MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Blame Game  (Read 24620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« on: March 03, 2010, 17:18 »
0
Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

I find this forum very useful in that we can compare all compare notes about what is happening with our portfolios and with the various sites.  It is only natural that different people have different experiences and perspective.  Sometimes disagreements can get heated. 

Recently though,  there seem to be an increasing number of posters who want to accuse people of "blaming" "hating" and "whining".  These sorts of accusations are not productive to the conversation and should be kept out of it.

Contrary to the tone of some recent threads, newbies and long time members of the industry should not be on opposite sides of the fence.  We all benefit from keeping the industry healthy and the sites accountable. 

When it gets to the point you can't even share your experiences without being attacked then this forum ceases to be useful and a valuable service is lost.


Dook

« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 17:20 »
0
I just replied to you on the other post, but never mind.

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 17:23 »
0
I just replied to you on the other post, but never mind.

Actually, this thread wasn't directed at you Dook.  You are a great guy and I am sorry I misunderstood your post.  :)  I read your reply and posted back to you.

I will probably leave this thread, though, because there does seem to be a heightened level of hostility around here lately, so it is worth discussing.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 17:25 by lisafx »

Dook

« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 17:25 »
0
I think we better open new thread - Lisa and Dook matter.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2010, 17:30 »
0
Thank you Lisa...that was what I was talking about

« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2010, 17:37 »
0
I can't decide if people are just on edge because of all the changes to microstock or if there is just an inordinate number of new people signing up to push their referral links, blogs and keywording services. I know both of those things are making me cranky.  :)

ETA: Is it just me  No not just you

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2010, 17:42 »
0
At least I am not imagining it...   :-\

« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2010, 17:52 »
0
Lisa, I think your post pretty much repeats what was discussed recently (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what-has-happened-to-this-forum!!!/), even though phrased differently.

I think forum got some mass of new members, and there is occasionally some turbulence. I hope it will not develop into anything seriously unpleasant.

lisafx

« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2010, 17:57 »
0
Lisa, I think your post pretty much repeats what was discussed recently (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/what-has-happened-to-this-forum!!!/), even though phrased differently.


Maybe Donna was just quicker at picking up on the vibe.  I hadn't noticed it when she started her thread.  It just became obvious to me in the "What are your earnings" and "DT Keyflagging" threads. 

« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2010, 18:37 »
0
It will calm down and then it will heat up again. It seems to come and go in cycles. What is it they say at IS?

Heart Heart Unicorn Rainbow? ;)

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2010, 18:37 »
0

Actually, this thread wasn't directed at you Dook. 

then maybe me ?   :D

but let's look at it from another perspective : there's a whole "newbie" section in this forum, so they have plenty of space
already.

i don't blame newbies actually, i blame agencies for ripping them off with the illusion of getting rich quick.
it should be written on the stone that joining an agency (RM of RF) without at least 1000 photos will
lead you nowhere.

instead here there's plenty of newbies talking about selling their 50 holiday snaps.

who's gaining from newbies ? no one, and first of all not the professional photographers.

canon and nikon are already doing their best to sell the myth that all you need to take
goos shots is their latest cameras, why we should encourage new amateurs to join
the market when the marker itself is goign down the drain even for the top sellers ?

there's a place for newbies, and it's called Flickr .. and photo.net, and many other
less known sites.

sorry for being harsh but it just makes no business sense to teach newbies our trade.

RT


« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2010, 18:44 »
0
Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

Yes and it's all your fault  :P

« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2010, 19:22 »
0
Doesn't seem that long ago that I was a newbie uploading a few of my holiday snaps.  Most newbies wont make much doing this but some will do very well and it would get dull if we only had a bunch of old pros here.  I still don't see any decline in the microstock industry, I have been uploading less each year but making more money.  There is a big portfolio syndrome but that doesn't surprise me.  It is going to get harder to maintain increasing profits as a portfolio gets bigger, that makes sense to me.  When you start, it might be possible to increase your portfolio by 20% each month but after a few years, it might be hard  to increase it by 1%.  It is also difficult to keep coming up with original ideas and not repeat yourself.  Perhaps some people are working on subjects that have been saturated and they could make more by trying other subjects?

« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2010, 19:37 »
0
there seem to be an increasing number of posters who want to accuse people of "blaming" "hating" and "whining". 

Yes, people seem to be accusing others of things that aren't there.

« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2010, 19:46 »
0
I agree with you Lisa. Few days ago I lost my temper in one thread... It doesn't happen often, but it happens. I think this is happening because of bad things in microstock industry. We are getting paid less and less, because of subscriptions, more tax for non-Americans, decreasing credit value, and bad economy situation we experience everywhere.. All this makes an atmosphere of too many fish in the tank, and some fish tend to eat smaller ones to get more space for them selves. :)
I really hope this will end someday. If you watch American news you will hear it's betting better, but if you watch any international news you will hear that America has deficit in tens of trillions of dollars, and no one really believes the crisis will end so soon....unfortunately...

« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2010, 20:24 »
0
Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

I don't think it's just you. I think it's a mixture of several things though.

One is tougher times - people are struggling to keep their income growing. Standards at the micros have risen, management at a number of agencies have taken hard nosed approaches to dealing with contributors, the economy's been rocky.

Another is that we're no longer all newbies together - at one point everyone was a newbie at the micros. Now we have more constituencies in the group - the more established micro contributors, newbies to micros, old line trad agency contributors who've decided to contribute to micros and the influx of people wondering what all this is about who are looking at business prospects (blogs, referrals, services, advertising, etc.) rather than becoming a contributor.

There are a few people who have more posts here than images in their portfolios and for the most part I think the best way to deal with incivility from this group is just ignore them. If people don't have any stake in the game, why feed the trolls by arguing with them?

Anonymity is another problem, and by and large FT is to blame for that. Their vindictive behavior has led a number of people - entirely rationally - to remain anonymous to avoid having their accounts closed. Other than this unfortunate need for anonymity, I'd otherwise have suggested ignoring all anonymous posters without portfolio links. How can you have any sort of intelligent exchange when you have no idea who you're talking to?

Size is the other thing - micros have been successful and the group has become quite a bit larger. It's harder to know everyone when the group is large.

For the most part, most people most of the time have been civil and constructive. That's what has made this group a very useful resource.  It isn't that tough to disagree without getting into a personal slugfest with those who hold other points of view. I expect that things will simmer down again, and if they don't, perhaps some discussions with Leaf about having some sort of time out from posting for those who can't stay civil?

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2010, 20:43 »
0
Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

Yes and it's all your fault  :P

That was my first thought too, but I thought if I said so, someone would take me seriously. ;)

Since I have banned myself from writing on Topics for sites that I don't contribute to anymore, it has limited me somewhat. I thought that would brighten up the place, but apparently it hasn't?


« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2010, 21:18 »
0
Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

Yes and it's all your fault  :P

Priceless!  :D

WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2010, 21:39 »
0
Newbie  ... Is that a derogatory name?   ??? :P

« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2010, 21:57 »
0
Newbie  ... Is that a derogatory name?   ??? :P


I don't think newbie is derogatory, but 'newb' (or more correctly 'noob') certainly is - a noob is someone who's been at it long enough to know how to avoid the mistakes a newbie would make, but somehow just can't make that leap. In the context of microstock, I'd say you're a noob if you've been at an agency for, say, one year and are still earning an entry-level commission.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 22:04 by sharply_done »

« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2010, 22:09 »
0
Newbie  ... Is that a derogatory name?   ??? :P
It certainly wasn't intended to be. I didn't  think it had any "baggage" unless it is thought to be  unfair to point out that some are just beginning. Have you got some other term you prefer for referring to those just starting with a very small portfolio and very little time in as a contributor?

« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2010, 23:02 »
0
Newbie  ... Is that a derogatory name?   ??? :P
I personally like FNG.

« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2010, 23:55 »
0
there's a place for newbies, and it's called Flickr .. and photo.net, and many other
less known sites.   ...it just makes no business sense to teach newbies our trade.

This trade doesn't belong to anyone.  I believe everyone should be free to try their skills at a trade, and if they're good, they should be allowed to prosper.   You can't build a wall around your little industry and kick down people as they try to enter.  That's protectionist (bad) and elitist (not much better).

Everyone, ask yourself: when you started in your livelihood, whatever it is, did the veterans in your industry kick you down and say you shouldn't be allowed to prove yourself and grow your skills?  Sure, you had competitors who felt threatened by your arrival, but was there a concerted effort by your peers to keep you out?  That's what it feels like here.

I'm a sensible person.  I'm not going to help anyone submit images in my style and in the niches I've found are successful for me.  But I am going to share some common sense insights that I've figured out along the way, offer encouragement, and speak out in defense of a newbie's freedom to put his or her skills to the test.  And if that scares the veterans out there, you better step up your game.  God didn't grant you the position you hold today.  You worked hard to get where you are, but you can't deny others the right to do the same.

« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2010, 00:18 »
0
Thank you for starting this topic, I for one am thankful for this forum even though I am new - Its a fun read, very informative!


I also have a perhaps-related quesion:
it seems that people are differentiating "less-pro" (to avoid derogatories) people versus pros by the size of the portfolio.
Shouldn't we be measuring the user's level by something like RPI (or your favourite similar stat)...?

It feels a little silly to call someone with 10,000 images and 1,000 dloads/year more pro than a person with 100 images and 100 dloads/year... or am I wrong (honest question)?
Yes, they're putting more work into it, but ...

adijr

p.s. About me --- yes, I am new, and will likely remain "new" by some definitions - I've been uploading to IS for 5 months, and by that I mean I am uploading about a pic a month since my first batch of 10.
I like to try very new things (new to me... I'm sure others have done it). Its fun, and I apologize if anyone feels like this robs the industry in some way, but I don't think it does if my few images
are good quality.

p.p.s. thanks for the ignore feature, leaf!

« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2010, 00:21 »
0
Let me add to that question a little - If I'm learning alot and in a year or a few I become a pretty/very good photographer (or developer, I like some CGI stuff), and on top of that I know what sells; yet I upload very little (due to interests, other commitments, etc) - I'm still not a "pro"?

boy, this is hard terminology...

« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2010, 02:11 »
0
I think there is a bit too much focus on 'who is pro' and 'who is not' and where the line should be drawn.  I do agree that it is nice to know when someone posts about a 100% increase in earnings when they have a portfolio of 20 images, but to shun people who are 'not pro', however you define the term, or if we take the attitude that they don't have anything to ad - I think is narrow sighted.

For some reason there seems to be some sort of vibe that microstock shouldn't be for people who are new - that you need to be a seasoned pro before you can submit to the micros.  Perhaps this is part of the negativity seen?

I think that is forgetting what microstock IS and how it started.  Microstock is crowd sourced and can be contributed to by everyone.  If the images aren't good enough they won't get past the review process.  Micro is one the stock arena where everyone is allowed to play no matter how many images you have or how long you have been involved in the industry.  Being so tightly reviewed it allows everyone to at least try submitting.  Some people are happy making $50 a year - that should be fine.  For those who want an arena which is an exclusive club and only pro's can submit - they should apply to Getty or Corbis or one of the big macro agencies.  

I'm not for drumming up hype that microstock is any sort of unopened treasure chest, but to discourage someone simply on the basis that they are 'new' or don't have top notch images, I think is unfair.

edited for clarity - .. hopefully it is clearer.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 03:00 by leaf »

« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2010, 02:32 »
0
This trade doesn't belong to anyone.  ...

I agree with you, and I'm sure that's what most people here think, too. I've been a member here for three years, joining shortly after I started my career in this industry. I always openly encourage people to improve their skill, both on this forum and in person.

I don't think there should be a need to differentiate people at all. ...

I don't agree with that, and I don't quite understand why do, leaf - why did you implement the 'speed gauges' if you didn't think it was necessary to diffentiate between the various experience levels present here? My only problem with this forum is that there are a lot of people here who seem to enjoy 'spouting off' about things they know little about. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not some sort of microstock authority - I'm just weary of having to wade through all sorts of misinformation to get to the good stuff, that's all.


« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2010, 02:54 »
0
I also have a perhaps-related quesion:
it seems that people are differentiating "less-pro" (to avoid derogatories) people versus pros by the size of the portfolio.
Shouldn't we be measuring the user's level by something like RPI (or your favourite similar stat)...?
Speaking generally, there are always certain tendencies typical for certain groups of people; and there are always some individuals within these groups who don't follow these tendencies.

What we see quite often in this forum is that "new" contributors argue very hard and make very strong conclusions about microstock market being there only for a short time and having very little portfolio. Of course "new" here is just a label, some people remain such "new" for years. And not all "new" behave like that. And no, portfolio size isn't a bulletproof indicator of a "pro" but it gives some idea about the person, and how reasonable his/her judgments are.

I like how jsnover explained that:
There are a few people who have more posts here than images in their portfolios and for the most part I think the best way to deal with incivility from this group is just ignore them. If people don't have any stake in the game, why feed the trolls by arguing with them?

« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2010, 03:00 »
0

I don't think there should be a need to differentiate people at all. ...

I don't agree with that, and I don't quite understand why do, leaf - why did you implement the 'speed gauges' if you didn't think it was necessary to diffentiate between the various experience levels present here? My only problem with this forum is that there are a lot of people here who seem to enjoy 'spouting off' about things they know little about. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not some sort of microstock authority - I'm just weary of having to wade through all sorts of misinformation to get to the good stuff, that's all.

Yeah, I should have explained myself better - which I have now done.   I do think it is nice to see where people are coming from when they are making a statement, which is a good reason to differentiate people. 

RT


« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2010, 04:37 »
0
For some reason there seems to be some sort of vibe that microstock shouldn't be for people who are new - that you need to be a seasoned pro before you can submit to the micros.  Perhaps this is part of the negativity seen?

I don't get that vibe at all, the vibe I get and certainly the one I try to put out is that there's nothing wrong with being new (we were all new at some point) but don't expect to have things handed to you on a plate, anybody that's had any success in microstock has done it by hard work, long hours, learning the craft and doing the research. I will and do support people who want to do the work but need a little guidance but I won't support or respond kindly to the one's that come here with questions like "what should I shoot" "how much do you earn" "what's your best seller" and I have even less patience for the one's who sole aim is to get info to put on their blog for enticing referrals to make an easy buck.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2010, 05:19 »
0
This trade doesn't belong to anyone.  I believe everyone should be free to try their skills at a trade, and if they're good, they should be allowed to prosper.   You can't build a wall around your little industry and kick down people as they try to enter.  That's protectionist (bad) and elitist (not much better).

Everyone, ask yourself: when you started in your livelihood, whatever it is, did the veterans in your industry kick you down and say you shouldn't be allowed to prove yourself and grow your skills?  Sure, you had competitors who felt threatened by your arrival, but was there a concerted effort by your peers to keep you out?  That's what it feels like here.

I'm a sensible person.  I'm not going to help anyone submit images in my style and in the niches I've found are successful for me.  But I am going to share some common sense insights that I've figured out along the way, offer encouragement, and speak out in defense of a newbie's freedom to put his or her skills to the test.  And if that scares the veterans out there, you better step up your game.  God didn't grant you the position you hold today.  You worked hard to get where you are, but you can't deny others the right to do the same.

when i started years ago there were no forums nor blogs nor fast internet connections.
agencies required an initial batch of 500 edited pictures sent on CD and it took ages
to get a reply from them and month to see the images online.

and i had no one teaching me the trade as anyone here were doing weddings or
assignments, never heard of photographers selling stock in my town apart for
news with getty/ap/afp/reuters.

so i can tell you, years ago it was much tougher than today and yet there
were plenty of photographers doing it anyway.

this was good because only the ones really wanting to do this job
were applying to agencies and getting their foot in the door.

nowadays it takes a few holiday shots and in a few hours you can join
many agencies and start selling right away.

of course now there's too much people and too many images and
sales fall down, they destroyed the eco-system and i can't see
how it can fix itself ... it's broken and it's too late now.


if anyone can be a photographer and if anyone can sell photos, THEY WILL.
multiply this for tens of thousands of newbies and you get the actual
scenario.

and i'm seeing the same dark situation in journalism and photo journalism
where they lowered the bar so much that the big question is if there will
be still full time journalists in 10 years from now.

there are plenty of interns and temps in national magazines in europe getting paid
as low as 500 euro a month, yes it's less than grilling burgers and they
all have degrees and post-degree accreditations.

at the same time a good wedding photographer can make 3000 euro in a day
and have a good lunch and dinner included.

it's gonna be very tough from now on for those shooting very generic images.
and in my opinion microstock has not yet hit the rock bottom, this is just
the tip of the iceberg as the getty guys are only after the money and couldn't
care less if their contributors are starving, for them is the more the better...
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 05:27 by macrosaur »

« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2010, 06:03 »
0
When all is said and done it is the buyer who decides who has their finger on the Zeitgeist of commercial imagery.  Those who are successful are successful for that reason and that will always be a truism, no matter what competition exists.  As to the value of this craft, well, when you invite the world to compete then the premium for exclusiveness is eliminated.  Thats the microstock concept . . . . like it or not.

But what must be frustrating is the copying of someone's point of view or concept.  Years ago I had a one man show of my paintings in New York.  Some other artist copied  one of my works,  the next month it was on the cover of Art In America (the artist obviously had financial backers since that is the easiest was to get on the cover of an important magazine), I was not pleased.

lagereek

« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2010, 06:27 »
0
I dont like newbies at all. They smell, bad breath and general BO and then they come with their stupid little 2mp shots and expect heaven and earth.
Boycott them! out with them in the cold even better send them to Riyadh for stoning.

Lisa is right actually. Were all on the same side. Good point.

RT


« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2010, 06:51 »
0
There's been a few threads recently discussing upcoming events where one of the topics is 'the future of photography' and in our case the future of stock photography, as somebody who does this for a living I face the same dilemma as many others in my position and that is we need to justify our production costs against our income, and those production costs involve a very important factor and that is our time.
 Selling images via microstock puts us up against many amateurs for whom time is not an important factor, years ago before I took this up for a living I was into wildlife photography and would think nothing of "stalking' a subject for two or three days, I have a photo of a wild rabbit in my port that took me four mornings of lying on my stomach covered in camouflage waiting for the right moment, it sells well enough but I could not commit to doing that now for the microstock market as I'd go bust, my point being that even though I like to go for the quality rather than quantity approach in my port I still need to produce a fair number of images each year to make a living, and to make a living I need to get a justifiable amount for the work I put in.

 Buyers searching for images do not differentiate between the guy doing this for a living producing 1000 images a year and the guy doing this for fun producing 10 images a year, and they don't care how long or how much it cost all they want is the best image, the microstock sites themselves don't seem to care either as there is no discernable recognition and this is what I feel will lead to the microstock sites own self harm because in time the full timers won't be able to justify selling via microstock because the return is not sufficient enough, the microstock sites will still get quality shots from part timers but not in the quantity they'll require.

So my own interest regarding the future of microstock photography is how can a person doing this for a living compete against someone who is prepared to sell at a loss if the sites do not recognise that we need sales volume or commission to match our level of input, and my question to the microstock sites would be " Who do you consider more valuable 500 full time photographers producing 1000 quality shots a year, or 20,000 amateurs producing 10 quality shots a year? " and "What are you going to do to keep me producing for you and not concentrating my efforts on the RM macro market"

So for me the 'blame' does not fall on the amateurs but the sites for not supporting the full timers appropriately.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 06:53 by RT »

« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2010, 07:16 »
0

So for me the 'blame' does not fall on the amateurs but the sites for not supporting the full timers appropriately.

Surely they already do, at least to some extent, in that you get increasing commissions based on your sales at most agencies. I'm pretty sure that on some agencies it is also more difficult to get images accepted until you have the sales record to justify their confidence in you. What more would you have them do to 'support' full-timers?

« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2010, 07:47 »
0
We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively.  That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results.  We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc.  I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us.  If it is impossible, there must be other options.  I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.

lagereek

« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2010, 08:17 »
0
I did have my own small very specialized agency in the beginning of the 90s, fair enough its differant today but the Admin work is still the same. Its a hellish job, no time for photography, every second went to overlooking the agency, as it grew I couldnt find time and then you have to get people and they have to be paid, etc.
Ended up selling out.

no thanks never again.


macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2010, 08:19 »
0
We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively.  That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results.  We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc.  I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us.  If it is impossible, there must be other options.  I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.

selling direct works fine for those selling something special, like news reportage, wildlife, rare animals, rare food, and anything hard to find elsewhere.

how do you hope to sell generic microstock photos at premium price when it can be found anywhere else for 0.25$ ?

it reminds me of one citizen journalism agency i joined months ago, called Demotix, they accept anyone and they think using Twitter and Facebook
sales will come but despite all their bells and whistles i've got not a single sale so far ... losers !

as far as i know the only decent sales they had in 1 year were the photos in Iran taken from Twitter.

and to top it off when you upload a new story they'll tell you the upload went fine and then they encourage you
to link the story to all your twitter and facebook friends..

* that's the last thing i wanna hear from an agency that's supposed to sell and promote my images getting its 50% fee.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 08:24 by macrosaur »

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: March 04, 2010, 08:22 »
0
I did have my own small very specialized agency in the beginning of the 90s, fair enough its differant today but the Admin work is still the same. Its a hellish job, no time for photography, every second went to overlooking the agency, as it grew I couldnt find time and then you have to get people and they have to be paid, etc.
Ended up selling out.

no thanks never again.

i agree 100%.

it's simply cheaper and faster to join a good RM agency and give them their well deserved share.

people take it too easy when talking about direct selling, they've no idea how messy is it.
just for getting paid is a big pain in the ass, it's exactly like having your own small agency
with just one photographer .. you.

RT


« Reply #39 on: March 04, 2010, 08:30 »
0
Surely they already do, at least to some extent, in that you get increasing commissions based on your sales at most agencies. I'm pretty sure that on some agencies it is also more difficult to get images accepted until you have the sales record to justify their confidence in you. What more would you have them do to 'support' full-timers?

Yes you get an increase on some sites, but that applies to everyone irrelevant whether you upload 1 or 101 images a month, there's no incentive to upload other than what would be the result of your own skill. When you or I upload our images to a site they sit in the queue the same as the next person, they're reviewed by a reviewer same as the next person and on some sites reviewed by someone who may have only been doing this for six months and has a tiny amount of sales, when approved they go into the bin along with the thousands of others some of which may never see a sale.
FT changed the cannister thing a while ago so now you're competing against people on a higher cannister level who have produced and sold less than you, DT cut's it's extended license commissions and your images get flagged by people who haven't got a clue how the system works and model releases get rejected depending which way the wind blows, I get the same commission rate on iS as a guy with ten images and two sales, I'm top tier on SS but that's it there's no higher incentive, BigStock have a ridiculous upload system that requires wasting time to correct their system errors.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that's seriously considering whether microstock is financially viable anymore, or as in a lot of cases going exclusive with iS to get that little bit extra treatment (yes I know it's the same for all exclusives full or part time)


We can't blame the sites because there is nothing to stop us creating our own site and using it exclusively.  That would soon put our site at the top of the microstock poll results.  We don't need to spend any money on advertising, just use twitter, myspace, facebook etc.  I know people will find all sorts of reasons why we can't do it and that is a shame because I think it would be more positive than constantly reading threads about how bad the future could be for us.  If it is impossible, there must be other options.  I refuse to believe that we just have to sit back and watch sites cut commissions.

It's a very good point and one I've thought of before. If a site suddenly appeared that consisted of only the top 1000 microstock photographers (and finger painters  ;D ) selling their images exclusivly at microstock prices for a fair commission it would be goodnight SS, FT ,DT et al. You'll never see the figures but I'm pretty sure that the top 1000 produce over 90% of all microstock sales. Yuri you reading this ;)

lagereek

« Reply #40 on: March 04, 2010, 08:38 »
0
RT !!  youre a dangerous guy!  look now what youve started.

RT


« Reply #41 on: March 04, 2010, 08:42 »
0
RT !!  youre a dangerous guy!  look now what youve started.

Hey Christian don't worry you'll easily make the top 1000  :D

lagereek

« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2010, 08:45 »
0
RT !!  youre a dangerous guy!  look now what youve started.

Hey Christian don't worry you'll easily make the top 1000  :D


I know! you too,  but I must admit youve come up with a terrific idea.

« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2010, 08:50 »
0
How much is the microstock industry worth now?  If we ran the biggest microstock site, it shouldn't be hard to attract investment and pay decent wages for a team to run it.  If microstock is too small, why not do higher priced RM as well?

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #44 on: March 04, 2010, 09:00 »
0
Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.

maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?

« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2010, 09:11 »
0
Back on topic.

Quote
I don't get that vibe at all, the vibe I get and certainly the one I try to put out is that there's nothing wrong with being new (we were all new at some point) but don't expect to have things handed to you on a plate, anybody that's had any success in microstock has done it by hard work, long hours, learning the craft and doing the research. I will and do support people who want to do the work but need a little guidance but I won't support or respond kindly to the one's that come here with questions like "what should I shoot" "how much do you earn" "what's your best seller" and I have even less patience for the one's who sole aim is to get info to put on their blog for enticing referrals to make an easy buck.

This sums up my feelings exactly. Everyone was a newbie (noob, newb, whatever term you want to use) at one time. I would like to think that my skills have improved over the years because there were helpful people on forums. There were also people who gave the standard "read the f**king manual" answers, and sometimes I actually did exactly that. On some occasions I am frustrated with people who can't grasp a concept or expect someone here to do their research for them, but I always try to remember that I was there once.

There is no need to exclude the person shooting 20 snapshots who expects to get rich. If the snapshots are good, they will sell and that person will learn and no longer be a newbie. If the snapshots suck, nobody buys them and the shooter gives up or learns to shoot better. I don't have to do a darn thing!

« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2010, 09:21 »
0
Quote
In the context of microstock, I'd say you're a noob if you've been at an agency for, say, one year and are still earning an entry-level commission.

The only problem that I see with that is that not everyone has the same goals when it comes to microstock. Some are looking to make a full-time income, some are just looking for a few extra bucks.

If you're in the second camp then you won't be shooting/uploading as much so your portfolio won't grow as fast or earn as much as someone from the first group. That doesn't mean that the images produced by the second group are lower quality or that they shouldn't be allowed to submit IMHO.


« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2010, 09:29 »
0
But I am going to share some common sense insights that I've figured out along the way, offer encouragement, and speak out in defense of a newbie's freedom to put his or her skills to the test.  And if that scares the veterans out there, you better step up your game.  God didn't grant you the position you hold today.  You worked hard to get where you are, but you can't deny others the right to do the same.

It's not scary.  But there's a difference between saying "Good luck on your next milestone" (being friendly) and providing a roadmap, which is what some people seem to want to do with their classes, books and such.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 09:34 by sjlocke »

RT


« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2010, 09:32 »
0
Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.

maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?

Wonder where I got my idea from  :D It's a similar situation without the fair commission part, Getty have their top 1000 shooters, but there are lots of good shooters that won't work with them, my idea of the microstock version would be attractive because the top 1000 would be getting a better deal than anywhere else.
There would be a natural transgression process because nobody would want to remove all their stuff from the existing sites where they are making money, but just imagine they only uploaded their new stuff to the new site and then once the marketing campaign took hold and sales started coming in they dumped all the other agencies.
The marketing would be easy - "Hey buyers the people that create 90% of what you buy are fed up with how they've been treated so they've started their own site and will shortly only be selling their work here, there's no difference in price or terms for you"

I don't think iStock could do it, their affiliation with Getty might put people off, but they would be important to have as competition though.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2010, 09:37 »
0
Doesn't this thread remind anyone of the outrage that REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK?

By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock.  But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.

« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2010, 09:41 »
0
Doesn't this thread remind anyone of the outrage that REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK?

Not really, and I'm getting tired of hearing that over and over.

RT


« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2010, 09:56 »
0
Doesn't this thread remind anyone of the outrage that REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK?

By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock.  But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.

No not all all, most of that outrage was over the microstock model because they didn't understand the business specifics. In short they could only see an image selling for a very small amount without understanding that an image is a product and the idea of selling a product is to get as much return for it as possible. Of course there were some of these real photographers who realised that the 'quality' of their work would be held to bear.

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2010, 10:10 »
0
Is it just me, or has there been an awful lot of blame and accusation going around this forum recently? 

Yes and it's all your fault  :P

ROFL!  Glad to hear that mystery is solved ;D

« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2010, 10:36 »
0
I think there is a bit too much focus on 'who is pro' and 'who is not' and where the line should be drawn.  I do agree that it is nice to know when someone posts about a 100% increase in earnings when they have a portfolio of 20 images, but to shun people who are 'not pro', however you define the term, or if we take the attitude that they don't have anything to ad - I think is narrow sighted.

For some reason there seems to be some sort of vibe that microstock shouldn't be for people who are new - that you need to be a seasoned pro before you can submit to the micros.  Perhaps this is part of the negativity seen?

I think that is forgetting what microstock IS and how it started.  Microstock is crowd sourced and can be contributed to by everyone.  If the images aren't good enough they won't get past the review process.  Micro is one the stock arena where everyone is allowed to play no matter how many images you have or how long you have been involved in the industry.  Being so tightly reviewed it allows everyone to at least try submitting.  Some people are happy making $50 a year - that should be fine.  For those who want an arena which is an exclusive club and only pro's can submit - they should apply to Getty or Corbis or one of the big macro agencies.  

I'm not for drumming up hype that microstock is any sort of unopened treasure chest, but to discourage someone simply on the basis that they are 'new' or don't have top notch images, I think is unfair.

edited for clarity - .. hopefully it is clearer.

Thanks.

« Reply #54 on: March 04, 2010, 11:10 »
0
By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock.  But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.

Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? :)

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2010, 11:24 »
0
software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? :)

don't worry, there's a chance a sort of "open source" photography is going to develop soon as
people will put online all the images they can't sell or get past QC.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #56 on: March 04, 2010, 11:26 »
0
By the way ... I am a late-comer to microstock.  But, I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera.

Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? :)

Is this somehow relating to photography?  Are you equating punch cards to film photography?  Kinda like, "Yeah, you're a dinasaur but still a newbie."


« Reply #57 on: March 04, 2010, 11:32 »
0
Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? :)

Is this somehow relating to photography?  Are you equating punch cards to film photography?  Kinda like, "Yeah, you're a dinasaur but still a newbie."
[/quote]

Exactly, with one correction. Did you miss "I do too" part? ;)
A little more serious - not to film photography as a class (it does not apply to anybody who did professional work on film continuously till recent years), but to any professional skill set that had a chance to get both obsolete and rusty.   

WarrenPrice

« Reply #58 on: March 04, 2010, 11:40 »
0
Off-topic. I do not think this tells anything. I also was a PP long-long time ago. Let me give you an analogy from my other life - software. I heard couple times from people: "I know how to read punch cards!". I do too, but how it can help now? :)

Is this somehow relating to photography?  Are you equating punch cards to film photography?  Kinda like, "Yeah, you're a dinasaur but still a newbie."

Exactly, with one correction. Did you miss "I do too" part? ;)
A little more serious - not to film photography as a class (it does not apply to anybody who did professional work on film continuously till recent years), but to any professional skill set that had a chance to get both obsolete and rusty.   
[/quote]

I guess that pretty much sums it up.  I have nothing to offer.  My images must stand on their own.   :'(

« Reply #59 on: March 04, 2010, 11:44 »
0
Quote
REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS displayed in the beginning of MICROSTOCK

Now that's funny.

« Reply #60 on: March 04, 2010, 11:48 »
0
I guess that pretty much sums it up.  I have nothing to offer.  My images must stand on their own.   :'(

Sorry if you feel offended. I did not mean this at all - my comment was not about your photography skills, but about using "I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera"

WarrenPrice

« Reply #61 on: March 04, 2010, 12:08 »
0
I guess that pretty much sums it up.  I have nothing to offer.  My images must stand on their own.   :'(

Sorry if you feel offended. I did not mean this at all - my comment was not about your photography skills, but about using "I was a Professional Photographer long before most of you got your first camera"

This has gotten way off topic, Gene.  I am offering a Why for the conflict suggested in Lisa's initial post.  Donding tried the same post in slightly different wording and was skewered for simply being too new to have an opinion.  Lisa offers practically the same opinion with rave reviews.  That is what I see as the basis for a lot of the tension. 

My point was ... being new to MicroStock is no reason to assume the person is ignorant to the world selling images ... micro or otherwise.  As a famous comedian once said, "I get no respect."   ::)

« Reply #62 on: March 04, 2010, 12:11 »
0
Let me add to that question a little - If I'm learning alot and in a year or a few I become a pretty/very good photographer (or developer, I like some CGI stuff), and on top of that I know what sells; yet I upload very little (due to interests, other commitments, etc) - I'm still not a "pro"?

boy, this is hard terminology...


If you make a dollar by doing something, you're a professional.  I spent 12 years making a living as a  musician and believe me if you want to argue about what "pro" means, just round up a bunch of musicians.

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: March 04, 2010, 12:55 »
0

This has gotten way off topic, Gene.  I am offering a Why for the conflict suggested in Lisa's initial post.  Donding tried the same post in slightly different wording and was skewered for simply being too new to have an opinion.  Lisa offers practically the same opinion with rave reviews.  That is what I see as the basis for a lot of the tension.  

My point was ... being new to MicroStock is no reason to assume the person is ignorant to the world selling images ... micro or otherwise.  As a famous comedian once said, "I get no respect."   ::)

Well, with respect, I didn't see Donna getting "skewered" and I don't see anything like "rave reviews" here.  

All I have seen in either thread is people genuinely offering their opinions on the level of civility (or lack) around here, and also theories as to why that is.

ETA:  I did not think my OP was redundant of Donna's, as she was expressing frustration about being personally bashed. Whereas I don't feel particularly attacked myself, but am more interested in the newbie vs. pro battle that seems totally counterproductive to me. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 13:04 by lisafx »

« Reply #64 on: March 04, 2010, 12:58 »
0
Once I've heard a good definition of a pro, and it was not related to $$.
Amateur _can_ do an excellent job
Pro does a good job _always_ (though it may be not excellent)

Unfortunately this definition works best for self-rating, not external one.

« Reply #65 on: March 04, 2010, 13:10 »
0
I think there is a bit too much focus on 'who is pro' and 'who is not' and where the line should be drawn.  I do agree that it is nice to know when someone posts about a 100% increase in earnings when they have a portfolio of 20 images, but to shun people who are 'not pro', however you define the term, or if we take the attitude that they don't have anything to ad - I think is narrow sighted.
...

For me it's pretty easy to draw the line: if you earn a living through photography then you're a professional, if you don't then (at best) you're a semi-professional. Although I'm primarily interested in the opinions of my professional peers, I still value the opinion of the part-timers and newcomers, though not with the same weight. Each of these groups has a unique opinion to offer: pros tend to look at things differently than semi-pros/amateurs/hobbiests, and newcomers can sometimes provide a fresh perspective of the marketplace. By definition, I don't think anyone who is professional unjustly discards the opinions of people who don't do this for a living or have been at it for only a short time. Certainly not a successful one, anyway.

lagereek

« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2010, 13:13 »
0
Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.

maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?


Would it surprise you to know that plenty of the Getty top RM shooters also shoot stock for RF agencies. Its no big deal anymore.

best.


macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2010, 13:18 »
0
Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.

maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?


Would it surprise you to know that plenty of the Getty top RM shooters also shoot stock for RF agencies. Its no big deal anymore.

best.

i do the same.

good images on RM, the rest on RF.

lagereek

« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2010, 13:41 »
0
Getty Images already has the top 1000 RM shooters.

maybe one day iStock will follow with the best 1000 RF shooters ?


Would it surprise you to know that plenty of the Getty top RM shooters also shoot stock for RF agencies. Its no big deal anymore.

best.

i do the same.

good images on RM, the rest on RF.


Actually I try to keep the same quality at both RM and RF. It doesnt seem to make much differance nowdays. Fact is an RF shot DLd say 30 times a month can easily match a couple of RM sales, sometimes much more.

best. Christian

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2010, 14:02 »
0

This has gotten way off topic, Gene.  I am offering a Why for the conflict suggested in Lisa's initial post.  Donding tried the same post in slightly different wording and was skewered for simply being too new to have an opinion.  Lisa offers practically the same opinion with rave reviews.  That is what I see as the basis for a lot of the tension.  

My point was ... being new to MicroStock is no reason to assume the person is ignorant to the world selling images ... micro or otherwise.  As a famous comedian once said, "I get no respect."   ::)

Well, with respect, I didn't see Donna getting "skewered" and I don't see anything like "rave reviews" here.  

All I have seen in either thread is people genuinely offering their opinions on the level of civility (or lack) around here, and also theories as to why that is.

ETA:  I did not think my OP was redundant of Donna's, as she was expressing frustration about being personally bashed. Whereas I don't feel particularly attacked myself, but am more interested in the newbie vs. pro battle that seems totally counterproductive to me.  

Lisa...the bashing I was referring to wasn't directed at me when I made the original post and later on down the post I came back and clarified that and said what I was concerned about was that the forum was beginning to take the turn of alot of the stock forums. I wasn't refering to everyone on here. Here is what I said in the second post

"I just want to clarify things that I should have done when I originally posted and I apologize for that. The bashing that was going on, was not directed at me, but some others on the forum. As most of you have pointed out, this is the best forum to partake in and that is very true thanks to Leaf. He has done a great job. I have also been to the other forums and know what it is like there. They are not the friendliest places. That was the point I was trying to make. I just dont want this forum to turn out like those and that is my main concern. The majority of people on here are considerate. Like I said before Im not going to single out people and point fingers here. That is a lot of the problem that I was referring to. I didnt post to provoke people....even though it seems like that is what I  have done. I just felt these problems need to be addressed and I hope you understand that."  

I really think your post here was alot better put than mine. But I did end up with 9 ignores because of mine. But that's alright I'm not going to dwell on it.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 14:06 by donding »

lisafx

« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2010, 14:11 »
0
But I did end up with 9 ignores because of mine. But that's alright I'm not going to dwell on it.

Don't sweat the ignores, Donna.  We all get them...  Only way to avoid it is to never have an opinion, and how dull would that be?  :)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2010, 14:13 »
0
But I did end up with 9 ignores because of mine. But that's alright I'm not going to dwell on it.

Don't sweat the ignores, Donna.  We all get them...  Only way to avoid it is to never have an opinion, and how dull would that be?  :)

If I was sweating them I'd be dehydrated by now....lol.. ::)

« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2010, 14:39 »
0
I just checked my profile and found out I'm being ignored by 3.   I have no doubt they're "professionals".    :)

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2010, 15:01 »
0

Actually I try to keep the same quality at both RM and RF. It doesnt seem to make much differance nowdays. Fact is an RF shot DLd say 30 times a month can easily match a couple of RM sales, sometimes much more.

best. Christian

i sell my best as RM because i price my work correctly.

if you see your images as something to be sold by its weight then by all means go with RF.

some of my shots are not cheap, and there's no reason on heart i would give them away
for 0.25$ a pop, and i don't care if they could theoretically sell 1000x times.

if you want that picture, it's at least 100 bucks, period.

the ones i sell as RF are there because nowadays some niches sell more
as RF, for instance food, fruit, vegetables, doors, road signs, symbols, etc

it's ok for me, my target is portraits and lifestyle, anything else comes later.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2010, 15:02 »
0
I just checked my profile and found out I'm being ignored by 3.   I have no doubt they're "professionals".    :)

i'm ignored by 12 !
they love me !  :D

« Reply #75 on: March 04, 2010, 15:44 »
0
I just checked my profile and found out I'm being ignored by 3.   I have no doubt they're "professionals".    :)

i'm ignored by 12 !
they love me !  :D

I don't ignore anyone.  I enjoy the wild mix of opinions, the varying experiences, the rants and the venting of frustrations, even the sarcastic putdowns.  What else is an internet forum for?  If the "pros" want a place where they can chat amongst themselves and not be bothered by the lower classes, they should get someone to set up a "professional" forum with appropriate conditions for membership - invitation only, or verification of photographic income, or maybe proof that you "make your living" from microstock.   

Back in the day - in the music business - sure, we all wanted to define "professional" as "someone who really, really needs the money".    Unfortunately, customers didn't see that as a very good reason for hiring someone, and some "amateurs" were a lot better than many of the "pros".  In the customer's mind, a "professional" was someone who:

- charged money
- did a good job
- didn't act like a dope

The customer really didn't care if your musical income was 10%, or 100%, of your total.

lisafx

« Reply #76 on: March 04, 2010, 16:16 »
0

If the "pros" want a place where they can chat amongst themselves and not be bothered by the lower classes, they should get someone to set up a "professional" forum with appropriate conditions for membership - invitation only, or verification of photographic income, or maybe proof that you "make your living" from microstock.  


You know, this is exactly my point.  There is no reason to tar everyone on this forum who is a "pro" with the same brush just because you disagreed with what a few people have said.  

If you really think every microstock pro thinks exactly the same and only wants to communicate with others who think like them then you appear to have missed more than half the posts in this thread and some others too.  Since you don't have anyone on "ignore" I am wondering how you managed to skip over so many posts?


vonkara

« Reply #77 on: March 04, 2010, 16:30 »
0
I think this all started with the many threads asking for advices, free informations but also from threads asking for hidden psychological support. Also from blog updates and such. The only bad thing about this is they were all in the same period of time (week).

It's good to ask for opinions/informations, but also to search for the answers in the big thread database that MSG have. That could lower the rate of new threads first.

Then I don't think that advertising blogs almost each weeks is the best idea. Maybe we could have a blog section appearing at the end instead of having a forum section about this topic. I don't want to ignore boards at all, but spam, yes.

Everyone that start in microstock need encouragement, but forum members don't like it much most of times and it's the same in most forums. It need to keep being informative to the others IMO

Finally, I think that if you appear in the top poster / top thread starter many weeks and more in a row, you are exposing yourself at comments, that aren't often compliments.  :)

« Reply #78 on: March 04, 2010, 16:58 »
0
If you really think every microstock pro thinks exactly the same and only wants to communicate with others who think like them...

Well, that is obviously not the case, since I've already identified myself as a "pro" (see previous posts).

« Reply #79 on: March 04, 2010, 17:13 »
0
Well, this is all pretty funny.
I am not a professional, far from it, I have on average about 200+ pics at SS,DT,FT,IS,BigStock,123RF, StockXpert (oops - this is dead...) for the last 2 years, and I have not submitted a new image in over a year (in hospital most of the time). I am not complaining about sales - I make about $150/month.

But maybe I can put my $0.02 here.
The whole microstock business is a business - for the agencies. For most contributors - it is a dream about being a photographer (I haste to explain that I never had any illusions about what I can achieve there, with full-time job which gets me a decent 6-figure income).

For me the whole microstock adventure is just that - a bit of fun and a couple of bucks on the side.
It has been this way from day one - after I did initial analysis of potential prospects.

So - the equipment is couple of $K. A sellable image is on average about 1-2 hours of work (shooting, processing, etc. - YMMV, of course).
I may be able to put about 25 hours into photography a month - say 20 new pics/month, 250 new pics a year.

With current rates on most sites - these pics may earn (very optimistic here - I know) $5K, at the expense of 300 hours of work + initial investment.
This is about $17 per hour of work invested - before tax (which in my country is 43%).

In other words - a waste of time (again, YMMV, but I think that a similiar situation is applicable to most contributors).
Who is getting rich then ? The agencies who collect 50 to 80% of sales income. And some good, talented, hard working photographers who are prepared to work full-time on increasing their portfolios to get ahead of the competition.

And here it is - it is really a competition, not a business. It is like this in sport: the winner takes all, the second one is just the first of the losers.

 

« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2010, 18:07 »
0
I still think all this happens because photographers are not paid enough. Agencies have millions of images and the number grows everyday. They don't really care much if we are professionals or amateurs. They care only about their own profit. So, I think the only solution for those who are not satisfied with "micro" income to move into place where they will earn more. When colonies of grasshoppers satisfied with few grams of grass per day attack the  grass field, big herbivores have to move on to find enough grass somewhere else. There is no point to try to try to smash few grasshoppers because it won't change the situation.
Maybe it's cruel, but it seems to me that situation in microstock industry is similar to this example. Right now microstock is suitable place only for those who are satisfied with small earnings.
I am sure the atmosphere here would be much calmer and nicer if there is more money to share.

« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2010, 18:22 »
0
It is likely a combination of issues.  Most of the long term submitters had little help when they started.  If they did not have an aptitude for photography and post process submitters were more likely to give up.  

The last several years some of the sites have submitters in the critique areas that help people who would have never been accepted before. They get considerable help to pass the initial submission test, right down to advice on which images to submit and how to shoot and process them. Some of these new submitters have come to expect that the process will continue and it is understandable that those who worked hard to build micro skills and ports on their own resent being asked to continually help those not willing to do the same.   It does not help when you see the people you have helped copy your best selling images.

As the economy deteriorated money became more of an issue so dwindling sales hurt a bit more.

Add to the above the sheer numbers of new submitters that are being generated because news spread that some of the hardest working submitters were making good money and the fact that micro info is now readily available to help new submitters get going and you have more new people on these boards.

And you have volumes of new images on the sites, burying even the best of images.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 18:25 by gbalex »

lisafx

« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2010, 18:37 »
0
^^Great summation Gbalex! 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2010, 20:50 »
0

As the economy deteriorated money became more of an issue so dwindling sales hurt a bit more.


I think this is a big part of it.

When the economy is good and it's only a hobby it's not a big deal if the money dwindles.

But when things go bad a lot of people probably need every dollar. Survival instincts kick in.

« Reply #84 on: March 05, 2010, 11:34 »
0
Not to mention testosterone.  ::)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #85 on: March 05, 2010, 11:37 »
0
Not to mention testosterone.  ::)

Heh what about menopause?

« Reply #86 on: March 05, 2010, 12:28 »
0
Once I've heard a good definition of a pro, and it was not related to $$.
Amateur _can_ do an excellent job
Pro does a good job _always_ (though it may be not excellent)

Unfortunately this definition works best for self-rating, not external one.
I like that definition. I think consistency is a big part of being a pro.


lisafx

« Reply #87 on: March 05, 2010, 13:42 »
0
Not to mention testosterone.  ::)

Heh what about menopause?

I'm still at the PMS phase, but if that's any indication menopause will be Hell....  On my husband ;)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #88 on: March 05, 2010, 14:18 »
0
Not to mention testosterone.  ::)

Heh what about menopause?

I'm still at the PMS phase, but if that's any indication menopause will be Hell....  On my husband ;)
I don't have that problem since they jerked everything out of me several years ago... :D I guess I just lucked out. ;D

« Reply #89 on: March 05, 2010, 14:58 »
0
^^Great summation Gbalex! 

Thank you Lisa, nice thread!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5577 Views
Last post August 27, 2007, 18:26
by ozbandit
12 Replies
5750 Views
Last post August 12, 2008, 05:21
by leszek
70 Replies
20495 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 23:40
by sgcallaway1994
0 Replies
2200 Views
Last post October 12, 2009, 17:20
by vonkara
134 Replies
35536 Views
Last post September 19, 2013, 12:13
by Batman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle