Interesting. Thanks for that. Leicaman is correct to some extent in that the obscure stuff hardly exists on microstock but that because it is less easy to get accepted (as in 'Not stock oriented') and if it is then it won't sell in the volumes necessary to make it worthwhile.

If you want to buy a popular new book/CD for example then you'll probably find it cheapest at your local supermarket but if you want something older or more obscure then you'll need to find a specialist shop with more stock but much higher prices to reflect the slower turnover.

I'd imagine the microstock libraries cater extremely well and cost-effectively for 90%+ of all stock image needs.

"Not only is it almost impossible for even the best, most established photographers to make even a basic living now, but I hear from young, talented, aspiring photography graduates who just can't get into an industry that has been so badly damaged by the over-use of amateur material at rock bottom prices."

Waaaaahhhhhh....

Very interesting discussion that raises pretty serious questions.  I agree on some points and not on others, but as a whole it is a recommended reading.

Most professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants) work to individual client briefs to deliver the services they need.  I don't see microstock eating into real professional photography any time soon - weddings, product shots, advertising, etc.

But microstock has skewed the view clients have on prices. "Why does your image cost $500 when I a similar is $5 on a microstock site?".

And yes, microstock has eaten into real professional photography too. In the good ol' Rights-Managed days it was often cheaper to hire a photographer to shoot something that is going to be used over and over than pay royalties for every use. Those shoots are now totally gone.

Those pros who moan about MS obviously had it too easy before - if they were prepared to get off their fat arses then there's heaps of pro work outside of stock photography.  On the other hand I'm glad that MS is a magnet for all the wannabe pro's and keeps them away from where the real money is 

Technology has always influenced the evolution (and sometimes revolution) of many industries.  Some historians believe that the reason why slavery in the Caribbean stopped was not because the Bristish felt like being good people, but more because it was more economical and easier to manage their productions with new technologies being created at the time.  Maybe its a bad idea to use that as a parallel situation, but new technologies have essentially made it cheaper to generate photographs.  Those old farts who haven't been able to keep up should have taken to new technologies and distribution methods earlier and adapted with the industry. I have grown up with digital but I'm sure it was horribly expensive and cost prohibitive to use film, hence the need to charge $400 for a photograph to keep up with costs.  In the end, industries change all the time, the main point is to always try to teach is to adapt to change.

That being said, I'm sure that the evolution of the micropayment industry will carve some fantastic new niches for photographers to expand into that weren't available before.

5000 images of garden gnomes and rusty cars won't pay any bills.  Otoh, 1000 good, well planned images can do pretty well.  Not everyone can do it.

It seems a bit different to me moving electrons around than buying paper, printing on it, binding it, addressing it an distributing it to various locations. Magazines are expensive to produce, where a single photo can be made much more cost-effectively.

It seems a bit different to me moving electrons around than buying paper, printing on it, binding it, addressing it an distributing it to various locations. Magazines are expensive to produce, where a single photo can be made much more cost-effectively.

A lot of publishing is now done in China and similar countries - huge cost saving. I don't have figures for magazines but, for example, I get posters and banners printed in Malaysia for about 20% cost of what they cost here and that includes shipping etc.

Somehow publishers have not only retained their profit levels they have increased them - okay, this may not be entirely true but they certainly do not sell advertising space cheaply!

I only wish or hope that MS will develop over time, eliminating the rubbish imagery they have accumulated from the early days and selling the higher quality imagery at a price that makes everyone happy. I think iStockphoto are heading in this direction already.

The micros destruction of the pro business is more complicated that arguing that "old farts" fell for a "darwinian" thing... The problem with micros is, as I've said before, that prices are too (way too) low.  In fact, they started rock bottom.  It should have been different, they should have started as mid-stock, it would have been wiser.  Now, increasing prices some pennies at a time don�t give you any margin of anything but to feed the beast, as we are all are.  

Two years ago a 20 images upload to SS brought a lot of sales on the next few days, today it doesn�t.  Things have changed for the worst.  Almost everybody that has been doing it for a while says that earnings are the same despite having bigger portfolios.  

Another big change was in the mentality of the photographer:  we are happily willing to take a 20% comission on some sites ("for the thrill of seeing our work used") and that devaluates our work as a whole, amateurs and pros.  Do you think that buyers have any respect for stock photographers today?

I agree that we all should adapt to the new changes that have come our way in the last 5-8 years, but we have to acknowledge that micros started a "bad revolution" in which we photographers, pros and amateurs, lost a lot.  We, amateurs, don�t realize it.  The pros do.

The micros destruction of the pro business is more complicated that arguing that "old farts" fell for a "darwinian" thing... The problem with micros is, as I've said before, that prices are too (way too) low.  In fact, they started rock bottom.  It should have been different, they should have started as mid-stock, it would have been wiser.  Now, increasing prices some pennies at a time don�t give you any margin of anything but to feed the beast, as we are all are.  

Prices are rising now as a result of having sites realize they have a collection worth more than they were charging (for the most part) - istock especially - would you rather that they all started in the middle and then kept price adjusting downwards instead until there was no room to move?

One possibility:
I think that the industry is where its at because they started so low, didn't get any respect from the big boys and now have the ability to move up given their customer base.  The other way, the major companies selling RF and RM at the time would have lowered their prices, pissed off their photographers and then ate up microstock or resulted in a crazy price war.  If that happened, I wouldn't be submitting right now and many of us wouldn't even know about this, because the entire dynamic would be different.

I'm all for price increases, but I don't agree with starting at midstcok prices and moving downward.  Right now they are moving towards a more equitable equilibrium instead of two extremes.  Potentially a better outcome, although its taken a while.

Quote from: ichiro17 on September 28, 2009, 11:44

Prices are rising now...

Please give us some examples of where this is actually happening.  Note that raising commissions for OD sales doesn't mean much of buyers are simultaneiously being herded onto subscription plans.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but iStock raised their prices in January 2007, January 2008.  I don't believe they raised them this year because of the current state of the economy.  I really only care about iStock because I'm exclusive, but didn't SS also raise their prices 3 straight years before 2009?  I have not followed Fotolia or DT for a while with their prices, but I'm not 100% sure that photos are not as cheap as they used to be.