I didnt know that they exist but Ive just found this:

http://www.naturallifestock.com/

It seems that microstock world is a risky business.

PS. Im sorry for the guys of the site

not the type of subject matter that i shoot, but in this market, any "niche" site is likely to fail. All of those photos (as you said) are available for a fraction of the cost on SS, IS, etc...

The portfolios there (for the most part) are quite stunning. But when I have a greater choice for cheaper change, you know where the shoppers will buy.

Sad to see another one go but it is survival of the fittest.

 Problem too,  most of the pictures on NLS were available elsewhere for 25 and 30 cents.  I liked NLS... had hopes for it...   but, didn't make it.

but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.

something photographers and illustrators can learn...

which in a way explains why certainly exclusiveness has its place

but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.

To a degree I will agree...  but only a small degree.  The primary fault didn't lay with the photogs,  it was the site.   I understand your point completely, however,  it doesn't correlate with the fact that I can sell the same pic on SS for 30 cents,  50 cents on StockXpert and $2.50 on IS and $5.00 on Alamy      [ !!!!! MODIFIED: CORRECTION, I meant to say FP, NOT Alamy. Sorry ]     People are going to pay what they want.  Are there hard core 'shoppers' out there that'll jump site to site? Yeah, but most buyers are satisfied shopping in one place.  The buyers I know usually shop only at their fav one or two agencies. They don't look all over and they are happy to pay what they usually pay. They are looking for a specific image.
    On the other had if a guy publishing a book on the Grand Canyon wanted a quick and easy source for a variety of Grand Canyon pictures, dozens or even hundreds, he could have got them all in just my portfolio on NLS (or other photogs there).  I don't have a large Grand Canyon portfolio on SS, IS, DT, etc.  Why?  Because they don't want them.   "too many on site" "not stock material"  "not a big need for this".

NLS was supposed to be a 'nature' site.  It was supposed to cater to specific groups, a select target,... scientists, naturalists, environmental agencies, etc.  Not account execs at an ad agency.  They started out great, faithful to that niche, but soon,  everything started showing up there.  It quickly digressed into another something for everyone site. 

Photogs started uploading everything they had there simply because the site allowed it. They could have rejected a picture of a blond eating cheesecake,  a guy talking on a phone, a secretary typing on a computer  as...   "not NLS stock material"   "no need for this on NLS",  but they didn't and in a matter of weeks it started looking like SS, IS, DT, etc and worse,  not at 25, 30 or 2.50,   but $6 bucks. 

They shot themselves in the foot.  NLS wound up with photogs that weren't nature/landscape photographers at all.  It went from a site that had a lot of potential to serve the needs of exclusive communities that would pay more... to another upstart free-for-all with everything at a price that then became ridiculous.

Only they would know their financial condition.  But it is pretty much a well known fact that one year is not sufficient time to get a business like that operational,  let alone profitable.  12 months is not enough time to become an established provider of niche photography. 

To your point, that is why most of us have two different portfolios for micro and macro. Agree to your point, if a photog is placing the same pic  on micro and macro, yeah, that's not the best decision in MHO also.  It doesn't make business sense to have the same pix on both.  That is the photog shooting him/herself in the foot.  And really not professional  in their relationship with the organization that is now unknowingly featuring micro images on their macro site.
     But,  to have the same pix spread across the micro world...  makes perfect sense to me.  In the case of NLS, they wanted to be a boutique agency. They should have stuck to that. They should have policed what they accepted.  They didn't by choice, only known to them.

Again, they shot themselves in the foot. ..... I'm tired, hope that made sense.  =tom

Just to reiterate... I liked NLS.  I was disappointed to see the direction the company portfolio took and  I'm sorry to see they had to throw in the towel so soon.

Quote

$5.00 on Alamy. 

? - Is that what RF prices are down to at Alamy? I sold one a year ago for $109

vividpixels....  I apologize.  You are correct.
    I am on Alamy...   What I meant to say was   FP..  Sorry to all for making a confusing statement.  Thanks for pointing that out to me...     
     Having the same pix at SS, IS, DT etc and too on Alamy would be contradictory to exactly what I was saying (as well as what joma was saying). Bad idea.
    FP... FP I meant FP.   =to

I can't see how a site can be so poorly funded that it can't stay alive without any business at all. Your expenses are running the site and bandwidth. If nothing sells you have no income and no payments to make. Maybe he just got tired of watching the site go nowhere and spending time on it?

I don't know if he invested in advertising and marketing. But the site was a nice idea and filled a popular niche. Too bad it went away from it's original intent and identity.

As for the other points. If he had stayed a purely nature site, there's at least a niche market and it could have attracted people looking for Nature and natural photos. It would have had a limited audience or buyers, but may have attracted some regulars who needed this material on a continuing basis?

The fact that everything was probably on every other micro site, didn't help. That's the way it works. people want to upload to everyplace that they can sell, so why would a photographer only list their images on one site and not have them on the others that they participate at?

http://microstockphoto.com/ has been running since 2005! I doubt if it will ever take off and the site looks pretty dormant to me. Someone can fill me in if I'm wrong.

it appears that the site is back up!

However, they've changed their goals

"NaturalLifeStock is not a Microstock or Royalty Free site! All images have limited use licenses. Click below to read the Licensing terms. Thank you!"

maybe the owner is only selling his own images? I don't see anything about other sellers and my old login doesn't work.

This is good news, because it's the second interest that I have in photography. Strange combination, racing/cars/motors/speed/noise... and second? Natural history, archeology, nature, peace and quiet.

NaturalLifeStock does NOT license Royalty Free stock. The image license you are purchasing is good only for ONE project and 100,000 copies maximum. A new license must be purchased after that usage limit has been reached.

If this is true, I can drop some more micro sites.