I think the "every man and his dog" comment is a big part of it.
portrait and wedding photographers are also moaning about the price drop they have to make to stay competitive with those non-pros who've entered their world, dropped standards and dropped prices.

With income like that I find it surprising that he pursued the micro's at all.  Perhaps he was scared and decided to test the waters when he saw his income falling, but still.. a bit surprising.

With income like that I find it surprising that he pursued the micro's at all.  Perhaps he was scared and decided to test the waters when he saw his income falling, but still.. a bit surprising.

The fact that he was able to earn $500K+ in 2006 ... and now he is down to $100K ... just tells me he was being massively overpaid previously. The restricted entry to market and absurdly over-priced images worked nicely for those lucky enough to be in the club but badly for buyers and all other photographers.

When I say 'over-priced' images I'm talking about prices that bore absolutely no relationship whatsoever to either the cost of production, the skill involved or the scarcity of the image. All image licenses were very expensive ... just because they were.

Amazingly it was only in October 2005 that Jupiter Images paid $20M for Banana Stock, which basically consisted of 15K RM images and which have been languishing in the bargain-bin at TS for the last few years. That worked out at something like $1300 per image! What would they be worth now as a 'collection'? Would anyone pay more than $10 per image? I certainly wouldn't.

You can still earn $500K+ in microstock __ if you're good enough and work hard enough. You just have to have the extraordinary talent to justify such earnings.

Personally I doubt that the total sums earned in stock photography are any less than they used to be, it's just that the money is being more evenly spread to more photographers. Good.

.

.

http://www.steveallenphotography.com/

was there but jumped into the pictures, yes 4 microstock agencies but mainly he is at DT

" I have around 31,000 images on sale and have my work on the following mainstream agencies:

 Image Bank - Brand X - Stone - Digital Vision - Photodisc - Riser - Stockbyte - Creatas - RM Photolibrary - Foodpix - NHPA - Photoshot - Alamy - Science Photo Library

 And also the following Microstock agencies:
 Dreamstime - DepositPhotos - Pocketstock - Photolia"

in short, he's on Getty, Alamy, DT, and Photolia.

Quote from: gostwyck on June 05, 2013, 11:01

" I have around 31,000 images on sale and have my work on the following mainstream agencies:

 Image Bank - Brand X - Stone - Digital Vision - Photodisc - Riser - Stockbyte - Creatas - RM Photolibrary - Foodpix - NHPA - Photoshot - Alamy - Science Photo Library

 And also the following Microstock agencies:
 Dreamstime - DepositPhotos - Pocketstock - Photolia"

in short, he's on Getty, Alamy, DT, and Photolia.

still white at FT (less than 100 full downloads) so you can take FT too

The fact that he was able to earn $500K+ in 2006 ... and now he is down to $100K ... just tells me he was being massively overpaid previously. The restricted entry to market and absurdly over-priced images worked nicely for those lucky enough to be in the club but badly for buyers and all other photographers.

When I say 'over-priced' images I'm talking about prices that bore absolutely no relationship whatsoever to either the cost of production, the skill involved or the scarcity of the image. All image licenses were very expensive ... just because they were.

Amazingly it was only in October 2005 that Jupiter Images paid $20M for Banana Stock, which basically consisted of 15K RM images and which have been languishing in the bargain-bin at TS for the last few years. That worked out at something like $1300 per image! What would they be worth now as a 'collection'? Would anyone pay more than $10 per image? I certainly wouldn't.

You can still earn $500K+ in microstock __ if you're good enough and work hard enough. You just have to have the extraordinary talent to justify such earnings.

Personally I doubt that the total sums earned in stock photography are any less than they used to be, it's just that the money is being more evenly spread to more photographers. Good.

Harsh, but true.

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 05, 2013, 11:02

Quote from: tickstock on June 05, 2013, 10:59

http://www.steveallenphotography.com/

was there but jumped into the pictures, yes 4 microstock agencies but mainly he is at DT

Suprising. He seems to eran 90% less per exposed image that I earn uploading at just one microstock site, IS.

which means you are doing 290$ per pic / per year

.

Quote from: loop on June 05, 2013, 13:09

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 05, 2013, 11:02

Quote from: tickstock on June 05, 2013, 10:59

http://www.steveallenphotography.com/

was there but jumped into the pictures, yes 4 microstock agencies but mainly he is at DT

Suprising. He seems to eran 90% less per exposed image that I earn uploading at just one microstock site, IS.

Hmm. His choice of microstock agencies seems a bit strange if he wanted to maximise his earnings. Especially when you consider that he entered microstock in 2009 __ well before a lot of the bad stuff happened.

He joined DT a couple of weeks after they announced they will lower royalties for indies. If he is with just 4 micros, but mostly just 1 which is DT he's never really tried to make much with microstock, as he says himself in his post, "I upload to DT for one reason only.......to give a home to (and make at least something) from the many hundreds of images I have that I do not submit to my regular mainstream stock agencies or are not accepted by them."