Must say,  I dont find it all that differant from the Trad-photolibrary or Macro business philosophy,  you still have to produce great stuff and find some sort of a niche in order to stay on top and once there you will sooner or later hit "the wall"  no matter how much you upload or produce, exactly the same as with the Trads.

if you read my earlier posts in this forum i already predicted this a long time ago.

it wasn't possible for microstock to be so easy to join and make money, only a matter
of time before reaching implosion and saturation.

as i see it now, it must be very very hard to rank for specific keywords.

I didn't say "strict". I said "stricter than 3 years ago" and agree that QC is still not so difficult to meet with a bit of experience.

But many friends of mine - and not only teen-agers sadly - are indeed convinced that iPhones - or any other mobile phone with a tiny lens - can make good photos, there's nothing I can do to change their mind, they even confute evidence. Why the heck are we carrying around heavy reflex cameras and lenses? Just because it's cool?

if they start allowing pics taken with iphones and P&S than it'll be the end of microstock.

there's already a place for that stuff .. facebook, flickr, webshots, weblog, and the rest of the gang.

i mean there's still a potential value in these picture .. in some rare case they're newsworthy, in some
other cases they are web-worthy, or they can fill some obscure niche, or used for low-res apps like
iPad and so on ... so for sure they're unsellable in micros and macros but this doesn't mean they're junk
and worth nothing .. there's always a way to monetize it even if it can mean scratching the very bottom
of the barrel.... time will tell !

i think it's all crap :

microstock is a JOB, not ART !

if working as a stock photographer bring you nightmares then maybe you better find another career.

i can also tell you that shooting sport or news isn't at all artistic, and wedding photography can get boring
after shooting yet another 100th wedding.

it's a job, no more no less.

on the other side, my case is special but...

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

One has to invest in a quality camera, lenses, strobes, soft boxes, props, lights, stands, quality laptop (if tethered), and Photoshop. Then you need to learn all the techniques for using your camera and software. And then you need to upload alot and that means spending alot of time shooting, editing, retouching, keywording, submitting... and then you marvel at the 25 cents you earned today. THAT IS if your stuff gets past the inspectors. ARRGG!

I think Rob Sylvan is very honest in his new book that things like this are true.

you don't need "photo gurus" , i was saying the same crap years ago in this forum but all i've got was getting banned
or ignored.

as i see it, the only issue is the meager payout.
rejections and bars raising higher come later, if ever, as if you're a serious photographer you should know what it takes
to pass QC.

the 25 cents factor is VERY important by opposite : microstock can only exist as long as you can seriously sell
photos many times, but nowadays this is not gonna happen for many new contributors so the very reason to
sell on micros CEASES to exist unless proven otherwise.

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

excellent sum up of the situation but all these rejections and gave-ups are a good thing.

strict QC ? don't make me laugh.
certainly stricter than other agencies but see how many of the people complaining is actually
uploading crap taken with their iPhones from their balconies...

and by the way, the strict QC is there because Getty decided to squeeze the most they can
from microstockers, raising the bar high and paying crap because they know microstockers
have no other options and will agree selling their photos even for 0.1$/download, correct
me if i'm wrong.

Quote from: macrosaur on April 30, 2010, 12:02

Quote from: madelaide on April 30, 2010, 11:23

Please specify that you are referring to USAr's.  We Brazilians, and many others, are Americans too. 

South Americans.

And USAr's are North Americans.  We are all Americans.  America is not the USA.

believe it or not, we euros know the difference.

I am a naturalized american citizen that makes me half gullible

once an american, always american !

it's a scam.

it's so obvious only gullible americans can fall for this.

fine, but grab today's copy of your local paper and check out the credits ... most of them
will be wire services like AP/AFP/Reuters/Getty and the rest of the gang will be RM.

how many come from istock or SS ?

isn't it ironic that the cowboy photo above wasn't taken from microstocks ?

but check on Alamy how many pics they have searching for "cowboy skiing" :

http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=cowboy+skiing&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&imgt=1&imgt=2&archive=1&chckarchive=1

and here's the original, from Alamy :

if these guys writing marketing books are so good why they're not already stinking rich and retired in Florida ?

i'll tell you why, because their books are full of sh...


to understand why the stock industry is sinking all you need is to read the age old books by Adam Smith.
he correctly predicted the actual worldwide crisis and much more.

the RM downfall is in fact the obvious consequence of the pirate competition by microstock.

and i predict the microstock downfall will be a consequence of FREE images, it's just a matter of time at this point.

and don't think FREE is the last step.
sooner or later clients will ask you to be paid to actually print or use your images, as if they're making you a favour and giving you exposure !

sort of like "emerging" bands playing in pubs and getting paid in beers ... that's our future in a not far away scenario.

Quote

You might want to pick up Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, where he postulates that in the end it is perhaps nothing but else but luck that propels the overwhelmingly successful and separates them from the also-rans.

I read the book. He said that some people are lucky because of the opportunities and tools offered to them but in the end, the ones that work the longest and hardest are the most successful. He says 10,000 hours are needed to go to the very top of the heap and to master your skill. Excellent book, by the way.

from my experience the most crucial factor is talent and continuity.

any one can make a few good pictures, but how many do that for 20-30 years ?

if we look at the best photographers in any field they are famous and rich
because they kept working hard, luck is only one of the many factors in the mix.

luck is more important in music and art in my opinion, because people's tastes
vary so much for silly reasons.

Quote from: macrosaur on April 23, 2010, 12:16

the only reason you guys are "stuck" on microstock is because you're not good enough to produce photos saleable on Getty RM or saleable as fine-art in expensive galleries.

Lay it on me, macrosaur. I can take it!

There is some truth here of course.  But my real complaint is there is not much middle ground between 25 cent micro and $300 "fine art" sales. 

Microtock is like a shopping mall with nothing but "Everything's $1" stores.  Oh yeah, I know how we're supposed to be able to work our way up the pricing ladder, go exclusive at IS, become "Vetta", yada yada yada.  My material will never generate the volume it takes to get to those exhalted levels.   

i've now almost 100 fine-art photos on sale.
no sales so far but the feedbacks i received so far is encouraging.

that's where i hope to make big $$ sales, or at least i'm trying.
we'll let you know.

the "middle way" is Vetta and now there's no turning back as anything else
has lost any value, even your best photos can be bought for few bucks
so take it or leave it.

the problem of microstock is they're targeting the very bottom of the barrel.
no wonder their buyers even complain about prices being too high !

5$ for a photo is too high ?
how they pretend photographers can even go on par with the production costs ?

so that's the value of micro images today, we can only accept it.

i'm studying ways to quit stock altogether and becoming a full time
fine-artist.

anyone can do stock, soon it will be impossible to get in and to
sell decently.