MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: fritz on February 21, 2011, 18:06

Title: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: fritz on February 21, 2011, 18:06
Photographers Turn to Fair Trade to Beat Microstock

http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock (http://blogs.photopreneur.com/photographers-turn-to-fair-trade-to-beat-microstock)

Any experience with Photographers Direct, a stock site using a sales model adapted from the Fair Trade movement. It says that the site generates  more than 1.8 million page views a month and the agency itself is taking only a 20  percent cut.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: sharpshot on February 21, 2011, 18:23
Last time I looked, they don't allow microstock contributors.  That makes them useless for me.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: Blufish on February 21, 2011, 18:43
Are t they all warm and fuzzy about micro stock. I see the posted comments weren't very positive either.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: helix7 on February 21, 2011, 18:44
PD is extremely anti-microstock, and very much opposed to having any microstock photographers on their site.

The guy that runs the site (Barton) is also very much opposed to using facts in his arguments against microstock. He's often cited the dollar stock argument despite it being well known that few sites still sell images for $1 and if they do it's a small web-res image. He believes the average royalty per image sold in microstock is 50 cents (no idea where he got that stat, or when). He has a nice little anti-microstock page (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp) on PD full of out-dated information and some of the worst-case examples of low microstock earnings.

I'd say to avoid PD like the plague, but I don't need to since Barton would have nothing to do with any of us since we're all destroying the photography market. Which, btw, I find odd since his RM site is (according to him) debt-free and profitable. If he's making good money, I'm confused as to how microstock is destroying his business.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 21, 2011, 18:45
The owner is very bitter about micro, and from what I've read, they don't make any sales either.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: elvinstar on February 21, 2011, 18:50
I love how they slam the "quality" of microstock. Have they even looked at any of the stuff that's available?!?!
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lisafx on February 21, 2011, 19:22
Seems this is yet another example of trad photographers blaming micro photographers for the demise of the photo industry.  Too bad.  If all the content providers would stop fighting with eachother, maybe we could band together and demand fairer royalties for ourselves.  Instead, it is the same old "divide and conquer".   
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: stockastic on February 21, 2011, 19:46
I just read the article referenced by the OP and would not disagree with a single word.

"They also encourage the production of low quality, “generic” images that are flexible enough to be sold many times — the only way to make any kind of income...."

Spot on, I'd say.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: louoates on February 21, 2011, 20:03
I'm really angry that nobody is sticking up for us wet plate photographers.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lisafx on February 21, 2011, 20:11
I just read the article referenced by the OP and would not disagree with a single word.

"They also encourage the production of low quality, “generic” images that are flexible enough to be sold many times — the only way to make any kind of income...."

Spot on, I'd say.

That ^^ may be true, but this assertion is not:   

"Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30 but very few of the images being offered for $30 are worthy of being Time covers. Usually, publications still pay the full price demanded by the market because low-priced suppliers can’t produce images of a high enough quality"

I see microstock images used as cover images for magazines all the time.  I have stacks of different magazines with cover images in the garage, where I keep my in-actions, and I bet many microstock shooters here can say the same.  This tired argument that micro images are inferior has been disproven over and over again for years, but still keeps being spread by people who pretend to be "authorities" on the subject.

I certainly like the concept and goals of Photographer's Direct, but their prejudice against micro shooters is outdated and self-defeating. 
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: gwhitton on February 21, 2011, 20:15
One of the biggest problems with the site in my opinion is it looks like a Soviet-era apartment complex. The owner really needs to look at what he's competing against, and realize the packaging as important as what's inside, if not more so. It isn't 1995 anymore.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: SNP on February 21, 2011, 20:35
One of the biggest problems with the site in my opinion is it looks like a Soviet-era apartment complex. The owner really needs to look at what he's competing against, and realize the packaging as important as what's inside, if not more so. It isn't 1995 anymore.

well said. seriously. I only entered microstock five years ago and even then I didn't sell my first microstock photo until a year after that. I guess I missed the advent of microstock. but from what I've read, I'm surprised to see so much negativity still about an industry in which many traditional photographers also now work. it's no longer one or the other, but I guess there will always be personalities resistant to change who dig in their heels about things like this. I'm reading some of the articles and the information is spun in such unflattering ways. if most of the assertions were true, microstock wouldn't present the threat is clearly has to this photographer. unless his primary assertion is that buyers are idiots who don't know the difference between poor and stellar quality work.


I've done some searches on PD. many of the images are beautiful and seem to be high quality. but there's an awful lot of mediocre stuff and not a lot of stock. I particularly enjoyed the "It's not about the money"...part. sure it is. for them and for those of us in microstock. I'm not shooting photos to be nice. You also have to love their books for sale including one entitled "Microstock Photos for Profit" and "The Successful Flickr Photographer". Seems rather oxymoronic.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lisafx on February 21, 2011, 20:51
You also have to love their books for sale including one entitled "Microstock Photos for Profit" and "The Successful Flickr Photographer". Seems rather oxymoronic.

LOL!  I didn't notice that.  Priceless! 
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on February 21, 2011, 20:54
The site sounds like it should be named "angryphotographers.com". The photo registration pages all say "No images on this site are free. Do not register if you cannot pay for images."  That just screams to buyers "hey we appreciate you".

The other part that doesn't make sense is the quote

Quote
“Photographers providing images to microstock sites have damaged the earning potential of all photographers, and allowing those same photographers to join Photographers Direct would only dilute our photographers’ earnings further,” says Chris Barton.

I searched the site. Sorry, a lot of nice stuff and a lot of crap, just like the micros. So wouldn't a better approach be to lure away the micro photographers who are producing highly sellable work and try to get them only into macro? If this happened wouldn't the micro's only be left with crap? And then the macros would have better control over pricing?

The "we hate you go away" approach won't work. I would gladly sell photos for more money but other than "premium collection micro" nobody seems to have a gameplan for that.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: visceralimage on February 22, 2011, 00:05
i was with PD for many years along with many other RM sites.  the same stuff I am now selling as RF used to sold as RM; how can the quality have dropped just because you exchanged an "M" (RM) for an "F" (RF).

Traditional RM is a dying industry; all photographers with images for sale RM complain about the falling image sales and the inability to make a living at RM; if it was not for teaching workshops to future photographers, most pros in the nature and wildlife fields would be looking for work.

I get a bit of flack as a wildlife microstocker but I am working at the job I want; I don't teach any workshops and I don't go to the same places year after year just to make a dime off students that want to go to the same places year after year.  I'm working in an area that has never had a full-time pro photo. working.  I worked for years in USA, never was recognized as anything but a minor player in a big field; here I am a major player, in fact, pretty much the only player.  Then again, not many photographers are asking to join me at -40 below eating chinese noodles and living in a hovel. :-\

Microstock gives us some of choices.  when I used to supply magazines directly, I needed to be tied to my telephone or internet signal 24/7.  Here, I have not had a phone call in 7 months!
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: gwhitton on February 22, 2011, 00:20
Viseral,

I am curious where "here" is. I've lived in places that get -40 much of my adult life. It does tend to weed people out, but living in a hovel eating Chinese noddles doesn't sound like you have struck the lottery either. Of course there are some people who like to live in the high Arctic, I know quite a few.  But if you're trying to cut costs, and be that unique photographer in a cheap and distant land, I would think there are far nicer places then what you describe. Just saying... ;o)

UPDATE: I guess I should read profiles more often, as I answered my own question.  Seems you are just across the pond from me. I've heard of some amazing places over in the Far East. In particular Kamchatka. I knew of a fairly famous Japanese photographer that ventured there many times, before unfortunately falling victim to the very creature he loved. 
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lagereek on February 22, 2011, 01:42
Yet another sour-grapes story! today some 90% of all RM photographers are under various pseudos supplying micros, so what has he got? answer is:  nothing.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: visceralimage on February 22, 2011, 01:47
Viseral,

I am curious where "here" is. I've lived in places that get -40 much of my adult life. It does tend to weed people out, but living in a hovel eating Chinese noddles doesn't sound like you have struck the lottery either. Of course there are some people who like to live in the high Arctic, I know quite a few.  But if you're trying to cut costs, and be that unique photographer in a cheap and distant land, I would think there are far nicer places then what you describe. Just saying... ;o)

UPDATE: I guess I should read profiles more often, as I answered my own question.  Seems you are just across the pond from me. I've heard of some amazing places over in the Far East. In particular Kamchatka. I knew of a fairly famous Japanese photographer that ventured there many times, before unfortunately falling victim to the very creature he loved. 

Kamchatka is on the agenda but not there yet; working a bit west in Amur Region for a year.  Next year will be Primorski Krai, home of the Snow Leopards (the few that are left), Amur Tigers and Asiatic Bears; after that, Yakutia-the coldest inhabited place on earth to follow the reindeer for a season.  My goal is to photograph these amazing animals in their natural habitat before they are gone  (the habitat and the animals); I stay in each location a year to be with the animals during a full year and all four seasons.  I have been to my share of zoos and nature parks; nothing like living with the beasts you photograph.  For you, -40 may not be extreme, but for me it has been a bit of a shock-my previous home was Florida.  This year, my personal low was -47
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: visceralimage on February 22, 2011, 01:52
Yet another sour-grapes story! today some 90% of all RM photographers are under various pseudos supplying micros, so what has he got? answer is:  nothing.

There are two sides to every coin; some only seem to see the negative.  i am doing what I love; where I want to be; and delighted there is some way I can sell enough images to buy enough food to survive another day.  I do this by choice; before I closed my business-I was a research scientist with a private laboratory making more money than I could spend; well, almost-because I was able to spend it all.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: ShadySue on February 22, 2011, 05:15
One of the biggest problems with the site in my opinion is it looks like a Soviet-era apartment complex. The owner really needs to look at what he's competing against, and realize the packaging as important as what's inside, if not more so. It isn't 1995 anymore.
Indeed. Just take iStock's "cutting edge" site design and functionality as an example.  ::)
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: RT on February 22, 2011, 06:15
"When microstock photographers produce images of “the lowest common denominator” they widen the gap between the quality of budget pictures and the excellence of the kind of images offered by the professionals on Photographers Direct. Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30 but very few of the images being offered for $30 are worthy of being Time covers."

Makes you wonder why Chris Barton keeps bleating on about microstock then doesn't it.

IMO Photographers Direct is a site that's slipping away ( although I've never heard anything positive about it in terms of sales) and rather than do something proactive he chooses to sit in the corner and blame the competition.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: ShadySue on February 22, 2011, 06:31
Plenty low/no sales comments on various Alamy forum threads, of which I think this is the latest:
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7254 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7254)
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: jm on February 22, 2011, 06:53
Mr. Barton probably thinks that more expensive photos = higher income for poor and exploited artists.
I think that more expensive photos = much more stolen photos and no income for no more exploited but even poorer artists.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: grp_photo on February 22, 2011, 07:06
The idea is good but the world isn't ready now. ;D
At the current state I wouldn't waste my time with it but you can't deny that some of his arguments are "spot on" like stockastic already said.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: ShadySue on February 22, 2011, 08:01
Mr. Barton probably thinks that more expensive photos = higher income for poor and exploited artists.
I think that more expensive photos = much more stolen photos and no income for no more exploited but even poorer artists.
Oh, I don't know. There were very many micro photos stolen over the Christmas period, no income for poor artists and goodness knows where they'll pop up.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: sharpshot on February 22, 2011, 08:02
My small RM portfolio does OK on alamy.  I think some people will be able to sell RM, there's still a market for it.  There's always people complaining about poor sales with RM and RF.  Those that do OK are usually much quieter.  It's also good for contributors because if my photo sells to a newspaper and then I see it on a calendar, I know that license hasn't been purchased and I can do something about it.  That's usually much harder with microstock RF, as I have no idea what the people buying my images are using them for.

I really don't want to see RM killed off and I don't think it will happen but I do wish we all had the choice of selling RF or RM at any price point we want.

I don't like the RM people knocking microstock but I feel just as bad about microstock RF contributors wishing for the demise of RM.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: cthoman on February 22, 2011, 10:06
...but I do wish we all had the choice of selling RF or RM at any price point we want.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I think more control and setting prices seems like what should happen at a lot of these agencies. It probably won't though.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lisafx on February 22, 2011, 10:15

I don't like the RM people knocking microstock but I feel just as bad about microstock RF contributors wishing for the demise of RM.

Are there microstock contributors wishing for the death of RM?  I do read a lot of comments that RM is dying, but wasn't aware anyone was celebrating about that. 
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: stockastic on February 22, 2011, 11:08
I just read the article referenced by the OP and would not disagree with a single word.

"They also encourage the production of low quality, “generic” images that are flexible enough to be sold many times — the only way to make any kind of income...."

Spot on, I'd say.

That ^^ may be true, but this assertion is not:  

"Chris Barton asks why Time magazine would pay more when a cover image is available for only $30 but very few of the images being offered for $30 are worthy of being Time covers. Usually, publications still pay the full price demanded by the market because low-priced suppliers can’t produce images of a high enough quality"

I see microstock images used as cover images for magazines all the time.  I have stacks of different magazines with cover images in the garage, where I keep my in-actions, and I bet many microstock shooters here can say the same.  This tired argument that micro images are inferior has been disproven over and over again for years, but still keeps being spread by people who pretend to be "authorities" on the subject.

I certainly like the concept and goals of Photographer's Direct, but their prejudice against micro shooters is outdated and self-defeating.  

I didn't take it as literally as you did.   By 'quality' I think the writer meant something other than the absence of 'artifacts' :-).    I like to think he was talking about images that took some time, thought, originality and maybe even a few dollars to produce.     Sure there are quality images in microstock; but of course many of them never made back their cost of production.   Some contributors are now highly skilled at turning out cookie-cutter model shots with perfect white balance, and they make money, and they're happy with the microstock business.  That's fine for them.  Others are seeing money left on the table because they can't find away to connect with buyers who would actually be happy to pay a few dollars more.

The internet was supposed to create the perfect market, where sellers of every commodity could readily find the buyers looking for their product.  It hasn't quite worked out.  Instead, a small number of middlemen, with a mindlessly simplistic business model that created a downward price spiral, have succeeded in monopolizing the channel.  Buyers don't seem able to route around them, even if they're interested.  There's just too much noise, we can't be heard as we stand on street corners hawking our wares.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: gaja on February 22, 2011, 11:27
The request forum on PD isn't too bad. Most of it is very specialized, but there are some good ideas there that can be used for microstock.

http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/requests.asp (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/requests.asp)
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: madelaide on February 22, 2011, 11:42
Instead, it is the same old "divide and conquer". 
To be fair, it was the microstock concept that divided the market, by offering images at very low prices. And microstock conquered. :D

A colleague from SP reports good results in PD. He is an excellent landscape photographer, with some amazing seascapes and US National Parks, and he's licensed images and sold prints there.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: ShadySue on February 22, 2011, 11:43
How much does it cost to hire a plane?
EDINBURGH CITYSCAPE WITH ARTHUR'S SEAT, SCOTLAND
     We are looking for an image of Edinburgh cityscape over Arthur's seat (it should be in the background but with quite a prominent view).
It would be used for editorial purposes online as well as on national press (newspapers)up to a year.
   
Budget:     
Cover, full page:     UKŁ200       (full page, cover of book, magazine or brochure)

The elevated view of Edinburgh is generally shot from the edge of Arthur's Seat. To get Arthur's Seat in the foreground, you'd need to be in a plane above the hill. How could you shoot the cityscape 'over Arthur's Seat' with AS in the background? If AS was in the background, the city would be at the front with the hill in the background, and that would be not be the cityscape 'over Arthur's Seat'.
There are a few classic views of the city 'from' Arthur's seat on iStock, and no doubt other sites.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: cthoman on February 22, 2011, 14:14
The internet was supposed to create the perfect market, where sellers of every commodity could readily find the buyers looking for their product.  It hasn't quite worked out.  Instead, a small number of middlemen, with a mindlessly simplistic business model that created a downward price spiral, have succeeded in monopolizing the channel.  Buyers don't seem able to route around them, even if they're interested.  There's just too much noise, we can't be heard as we stand on street corners hawking our wares.

It's all still evolving. It will be interesting to see how it changes down the road. Micro is still pretty young, so I expect some growing pains. A lot of us are learning along with them too about what works and what doesn't.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: stockastic on February 22, 2011, 14:23
The internet was supposed to create the perfect market, where sellers of every commodity could readily find the buyers looking for their product.  It hasn't quite worked out.  Instead, a small number of middlemen, with a mindlessly simplistic business model that created a downward price spiral, have succeeded in monopolizing the channel.  Buyers don't seem able to route around them, even if they're interested.  There's just too much noise, we can't be heard as we stand on street corners hawking our wares.

It's all still evolving. It will be interesting to see how it changes down the road. Micro is still pretty young, so I expect some growing pains. A lot of us are learning along with them too about what works and what doesn't.

That's true.  The hard part though would be to get the price up off of the floor, now that buyers are comfortable with the idea that the photographer gets 19 cents - and they have no idea who he is.   This business has been pretty thoroughly trashed, it would take time to rebuild it.   
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: cthoman on February 22, 2011, 15:10
That's true.  The hard part though would be to get the price up off of the floor, now that buyers are comfortable with the idea that the photographer gets 19 cents - and they have no idea who he is.   This business has been pretty thoroughly trashed, it would take time to rebuild it.   
I think there's some truth to that. Why should a web image really cost any less than a high res? You're buying the same license. It's just an excuse to sell cheap files. At some point, these companies may have to decide if they want to be agents or crowdsourcers. The problem is most of them have too many contributors to actually represent them properly.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: VB inc on February 22, 2011, 15:22
It's all still evolving. It will be interesting to see how it changes down the road. Micro is still pretty young, so I expect some growing pains. A lot of us are learning along with them too about what works and what doesn't.

I agree except for the part where micro is pretty young. In this day and age, where change happens daily, 10 years seems pretty mature to me. I sometimes wish there a slow down button.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lisafx on February 22, 2011, 16:50


I didn't take it as literally as you did.   By 'quality' I think the writer meant something other than the absence of 'artifacts' :-).    I like to think he was talking about images that took some time, thought, originality and maybe even a few dollars to produce.     Sure there are quality images in microstock; but of course many of them never made back their cost of production.  

Who said anything about "artifacts"?? 

No, we both took "quality" the same way.  Although there is certainly a lot of cookie cutter garbage on the micro sites, there are also higher production value, more original types of images.   Whether they make back the cost of production, that's another issue.  But it is a blanket inaccuracy to say it is all the same cheap, mass produced junk. 
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: gwhitton on February 22, 2011, 19:01
cthoman,

To your question, should there be difference between "web" and original image in pricing? Yes. They aren't the same thing. The uses of the web-sized image are limited for obvious reasons.

Talking about the evolution of microstock, I personally wonder if eventually micro-RF doesn't turn into micro-RM, where you are a given some additional control over pricing based in particular on the entity purchasing the image.  There is no way in my opinion that an organization like Vanity Fair/Wiley-Blackwell should be allowed to get away with paying cents for a magazine/book cover shot, when it has 10's of thousands if not millions of subscribers/readers. But at the same time there is a market for small-time bloggers, book authors, and organizations that can and should be served. And to expect them to pay $500 for an image is ridiculous, especially when its web-only size.

How exactly you would structure that usage model and its pricing I don't know, but I think its possible, and I think it can be made fair for all.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: cthoman on February 22, 2011, 20:25
To your question, should there be difference between "web" and original image in pricing? Yes. They aren't the same thing. The uses of the web-sized image are limited for obvious reasons.

I don't really care how you use it (web, print or other). It's not rights managed. Just sell one size and that's how much the license to use the image costs. That's how vectors work at many sites, and it is a much better system than the multiple sizes system. I think photographers should demand the same system. As more and more media moves towards the web and digital formats like the ipad, why should web or digital media get discounts over print. You're selling an image license not a size.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: cathyslife on February 22, 2011, 20:33
To your question, should there be difference between "web" and original image in pricing? Yes. They aren't the same thing. The uses of the web-sized image are limited for obvious reasons.

I don't really care how you use it (web, print or other). It's not rights managed. Just sell one size and that's how much the license to use the image costs. That's how vectors work at many sites, and it is a much better system than the multiple sizes system. I think photographers should demand the same system. As more and more media moves towards the web and digital formats like the ipad, why should web or digital media get discounts over print. You're selling an image license not a size.

Excellent points.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on February 22, 2011, 20:40
Why leave money on the table when different sizes bring different use opportunities and should require more cost?  If vectors weren't infinitely resizable, they'd be sold the same way.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: cthoman on February 22, 2011, 21:25
Why leave money on the table when different sizes bring different use opportunities and should require more cost?  If vectors weren't infinitely resizable, they'd be sold the same way.

I think that argument could be made either way. Why give discounts to people that would have paid full price? Most people just want an image, so they don't care if they pay $1 or $10. From my experience, most of my money is made with the bigger ticket sales in volume. You know that day when someone comes in and buys 5 or 10 images at the max size. The small size sales are just filler. I also wonder about the sustainability of volume sales at low prices too. Volume is hard to maintain. I look at SS and I see a site that really hasn't grown at all in sales. I just sell more On Demand now to make up for the lost volume. I'm sure there is an equation to figure out the sweet spot where volume meets price. Look, it is just a rant, but it is something to think about.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: gwhitton on February 22, 2011, 23:21
Why leave money on the table when different sizes bring different use opportunities and should require more cost?  If vectors weren't infinitely resizable, they'd be sold the same way.

I agree with this. We may not like it, but different sizes are a mechanism to charge a premium for increased utility.  It also offers the added benefit of providing for two markets, the low end user, and the high end user.

It will also offer a way in the future for medium format digital users to differentiate themselves from the 35mm crowd that won't be producing 100MP images anytime soon.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on March 04, 2011, 00:13
Yet another sour-grapes story! today some 90% of all RM photographers are under various pseudos supplying micros, so what has he got? answer is:  nothing.

Bloody pros coming over here and stealing our sales! I vote for Fair-Trade Microstocking, where we throw out all these money-grubbing professionals with their high-quality photography and keep all the earnings for ourselves. Strictly on the basis of high-minded principles, of course.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: lagereek on March 04, 2011, 02:12
Yet another sour-grapes story! today some 90% of all RM photographers are under various pseudos supplying micros, so what has he got? answer is:  nothing.

Bloody pros coming over here and stealing our sales! I vote for Fair-Trade Microstocking, where we throw out all these money-grubbing professionals with their high-quality photography and keep all the earnings for ourselves. Strictly on the basis of high-minded principles, of course.

What!!  huh ;),  only trouble is, there isnt all that much in pro photography today exept maybe on the freelance commercial market. The old adage, paying for quality and therefore buy RM doesnt hold anymore. Very, very few RM ports can offer something above the best of Micro and this is the fact that angers some people.
Must admit, some 5 years back I was cursing the Micros myself but then when I started to see quality, it was obvious that micro was one avenue to go.

best.
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: Phil on March 04, 2011, 10:15
although updated, the PD article is quite old. I think on here we talked a couple of years ago about how many customers have read it and then probably gone to the micros to get cheap images :) Dealt with PD years ago cant say I'm convinced on PD deserving of the super-ethical soapbox that it is trying take.
I think it is all a bit too late for the anti-micro stuff, its here, its done there is too much money involved. Perhaps if more macros had been more willing to take people on, copy some of the croudsource model, make huge libraries like alamy, things may be different...
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: OM on March 06, 2011, 09:50
I'm really angry that nobody is sticking up for us wet plate photographers.

It's all a load of old collodion. ;)
Title: Re: Photographers beat Microstock
Post by: qwerty on March 06, 2011, 15:22
I'm really angry that nobody is sticking up for us wet plate photographers.

It's all a load of old collodion. ;)

Or the combined abestos installers union