Author Topic: Learning a year later : Our lack of resistance to Shutterstock a year back has resulted in this (Read 7703 times)

farbled · « **Reply #25 on:** May 22, 2021, 14:10 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 22, 2021, 13:46

Funny you mention this Terry, I have been joking for years to change my photo company name to Good Enough Photography. That said I don't think I would have ever received the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards for best photos with that approach, but it is what the industry has become... sadly.

Congrats on your award! I think what you do for micro and what I do for micro are two separate beasts altogether. I decided early on that the minimal commissions available required that I shoot fast and easy for "good enough". That has stood me well here. For artistic quality stuff, well, that goes on my wall.

So the real question is, regarding your award, does Gourmand World use micro? If not then its not really a true comparison. We all love photography, but being a good microstock photographer can often not have anything to do with artistic merits.

Edit to add: see this is where the diversity of this market plays in. If this was the fashion industry and we had the same skill level as photographers (I have no idea what your portfolio is) I bet you'd be shooting Paris runway stuff, whereas I'd be shooting socks for Walmart. The difference though is, we'd be paid the same and I would be doing a tenth of the effort you would be doing. See?

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #26 on:** May 22, 2021, 14:34 »

Quote from: farbled on May 22, 2021, 14:10

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 22, 2021, 13:46
Funny you mention this Terry, I have been joking for years to change my photo company name to Good Enough Photography. That said I don't think I would have ever received the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards for best photos with that approach, but it is what the industry has become... sadly.

Congrats on your award! I think what you do for micro and what I do for micro are two separate beasts altogether. I decided early on that the minimal commissions available required that I shoot fast and easy for "good enough". That has stood me well here. For artistic quality stuff, well, that goes on my wall.

So the real question is, regarding your award, does Gourmand World use micro? If not then its not really a true comparison. We all love photography, but being a good microstock photographer can often not have anything to do with artistic merits.

I have no idea what Gourmand World uses. I did a book several years ago and my publisher submitted the book to them and I won the award, previous to that award I had never heard of them.

My original foray into micros was submitting all of my Getty rejects that I was allowed to as per my image exclusive contract. Then admittedly I saw how ridiculously easy shooting for microstock is with no quality control I too started to shotgun the whole thing and no longer really put my mojo into it. I still put my effort into creating a nice image but I don't have that so called passion or gusto anymore because it is not valued.

farbled · « **Reply #27 on:** May 22, 2021, 14:51 »

Quote from: Clair Voyant on May 22, 2021, 14:34

I have no idea what Gourmand World uses. I did a book several years ago and my publisher submitted the book to them and I won the award, previous to that award I had never heard of them.

My original foray into micros was submitting all of my Getty rejects that I was allowed to as per my image exclusive contract. Then admittedly I saw how ridiculously easy shooting for microstock is with no quality control I too started to shotgun the whole thing and no longer really put my mojo into it. I still put my effort into creating a nice image but I don't have that so called passion or gusto anymore because it is not valued.

Then you see where I'm coming from. Minimal returns do not induce me to submit my best work. As it happens, what you say is what I often see on private forums for those sites we love to hate. Many of the free site denizens repeat that micro isn't worth the effort and that there is little difference between "free" and a few cents (their words, not mine), so why put in all the extra effort for no real gain? I have been working to make them see the light though, and some have switch over to our side of things.

As well, for me micro may be easy to submit and be accepted, but getting sales is a whole different animal and thats where the real work went in for me. I'll repeat that being a good stock photographer can be incredibly different than being a good photographer.

everest · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2021, 02:50 »

I agree on everything but on this point. It is not a couple of years. It has been now more than 5 years that I have not seen anything interesting in any of the known big stock sites. Yes lots of "useful" images. Quality nothing zilch nada. I remember as you said big names with amazing portfolios at Getty 10 years ago. People with published books and really powerful images. All this has been gone for a long time. Any serious photographer that want to make a name and loves photography does not walk but run away as fast as he/she can from stock photography nowadays.

Quote from: csm on May 21, 2021, 16:52

In a couple of years or sooner, the agents will wonder why they have less images coming in and quality going down too.

It might be too late to turn back by then, all the photographers would have moved on to something else by then.

Such a shame, it might have been a closed shop to get in, although, I was 23 when I got accepted and it was a big deal then. There were loads of photographers I admired, the work was so much better then, replaced by what I can see generally are snaps.

farbled · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2021, 10:33 »

Quote from: everest on May 23, 2021, 02:50

I agree on everything but on this point. It is not a couple of years. It has been now more than 5 years that I have not seen anything interesting in any of the known big stock sites. Yes lots of "useful" images. Quality nothing zilch nada. I remember as you said big names with amazing portfolios at Getty 10 years ago. People with published books and really powerful images. All this has been gone for a long time. Any serious photographer that want to make a name and loves photography does not walk but run away as fast as he/she can from stock photography nowadays.

I get that, I really do. But it seems to me that we are talking about two different industries. Why the heck would Joe's Diner need art (and pay a premium) when all they want is a picture of a sugar packet or a piece of toast? Or a picture of a tire for an article on car maintenance? What should a person be willing to pay for that, and how powerful does it really need to be to take up an inch of space in an online article?

farbled · « **Reply #30 on:** May 23, 2021, 11:01 »

Quote from: everest on May 23, 2021, 02:50

I agree on everything but on this point. It is not a couple of years. It has been now more than 5 years that I have not seen anything interesting in any of the known big stock sites. Yes lots of "useful" images. Quality nothing zilch nada. I remember as you said big names with amazing portfolios at Getty 10 years ago. People with published books and really powerful images. All this has been gone for a long time. Any serious photographer that want to make a name and loves photography does not walk but run away as fast as he/she can from stock photography nowadays.

I would also point out that ten and more years ago we had some people uploading every single thing they shot and somehow got it all got accepted no matter how similar or poor quality, and then spammed every single thread with their images until it drove people nuts.

The only real difference I see these days is volume. The bar to get in has always been low for micro (IMHO). The bar for making money is higher.

farbled · « **Reply #31 on:** May 23, 2021, 11:19 »

Quote from: realworldglobalmacrostock on May 23, 2021, 02:31

Why are you guys writing long posts? Why would anybody read it if it's that long?! Are you all getting crazy?
Anyway, oregon rocks!

I'm already crazy.

panicAttack · « **Reply #32 on:** May 23, 2021, 11:50 »

what is Oregon beside being state?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #33 on:** May 23, 2021, 12:12 »

Quote from: panicAttack on May 23, 2021, 11:50

what is Oregon beside being state?

Someone who can't spell and probably one of the returning trolls who writes the cosmic and obscure posts that most of us will never understand.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 24, 2021, 01:12 »

Quote from: farbled on May 23, 2021, 10:33

Quote from: everest on May 23, 2021, 02:50
I agree on everything but on this point. It is not a couple of years. It has been now more than 5 years that I have not seen anything interesting in any of the known big stock sites. Yes lots of "useful" images. Quality nothing zilch nada. I remember as you said big names with amazing portfolios at Getty 10 years ago. People with published books and really powerful images. All this has been gone for a long time. Any serious photographer that want to make a name and loves photography does not walk but run away as fast as he/she can from stock photography nowadays.

I get that, I really do. But it seems to me that we are talking about two different industries. Why the heck would Joe's Diner need art (and pay a premium) when all they want is a picture of a sugar packet or a piece of toast? Or a picture of a tire for an article on car maintenance? What should a person be willing to pay for that, and how powerful does it really need to be to take up an inch of space in an online article?

Spot on.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Learning a year later : Our lack of resistance to Shutterstock a year back has resulted in this (Read 7703 times)

farbled

Clair Voyant

farbled

everest

farbled

farbled

farbled

panicAttack

Uncle Pete

Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors