Interesting read for a Microstock Taliban (I didn't know I was so elite). 

I myself don't understand enough about rights managed.  Does that mean that once it is sold it cannot be sold again for the period of the license?  10 years for $69?  When they are talking $, is that the amount in their piggy bank, or the amount of the transaction?  Just think of what they could make at Istock in 10 years.

Boy, those macro shooters sure hate us, don't they.  Industries evolve and advance, boys!  I remember when I moved to Toronto in late 80's and it cost about $1.20 a minute to call home.  My bills were easily a couple hundred a month.  Open up the market, and flash forward a couple decades and now I pay $40 a month for my entire telephone service and long distance and that includes calls to the U.S. and most of Europe. 

I can see why macro shooters are angry at what is happening to their income, but if they want to survive they have to suck it up and adapt.

I just want to point out that not all Macro shooters hate Micro shooters, its a very small minority and generally speaking they are the one's that hide their own inabilities behind their hate for Micro.

You would be surprised how many traditional macro shooters have and are joining micro sites.

I like many others had been with Alamy a long time before I started submitting to Microstock, it's just another side of the industry.

Quote from: RTimages on November 24, 2007, 03:19

I just want to point out that not all Macro shooters hate Micro shooters, its a very small minority and generally speaking they are the one's that hide their own inabilities behind their hate for Micro.

The ones I know complain that the microstock sites made images available too cheap (and I agree with them).  Images they would in the past sell for US$1000, now they are forced to sell for US$200.  And these are very good photographers, if it's technical quality that you are calling "inability".

Regards,
Adelaide

Hi Adelaide,

Sorry for the delay in replying been busy.

No the one's I am referring to are the ones that, to be honest, should be ashamed to call themselves photographers, some of these are the most vocal anti Microstock protesters.

They criticise Microshooters and call them amateurs and when you view their portfolios their work would not pass reviewers on even the most lenient of Microsites.

Unfortunately it is these people that through their comments are leading other good photographers into believing their hype.

There are many many good photographers on Alamy who's work will easily surpass the average microstock contributor, although I can understand their views on Microstock (and yes I too believe the price of images should be higher) pricing, and without doubt it will have effected their income through traditional agencies my view is that it's here and you can either sit back and moan or work with it.

I have nothing against good photographers who have a point of view about the industry, the one's that wind me up are the one's whose photography is poor even by Microstock standards and have up till now had an easy ride, they will suffer the good will prevail.

I myself got into Microstock at the recommendation of a friend who is a very good photographer, in fact he is one of the worlds leading photographers in his specialised field, he submits to Micro albeit not his specialised subject, and I know of others who do the same. It's a business and you need to make it work for you.

I hardly visit the Alamy forum anymore, it's threads end up as a childish battle. But if you want to see what I mean, check out the portfolios of some of the microstock bashers, you'll be amazed!

Regards
Richard