MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Makes you think....  (Read 5749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 25, 2006, 02:55 »
0
Have a look at this link!
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/micropayment.asp
It certainly made me think.


« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2006, 06:17 »
0
Also from their site:

"To date, we have connected 5,343 buyers from Australia to Venezuela, with 7,140 professional photographers from Andorra to Zimbabwe and currently have 767,928 stock images in our search engine."

So in other words, you only have a 0.70% chance of making a sale!

« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2006, 07:05 »
0
I think that is a bit ridiculous to tell you the truth.  I imagine it is written by someone who hasn't fully examined the earning potential on the mircostock sites.

« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2006, 09:28 »
0
I have heard the disdain with which many photographers hold microstock sites, and this just sounds like a lot of the same. (Isn't this site done by photographers for photographers?)  I bet the photographers who disdain microstock sites have this luxury because they are already making a comfortable living from their work.  I wonder if they would keep these principles if they weren't bringing any money in.

« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2006, 16:28 »
0
I bet the photographers who disdain microstock sites have this luxury because they are already making a comfortable living from their work. I wonder if they would keep these principles if they weren't bringing any money in.

Of course it is. Dpreview has many examples of this. Mention microstocks on dpreview and you will have a huge number of people telling you that the microstock system is of the devil and will destroy photography. I believed it for a while and submitted images to Alamy. Then I actually seriously looked into microstock, ran some numbers and realized its earning potention. I don't have any regrets. In my opinion is one main reason for resistance to microstocks, and that is change.

Many people hate change. Their are photographers who have spent many decades building up their portfolios just so they could be considered in joining places like Corbis and Getty images. Others have spent a lot of time with licensed images and really protect every use of their images. They spent a lot of money and time advertising their skills and images. Selling an image for $5 royalty free is an outrageous and ridiculous idea because if they did their income would be less than 10% of what it is now (At least that is what they think) When Istock started most of the contributors were people with simple point and shoots and the quality was less than top quality. No one felt threatened. Now many contributors to microstocks are submitting highly polished images that easily threaten many professional photographers. They see all their decades of work being thrown away. What they don't realize is its a numbers game. They can make just as much money if not more. But many photographers can't get over the idea of selling an image that once used to collect $500 for a one time use and selling it for $5 royalty free. They feel completely cheated. I finally got over that idea and all I care about is income. Not being a full time professional, microstocks fits me well. Now if you have a lot of very unique images places like Alamy is the way to go. It is just like the switch from film to digital. When digital first came out almost all the old photographers who spent years perfecting the art of processing film in the dark room complained bitterly. Saying it was fake and not real, the quality wasn't there, etc, etc. Now digital photography has taken over and businesses based on film are dying (Kodak). Many camera makers don't even produce film bodies anymore. Sure film is around and is still king in large format arena but most have accepted digital photography. As designers and ad agencies use microstocks more and more eventually the photography community will come around and accept it. The professionals who's income is base on macrostock will either adapt or go away. The only place for macrostock photography will be places like Gettys and Corbis, and even they will be hit with some drop in sales.

Just my rambling opinion.

Mark

« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2006, 22:32 »
0
I agree with your 'rambling option' ;) 

I also think there will always be a market for the photographers who don't want to 'devalue' their work.  If they've already built up their clientele, they will most likely keep them; There will always be the businesses who want a customized, original photo; And the macrostocks are available. 

Another option is for them is to specialize -- I am mainly a wine industry photographer taking pictures of vineyards, grapes, wineries, and the wine making process.  The microstock sites are a great place for me to sell my work until I get enough  to form my own Wine Industry stock site -- if it wasn't for microstock these pictures would just be collecting dust. 

dbvirago

« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2006, 07:54 »
0
And if you don't beleive it, look at the survey in the other thread. The flip side to not wanting to sell your $500 image for $5 is, buyers aren't going to pay $500 for a $5 image. It's a market driven business, just like any other.

« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2006, 08:02 »
0
"Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on micropayment sites?

Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Micropayment sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 3 dollars) take advantage of the naivety of amateur photographers.

The only people who benefit from these sites are:

   1. The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers' livelihoods.
   2. The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like. "


Isn't this actually illegal under Anti-Trust laws? Hmmm something here sounds a bit like discrimination to me....

Because you will always deal direct with clients when selling images through Photographers Direct, we are non-exclusive. This means we have no restrictions on photographers selling the same images through other agencies. The only exceptions are micropayment sites such as istockphoto, canstockphoto, shutterstock, dreamstime, bigstockphoto, crestock - we cannot represent photographers who market their images on these sites.

This is what REALLY got me thinkin about it.....
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 08:05 by kkart »

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2006, 17:31 »
0

Because you will always deal direct with clients when selling images through Photographers Direct, we are non-exclusive. This means we have no restrictions on photographers selling the same images through other agencies. The only exceptions are micropayment sites such as istockphoto, canstockphoto, shutterstock, dreamstime, bigstockphoto, crestock - we cannot represent photographers who market their images on these sites.

This is what REALLY got me thinkin about it.....

Thanks for pointing that out, i didn't see that... what a bunch of crap. Well I hope they hit the dirt fast... us microstock photographers are the BEST!!

S.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3644 Views
Last post December 14, 2007, 16:48
by vphoto
16 Replies
6548 Views
Last post February 12, 2008, 04:17
by ozbandit
10 Replies
3380 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 23:45
by Phil
27 Replies
11465 Views
Last post June 14, 2009, 14:12
by MisterElements
61 Replies
14852 Views
Last post May 15, 2009, 16:57
by Pixart

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle