then it would count as royalty money and be exempt from SS taxes.

This is the impression we finally came to as well.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2010, 18:27 »
0
Eventually there has to be a return to quality - however you define it - in journalism, music, and stock imagery.  

i wouldn't bet on this.

the only ones making money with journalism are writing about financial news
and analysis.

war photographers are starving, and no magazine like the old LIFE mag. at the horizon.
their bread and butter now is selling expensive workshops.

as for music unless you're Lady Gaga and you've a contract with Sony it seems
it's a hard time today to live with music.

the money is to be made with live shows and DJing, those selling CDs
are struggling because of piracy and the internet.

it's always the same problem : how to make money off a product
anyone can easily steal with a few clicks ?

the success of the 3D movies like avatar shown once again that piracy
is the a major negative factor in the content industry.


« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2010, 18:45 »
0


It just doesn't make sense that masses of people will spend any energy on creating images for zero payout.  Sure, there will be hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't expect anything more than the thrill of sharing their stuff, but with few exceptions, the quality of work generated by a non-paid audience won't satisfy the business world.


If the sites want to continue to get high-production conceptual shots involving props, models, locations, etc.  they will have to continue to compensate photographers enough to make it worth doing.    If they don't, then they will go back to being libraries full of flowers, cats, and travel snapshots.  
[/quote]

The industry (both micro and macro) works on the photographers spectulating financially. The photog invests say $500 on the shoot, the sites then pick and choose (only send the best etc), if it doesnt pay off its the photographers fault and loss. Yuri mentioned one time that it is doubtful his casino and nightclub shoots will ever be profitable for him (will be for the agencies though). But other people have since come along and done similar shoots / themes. It takes a long time to learn how much can be spent and remain profitable or estimate how much return there will be on a shoot. With the number of photographers out there, they will keep trying new ideas and themes investing the money in the hope it is profitable for them.

« Reply #68 on: April 19, 2010, 18:51 »
0
Yuri admitted he's shooting 80% RM and only his leftovers go in RF/micro, guess he has got very solid reasons for this U-turn...

Can Yuri's RM portfolio be seen somewhere? Where does he sell them?

« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2010, 19:02 »
0
Yuri admitted he's shooting 80% RM and only his leftovers go in RF/micro, guess he has got very solid reasons for this U-turn...

Can Yuri's RM portfolio be seen somewhere? Where does he sell them?

I know that he has an account at Alamy but have no idea what pseudonyms he is using. I'm sure he is not so willing to show his RM stuff to a lot of people.

He probably also changed his style a bit to operate more undercover... but who knows.

« Reply #70 on: April 19, 2010, 19:10 »
0
I know that he has an account at Alamy but have no idea what pseudonyms he is using. I'm sure he is not so willing to show his RM stuff to a lot of people.


Form Advertising.

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=+form+advertising&submitsearch=Search&st=0&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&CreativeOn=1&lic=6&lic=1&mr=0&pr=0
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 19:12 by mantonino »

« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2010, 19:21 »
0
People used to go into microstock just for the fun of it.  Did anyone starting the micros in 2005 - 2006 EVER expect to make a living at it?!  I know I sure didn't.

I hoped it would, but I never thought it could.
I thought I would only have enough to by new gear.

« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2010, 19:25 »
0
Eventually there has to be a return to quality - however you define it - in journalism, music, and stock imagery.  

that's what a lot of macro shooters say :)

My dad's a printer and looked at a bag of potatoes I had out last night and said what a bugger they are and how picky the customer is with quality and colour accuracy. I laughed and mentioned that I really dont care if my bag of potatoes is exactly 326-green or pyschadelic purple and yellow, its a bag of potatoes.

« Reply #73 on: April 19, 2010, 19:27 »
0
I know that he has an account at Alamy but have no idea what pseudonyms he is using. I'm sure he is not so willing to show his RM stuff to a lot of people.


Form Advertising.

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=+form+advertising&submitsearch=Search&st=0&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&CreativeOn=1&lic=6&lic=1&mr=0&pr=0


and shoosh, both are RF portfolios.

« Reply #74 on: April 19, 2010, 20:11 »
0
I know that he has an account at Alamy but have no idea what pseudonyms he is using. I'm sure he is not so willing to show his RM stuff to a lot of people.


Form Advertising.

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=+form+advertising&submitsearch=Search&st=0&go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&CreativeOn=1&lic=6&lic=1&mr=0&pr=0


Nice find. I'm not surprised he's not shouting about his stuff at Alamy __ they are clearly the also-ran images deemed not good enough for microstock (or indeed to put his name to). I suppose it's slightly reassuring that Yuri doesn't actually fire off a best-seller every time he clicks the shutter button.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
2887 Views
Last post October 19, 2006, 08:00
by CJPhoto
3 Replies
2486 Views
Last post January 22, 2007, 16:52
by madelaide
2 Replies
1903 Views
Last post February 12, 2007, 17:13
by XeniaII
12 Replies
3998 Views
Last post April 04, 2008, 06:34
by RacePhoto
43 Replies
8925 Views
Last post April 24, 2010, 19:01
by Jonathan Ross

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results