pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Just when you thought It couldn't get worse.  (Read 28047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: July 19, 2016, 03:02 »
+4
a.

Time to put the cat on half rations...

... and you eat the other half with rice??? LOL

That is catism and catophobic!  >:(


« Reply #176 on: July 19, 2016, 03:57 »
+8
terrible july sales....half of normal

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #177 on: July 19, 2016, 06:45 »
+3
in the end us pros ruined our own business by submitting content to the micros, dont blame the amateur, blame your fellow pro shooters, like me, made a bundle in micro but its getting tougher, no business lasts forever, unless you are coca cola

Most pros had no choice. With amateurs submitting pro quality work to micros, macro dried up, and you could either join and make pennies or find something else to do other than stock photography. 

Fudio

« Reply #178 on: July 19, 2016, 07:18 »
+1
in the end us pros ruined our own business by submitting content to the micros, dont blame the amateur, blame your fellow pro shooters, like me, made a bundle in micro but its getting tougher, no business lasts forever, unless you are coca cola

Most pros had no choice. With amateurs submitting pro quality work to micros, macro dried up, and you could either join and make pennies or find something else to do other than stock photography.

Exactly. Furthermore, depending on your field of expertise and market, an exponentially expanding microstock library made it much easier and a whole lot more economical for a pros existing client base to find imagery that was "close enough" to their needs that a bread and butter custom shoot was no longer a necessity. A lot of pros saw the writing on the wall years ago, resisted as long as they could,  but ultimately had little choice but to hop aboard.

« Reply #179 on: July 19, 2016, 07:52 »
+2
in the end us pros ruined our own business by submitting content to the micros, dont blame the amateur, blame your fellow pro shooters, like me, made a bundle in micro but its getting tougher, no business lasts forever, unless you are coca cola

Most pros had no choice. With amateurs submitting pro quality work to micros, macro dried up, and you could either join and make pennies or find something else to do other than stock photography.

Exactly. Furthermore, depending on your field of expertise and market, an exponentially expanding microstock library made it much easier and a whole lot more economical for a pros existing client base to find imagery that was "close enough" to their needs that a bread and butter custom shoot was no longer a necessity. A lot of pros saw the writing on the wall years ago, resisted as long as they could,  but ultimately had little choice but to hop aboard.

That is kind of like saying a person who has gone to medical school and is a surgeon and loses their job has little choice but to get a job at Walmart instead of looking for jobs in his/her own field. And then expecting Walmart to match the salary the surgeon was making as a surgeon.

Too bad the pros didn't see the writing on the wall that agencies were never going to increase commissions, and that they should never have quit their day jobs to depend on microstock as a full time job. The good news is there are now at least mid and macro agencies and other avenues of generating revenue where a pro can at least make better money to recoup the cost of expensive equipment and high-dollar shoots.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #180 on: July 19, 2016, 08:22 »
+2
in the end us pros ruined our own business by submitting content to the micros, dont blame the amateur, blame your fellow pro shooters, like me, made a bundle in micro but its getting tougher, no business lasts forever, unless you are coca cola

Most pros had no choice. With amateurs submitting pro quality work to micros, macro dried up, and you could either join and make pennies or find something else to do other than stock photography.

Exactly. Furthermore, depending on your field of expertise and market, an exponentially expanding microstock library made it much easier and a whole lot more economical for a pros existing client base to find imagery that was "close enough" to their needs that a bread and butter custom shoot was no longer a necessity. A lot of pros saw the writing on the wall years ago, resisted as long as they could,  but ultimately had little choice but to hop aboard.

That is kind of like saying a person who has gone to medical school and is a surgeon and loses their job has little choice but to get a job at Walmart instead of looking for jobs in his/her own field. And then expecting Walmart to match the salary the surgeon was making as a surgeon.

Too bad the pros didn't see the writing on the wall that agencies were never going to increase commissions, and that they should never have quit their day jobs to depend on microstock as a full time job. The good news is there are now at least mid and macro agencies and other avenues of generating revenue where a pro can at least make better money to recoup the cost of expensive equipment and high-dollar shoots.

Note that I said "find something else to do other than stock photography". Old stock photo pros probably shifted toward other photography like commercial shoots, real estate, weddings, or whatever. I've noticed some saying there's no money in photography anymore as a full time profession and they've had to go get a non-photography job.

I think there are plenty of pros and amateurs who were able to recognize the shifting trends, adjust, and do very well. It's the people who were either unable or unwilling to make the necessary shift who completely got out of photography. There's still plenty of opportunity and money in photography for people with the right mindset and skills.

I think macro and mid-stock is only viable for a small percentage of contributors who can produce unique work that's not already heavily covered by microstock. On macro sites, anything that resembles micro is being sold a micro prices.

« Reply #181 on: July 19, 2016, 08:24 »
+2
This is the worst month ever for me in last eight years. Last july I sold 7x more images than this one. Last year I didn't upload and this year I am uploading almost all days in last 6 months


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk

Fudio

« Reply #182 on: July 19, 2016, 08:26 »
+1
in the end us pros ruined our own business by submitting content to the micros, dont blame the amateur, blame your fellow pro shooters, like me, made a bundle in micro but its getting tougher, no business lasts forever, unless you are coca cola

Most pros had no choice. With amateurs submitting pro quality work to micros, macro dried up, and you could either join and make pennies or find something else to do other than stock photography.

Exactly. Furthermore, depending on your field of expertise and market, an exponentially expanding microstock library made it much easier and a whole lot more economical for a pros existing client base to find imagery that was "close enough" to their needs that a bread and butter custom shoot was no longer a necessity. A lot of pros saw the writing on the wall years ago, resisted as long as they could,  but ultimately had little choice but to hop aboard.

That is kind of like saying a person who has gone to medical school and is a surgeon and loses their job has little choice but to get a job at Walmart instead of looking for jobs in his/her own field. And then expecting Walmart to match the salary the surgeon was making as a surgeon.

Too bad the pros didn't see the writing on the wall that agencies were never going to increase commissions, and that they should never have quit their day jobs to depend on microstock as a full time job. The good news is there are now at least mid and macro agencies and other avenues of generating revenue where a pro can at least make better money to recoup the cost of expensive equipment and high-dollar shoots.

Nope. Not like saying that at all. Not even remotely. Unless of course Walmart has opened a box hospital in a strip mall somewhere near you where they are tapping into an overabundant global supply chain of doctors,  and succesfully  outsourcing medical procedures to anyone who can perform them well enough. I would be the last person to compare photography to surgery.

Nor did I say any pro I know ever gave up their day job to pursue microstock full time. My point was that microstock has not only irrevocably changed the nature of stock photography in general, but indeed the nature of the photography industry as a whole.


« Reply #183 on: July 19, 2016, 08:56 »
0
"I think there are plenty of pros and amateurs who were able to recognize the shifting trends, adjust, and do very well. It's the people who were either unable or unwilling to make the necessary shift who completely got out of photography. There's still plenty of opportunity and money in photography for people with the right mindset and skills." Wasn't that always the case? Hasn't it always been a very hard profession to be successful in?

« Reply #184 on: July 19, 2016, 09:47 »
0
"I think there are plenty of pros and amateurs who were able to recognize the shifting trends, adjust, and do very well. It's the people who were either unable or unwilling to make the necessary shift who completely got out of photography. There's still plenty of opportunity and money in photography for people with the right mindset and skills." Wasn't that always the case? Hasn't it always been a very hard profession to be successful in?

Very well explain the business :)  couldn't agree more

« Reply #185 on: July 19, 2016, 09:48 »
+6
Hasn't it always been a very hard profession to be successful in?

What creative profession is "easy" to be successful in?

There are thousands of musicians, actors, artists, writers, etc, trying to break out in their industry. Some can make money at it, even a decent income, but very few will ever reach the top.

And the reasons why they reach the top don't always have much to do with raw talent. Many other factors are at play in creative success, including luck, timing and connections.

The profession of photography is no different from any other creative endeavor except that digitization has increased its ability to be crowd-sourced. And therein lies our current tale.

« Reply #186 on: July 19, 2016, 10:25 »
0
Hasn't it always been a very hard profession to be successful in?

What creative profession is "easy" to be successful in?

There are thousands of musicians, actors, artists, writers, etc, trying to break out in their industry. Some can make money at it, even a decent income, but very few will ever reach the top.

And the reasons why they reach the top don't always have much to do with raw talent. Many other factors are at play in creative success, including luck, timing and connections.

The profession of photography is no different from any other creative endeavor except that digitization has increased its ability to be crowd-sourced. And therein lies our current tale.
and of course business nous....I never Liked Yuris pictures much (OK I hate them) but as a business man he spotted an opportunity and made the maximum out of it.

« Reply #187 on: July 19, 2016, 10:32 »
+6
paulie, when you check the first images submitted to shutterstock, you will see it wasnt high quality, it was never the case that amateurs submitted higher quality than pros, if there was high quality, it was from the pros jumping in when they found out amateurs were making a bundle with their crappy shots. if so, we are to blame, not the amateurs. Macro was a closed shop and pros were sitting on their high horses, wich ultimately led to the creation of low priced images in a different payment model

« Reply #188 on: July 19, 2016, 11:00 »
+1
amateurs were making a bundle with their crappy shots

Well, if I may quibble just a bit more

Not all amateurs were then or are now producing "crappy shots." Some of us use fine "pro" equipment and are serious about producing "pro-level" images.

As I understand the term, a "pro" is usually described as someone who makes a complete living at his/her art, craft, business, profession, etc.  An "amateur" (or "advanced amateur" or "semi-pro") is somebody who may be very skillful but whose primary income comes from another field of endeavor. Even retirees from another profession (like me) can produce "semi-pro" work capable of competing well with what the "pros" produce.

And many of us "amateurs" are not johnny-come-latelys either. We aren't the reason SS's sales have dropped this year.

My first stock site was iStock, where I applied in 2008 and was accepted on the first round. The next year, I applied to Shutterstock, and was also accepted on the first round. For 3-4 years, my port was accepted (*always on the first round*) by iS, SS, FT, Adobe/FT, DT, P5, Veer, and Envato/PhotoDune. I've since dropped out of all but SS and DT, and dropped-out-and-come-back-in-again at FT/Adobe, because of the way the others treated their contributors.

Guess that's the biggest luxury of not being a "pro" and earning all my income from photography. I don't have to put up with the agencies' cr*p.


EDITED: I originally wrote "Verio" when I meant "Veer" and have corrected that.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 15:19 by marthamarks »

« Reply #189 on: July 19, 2016, 11:01 »
+2
etudiante, dont post made up facts, I still get 90 dollar SODs, 2 in the last 19 days, just not enough of them

just because one sod is making his BME does not erase the FACT that many others are seeing their earning dive and SOD vanish.
you cannot live in a myopic world just thinking you are selling well today you can call the other people situation "made up facts".

look beyond your nose!

« Reply #190 on: July 19, 2016, 11:15 »
+2
amateurs were making a bundle with their crappy shots

Well, if I may quibble just a bit more

Not all amateurs were then or are now producing "crappy shots." Some of us use fine "pro" equipment and are serious about producing "pro-level" images.

As I understand the term, a "pro" is usually described as someone who makes a complete living at his/her art, craft, business, profession, etc.  An "amateur" (or "advanced amateur" or "semi-pro") is somebody who may be very skillful but whose primary income comes from another field of endeavor. Even retirees from another profession (like me) can produce "semi-pro" work capable of competing well with what the "pros" produce.

And many of us "amateurs" are not johnny-come-latelys either. We aren't the reason SS's sales have dropped this year.

My first stock site was iStock, where I applied in 2008 and was accepted on the first round. The next year, I applied to Shutterstock, and was also accepted on the first round. For 3-4 years, my port was accepted (*always on the first round*) by iS, SS, FT, Adobe/FT, DT, P5, Verio, and Envato/PhotoDune. I've since dropped out of all but SS and DT, and dropped-out-and-in-again from FT/Adobe, because of the way the others treated their contributors.

Guess that's the biggest luxury of not being a "pro" and earning all my income from photography. I don't have to put up with the agencies' cr*p.

well written response, martha.

what some myopic individual refuse to see the point here is not about rinder and others coming in here to whine and complain about something "non-factual".
simply because the sordid pro is making money these days does not mean the rest of the experienced contributors are suddenly becoming incompetent.
that is such an imbecile mentality or at worst, haughty-taughty.

remember, rinder and the majority here ... were making SODs regularly
before their port fell off the cliff and SODs disappeared.

no doubt , when the market crashes, someone is still making money.
to say the rest of the people here should smarten up is a bit cocky, if not naive.

cheer on my myopic friend ! rinder is not just crabby for his own interest.
if many of the old contributors have seen a shortfall in comparision to the "olden day" (2015)
as cathy coins it,
it is not a good omen for us...
neither is it a good omen for you . 

we are all in the same boat, and if you think you alone are doing well
enough to ignore the fact ,
when the boat sinks, you will be the first one to be dragged down as well.

« Reply #191 on: July 19, 2016, 11:42 »
+2
We may all be in the same boat but were all in competition for life jackets. I am waiting for SS figures for some verifiable facts. I suspect the boat is still getting bigger but not as fast as the number of passengers and the amount of luggage they carry.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #192 on: July 19, 2016, 12:20 »
+6
paulie, when you check the first images submitted to shutterstock, you will see it wasnt high quality, it was never the case that amateurs submitted higher quality than pros, if there was high quality, it was from the pros jumping in when they found out amateurs were making a bundle with their crappy shots. if so, we are to blame, not the amateurs. Macro was a closed shop and pros were sitting on their high horses, wich ultimately led to the creation of low priced images in a different payment model

Again, note that I said "pro" quality not "high" quality. Different terms and definitions.

From what I've seen pro quality varies and I think it has been totally redefined over the past decade. I've seen some old pros talking about how bad things have gotten. When I looked at their ports I saw a lot of walkaround snapshots of trees, buildings, and basic stuff that could easily be replicated by anyone with a cellphone. At one time those kinds of pros probably made big money because agencies had full control over limiting contributors and the image supply which allowed them to set pricing very high. I've seen old pros with some amazing highly saleable work. But I've also seen amateurs with amazing sellable work. Crap sells as long as it's cheap enough.

So to your point, even if all pros refused to join micro, the pricing downfall would have happened anyway but probably a bit slower. There were, and are, plenty of amateurs who would have produced saleable work that would have caused buyers to shift from pro macro to micro anyway. And a lot of pros would still need to either join micro or starve. I still see a few holdouts who always said "RM or die" and now they seem to be giving in or giving up.

For the pros who jumped in early, along with the flood of amateurs, what do you expect? A few years ago contributors were bragging about making crazy money, posting free how-to-succeed-at-micro blogs, and on and on. The world got invited to the goldrush and now it's turning into a ghost town.

We're all responsible for where things are at today.

« Reply #193 on: July 19, 2016, 12:30 »
0
We may all be in the same boat but were all in competition for life jackets. I am waiting for SS figures for some verifiable facts. I suspect the boat is still getting bigger but not as fast as the number of passengers and the amount of luggage they carry.

good point Pauws!!!
like streeturchins scrambling on top of each other for the crumbs falling off the table.
well-said!

« Reply #194 on: July 19, 2016, 13:03 »
+1
andres rodriguez was a web designer before the became a photographer. he was an amateur photographer when he joined shutterstock in 2004, this is one of his first images, super talented guy, but crappy photos to start with, this was the level found on ss in the early days, this is not high end nor pro commercial stuff



i wonder how many sales he got on that one, haha

« Reply #195 on: July 19, 2016, 14:02 »
0
"For the pros who jumped in early, along with the flood of amateurs, what do you expect? A few years ago contributors were bragging about making crazy money, posting free how-to-succeed-at-micro blogs, and on and on. The world got invited to the goldrush and now it's turning into a ghost town." With hindsight its pretty obvious that this wouldn't last I think (hope) we are in for a period of slow decline so its a case of how best to cope in that environment.

dbvirago

« Reply #196 on: July 19, 2016, 14:57 »
+1
I didn't notice until today because the numbers aren't that significant, but the other site that is running at about half normal for me is BigStock. My other micro sites are normal or above normal.

Coincidence?

« Reply #197 on: July 19, 2016, 19:17 »
+1
The barrier for entry has gotten significantly lower over the years. Today's mobile phone cameras can produce photos better than semi-pro cameras from 10 years ago. Today's mirrorless cameras are very affordable and they produce high quality photos that be used for almost anything. Give anyone a decent lens that can defocus the background and a lesson in basic composition and most people won't be able to tell if the photo is taken by a pro or an amateur. Well, most pros can, but some the buyers won't.

But pros are uploading some high quality work to SS. I can probably find anything on SS that can rival most of Getty's premium work. The quality gap is getting smaller by the day and there will come a point where the buyer will only notice the huge price difference. Buyers have it good. They have ridiculous variety to choose from and sometimes they only need 1 photo. So 1 person get lucky and 10,000 others won't.

Let's do a search for pets on a Getty and SS site:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?search_source=base_lohp&searchterm=pets
http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/pet?family=creative&license=rf&phrase=pet&sort=best&excludenudity=true#license

One can argue that images on SS have more commercial appeal with quality to match. Pros and talented semi-pros are making SS looking better by the day and I don't think anyone can stop it. That is what happens with any competitive environment, regardless of field.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2016, 19:44 by Minsc »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #198 on: July 19, 2016, 19:29 »
0
"For the pros who jumped in early, along with the flood of amateurs, what do you expect? A few years ago contributors were bragging about making crazy money, posting free how-to-succeed-at-micro blogs, and on and on. The world got invited to the goldrush and now it's turning into a ghost town." With hindsight its pretty obvious that this wouldn't last I think (hope) we are in for a period of slow decline so its a case of how best to cope in that environment.

Not even hindsight. Trends were showing years ago where things were headed. I went with Plan B in 2013. Glad I did.

« Reply #199 on: July 19, 2016, 19:53 »
+3
The barrier for entry has gotten significantly lower over the years. Today's mobile phone cameras can produce photos better than semi-pro cameras from 10 years ago. Today's mirrorless cameras are very affordable and they produce high quality photos that be used for almost anything. Give anyone a decent lens that can defocus the background and a lesson in basic composition and most people won't be able to tell if the photo is taken by a pro or an amateur. Well, most pros can, but some the buyers won't.

But pros are uploading some high quality work to SS. I can probably find anything on SS that can rival most of Getty's premium work. The quality gap is getting smaller by the day and there will come a point where the buyer will only notice the huge price difference. Buyers have it good. They have ridiculous variety to choose from and sometimes they only need 1 photo. So 1 person get lucky and 10,000 others won't.

Let's do a search for pets on a Getty and SS site:
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?search_source=base_lohp&searchterm=pets
http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/pet?family=creative&license=rf&phrase=pet&sort=best&excludenudity=true#license

One can argue that images on SS have more commercial appeal with quality to match. Pros and talented semi-pros are making SS looking better by the day and I don't think anyone can stop it. That is what happens with any competitive environment, regardless of field.


you are right too.
but one thing that is even more true is that buyers do not really care who took the photograph;
just as you said, they only need one picture.
to be honest, i have alot of images that i thought would be my best seller...
for obvious reasons..
- i spent a lot of time setting up the lights
- i chose the best quality of food, fruit,etc.
- i post-processed it to make it look so much tastier
etc etc etc
or
- it is an image that is difficult to replicate
due to
- weather
-lighting
-location
etc etc etc

i repeat, obvious reasons...
but to whom???   to me !!

finally, guess what image(s) sold and made the most money for me to date???

-a picture of a tomato
-a picture of an onion
-a picture of...
which i merely plopped on a white background and shot it with bounced lighting
no other special technique, props,etc..

need i go on??? 
who needs a pro to do that???

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
3302 Views
Last post June 17, 2008, 12:18
by Brian O'Shea
10 Replies
2203 Views
Last post August 10, 2010, 07:21
by Dreamframer
It gets worse and worse here!

Started by lagereek 123RF

20 Replies
5058 Views
Last post August 31, 2011, 20:59
by alex123rf
3 Replies
1817 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 09:27
by Slovenian
2 Replies
1390 Views
Last post October 08, 2013, 02:34
by WindyTai

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements