MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Sad day for photographers  (Read 37588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2009, 16:52 »
0
I do know some guys are making extremely good money at microstock...

Well ... look and learn from them and you'll be making good money too. Simples.

See my earlier post, these guys are finding it less than a picnic now too... $40,000 to produce 2000 new images in three months and have NO INCREASE in sales is not exactly the right direction!

Just because Yuri spent $40,000 on his work doesn't mean A. it's a smart move, or B. you should either.

You're right - it's a perfectly good shot of a guy on a rock.  But that's all it is.  I'm not seeing any concept, like hope, or exploration, or freedom there. 

And if said agency has 2000 other shots of guys on rocks, they may be a bit tired of just seeing guys on rocks.  They may be trying to push the collection a bit.  The fact that you get $.17 or $1 from a licensing doesn't affect the direction they want to take the collection.  Or it could just be a persnickity reviewer.

You can take the opinion or not - I don't care.

I see you think .17 cents for your work is fair.  I hope one day you learn what you are worth.


« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2009, 16:53 »
0
You keep banging on about '14c' but I'm with 7 agencies and none of them sell for that low.
Yes, one agency advertises that in its front page.  It is not what they pay contributors, but what a buyer pays if they buy a certain subs plan.

« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2009, 16:55 »
0
I see you think .17 cents for your work is fair.  I hope one day you learn what you are worth.

Not to worry!  My minimum for an XS on iStock is $.19 .  :)  You're the one with the agency that pays an amount you aren't happy with.  That's why I said maybe you should revisit who you are playing with.

« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2009, 17:01 »
0
However, if everyone becomes IS exclusive, meaning total monopoly of IS, I doubt if that would make you happy, Mr SJ, lol.

I see you think .17 cents for your work is fair.  I hope one day you learn what you are worth.

Not to worry!  My minimum for an XS on iStock is $.19 .  :)  You're the one with the agency that pays an amount you aren't happy with.  That's why I said maybe you should revisit who you are playing with.

« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2009, 17:07 »
0
In the 3 years I have been doing this, commissions have generally gone up, not down.  A few sites have low subs commissions but they don't sell much and some of us no longer continue supplying sites that sell subs for $0.25.  It gets a bit boring reading that prices are plummeting when overall they aren't.  There are more sites trying higher prices now but that doesn't seem to be mentioned as much as subs.  Overall, I would much rather have the commissions available now than when I started.

As for rejections, who cares?  There have been people complaining about them all the time I have been here.  It isn't getting any worse for me, some sites reject more than others and the reasons can be baffling.  As long as my earnings increase each month, I am not concerned.

« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2009, 17:15 »
0
However, if everyone becomes IS exclusive, meaning total monopoly of IS, I doubt if that would make you happy, Mr SJ, lol.

No, I certainly don't want that.  However, dropping whatever site we're discussing does not equal going exclusive.

« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2009, 17:29 »
0
Getting back to the oriiginal topic - the rejected image - I guess I could agree it's not an electrifying concept shot. But, off the top of my head I see "outdoors", "youth", "possibilities", "independence", "the future", "health", "solitude", "hiking", "backpacking" and probably any number of other topics.

The point is, it's good enough, and way better than tons of cr@p they've already accepted. Seeing a clean professional image like this, from a contributer who's been sending in quality stuff, why not just take it and say "thanks"?    Or at least, give a polite reason for rejecting it, something like "doesn't meet our current needs".  

Bottom line: microstock contributors have all the clout of undocumented migrant farm workers.


« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2009, 17:32 »
0
 A few sites have low subs commissions but they don't sell much and some of us no longer continue supplying sites that sell subs for $0.25.

Huh?  DT, SS, FT and IS are all paying me 25-30 cents for sub sales, and the sales are 99% subs.  I'm not quite seeing the paradise you're describing.  So what are these other sites I'm overlooking? 

« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2009, 17:42 »
0

...  Do they think they'll be successfully selling nothing but kids' cell-phone photos, 3 years from now? ...


Dude, you just let out a great idea!  Now let's see how long it take someone to capitalise on it.  Yes....."Cell-Stock." 

« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2009, 17:43 »
0
 A few sites have low subs commissions but they don't sell much and some of us no longer continue supplying sites that sell subs for $0.25.

Huh?  DT, SS, FT and IS are all paying me 25-30 cents for sub sales, and the sales are 99% subs.  I'm not quite seeing the paradise you're describing.  So what are these other sites I'm overlooking? 
You get 99% subs sales with istock?  I find that impossible to believe.  All those sites pay me well over 30 cents for subs and I get more pay per download at higher prices than subs sales.

« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2009, 17:45 »
0
It cracks me up, to read some of the responses to this thread.  You can't even post about a stupid rejection without getting it critiqued. This shot has good commercial value and nothing wrong with it.  It's an environmental lifestyle portrait.  Well done Mark, keep up the good work.

Yes.

« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2009, 17:58 »
0

Bottom line: microstock contributors have all the clout of undocumented migrant farm workers.


I don't think micro shooters have even that much clout.  Where I live many undocumented farm workers are able to buy new pickup trucks regularly.  Try walking into your local government welfare office and say you're a starving microstock shooter and see how many benefits that gets you!

Best thread in a while around here!!  Thanks for starting it, MarkStout!

« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2009, 18:03 »
0
You get 99% subs sales with istock?  I find that impossible to believe.  All those sites pay me well over 30 cents for subs and I get more pay per download at higher prices than subs sales.

Ok let me be more accurate. I get mostly sub sales on all of these, but only on SS are subs 99% of my sales.

Sounds like you're doing much better than I am.

« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2009, 18:04 »
0
Some things I have noticed; micro generally likes a very bright image and although yours is in the acceptable range it would likely do better being brighter. Second, many super great images have not place on micro. Learn how and submit them to macro sites. Thirdly, try not to get too caught up on what gets rejected; although I have done my share of bitching as well, it is a real time waster.

« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2009, 18:10 »
0
See my earlier post, these guys are finding it less than a picnic now too... $40,000 to produce 2000 new images in three months and have NO INCREASE in sales is not exactly the right direction!

Yuri knows he went a bit over the top on his production costs on that one. I think he just assumed that his sales graph would just keep growing upwards at the same rate forever but of course it doesn't quite work like that. He also once paid someone $2000 to drive around for some weeks as a 'location scout' and the guy didn't actually find anywhere suitable. Yuri loves spending money and, fortunately for him, he can afford to do so. Most of us have to be much more careful.

Microstock is about efficiency in every area __ production costs, time, equipment, everything. Funnily enough most other industries that operate in a competitive marketplace are like that too.

Your general whine about microstock is not an unusual one from people that have been earning a living from photography for some time. I get the impression that you/they think that they should be able to spend whatever they feel like on a shoot, as if it were of no consequence, and the buyers should be forced to pay enough to cover those costs and a hefty margin on top. That would be nice but it's not necessarily going to happen in a world where the buyer has choices and there are many other photographers.

I could do a shoot like yours for no more than $100 and it would take about a day including post-processing. If you happened to live close to suitable terrain and had a willing partner or buddy to model then it would cost virtually nothing other than time. Hopefully I'd get 10 or 20 images out of it and even on microstock I'd expect them to make a few $100's over the next year or two.

Each month I analyse how much the images I uploaded one year and two years earlier have earned. It is surprisingly high and, contrary to popular opinion, the second year's earnings very closely match the first year. Like everything microstock is going to be whatever you want to make of it. As far as I'm concerned if I keep control of my costs then it pays pretty well and gives me a lot of freedom.

« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2009, 18:14 »
0

Bottom line: microstock contributors have all the clout of undocumented migrant farm workers.


I don't think micro shooters have even that much clout.  Where I live many undocumented farm workers are able to buy new pickup trucks regularly.  Try walking into your local government welfare office and say you're a starving microstock shooter and see how many benefits that gets you!

Best thread in a while around here!!  Thanks for starting it, MarkStout!

THANK YOU.  All I am trying to do here is get a few people to open their eyes.  How many of you honestly believe your work is only worth a quarter or so?  How many of you think those downloading your work for peanut SHELLS are then willing to turn around and price their work the same?  

OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS.  DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE WORTH THAT LITTLE?   This post isn't about how great my image is.  Not at all.  It is to illustrate the point that for sums of money that do not really justify a hobbiest spending the time to keyword the photos, microstock is demanding professional quality.  This is having a dampening effect on the entire industry, it needs to be addressed.

As a note, microstocks pricing seems to be hurting it as well.  I noted a while back that one of the agencies raised its fees and at the same time CUT the percentage paid to the photographers.  This is something they would not have to do if they were charging fair fees to begin with.

« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2009, 18:15 »
0
You get 99% subs sales with istock?  I find that impossible to believe.  All those sites pay me well over 30 cents for subs and I get more pay per download at higher prices than subs sales.

Ok let me be more accurate. I get mostly sub sales on all of these, but only on SS are subs 99% of my sales.

Sounds like you're doing much better than I am.
I must be.  With istock, I have 57 subs sales out of over 10000.  Can't imagine anyone having mostly subs sales there.  I get more PPD than subs on FT and DT, it is only SS that sell more subs and their PPD are increasing.


« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2009, 18:21 »
0
All I am trying to do here is get a few people to open their eyes.  How many of you honestly believe your work is only worth a quarter or so?  How many of you think those downloading your work for peanut SHELLS are then willing to turn around and price their work the same?  

OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS.  DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE WORTH THAT LITTLE?   This post isn't about how great my image is.  Not at all.  It is to illustrate the point that for sums of money that do not really justify a hobbiest spending the time to keyword the photos, microstock is demanding professional quality.  This is having a dampening effect on the entire industry, it needs to be addressed.

I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret Mark .... sometimes microstock images actually sell more than once and the average commission is actually many times higher than you are suggesting.

It is about time that you opened your eyes to reality rather than trying to overstate your case with misleading figures.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 18:24 by gostwyck »

« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2009, 18:21 »
0

Bottom line: microstock contributors have all the clout of undocumented migrant farm workers.


I don't think micro shooters have even that much clout.  Where I live many undocumented farm workers are able to buy new pickup trucks regularly.  Try walking into your local government welfare office and say you're a starving microstock shooter and see how many benefits that gets you!

Best thread in a while around here!!  Thanks for starting it, MarkStout!

THANK YOU.  All I am trying to do here is get a few people to open their eyes.  How many of you honestly believe your work is only worth a quarter or so?  How many of you think those downloading your work for peanut SHELLS are then willing to turn around and price their work the same?  

OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS.  DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE WORTH THAT LITTLE?   This post isn't about how great my image is.  Not at all.  It is to illustrate the point that for sums of money that do not really justify a hobbiest spending the time to keyword the photos, microstock is demanding professional quality.  This is having a dampening effect on the entire industry, it needs to be addressed.

As a note, microstocks pricing seems to be hurting it as well.  I noted a while back that one of the agencies raised its fees and at the same time CUT the percentage paid to the photographers.  This is something they would not have to do if they were charging fair fees to begin with.
I have deja vu all over again :)  This has been argued about in the past.  I really can't be bothered going over the pro-microstock argument again.  You are right, go and tell everyone what a waste of time microstock is.

« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2009, 18:23 »
0
I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret Mark .... sometimes microstock images actually sell more than once and the average commission is actually many times higher than you are suggesting. It is high time that you opened your eyes to reality.
Nnnoooooo!!!  They only ever sell once and the most we can make is 25 cents :)

« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2009, 18:26 »
0
I must be.  With istock, I have 57 subs sales out of over 10000.  Can't imagine anyone having mostly subs sales there.  

I had my only subs sale at IS so long ago that I had forgotten about subs there.  Today I had two, but 19c per XS images is not strange in IS (normally 21-24c in credit sales, so on my side I'm fine.  I only don't remember how cheap buyers pay.  My problem is always about how cheap images cost in subs, not just about my share. 

« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2009, 18:33 »
0
All I am trying to do here is get a few people to open their eyes.  How many of you honestly believe your work is only worth a quarter or so?  How many of you think those downloading your work for peanut SHELLS are then willing to turn around and price their work the same?  

OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS.  DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE WORTH THAT LITTLE?   This post isn't about how great my image is.  Not at all.  It is to illustrate the point that for sums of money that do not really justify a hobbiest spending the time to keyword the photos, microstock is demanding professional quality.  This is having a dampening effect on the entire industry, it needs to be addressed.

I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret Mark .... sometimes microstock images actually sell more than once and the average commission is actually many times higher than you are suggesting.

It is about time that you opened your eyes to reality rather than trying to overstate your case with misleading figures.

I know that.  THEY STILL AREN'T SELLING FOR WHAT THEY ARE WORTH!  THAT IS THE POINT.  Again, I'm sorry you consider the worth of your work and yourself worth so little.  I honestly cannot understand why you would defend your right to get screwed.  Can you?????

« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2009, 18:37 »
0
I am surprised to see so much controversy in this thread!  To me it is fairly obvious that is a good stock photo.  Nothing at all in its "aesthetic quality" that would justify a rejection, IMO.   Assuming it is as focused and noise free as stated, I can't imagine a legitimate reason to reject it.

Sometimes reviewers just screw up.  We've all had it happen to us and it isn't the end of the world.  Just another little aggravating part of the micro business.

Glad to see you decided to resubmit Mark.  I am certain it will be accepted and go on to be a decent seller for you.  


« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2009, 18:39 »
0
THEY STILL AREN'T SELLING FOR WHAT THEY ARE WORTH!  THAT IS THE POINT.  Again, I'm sorry you consider the worth of your work and yourself worth so little.  I honestly cannot understand why you would defend your right to get screwed.  Can you?????

What are your images worth Mark?

How much did that shoot on the mountain cost you in time/money and how much should they be sold for?

« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2009, 18:41 »
0
I am surprised to see so much controversy in this thread!  To me it is fairly obvious that is a good stock photo.  Nothing at all in its "aesthetic quality" that would justify a rejection, IMO.   Assuming it is as focused and noise free as stated, I can't imagine a legitimate reason to reject it.

Sometimes reviewers just screw up.  We've all had it happen to us and it isn't the end of the world.  Just another little aggravating part of the micro business.

Glad to see you decided to resubmit Mark.  I am certain it will be accepted and go on to be a decent seller for you.  



I'm not resubmitting it.  The others have accepted it and it is being downloaed several times per day on each.  The point I decided to needed to be made here is the double standard being made by microstock which I thought this image would illustrate well.  The quality standards being demanded are professional, the pay per download isn't really even something that could be considered good for a hobbiest.  This is not good for anyone.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
5904 Views
Last post August 06, 2009, 03:58
by pixdeluxe
14 Replies
5429 Views
Last post April 20, 2018, 19:54
by Wishing well
15 Replies
3448 Views
Last post September 18, 2007, 15:26
by chellyar
9 Replies
4944 Views
Last post May 29, 2008, 08:06
by josh_crestock
3 Replies
3891 Views
Last post August 19, 2009, 14:25
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results