MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sad day for photographers  (Read 38569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 31, 2009, 18:45 »
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?


You might find this article enlightening.  You seem to be lacking information on what photography is worth to those using the images.  You will also find other good articles on this site regarding how to determine things such as calculating your cost of doing business.... 
http://editorialphoto.com/resources/value_of_photography.asp

You can choose to raise your standards of what you are worth, or try to pull everyone else down with you.  It is up to you.  Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice. 


« Reply #51 on: July 31, 2009, 18:45 »
0

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?????

Although, as I said, you have a perfectly fine picture there, I do have to wonder why you are selling microstock if you are offended by the prices charged.  That is something we all know going in to this business.  Presumably every one selling on the micros has decided that the opportunity to do volume outweighs the (admittedly quite low) individual selling price.

If you are this concerned about the price per sale rather than the overall return per image, you are never going to be happy in micro.  You would probably be better off submitting to Alamy or one of the other mid or macro stock sites.

With mostly the same number of images on Alamy and the micros, Alamy makes up roughly 3% of my monthly sales.  Obviously I am happier with the micros that net me the other 97% :)

« Reply #52 on: July 31, 2009, 18:52 »
0

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.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood.  I thought you were looking for solutions.   

Just having a bit of a snit because someone (unfairly) rejected your image? 

And naturally that means all the rest of us should pull our images from the micros in solidarity with you?  Narcissistic much?




« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2009, 19:13 »
0
Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice. 

What color is your cape ? ;)

Seriously, if you're so offended stop selling micro and get a job you can afford to live on.

« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2009, 19:15 »
0
You might find this article enlightening.  You seem to be lacking information on what photography is worth to those using the images.  You will also find other good articles on this site regarding how to determine things such as calculating your cost of doing business....  
http://editorialphoto.com/resources/value_of_photography.asp

You can choose to raise your standards of what you are worth, or try to pull everyone else down with you.  It is up to you.  Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice.  


Oh for f**cks sake. Stop side-stepping the issue __ that link is about editorial images, nothing at all to do with general stock.

I'll ask again. What did that shoot cost you and how much should you be paid for them?

(And being as you seem to like shouting to make your point) HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOUR IMAGES ARE WORTH?

Why don't you just answer the question honestly if you want to 'speak out against injustice'. What a pathetic cliche. I love the smell of burning martyr in the morning.

EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 19:19 by gostwyck »

« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2009, 20:07 »
0
You might find this article enlightening.  You seem to be lacking information on what photography is worth to those using the images.  You will also find other good articles on this site regarding how to determine things such as calculating your cost of doing business....  
http://editorialphoto.com/resources/value_of_photography.asp

You can choose to raise your standards of what you are worth, or try to pull everyone else down with you.  It is up to you.  Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice.  


Oh for f**cks sake. Stop side-stepping the issue __ that link is about editorial images, nothing at all to do with general stock.

I'll ask again. What did that shoot cost you and how much should you be paid for them?

(And being as you seem to like shouting to make your point) HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOUR IMAGES ARE WORTH?

Why don't you just answer the question honestly if you want to 'speak out against injustice'. What a pathetic cliche. I love the smell of burning martyr in the morning.

EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP.



I see you attacking a valid point, but I don't see you saying you are personally making enough.  Do you?   How much are you making on microstock?  Is it enough to cover your cost of doing business?   Enough to pay your models?  Or do you just figure models should work free?  Enough to cover the cost of necessary equipment repairs, upgrades, props?   Or do you work a day job to fund it.  Do you even know your cost of doing business? 

Why the hostility?  Why the attack.  I think the earlier poster that she thinks some of the commenters work for microstock agencies must be correct.  I can see not other reason why you would insist photographers should work for peanuts.  Which of the agencies do you work for?

My point is simple.  Microstock needs to pay more.  The images are being used to market the products and services of others, without which they would have no profits.  Why should they profit at the expense of the photographers who are producing the images they depend on?

Why is it so important to you to hold down the earning power of photographers?

« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2009, 20:18 »
0
When you answer my questions then I'll answer yours.


« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2009, 20:31 »
0

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

The two -- time taken and money spent -- have never had much to do with how much a stock image was worth or how much someone was willing to pay for it. The Microsoft splash screen of field and sky was worth $125,000 for the one sale. How long did the photographer spend on it and how much was the expense? Probably not too much on either. 

« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2009, 20:47 »
0

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

The two -- time taken and money spent -- have never had much to do with how much a stock image was worth or how much someone was willing to pay for it. The Microsoft splash screen of field and sky was worth $125,000 for the one sale. How long did the photographer spend on it and how much was the expense? Probably not too much on either. 

Thank you.  Much of the value of an image has to do with its use.  That pricing model, rights managed, has been under assault for some time now with the move from rights managed to royalty free.  I believe it is to the detriment of the clients as well.  Microstock images are frequently misused, and the loving couple at the beach can as easily be used to market condoms or a medication for STDs ... and imagine how the owner of the beach resort who used it to market his resort feels when flipping through a magazine and sees the SAME image used to sell STD drugs?  Or to see the same image used to promote a competing resort?  When downloads in the thousands are required to profit on a microstock image, the probability of it is great.  I am a bit surprised more image buyers are not staying with Rights Managed models so they can "know where there image has been."  After all the images they use to market themselves are the image by which their customers will percieve them... as well as any other associations with that same image.

« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2009, 20:48 »
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.

Congrats Sean on passing the half million downloads on istock, and at $2+ per dl, guess you know what you are worth.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 21:41 by averil »

« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2009, 21:18 »
0
Thank you.  Much of the value of an image has to do with its use.  That pricing model, rights managed, has been under assault for some time now with the move from rights managed to royalty free.  I believe it is to the detriment of the clients as well.  Microstock images are frequently misused, and the loving couple at the beach can as easily be used to market condoms or a medication for STDs ... and imagine how the owner of the beach resort who used it to market his resort feels when flipping through a magazine and sees the SAME image used to sell STD drugs?  Or to see the same image used to promote a competing resort?  When downloads in the thousands are required to profit on a microstock image, the probability of it is great.  I am a bit surprised more image buyers are not staying with Rights Managed models so they can "know where there image has been."  After all the images they use to market themselves are the image by which their customers will percieve them... as well as any other associations with that same image.

Sooooo ... you still avoid the all questions.

How much are your images worth (in your own tiny mind)?

How much did your mountain shoot cost you?

What do you think they should be sold for?

Why are you trying (unsuccessfully) to sell them 'for 14c' if you think they are worth 'much more'.

Why won't you actually give a direct answer to any questions?


« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2009, 21:33 »
0
Hey Gostwyck,

 Thanks for the info on the shelf life of your images holding steady on their second year. I don't have that kind of data yet and I am happy to here you say that.

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2009, 21:38 »
0
I see you attacking a valid point, but I don't see you saying you are personally making enough.  Do you?   How much are you making on microstock?  Is it enough to cover your cost of doing business?   Enough to pay your models?  Or do you just figure models should work free?  Enough to cover the cost of necessary equipment repairs, upgrades, props?   Or do you work a day job to fund it.  Do you even know your cost of doing business? 

If you aren't able to make it work, then you should find a job that allows you to live as you like.

Quote
Why the hostility?  Why the attack.  I think the earlier poster that she thinks some of the commenters work for microstock agencies must be correct.  I can see not other reason why you would insist photographers should work for peanuts.  Which of the agencies do you work for?

Always the last resort of someone with no real argument.  It's a conspiracy!  There's hidden agendas!

« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2009, 21:51 »
0
Always the last resort of someone with no real argument.  It's a conspiracy!  There's hidden agendas!

Exactly. I believe the technical definition is "full of *".

« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2009, 21:58 »
0
Hey Gostwyck,

 Thanks for the info on the shelf life of your images holding steady on their second year. I don't have that kind of data yet and I am happy to here you say that.

Cheers,
Jonathan

You're welcome. I was quite surprised too. The way prices have been rising in microstock have rendered older data useless in that regard. It seems to me that older images, with most agencies, if they sell infrequently but consistently, have a way of creeping slowly up the sort-order rankings.

« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2009, 22:11 »
0
I'm calling shenanigan's on this thread.

graficallyminded

« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2009, 23:17 »
0
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.

Well put.  That's what it's all about, at the end of the day.  We all get personally and slightly emotionally attached to our images, sometimes.  It's hard not to.  We all know how long it takes to organize, set up, compose, shoot, edit, describe, keyword, and upload a shot.  After being around this business as long as we have, I think sometimes rejections hurt us now more than they even used to; back when we were just learning the "microstock ropes".  I like your line of reasoning much better, though.  I think that as I improve in my skill and quality as time goes on, the standards are also increasing - so it doesn't ever feel like I'm getting to the point where the rejections are getting any fewer.  I only find inconsistency in reviews with several agencies.  The rest are pretty much 95-100% acceptance, all day every day.

I'm calling shenanigan's on this thread.

haha me too :D  On that note, I think it's time to go to bed.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 23:21 by graficallyminded »


« Reply #67 on: August 01, 2009, 00:38 »
0
Wow this one is a roller-coaster and my first comment.

The topic is not really about the rejection, as the answer reviewers are just people that get 0.05 for each image they review and the make mistakes, and the solution to resubmit has been rejected.

As an independant supplier I can offer my products or services to anyone I want at any price point I want, the stock site as an agency or merchant is my customer, and I do not have a contract with them where they must accept all I produce, I understand they look at each offering and decide if it fits their requirements and if they would like to represent it, if they turn it down I will offer it to my other customers.

The cost to produce my product is not a concern of my customers, I have read thier terms & conditions and scale of rates, I have agreed to these, to enable me to register and trade with them, if at any point I am not happy with what they pay I can withdraw my products from their market place.

As I have agreed and accepted the rate I will receive from my customer, what the stocksite sells my product on for is not important to me that is how they trade.

Like every other supplier I would like more for my product, but this is affected by an over supply of similar products from other suppliers and the agressive marketing policies of my customers.

As there are so many suppliers of a product that is easy to produce and get to market, there is no chance of a cartel or union to protect my interests, so I am left with the choices to either stop producing and push trollies, change the products I produce to ones with a higher market value, be more selective with customers and where I place my products, keep suppliing and look for new markets.

As much as the OP has thought it through, it has been said many many times before, everyone would love more money for their product but the market is driving the prices and revenue, and once again a topic that was meant to unite photographers will as usual divide them, because we are competitors in the industry and have our own agenda.

David  :P   

grp_photo

« Reply #68 on: August 01, 2009, 01:58 »
0
.... a persnickity .....
being persnickety ...... you write it persnickety (AE) or  pernickety (BE) but not persnickity --- rejected ;-)

« Reply #69 on: August 01, 2009, 02:21 »
0

« Reply #70 on: August 01, 2009, 04:02 »
0
I am a full time pro and I really agree with markstout in his first post. I have resolved the same problem by NOT shooting people and NOT going to locations. If I did, it would be for RM images. I only tinker with stuff in my studio and/or around the house, or submit "holiday snaps".
« Last Edit: August 01, 2009, 04:09 by Perry »

« Reply #71 on: August 01, 2009, 09:43 »
0
Microstock images are frequently misused, and the loving couple at the beach can as easily be used to market condoms or a medication for STDs ... and imagine how the owner of the beach resort who used it to market his resort feels when flipping through a magazine and sees the SAME image used to sell STD drugs?  Or to see the same image used to promote a competing resort?  When downloads in the thousands are required to profit on a microstock image, the probability of it is great.  I am a bit surprised more image buyers are not staying with Rights Managed models so they can "know where there image has been."  After all the images they use to market themselves are the image by which their customers will percieve them... as well as any other associations with that same image.

That's not misuse it's a sensitive use issue. Images get used for everything. As for multiple use issues, well that's what RF does not provide. RM is still strong and alive, where it used to be the only license, it now shares the market with RF, both macro and micro. But RM is a long way from dead.

« Reply #72 on: August 01, 2009, 10:21 »
0
I am a full time pro and I really agree with markstout in his first post. I have resolved the same problem by NOT shooting people and NOT going to locations. If I did, it would be for RM images. I only tinker with stuff in my studio and/or around the house, or submit "holiday snaps".

I also see Marks point, and somewhat agree. But I think the above is the perfect solution. If I'm gonna be spending hundreds of dollars for a shoot, it's not going to be submitted to Microstock. Only Sean Locke and others of his caliber can afford to do that. ;)

Each person has to choose what his or her bottom line is. If the prices paid for contributors' photos goes lower, I will reach my bottom line and stop contributing. Fortunately, the commissions have been going up, even if only by pennies.

« Reply #73 on: August 01, 2009, 13:02 »
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.

It is insane indeed.  As if there is an Attila the reviewer in each of them.

It appears one of them just might be a reviewer.  Today I received a written warning  for "having been submitted many times without correcting the issue" and threat of having my account deleted.  Yet it was the first time I submitted the image.  The problem was that I had forgotten to attach the model release.  I'm not so stupid as to repeatedly submit the same image where the subject IS the model and not attach the release.  Especially when I already have the release on file with the agency!

I have contacted the agency about the issue.  I will also contact them by phone on Monday.  Hopefully they will remedy the situation and not simply continue with, or allow the reviewer with ruffled feather to continue with, the same putative actions.  I'll post which course of action they decide on.

« Reply #74 on: August 01, 2009, 13:20 »
0
I am a full time pro and I really agree with markstout in his first post. I have resolved the same problem by NOT shooting people and NOT going to locations. If I did, it would be for RM images. I only tinker with stuff in my studio and/or around the house, or submit "holiday snaps".

I also see Marks point, and somewhat agree. But I think the above is the perfect solution. If I'm gonna be spending hundreds of dollars for a shoot, it's not going to be submitted to Microstock. Only Sean Locke and others of his caliber can afford to do that. ;)

Each person has to choose what his or her bottom line is. If the prices paid for contributors' photos goes lower, I will reach my bottom line and stop contributing. Fortunately, the commissions have been going up, even if only by pennies.

I came to that same conclusion once  However, landscapes are rejected as having too many on file, images without models do not sell well.  Rights managed photos do not move well now either due to the availability of microstock and that is why many pros are now submitting to microstock.   In the early stages when building a port, commissions do go up... However, once there are thousands of images in your port it can seem it is not going up enough to justify the work involved. 

Please understand, I am not trying to bash anyone or imply anyone should take down their images or anything along those lines.  All I have been wishing to do with this post is encourage the industry to look at some problems that need to be addressed and to encourage licensing fees that will better support the quality of work now being demanded.   Years back microstock was much easier, there were people with ports of every household object shot on a white background (like matchbooks, can openers, etc) and they were making a killing.  It has evolved.  The demands of image standards, models, styling, composition, theme, etc wanted to meet the standards has been raised considerably and that is why I posted the rejection.  I'm not upset an image got rejected.  It happens.  I'm illustrating how the demands on quality have been raised since the matchbook on a white background days... yet other than cost of living increases that I don't think actually keep up with how much the cost of living has gone up (yes I know we .are in a recession, but costs are still increasing) the fees charged for our images and paid to us are sitll back in the matchbook days.  It is my hope the industry will begin to examine the impact the pricing is having on the photographers who are contributing the work and the image industry as a whole.  Change comes slow, but I hope some will at least think about what I said.

That said, microstock can still be an invaluable training ground for photographers, though I suspect it is much harder for them to get accepted now than it once was.

I wish you the best luck and hope you do exceptionally well as a photographer.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
6010 Views
Last post August 06, 2009, 03:58
by pixdeluxe
14 Replies
5844 Views
Last post April 20, 2018, 19:54
by Wishing well
15 Replies
3531 Views
Last post September 18, 2007, 15:26
by chellyar
9 Replies
5034 Views
Last post May 29, 2008, 08:06
by josh_crestock
3 Replies
4161 Views
Last post August 19, 2009, 14:25
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results