pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Scanstock in the news  (Read 6209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quevaal

  • Rust in Peace
« on: July 20, 2006, 08:28 »
0
I might mention that Scanstock was in the news here in Norway recently. Typical old school photographers starting to nag about microstock, but Scanstock got interviewd on National radio (P2) and in the third biggest paper here (who also happens to buy photos from scanstock):
http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article1366656.ece

An extremely long discussion unfolded at the Norwegian photo site foto.no because of it. (Strange how a group of people insists that cheap photo euqipment, computers, software and ease of processing should not somehow result in lower prices.)



« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2006, 09:04 »
0
well personally i don't think photography is really any cheaper.

Lenses are the same price
computers / extra hard drive space / internet : you didn't need them before.. but are offset by film
camera body: the prices are WAY higher.  You could buy a good SLR for $100 before digital.

i think what has done it is the internet and ease of selling.  Additionallly there is a lot larger market than there has been before because of the internet and cheap printing costs for churches / non profit groups and such.  in the 80's you didn't see too many cheapo color leaflets.

« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2006, 19:57 »
0
A good SLR for US$100?  I was very uninformed about market prices then.  My Minolta 600si camera body, bought in '96, costed about US$400.

Digital cameras will be expensive for a good while at least.  Lenses may cost the same, but think that once you have a camera and one/few memory cards, all you spend is your time and batteries.  So even if a digital camera does not cost more to a manufacturer than a regular one, it's inherent value is higher.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2006, 01:46 »
0
with film, you could buy an old SLR and get the exact same results as a new one.  You just hat to perhaps put in a little more time and knowledge when using it.  That is what i meant about the $100 camera.

Once you have a digital camera though, you still need hard drive space that gets contanstly used up, a $600 piece of software (photoshop) if you are going to get serious. Both your camera and computer get outdated so quickly that it is almost essential to upgrade at least once every 5 years.

Although i agree that digital is great and 'free' to take pictures and make stock images, I am not sure it is much cheaper in the end.

« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2006, 18:44 »
0
I upgrade the computer regardless of photo needs, so this doesn't make an economy.

Paint Shop Pro is as good as PS for most all I need.  There are a few PS tools that I don't have at PSP7, but maybe later versions have it.  PSP, now a Corel product, costs US$100, but it used to cost US$70 and less in the past.

Storage?  Hmm, yes, but it's reasonably cheap these days.

Now compare this to tons of film and processing cost, plus the cost and space of frames and boxes (or negative holders and photo albums if you shoot negative).  And don't forget anti-humidity chemicals.

I can easily spend about US$300 in a one-month vacation in film, processing, frames and boxes.  Costwise, I'm sure digital would be better for me.

And that's without the tons of experimenting I can do with digital.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2006, 03:09 »
0
I agree and I would go so far as to say vastly cheaper for digital.

Photoshop, got it years before I started doing photography because I used it for digital art. Not a direct expense as I'd still have it and use it for other things but I'll give you that the last upgrade I paid for was a direct result of photography. On the other hand even if you use film most people would still scan and edit their photos digitally so the cost is the same for both film and digital.

Computer, just like Photoshop, not a direct cost of photography for me and I've never upgraded it because of photography. Photography just adds another use for it. Again though, it really is a wash because it would be used for both film and digital.

Camera, yes, a digital can be (and for me is) much more expensive than film. At least $1000 more.

Film, processing, and all the other stuff madelaide mentioned. That's where my savings is coming from. Completely overwhelms any savings on the body. Less than a year's worth of expense to cover the cost of the more expensive body.

The one savings not mentioned was time. I don't spend time doing things I don't want to do like dropping off and picking up film/slides/prints. I'm not printing and sorting a bunch of stuff I'll never look at. I'm not examining slides nor am I spending the time and money to get my negatives/slides scanned. And to top it all off there is the immediacy of digital. If I have an idea at midnight for a simple studio type shot it can be done and uploaded by 2 am and I still manage to get a reasonable amount of sleep. Can't put a dollar figure on the time aspect but it weighs the argument heavily toward digital.

So, especially in the long term, the digital side is way cheaper for me. Now if I did a different type of digital photography, say with a digital back for medium format or something like that where the back costs $20-30K on up I could start to buy the film is cheaper argument. But with digital SLRs and P&S, no, digital is vastly cheaper.


« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2006, 17:14 »
0
i also saw that another norwegian newspaper called vartland which uses istock images.

« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2006, 02:31 »
0
Okay, now the issue: is anyone making ANY money on ScanStock? And I mean ANY money. I don't like posting stats (maybe saying which sites are doing good and which aren't), but in this case I'll make an exception.

A year on, > 200 photos. 0 sales!

« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2006, 04:22 »
0
well avoiding numbers :)

I am making more on there than on canstock, if that says anything.

not much, but a little.

« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2006, 04:35 »
0
well avoiding numbers :)

I am making more on there than on canstock, if that says anything.

not much, but a little.

Yeah. Out of all earning agencies CS brings up the rear for me as well. I have now made more on LO...

« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2006, 04:39 »
0
i think it is worth it to have my images ther.. ie a payout once or twice a year, but not sure it is worth uploading there.

Since I live in norway, i was able to walk down to where they have their office, and drop off all my images on disk ... no uploading involved.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5355 Views
Last post March 06, 2007, 14:21
by epixx
7 Replies
2313 Views
Last post June 29, 2009, 19:04
by madelaide
18 Replies
7340 Views
Last post April 27, 2010, 12:11
by microstockphoto.co.uk
9 Replies
5801 Views
Last post April 13, 2010, 16:26
by Phil
2 Replies
4357 Views
Last post December 12, 2012, 11:17
by Ploink

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results