Author Topic: Isn't it technically an underpaid job? (Read 26677 times)

Karimala · « **Reply #50 on:** January 28, 2011, 14:30 »

Quote from: borg on January 27, 2011, 19:30

Quote from: Karimala on January 27, 2011, 14:42
Quote from: borg on January 27, 2011, 08:28
I think this work must be seen as a return on equity, not as a return on work!

Exactly!!!

I do not know whether you agree with me or not (because of the laughing smiley), but as you said something similar in your previous post... We can't take most of our usual jobs into hospital room, but our portfolio can be very close with stock (shares) portfolio which gives a good dividend every month... That was veeery similar to capital not to work...
Of course, the work creates equity like any other work or business ...
So our pictures are our capital as a consequence of the work in past, and will be paid in the future...

Sorry on my English, I hope you understand me...

I'm in total agreement.

In fact, I've adopted your word "equity," because it describes what I was saying perfectly. I used to think in terms of how much money I was earning in terms of an hourly wage...now I think in terms of stock and building equity for the future.

helix7 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 28, 2011, 14:31 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30

Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides

Right, it's just that simple. Sure.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #52 on:** January 28, 2011, 14:34 »

Quote from: RT on January 28, 2011, 12:44

No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them,

Oh, okay. Fair enough. So I adjust to circumstances. But it doesn't mean they get more work out of me, the way a boss setting a target likes to. They are actually pushing me into exploring different ways to market my work.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** January 28, 2011, 14:53 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 28, 2011, 14:31

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30
Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides

Right, it's just that simple. Sure.

I figured the person who originally posted that was just spoiling for a fight - or a long discussion about the nature of free markets and the imperfect, power imbalanced markets that are more typically what we encounter.

I found last Sunday's New York Times article about the guy who's negotiating for the NFL players association with the owners (I don't think the word sustainable was used, but lots of similar dynamics were at play) a very interesting read.

Similar battles - people with a successful business want more; players who theoretically are free to walk if they don't like conditions in practice stay because where else can they play professional ball; both sides framing the terms of their dispute very differently. The interesting thing is that even with a strong players union, they're still having a hard time getting the deal they're looking for.

Perhaps recent events at IS have left me more than usually interested in the nature of power struggles and decision making in situations where one of the parties holds much more of the power

Karimala · « **Reply #54 on:** January 28, 2011, 15:06 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 28, 2011, 14:53

I found last Sunday's New York Times article about the guy who's negotiating for the NFL players association with the owners (I don't think the word sustainable was used, but lots of similar dynamics were at play) a very interesting read.

Similar battles - people with a successful business want more; players who theoretically are free to walk if they don't like conditions in practice stay because where else can they play professional ball; both sides framing the terms of their dispute very differently. The interesting thing is that even with a strong players union, they're still having a hard time getting the deal they're looking for.

Perhaps recent events at IS have left me more than usually interested in the nature of power struggles and decision making in situations where one of the parties holds much more of the power

Just last week I found an old blog post of Dan Heller's about the orphan works controversy that deals with the same economic issues. It highlights how photographer demands can harm the industry. Interesting reading.

RT · « **Reply #55 on:** January 28, 2011, 15:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 28, 2011, 14:34

Quote from: RT on January 28, 2011, 12:44
No I don't think you have to "accept" their targets, but you do have to accept they have set them and choose to either work with them or around them,

Oh, okay. Fair enough. So I adjust to circumstances. But it doesn't mean they get more work out of me, the way a boss setting a target likes to. They are actually pushing me into exploring different ways to market my work.

Exactly

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #56 on:** January 28, 2011, 19:50 »

Quote from: Karimala on January 28, 2011, 15:06

Just last week I found an old blog post of Dan Heller's about the orphan works controversy that deals with the same economic issues. It highlights how photographer demands can harm the industry. Interesting reading.

Your link didn't bring up the blog post for me - but I think I've found the two parts here and here. Are these the posts you were thinking of?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #57 on:** January 29, 2011, 00:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 28, 2011, 13:54

Quote from: cthoman on January 28, 2011, 13:53
Quote from: lisafx on January 28, 2011, 13:51
Why is it all the most opinionated people are always the ones with 52 images and 400 sales in 5 years? As JoAnn has suggested before - No skin in the game.

That kind of talk will get you called elitist.

You were too fast for me

Guess my point was that I (and probably other full time stock photogs too) am tired of being lectured by people who have absolutely no idea what it takes to be successful in this industry. Nor, most likely, in any other.

Wow, Lisa puts on the boxing gloves! Well said.

visceralimage · « **Reply #58 on:** January 29, 2011, 01:38 »

I choose to give up my high paying career as a scientist to become a wildlife photographer. That microstock is paying so low is part of my expectations when I gave up that life. I try to get a bit extra from other sources, such as writing articles with photos or selling my images in other outlets (galleries, business cards, etc)

I have many friends that work full-time at some job they are not thrilled at just to put food on the table. I do what I love; just can not afford a table and some times, can not afford food.

I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job. There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings. I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #59 on:** January 29, 2011, 13:44 »

Quote from: visceralimage on January 29, 2011, 01:38

I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job. There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings. I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

Well put.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #60 on:** February 16, 2011, 22:58 »

Quote from: visceralimage on January 29, 2011, 01:38

I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job. There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings. I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

I had a baby poop on a shag carpet in the studio last week .. it stunk .. it was messy .. because .. well it was poop in shag carpet .. but it was 30 mins of work behind the camera, 5 mins in photoshop and 10 minutes of showing their pictures .. and they walked out after writing a check for $450 .. at $10 a minute I can deal with the occasional poopy. LOL

Oh and to stay on track of the topic .. do I make that much selling micro? BWAHAHAHAHA ... no. So yes it's an underpaid job for me. But it helps with the tax deductions so it makes up for it in the end ... sorta LOL

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #61 on:** February 17, 2011, 11:49 »

"Isn't it technically an underpaid job?"

no, it isn't

technically, we're not employees and as long as we're happy about total earnings (over many years) compared to total time spent (initially), it's not underpaid - regardless of low sale prices and ridiculously low percentages

unfortunately, I find new pictures are less and less profitable lately so it may become underpaid if this trend continues

Karimala · « **Reply #62 on:** February 17, 2011, 13:24 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 28, 2011, 19:50

Quote from: Karimala on January 28, 2011, 15:06

Just last week I found an old blog post of Dan Heller's about the orphan works controversy that deals with the same economic issues. It highlights how photographer demands can harm the industry. Interesting reading.

Your link didn't bring up the blog post for me - but I think I've found the two parts here and here. Are these the posts you were thinking of?

Just now seeing this, and yes...those are the articles. Thanks Joann!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #63 on:** February 17, 2011, 22:12 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 16, 2011, 22:58

Quote from: visceralimage on January 29, 2011, 01:38
I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job. There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings. I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

I had a baby poop on a shag carpet in the studio last week .. it stunk .. it was messy .. because .. well it was poop in shag carpet .. but it was 30 mins of work behind the camera, 5 mins in photoshop and 10 minutes of showing their pictures .. and they walked out after writing a check for $450 .. at $10 a minute I can deal with the occasional poopy. LOL

Oh and to stay on track of the topic .. do I make that much selling micro? BWAHAHAHAHA ... no. So yes it's an underpaid job for me. But it helps with the tax deductions so it makes up for it in the end ... sorta LOL

Did you take a picture of the poop and submit it somewhere? That's gotta be a best seller right there. Especially poop on shag.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #64 on:** February 17, 2011, 22:16 »

Quote from: lagereek on January 27, 2011, 17:03

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 27, 2011, 16:21
Quote from: sjlocke on January 26, 2011, 15:52

I'll just say I was making more than my day job 4 years ago after 2+ years of work, which is why I quit 3 years ago. Agree with ^ that you could not start today and expect that. For once I timed something correctly.

I did the same 3 years ago, and I had a well paying corporate job. However, it's absolutely true that you can't start today and expect the same results. We were in the right time in the right place when demand was still way bigger than supply and were able to get to the level of quitting the day job fairly fast - in 2-3 years.
IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY NOW. Yes you still can get to the level of reasonable income in microstock starting from zero, but it would require investing tons of money into production. There is no place for amateurs or semi-pros anymore. That time is over.

Very, very true!!! the days of the dilletants and weekend snappers are over and yes, you can still make it but only with specialized images, only with niche material and to find that nowdays?? difficult.

I disagree. I had a bunch of snapshots just collecting dust on my computer and now I'm filthy rich! Thanks microstock.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #65 on:** February 18, 2011, 04:03 »

Quote from: helix7 on January 28, 2011, 14:31

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 27, 2011, 08:30
Agencies ARE business partners, if you're not happy doing business with them, then don't, it's as simple as that. You are the market (or at least one side of it), and the market ultimately decides

Right, it's just that simple. Sure.

Someone is stealing my naive Pollyanna argument! I did it for contrast and mockery. There isn't really someplace else.

But I do agree with the facts of the situation. Someone can either sell with the two largest, best earning agencies, one that has the best sales, even after cuts will potentially sell the most, bottom line, make the best commissions, and the other that pays a paltry sum per download, sells subscriptions and brings in income with the volume of sales. All the rest are pretenders or trying to be the top two.

If people want to just run off about IS day after day, making idle threats, complaining, whining, or bashing out of anger and revenge I say, if you don't like it go someplace else. Please just STFU it's getting boring and senseless. Come up with something new!

I didn't like some of the agencies, I dropped them. My suggestion is for people who can't stand IS and can't get though a day without some fault finding, or anguish, please leave them and make your life better. Mine too!

Get a divorce and get over it. Stop the abuse, remove yourself from the situation. Complaining never changed anything!

Anyone notice how many people here are making their own sites and changing distribution channels? No longer relying on the blood * agencies to market their artistic efforts. Branching out on their own. I like it! Here's to everyone who's doing something to change things and make their futures brighter and better. Take action, make a difference for the better future.

getbizy · « **Reply #66 on:** February 18, 2011, 07:00 »

I believe money should not be a primary motive for newbie photographer, but building a large and reputable portfolio or resume...with time the money would naturally flow with the quality of your work.

lisafx · « **Reply #67 on:** February 18, 2011, 13:13 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 17, 2011, 22:16

I disagree. I had a bunch of snapshots just collecting dust on my computer and now I'm filthy rich! Thanks microstock.

ROFLMAO!! Good stuff Paulie

Randy McKown · « **Reply #68 on:** February 19, 2011, 04:40 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 17, 2011, 22:12

Quote from: Randy McKown on February 16, 2011, 22:58
Quote from: visceralimage on January 29, 2011, 01:38
I would say, if you are only taking the images that sell but dislike the process, yes-you would be better at a traditional job. There are also many ways to make money with photography, such as weddings. I do what I want; no weddings, no portraits, no crying babies, etc.

I had a baby poop on a shag carpet in the studio last week .. it stunk .. it was messy .. because .. well it was poop in shag carpet .. but it was 30 mins of work behind the camera, 5 mins in photoshop and 10 minutes of showing their pictures .. and they walked out after writing a check for $450 .. at $10 a minute I can deal with the occasional poopy. LOL

Oh and to stay on track of the topic .. do I make that much selling micro? BWAHAHAHAHA ... no. So yes it's an underpaid job for me. But it helps with the tax deductions so it makes up for it in the end ... sorta LOL

Did you take a picture of the poop and submit it somewhere? That's gotta be a best seller right there. Especially poop on shag.

LMAO nope no poostock .. I make it a rule never to involve my paid clients in stock including their poo poo

graficallyminded · « **Reply #69 on:** March 03, 2011, 01:17 »

Talk about a crappy job Randy

But hey, at least it paid enough to pay the groceries for your family and kids, for the entire month! In what, under an hour? LOL

Microstock is underpaid for those that think this is going to be some get rich quick scheme. It's not; it's just as much of a business as a portrait photographer's business, or a wedding photographer, or a basket weaver, or a plastic surgeon, or a hairdresser. Building a business takes time, effort, skill, and perseverance. All of those bullet points Bob Davies mentioned earlier are right on the money.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Isn't it technically an underpaid job? (Read 26677 times)

Karimala

helix7

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

Karimala

RT

Jo Ann Snover

PaulieWalnuts

visceralimage

BaldricksTrousers

Randy McKown

microstockphoto.co.uk

Karimala

PaulieWalnuts

PaulieWalnuts

RacePhoto

getbizy

lisafx

Randy McKown

graficallyminded

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors