pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This worries me more than free pictures sites :-(  (Read 20153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 05, 2010, 08:05 »
0
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 08:08 by borg »


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2010, 08:15 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?

« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2010, 08:20 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?

There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day  more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...

Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 08:27 by borg »

« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2010, 08:29 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?

There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day  more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...

Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...

old microstock discussion.. or we are in or not...!

« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2010, 08:32 »
0
But it hurts every day more and more... ;) ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2010, 08:50 »
0
BBC were using Thinkstock images from the start. I guess they've got their licence payers (including me) to think about. I can just imagine the questions at the shareholders meetings if they didn't use the cheapest legally available. Doesn't mean I'm opted in, though.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2010, 08:52 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?
Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...
The buyer at TS knows that for a pittance, their pics have MRs or PRs if necessary. Not usually the case if offered freely.

Noodles

« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2010, 09:00 »
0
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(


Before MS and digital cameras, pro photographers earned heaps of money - Now its only the elite or those who adapted that can earn such money.

Same with these free picture sites - only the elite MS photographers will survive.

But those that can survive will earn good money as quality always wins in the long run and big companies always have a big budget for quality imagery.

So its getting close to that time now when its either adapt or start looking for a new hobby :)

« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2010, 09:26 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

KB

« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2010, 09:38 »
0
We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!
I'm sorry to say, but that's exactly the type of reasoning which is leading us down this path of lower and lower commissions.

So if $0.25 is acceptable to you, is $0.20? $0.10? Even $0.01 is better than making nothing, right?

You have to draw the line somewhere and say, less than this, it is not better than making nothing. For me, that figure is $0.33 (though I accepted $0.30 from StockXpert begrudgingly, so perhaps it's really $0.30).  I'm not willing to whore myself out for less than that.

« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2010, 09:49 »
0
I don't get what the problem is?  Is it that they are using a ThinkStock image?


There is no problem, only cheap subscriptions are problem, nothing more...
Big companies use pics for dollar,every day  more and more, several years ago they needed to pay few zeros more for the same...

Where is "big" difference for us, between my image on free site or my image under subscriptions...?
Maybe free site brings more popularity for me than the subscription site, there I am just a one drop in the Ocean...


yes borg, but several years ago we all got paid more zeros too. it's economics. supply demand..
One of the biggest Croatian commercial television, their site:

http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/zdravlje/grozdze-za-mozak-francuski-paradoks.html

See the label with a picture, everything is legal, TV house makes money, only we make cents... >:(


Before MS and digital cameras, pro photographers earned heaps of money - Now its only the elite or those who adapted that can earn such money.

Same with these free picture sites - only the elite MS photographers will survive.

But those that can survive will earn good money as quality always wins in the long run and big companies always have a big budget for quality imagery.

So its getting close to that time now when its either adapt or start looking for a new hobby :)


Good point. Survival of the fittest to earn the pittance :)

« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2010, 10:32 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

No no no and no!

What was the quality of your images before microstock  and now.!?
They brought us up to commercial standards in photography, only because we can sell...
Otherwise (if we had commercial standard before), we could easily sell through the traditional agency before Microstock...

What is problem now?

Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...
Because of  that, there is too much big difference from price to quality in Microstock, that is problem...

I hope that agencies see it, and We see that they slowly changing the rules, because they raise the cost of photographs, what gives hope to all of us...

Cheap subscriptions remain as biggest problem for now...
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 10:41 by borg »

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2010, 10:43 »
0


You have to draw the line somewhere and say, less than this, it is not better than making nothing. For me, that figure is $0.33 (though I accepted $0.30 from StockXpert begrudgingly, so perhaps it's really $0.30).  I'm not willing to whore myself out for less than that.

Exactly.  At some point it isn't worth doing.  Particularly if this is no longer your hobby, but an important part of your monthly income.  


What was the quality of your images before microstock  and now.!?
(snip)

Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...

I also agree with borg.  Sure, I was thrilled to get .20 or .25 for the pictures of flowers, ducks, buildings, and stuff from my back yard that had been sitting on my hard drive.  But levels of skill and production value have climbed exponentially and for awhile prices and royalties were going up too.  

Now Getty is to get rich selling those high quality images and paying next to nothing to the producers.  They are trying to push royalties back to where they were 5 years ago, but on the professional quality images of today.  

I can't understand why any self-respecting contributor would NOT have a problem with that.  
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 10:44 by lisafx »

« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2010, 10:44 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

No no no and no!

What was the quality of your images before microstock  and now.!?
They brought us up to commercial standards in photography, only because we can sell...
Otherwise before we could easily sell through the traditional agency before Microstock...

What is problem now?

Customers buy a professional photography today on microstock, not amateur as microstock was conceived from the start...
Because of  that, there is too much big difference from price to quality in Microstock, that is problem...

I hope that agencies see it, and We see that they slowly changing the rules, because they raise the cost of photographs, what gives hope to all of us...

Cheap subscriptions remain as biggest problem for now...

Okay, borg , I now get your point. Yes, you are right.
We look and compare the standard quality of microstock before and after, and we can see the big change. With more strict review and more demanding reviewers. So now we are making better quality not amateur stock photo,
but the stock agencies and buyers expect to pay less and less with more and more quality photos available.
If you say this is problem, I agree much more to your point.

Borg, I tried give you a heart for this comment, but not permitted because I am too new. But you get heart anytway from me
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 10:48 by lefty »

« Reply #14 on: June 05, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

I echo, no, no, no!  You might as well bend over and get the soap.

« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2010, 11:36 »
0
Before microstock, how many of us earned ANYTHING from stock photos? I think that is something that many of us lose sight of on a regular basis.

We all wish that we made more per sale. However, compared to making nothing, what the sites pay us is much better!

I echo, no, no, no!  You might as well bend over and get the soap.

Right you are Sean.

Cheap subs are the reason that I became exclusive @ IS and am opted out from the partner sites.
My lowest commission now is around $0.70 and my highest is $18+ (thus far & not counting extended licenses).
Selling for $0.25 is a losing proposition in my book unless you just happen to have a shot that sells in the multiple thousand of times.
That is a very rare shot indeed.
Why would anyone want to give their hard work away for peanuts?

« Reply #16 on: June 05, 2010, 11:51 »
0
I f I buy a prop to do a photo it's no more then 5.00 my cost per image is very low
I would rather make sub prices then give it away. ::)


« Reply #17 on: June 05, 2010, 11:53 »
0
Thanks Lefty for support!  ;)

Others too, Lisa, Sjlocke etc..

@Sljocke Excellent metaphor  :D ;D


Question:

What is worse, few rejected images for our promotion on some free site, or whole portfolio for a few cents or peanuts?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 12:01 by borg »

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2010, 12:35 »
0
I f I buy a prop to do a photo it's no more then 5.00 my cost per image is very low
I would rather make sub prices then give it away. ::)

If your highest cost per shoot is $5 then yours are not the high-production-value images that are being talked about here. 

If your costs per shoot were several hundred dollars or more and many hours of planning and shooting,  then you might feel very differently...

« Reply #19 on: June 05, 2010, 12:45 »
0
Not only does what all of you have discussed above bother me, but here's another trend that bothers me:

Notice the credit line does NOT have the contributor's name, only the agency's. So not only is the picture purchased for peanuts from Thinkstock, but the contributor has been stripped of any benefit of having his/her name published along with the photo!

Something's gotta give...we just keep going backwards faster and faster.

KB

« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2010, 12:51 »
0
I f I buy a prop to do a photo it's no more then 5.00 my cost per image is very low
I would rather make sub prices then give it away. ::)
Are you including the cost of your equipment, insurance, and considerable time? My cost per image is much higher than $5 / image even if I go out in my backyard and shoot something "for free".

« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2010, 13:06 »
0
I echo, no, no, no!  You might as well bend over and get the soap.

Ha!ha! sjlocke! which soap you use ?

Not only does what all of you have discussed above bother me, but here's another trend that bothers me:

Notice the credit line does NOT have the contributor's name, only the agency's. So not only is the picture purchased for peanuts from Thinkstock, but the contributor has been stripped of any benefit of having his/her name published along with the photo!

Something's gotta give...we just keep going backwards faster and faster.

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

lisafx

« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2010, 13:13 »
0

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.  All major micros show who the artist is and offer a link to more of their porfolios. 

Thinkstock doesn't, but they are unique in that and they are definitely NOT a major micro. 

« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2010, 13:14 »
0

Cheap subs are the reason that I became exclusive @ IS and am opted out from the partner sites.
My lowest commission now is around $0.70 and my highest is $18+ (thus far & not counting extended licenses).
Selling for $0.25 is a losing proposition in my book unless you just happen to have a shot that sells in the multiple thousand of times.
That is a very rare shot indeed.
Why would anyone want to give their hard work away for peanuts?

It depends on bottom line $$$. You sell more 25 cents Shutterstock versus $2 IStock.
At the end of month Shutterstock give bigger total with 25 cents por commission.
In case of me, I take 25 cents any day with Shutterstock because each month my total is bigger
than Istock.  But for other agency I don't think it is worth my trouble.
Other people here , you agree?
 

« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2010, 13:17 »
0

cclapper. I don't think any agency give credit line. Only Getty once I see . Maybe I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.  All major micros show who the artist is and offer a link to more of their porfolios. 

Thinkstock doesn't, but they are unique in that and they are definitely NOT a major micro. 

Thinkstock is Getty. And new. So maybe it is too soon to make judgement with Thinkstock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4825 Views
Last post July 20, 2017, 12:53
by MircoV
2 Replies
4250 Views
Last post July 21, 2011, 18:03
by stockastic
7 Replies
3034 Views
Last post December 15, 2013, 23:53
by cascoly
6 Replies
2587 Views
Last post February 13, 2014, 10:10
by Newsfocus1
5 Replies
1705 Views
Last post February 10, 2016, 10:30
by cthoman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle