MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Macrostock vs Microstock what is the real difference?  (Read 12034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 22, 2009, 07:06 »
0
Yuri just made an interesting post today about the difference in Micro and Macro imagery. 

check it out
http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-macro-stock/

I would have to agree - some of the images he linked would be rejected in a flash at a micro agency.  Yet, they are gobbled up by Getty and sell well.


« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2009, 08:33 »
0
Nice writing.  Obviously, "real" is why Getty opened up the flickr gates.

However, "First, authentic looking images of real people and, second, better service."

I still don't think buyers really want "authentic looking images of real people".  Real people without makeup or some attempt to look camera ready, aren't going to sell anything.  "Real people" as in "not typical skinny model types" is probably what they want.  Also, what kind of "better service" are they getting?  I know Getty has people that will help you look for what you want.  Is that enough?  Is there something else they aren't getting?

Also, are these selling RM or RF?  By those prices mentioned, I assume RM.

The reason there's a shortage, is because Getty is still a closed house.  There's plenty of people in the micros that would love to submit that kind of thing to Getty, and then the sales wouldn't be so sweet.

Also, I'd say the reason Yuri's bright, colorful, fun images get lost on micro is ... because of Yuri.  Constant hype, training blogs, interns, etc., have made a large group of people that duplicate his shots, so his stuff gets lost in the mix.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 08:42 by sjlocke »

« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2009, 08:52 »
0
I still don't think buyers really want "authentic looking images of real people".  

I think they do. At least here in Europe. The lack of "real" looking people in micros is the main reason that something gets bought at macro sites.

"Real" doesn't need to mean "fat ugly people without makeup.".
I think it means more like "normal weight attractive people with light makeup doing things with natural expressions"

I think micros could sweep in much of the good stuff if they changed their image review policies. If I try to send them images that look "natural", they get rejected for composition, uneven light, harsh shadows, color balance, focus, motion blur etc etc.
It's easier to shoot something in studio against one colour background and f/11.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 08:58 by Perry »

« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2009, 12:21 »
0
If I try to send them images that look "natural", they get rejected for composition, uneven light, harsh shadows, color balance, focus, motion blur etc etc.

Here's the other thing (and looking at Yuri's examples as ... examples).  Why does "real" equal poor photography?  ie., we call it "real", because we're trying to emulate people out snapping photos.  Apparently, all the real people out there shooting real photos of their friends are using crappy film cameras from the 90s and aiming into the sun, catching focus on something random.  Is that what buyers want?  Are they marketing to the "real people" who connect with those in the image, or are they trying to get all the new photographers out there interested in the campaign by showing images marginally better or worse than they could take?  "This is shot just like those in my scrapbook - this product must be used by people like me!".  Are these images insulting to real people out there who actually make an effort to take good photos?

Or are we the "candid camera".  Looking in on something, somewhere we aren't supposed to be?

vonkara

« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2009, 12:42 »
0
I buy the brand of beer who show the hawtest chicks in their commercials.  :)


« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2009, 12:49 »
0
Yuri's article is extremely illuminating...some of his images accepted into Getty are a hell of a lot more interesting than the usual bland and generic micro you see by the millions...he has looked at the subject in a different way and it has paid off for him. Clients go to Corbis and Getty for a more unique, varied and interesting selection of images than can be found on the look alike micros.

We shoot RM and RF for Corbis and Getty...no doubt some of that work would be rejected by micro sites...but then again, if we put a lot of ourselves into producing a set of images there is no way in the world we would consider submitting them for micro. I still have good RM images from the mid 90s selling well on Getty...outselling more recent RF we have placed with them.


Yuri just made an interesting post today about the difference in Micro and Macro imagery. 

check it out
http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-macro-stock/

I would have to agree - some of the images he linked would be rejected in a flash at a micro agency.  Yet, they are gobbled up by Getty and sell well.

« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2009, 14:02 »
0
Why does "real" equal poor photography?  ie., we call it "real", because we're trying to emulate people out snapping photos.

No. "Real" photography is something like shooting in existing conditions and natural light. That means the light isn't always as flat and neutral as preferred by microstock sites. Even the DOF can be too short or in the wrong place for the reviewer-attila.

As I said, it's much easier to get studio photos shot with flashes at f/11 accepted than "real" looking images with real light, real locations and real people.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 14:05 by Perry »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2009, 14:07 »
0
Why does "real" equal poor photography?  ie., we call it "real", because we're trying to emulate people out snapping photos.

No. "Real" photography is something like shooting in existing conditions and natural light. That means the light isn't always as flat and neutral as preferred by microstock sites. E


Oh, hey, where's the site what accepts flat light? That's my biggest rejection reason as that's what our light is like, most of the time. :-\

« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 14:16 »
0
Oh, hey, where's the site what accepts flat light? That's my biggest rejection reason as that's what our light is like, most of the time. :-\


Most sites. I have had my images rejected for both uneven light and harsh shadows. A moderately dull "large softbox" light seems to be the microstock industry standard, no need to get any gobos or snoots.

« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2009, 14:27 »
0
Another point of interest here is that Yuri states he is getting a similar RPI from Getty as from Micro...the important difference is that the earnings are from one Macro site as against a myriad of micro sites...with all the attendant work involved with their sometimes convoluted and time eating submission procedures.

Micro is probably the least return for the most amount of work and time.

« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2009, 16:33 »
0
SJLOCKE wrote: "Or are we the "candid camera".  Looking in on something, somewhere we aren't supposed to be?"

I think that's a big part of it.
Try getting a novice or semi-pro model to NOT look at the bloody camera!

Most of the models I have worked with instinctively find the lens and try to connect with it.
Shooting with multiple models and getting them to interact naturally with each other, is the pinnacle of 'real' in my book.

So this is the more difficult stuff to get and that's what the clients are willing to pay for.

As for the 'creative' lighting? Well, I think that buyers are bored with perfect exposures and predictable lighting.
Is it bad photography? Technically I would say, yes. But who really cares if it sells.

The late Dean Collin's said that one of the most difficult things for a commercial photographer was not dictating to the industry buyers what was good.
We have to produce what sells. It doens't matter that we think that its garbage.





« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2009, 18:23 »
0
And to think I thought the difference was one charged a lot more for images than the other.

I may be cynical but I've always thought macro-stock has a big element of the "Emperor has no clothes about it" - put a high price-tag on something tell people its good, and they will buy it no matter how tasteless and awful it is. Sorry to say but Yuri's examples in this article prove that for me.



« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2009, 19:36 »
0
Any creative material is like that...we are told what is good and bad by the people who stand to make the most money from it...and the critics usually go along with this regardless of how lousy the artwork is...the vast majority of people are visual illiterates...why should photography be any different.


And to think I thought the difference was one charged a lot more for images than the other.

I may be cynical but I've always thought macro-stock has a big element of the "Emperor has no clothes about it" - put a high price-tag on something tell people its good, and they will buy it no matter how tasteless and awful it is. Sorry to say but Yuri's examples in this article prove that for me.




WarrenPrice

« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2009, 22:58 »
0
Nosaya said:
The late Dean Collin's said that one of the most difficult things for a commercial photographer was not dictating to the industry buyers what was good.


That's good.  Maybe the buyers don't know what's good ... They just buy what they like.   :o 

« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2009, 03:16 »
0
Oh, hey, where's the site what accepts flat light? That's my biggest rejection reason as that's what our light is like, most of the time. :-\


Most sites. I have had my images rejected for both uneven light and harsh shadows. A moderately dull "large softbox" light seems to be the microstock industry standard, no need to get any gobos or snoots.

I don't think thats true, it's just most amateur photographers seem to think that a softbox is the best tool for every job.

« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2009, 10:50 »
0
Also, are these selling RM or RF?  By those prices mentioned, I assume RM.

The reason there's a shortage, is because Getty is still a closed house.  There's plenty of people in the micros that would love to submit that kind of thing to Getty, and then the sales wouldn't be so sweet.

Also, I'd say the reason Yuri's bright, colorful, fun images get lost on micro is ... because of Yuri.  Constant hype, training blogs, interns, etc., have made a large group of people that duplicate his shots, so his stuff gets lost in the mix.

The image that he points to is an RF and likely the amount is a report of a couple of sales not one.

I found the article interesting. I don't see a lot of Yuri's images in the macro market, only some on Getty. Perhaps he has other names he goes by.

« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2009, 19:47 »
0
Hi All,

 Great post by Yuri. I think from him mentioning 20% then he is speaking of RF Macro, RM offers a higher percentage. I believe a big reason why these style of images also make it into Macro as apposed to Micro is the editing factor. Micro is not edited by professionals of the same caliber as Macro, generally. They are stuck to very stringent guidelines set by the Micro companies because of the shear volume and amount of shooters they have to deal with. No selective focus, no movement, etc. Everything pretty much needs to stay in focus to pass Micro editors.
 I think when Macro asks for more real looking people they mean not posed and actually caught in a moment. They don't need to be perfect runway models but they do need to fit the role they are playing.
 I feel his images are strong and will sell well. They are also a lot more fun to create in my opinion. Micro is super but it is starting to find it's fit in the industry which is great. There is room for all three levels in stock you just need to know what each level is looking for.   
 Photographers are still getting accepted by Getty and Corbis but you have to show some creativity that is still usable from the buyers perspective. Every image needs a title or it won't sell very well in any of the markets. The more titles the better the sales, this doesn't mean you have to shoot safe boring shots but you still need to be aware of the message you are trying to present in your images.

Best,
Jonathan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
7811 Views
Last post September 28, 2006, 20:26
by yingyang0
8 Replies
5793 Views
Last post August 30, 2007, 03:02
by leaf
11 Replies
6109 Views
Last post October 10, 2007, 15:58
by PecoFoto
3 Replies
3645 Views
Last post November 24, 2010, 10:19
by MikLav
10 Replies
6244 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 20:00
by Ed

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors