I'm one of those amateurs Rinder writes about.  And I think that microstock really is a place for amateurs rather than professionals.  And when I occaisionally post here, he comes right back at me.  That is what I like best about his contributions, not the advice, but that he responds and is passionate about his responses.

I'd agree with that.

Making a living as a pro is far more about networking and maintaining relationships than it is about making good shots. Once the word gets around at how much money is being made where your only concern is making marketable images, this marketplace will be flooded with pros - the same ones who now eschew this industry for devaluating their profession.

I think the next big shakeup is going to come when Flickr enters the scene - it's not unusual for me to get emails from my Flickr contacts who've been contacted by someone who wants to buy their images. Now that Yahoo owns the joint, it's only a matter of time before Flickr enters the fray. The amount of photos they have is orders of magnitude greater than all stock agencies - micro, macro, Getty, Corbis, ... - combined.

Flickr, I think, will become home to the amateur microstocker, and home to the most variety of shots (in quantity, quality, and scope). IS and SS will be home to the professional, and will be where the quality images are. DT, FT and the rest will still be marginal players, perhaps finding a small niche market or two.

... at least that's what I think.

... it would be extremely difficult for a buyer to find an image that they are looking for.  A buyer would have to wade thru droves and droves of snapshots to find one good image. 

Flickr ranks images according to "interestingness" (= popularity). That, and the fact that there is a total absence of keyword spamming, makes it exceedingly easy to find quality images quickly. Also, most people post their images to relevant groups, which are analogous to categories.

Flickr is not a stock photography site. Nobody posts isolated shots of any sort on Flickr - that's not what it's all about. Not yet, anyway.

I'm merely observing that people are selling commercial stuff there with increasing frequency, that's all. I've personally been contacted by two state tourism agencies to have my pictures licensed. I know many people who have had shots licensed for magazine, catalog and corporate publication. There are countless threads of the "Help - I don't know what to charge!" ilk. I've noticed, too, that the "interestingness" score on Flickr is not too bad a barometer for how well a non-typical stock shot might sell.

Sure there's a lot of junk on Flickr, but there's plenty of world-class stuff as well. So go ahead, ignore it if you want to - it's nobody's loss but your own.

The thing with Flickr is that is pretty hard to underprice a micro site.  So why go to Flickr which haven't been quality controled/ various sizes/no model release, noise when you can go to SS, IS ... and get for $1.

I think it will go in the opposite direction. The key to success in microstock is new uploads all the time, preferably every day. For amateurs, that's a tough tasks. Those who gain are the "microstock professionals, people who make a living only from microstock. There are a few of them around already, and my guess is that there's a market for a few hundred of them. Other people will have to settle for a pay-out now and then.

hope i do not confuse things here. Have split this topic into two.

The stuff refering to Rinder is still in that thread, this discussion on pro or hobby photogs taking of microstock is now in this thread.

I sure don't know what, how or why of it all,  pro vs amatuer..   I've been shooting pix as a passionate hobby for 40-some years. Last year I was talked into trying some of my stuff in the micros.  I won't be buying my ski lodge in the mountains anytime soon on my micro sales,  although, I'm surprised and quite happy about how they are doing.
      Via my modest portfolio on the micros, some of my colonial architecture shots were seen by the editor of  4 regional ' country living' magazines. I was contacted and asked if I'd be interested in doing some shoots for the 4 magazines. What do you think I said?
     I met with them, gave them 8 relevant pix that I had taken last year. They wipped out a contract, a W-9 and told me what they paid. Not 15 minutes ago I got an email informing me that they were going with the spread and those pix.  I'm to submit my invoice.   
     I was a bit shocked at what the pay would be for a supposed standard half day work for a NYC-Phila metro area photog.  A GOOD shocked.  It took all of  20-30 minutes to take those pictures.  And it's a helluva lot more than 25 cents times 8.  Heck, if I could do that 3 or 4 times a week, it is more than enough that  I COULD give up my day job.
      I'm assured more assignments in the coming months. And I'm told my work will be introduced to others in the biz, whatever that means. I assume that's the 'networking' that was mentioned earlier in the thread.

My point or question is this.  I shot them as a hobby.  I'm now moving from 25 cents to big bucks for  8 shots.  It went from a kid buying them  for his homework,  to a four page magazine spread.
   What am I?    Amatuer or Pro?    Where is the magic line?
And just for the record, so all know where I'm coming from,  I couldn't care less about the title. Ya don't take titles to the bank and they won't accept titles at the camera shop.  And I won't be giving up my day job (34 years in the organization) just because of this.. the industry seems pretty fickle.
    Not tooting my horn,  just adding fuel to the discussion.  I know there are REAL pros on this forum. I am in no way trying to be disrespectful to them or any. And I'm sure there are others with a similar tale....I don't think I'm anything/anyone special. I think I'm just a decent hobbyist.
                 But when is an amatuer no longer an amatuer?  When do you get your nametag?  I figure, you have to start somewhere....    -tom

   

                 But when is an amatuer no longer an amatuer?  When do you get your nametag?  I figure, you have to start somewhere....    -tom

There isn't any absolute answers to that. I'm a 70% photographer and 30% designer. Three years ago, it was the other way around. Am I a pro? Probably. Still, there are lots of dentists and bus-drivers who take better photos than me, and many full time pro's who take photos that don't measure up at all.

It's a question of being available and delivering what the client wants. An amateur has to take care of his day-job. This is my day-job, so I can go on a five day assignment to Whatever-City in Nowhere-Land any time.

How does this relate to microstock? It doesn't really. Microstock of the future will be for all those who are willing  to invest enough time, and able to deliver good enough quality. Many pro's will whine about cheap amateurs taking over their job. Fact is, that some of those amateurs are mostly lots better stock photographers than most of the whiners.

A couple of weeks ago, I read the following in a newspaper: if you make a living from trading gold, and your neighbours find a way to make gold in their bathtubs, from stuff bought at the local supermarket, chances are that the price of your gold will drop. Adapt or die, it's that simple.

For stock photography, that is most definitely the case.

The amateur vs. pro is dependent on your definition of the two.

Some say that the difference between the two is that one makes money from his hobby while the other spends money on his hobby.

Others will say that a professional is someone that does it as their primary income source.

But I agree with the sentiment that microstock will probably be more of an entry point for "advanced amateurs" to try out the profession.

I remember a contest last year - I think it was the big Nikon contest - and they asked which category - amateur or pro.  They provided a definition if you didn't know where you fell...  You are a pro if you earn more than 50% of your income from photography.

So, according to Nikon, I'm a pro.  But I feel like more of an advanced amateur.

Although I believe Professional should mean Qualified ,(for instance I have a level 6 diploma in Photographic imaging, after 43 years of photography I went back to school for 3 years to get a better handle on digital) and eaning an income, however meagre. ; Literally though, the word "amateur" is derived from the French "Amor"- For the love of it; whereas a professional gets paid. Even carrying out your business in a professional (respectable and efficient manner) could also come into the equation. To myself, if you derive money from your efforts,you are professional, It comes down to whatever you want to call yourself- my business card says "Creative freelance Photographer" and that serves me well. regards, Ken (grizzlybear)

.....Professional should mean Qualified ,....... Literally though, the word "amateur" is derived from the French "Amor"- For the love of it; whereas a professional gets paid. Even carrying out your business in a professional (respectable and efficient manner) could also come into the equation. To myself, if you derive money from your efforts,you are professional, It comes down to whatever you want to call yourself- my business card says "Creative freelance Photographer" and that serves me well. regards, Ken (grizzlybear)

Grizzlybear, I enjoyed your comment and also Kosmikkreepers thoughts.  Koskmik said it was a   "mindset".   He also said,   "I still had a lot to learn (and I always will). "   I respect both of your thoughts and comments.  I'd have to admit that my thinking, at this time, would line up behind the both of you.    thanks.      -tom