i shoot only studio shots of objects I already own or can get at no cost.

Do I dare say macro or some morph of it?

Quote from: stockastic on November 01, 2010, 10:04

Quote from: jbarber873 on October 31, 2010, 20:20

i shoot only studio shots of objects I already own or can get at no cost.

I think we're seeing this the same way.  I've had some success shooting unusual, old, and/or retro objects but soon ran out of subjects I already owned.  Just for the fun of it, I went to some surplus/scrap outlets, picked up a few things and did images of them. Sure, they sold, in some cases surprisingly well, but they also cost me a few bucks plus some amount of time. 

As you point out, the way this ends is with a few high-volume producers scratching out a slim margin on repetitious shots costing little or nothing to produce.   

Very close to my conclusions. The key will be, as you say,  the "little or nothing to produce" approach. Very high-volume commercially aware producers only. Those who think that microstock will somehow reward the edgy creative efforts are dead wrong. The costs in time and effort will overwhelm the returns. The only way I can see otherwise is for highly specialized content with much higher contributor commissions. Do I dare say macro or some morph of it?

Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock. 

Quote from: louoates on November 07, 2010, 10:35

Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock. 

LOL! You are sure right on that. Last few posts make a lot of sense and mirror my thoughts exactly.

Quote from: louoates on November 07, 2010, 10:35

Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock. 

LOL! You are sure right on that. Last few posts make a lot of sense and mirror my thoughts exactly.

Quote from: jbarber873 on November 07, 2010, 11:32

Quote from: cclapper on November 07, 2010, 11:28

Quote from: louoates on November 07, 2010, 10:35

Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  

LOL! You are sure right on that. Last few posts make a lot of sense and mirror my thoughts exactly.

 Yeah, but shooting my props gives me the illusion that I am busy. After I sell them on ebay, then all I have left is being a greeter at walmart

But then you can do a series of "Big Box Retailer Greeter" shots.  Just be sure to remove all the logos.


In a vew years, all microstock will be produced in China, in a small city that does nothing but shoot stock. They'll photograph every object that's produced in a Chinese factory, i.e. everything that exists in the world.  Their children will be surgically altered at birth to become good-looking models of every ethnicity, and taught to smile radiantly.  An entire street of kitchens will produce every dish known to man, to be photographed and discarded.  The photographers will work 60 hour weeks for the eqivalent of $5. 

And what comes after selling my props on ebay?
In this order: camera bags, flash and studio lighting setups, tripods, shutter releases, light meter, white cards, Canon battery recharger, spare batteries, compact disk flash cards, closeup attachment, closeup filters, macro lenses, telephoto lenses, Photoshop plug-ins and third party programs, inkjet paper and canvases, extra 220 ml ink cartridges, Epson 9800 printer, 50 mm lens, CS5 suite, Eizo monitor, Apple deskpro computer and keyboard, complete micro-stock portfolio, and password to Microstockgroup.  This is sounding a lot like a plan.

Quote from: stockastic on November 01, 2010, 13:15

Quote from: louoates on November 01, 2010, 11:38

Do I dare say macro or some morph of it?

Therein lies the crux of the matter.  Something new has to evolve.  Those of use producing viable 'niche' images currently seem to have no place in the microstock market, which means money is being left on the table.  

I'm not giving microstock any more images that cost me $15 to produce and return $10 after a year.

I don't need to get $500 for a sale, or $50.   At just $5 things would start to make sense.  I'd even find SS subscription sales acceptable at $1, but not 25 cents.

HELLO! YES! EXACTLY!

I'd be very happy with micro at $1.00 a download, minimum. Instead they keep dropping the prices and commissions and we're getting tossed spare change like beggars on the street with a tin cup.
 

I round up sime really nice gals, they get hq pictures of themselves for free if they sign MR, and I try to get laid. That way it's worth shooting for microcrap. If don't get laid at all, I stop, coz that is just unsustainable : ) Or maybe I should drop my DSLR, seems like it's becoming a loosers icon as I read here, and just pimp them, I dunno, we'll see. I was also thinking maybe it's easier to mug people disguised as photographer.