MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: There are no rules: Microstock is totally harem scarem.  (Read 15809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2010, 10:04 »
0
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.   


« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2010, 11:38 »
0
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?

« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2010, 13:15 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 15:59 by stockastic »

RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2010, 22:30 »
0
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.
 

jbarber873

« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2010, 23:08 »
0
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?

   I spent 20 years collecting props from shooting annual reports, so this is what i shoot now. I honestly don't see how it makes any sense otherwise. As an example, for the NYSE, i used to shoot a flag for each country they had a listing in. These flags cost $30 each, so I only shoot the ones I already have. I could never recover the $30 if I had to buy it now. If I could sell these through my macrostock agency, I'd get a much better price, but they won't take them because they aren't "edgy". So i'm just recycling old props. Then, after I finish shooting all this stuff, I'll sell it on ebay ;D

« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2010, 10:35 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2010, 11:16 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

That's just about what it's boiled down to... :-\

« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2010, 11:28 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

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

jbarber873

« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2010, 11:32 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

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 ;D

« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2010, 11:45 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

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 ;D

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. 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 11:54 by stockastic »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2010, 11:52 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

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

Not me.  I eat my props after taking a picture.  Or, even more restrictive, they belong to my wife.   ::)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2010, 12:10 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

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 ;D

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. 

LOL ain't that the truth....the use to be "Made in the USA" store Walmart is all "Made in China" now...... :D

jbarber873

« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2010, 12:11 »
0
Why even shoot? I'd probably make more money just selling my props on ebay than bothering to shoot them for microstock.  ;D

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 ;D

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. 

This is so close to reality it's scary!  I shared a studio with a photographer that shot product shots of bedding and curtains for packaging, but then the chinese companies that took the work away from the US mills started throwing the product shots and packaging in for free. You can't compete with free.

« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2010, 12:19 »
0
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.

jbarber873

« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2010, 12:56 »
0
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.

dibs on the password ;D

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2010, 13:55 »
0
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.

vonkara

« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2010, 14:03 »
0
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.
 

Sadly, it look like many are happy as long as they sell something. In my opinion, not many report bad incomes, but they do report bad sales. I don't care if I get a low commission by being exclusive with Istock. I know I still get 76 cents for a XS and up to 14$ for a XXXL. 14$ that's 4 Fotolia extended licences.

To equal one full size sale, I would have to sell around 40 full size pics elsewhere at subs prices.


molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2010, 14:22 »
0
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.
 

Sadly, it look like many are happy as long as they sell something. In my opinion, not many report bad incomes, but they do report bad sales. I don't care if I get a low commission by being exclusive with Istock. I know I still get 76 cents for a XS and up to 14$ for a XXXL. 14$ that's 4 Fotolia extended licences.

To equal one full size sale, I would have to sell around 40 full size pics elsewhere at subs prices.

what % of your sales XXXL makes nowadays?

« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2010, 14:27 »
0
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.

I second your last and excellent concept. My Glock fits nicely and unobtrusively into my tamrac camera bag.

« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2010, 15:16 »
0
Molka, it's easier to get mugged when you're disguised as a photographer; it's easier to mug people when you're disguised as a stock photography agency. If you want to start mugging people yourself, you need to upgrade to a different class of shooter.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
8124 Views
Last post July 17, 2006, 16:31
by madelaide
32 Replies
15855 Views
Last post April 05, 2007, 17:38
by madelaide
13 Replies
5189 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 22:54
by helix7
3 Replies
2929 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 14:38
by madelaide
4 Replies
942 Views
Last post March 01, 2024, 16:28
by Big Money

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors