Author Topic: SS now at 60 million images! (Read 73073 times)

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #25 on:** August 24, 2015, 08:42 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them. digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

Is that what you teach at your microstock school? How to take 25c using models, a Nikon and in a expensive studio and equipment. Microstock opens the door to anybody who can take a marketable photo. Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

stockastic · « **Reply #26 on:** August 24, 2015, 09:38 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 24, 2015, 08:42

Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

But photography has always been "open and free for all to try". Who has ever been "locked out"? No degree, no license, no certification, no insurance required.

What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Rinderart · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2015, 11:32 »

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2015, 12:36 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38

What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.

I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #29 on:** August 24, 2015, 13:02 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 24, 2015, 12:36

Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38
What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.

I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.

both very right +10 each.
take cigarettes for example. when i was addicted to nico, trying to be like eric claption with my cigarette dangling from my mouth while playing blues guitar

a carton of peter styv was like what??? something like $22 ... yes , a carton of luxury size.
that was when i quit smoking. it was too expensive i said.

last year or was it the year before, i asked a kid how much he paid for a packet of cheap smoke,
i almost died when he told me how much. i said, how much??? i mean for a packet, not a carton.
he said, "what century are you living in, dude???"

yes, once you drop the price, you can never recapture that. even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing, "you want cheap, we got no cheap here!!! go..go to the other side of town, you get cheap, very cheap!!!" and they laugh , they don't cry because you complain they cost too much. they know, the real cost of their products.

same thing for haircuts. i see a wide margin of haircuts everywhere i go...
from $8 to $22. same haircut, no golden scissors for the $22 haircut,
but the lady tells you, "take it or leave it".

Shelma1 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 24, 2015, 13:25 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02

even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** August 24, 2015, 14:22 »

does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #32 on:** August 24, 2015, 14:51 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22

does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Off the top of my head...

Real human interaction face to face... Now you have the social media, forums where you belong in a community, and smart phones to "communicate".

Political Correctness... use to be a time when you could have an opinion and not be charged with offending someone.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #33 on:** August 24, 2015, 16:18 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 24, 2015, 12:36
Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38
What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.

I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.

both very right +10 each.
take cigarettes for example. when i was addicted to nico, trying to be like eric claption with my cigarette dangling from my mouth while playing blues guitar
a carton of peter styv was like what??? something like $22 ... yes , a carton of luxury size.
that was when i quit smoking. it was too expensive i said.

last year or was it the year before, i asked a kid how much he paid for a packet of cheap smoke,
i almost died when he told me how much. i said, how much??? i mean for a packet, not a carton.
he said, "what century are you living in, dude???"

yes, once you drop the price, you can never recapture that. even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing, "you want cheap, we got no cheap here!!! go..go to the other side of town, you get cheap, very cheap!!!" and they laugh , they don't cry because you complain they cost too much. they know, the real cost of their products.

same thing for haircuts. i see a wide margin of haircuts everywhere i go...
from $8 to $22. same haircut, no golden scissors for the $22 haircut,
but the lady tells you, "take it or leave it".

It looks to me that you discover what inflation means and how it errodes your standard of life: a hidden taxation most of people happily vote for.

Inflation is what happens when you allow the government to intervene in the economy through "money printing", as the only way to "pay for" unjustifiable expenses. When you vote for such economical policies, don't be surprised to see your orange juice and cigarettes prices going up, under your nose.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 24, 2015, 21:49 »

The current inflation rate in the US is 0.2% so not exactly a big problem. In fact, over the past 100 years in the US there have only been a few years when inflation was really high (e.g., over 10%). In other countries it has been a major problem and still is in some right now, e.g., Brazil where it is close to 10%. However, I don't think inflation has been a factor in the price of stock images either way.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #35 on:** August 24, 2015, 23:11 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2015, 09:32 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 24, 2015, 23:11

Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

I think the poster's point was that in this case both an Arab and an Jew, on the opposite sides of town - who normally agree on very little - would say the same thing. I hope it's still possible to use the words "Arab" and "Jew" without being accused of some sort of implied disrespect.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2015, 09:57 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 25, 2015, 09:32

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 24, 2015, 23:11
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

I think the poster's point was that in this case both an Arab and an Jew, on the opposite sides of town - who normally agree on very little - would say the same thing. I hope it's still possible to use the words "Arab" and "Jew" without being accused of some sort of implied disrespect.

A big No No to even mention Arabs or Jews you would be racist or anti semitism. Untouchable. Sort of like Gay. Now if they were Gay Arabs or Gay Jews that would be politically correct and we could all support it and share our warm fuzzy feelings about it and add a rainbow and sing Christian songs like Kumbaya My Lord. But if we all sang those Christian songs, we'd be back to square one and offend the Arabs and Jews.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2015, 13:17 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 24, 2015, 21:49

The current inflation rate in the US is 0.2% so not exactly a big problem. In fact, over the past 100 years in the US there have only been a few years when inflation was really high (e.g., over 10%). In other countries it has been a major problem and still is in some right now, e.g., Brazil where it is close to 10%. However, I don't think inflation has been a factor in the price of stock images either way.

Actually, the US inflation was 1.6% in 2014. This means that, if you had $100k after taxes, you paid an additional $1,600 tax through inflation.
This is roughly 5% extra taxes on top of what you already paid for 2014.
That's a very nice lens you don't have.

Moreover, if you had $100k 10 years ago after taxes, you would only be left with $77,856 by today's standards. 23% of your stash is wiped away!

But again, as you said, for most people inflation is "not exactly a big problem" and accept it as a given, when they shouldn't.

Rest assured, the income from stock images will never be indexed with the inflation, because that's not how inflation is designed to work.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2015, 13:35 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 25, 2015, 09:57

Quote from: stockastic on August 25, 2015, 09:32
Quote from: PixelBytes on August 24, 2015, 23:11
Quote from: Shelma1 on August 24, 2015, 13:25
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 13:02
even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing,

Wow, even Arabs and Jews, huh? Minus 1,000.

Wow. Where these examples come from? The Big Book of Mid 20th Century Stereotypes?!

I think the poster's point was that in this case both an Arab and an Jew, on the opposite sides of town - who normally agree on very little - would say the same thing. I hope it's still possible to use the words "Arab" and "Jew" without being accused of some sort of implied disrespect.

A big No No to even mention Arabs or Jews you would be racist or anti semitism. Untouchable. Sort of like Gay. Now if they were Gay Arabs or Gay Jews that would be politically correct and we could all support it and share our warm fuzzy feelings about it and add a rainbow and sing Christian songs like Kumbaya My Lord. But if we all sang those Christian songs, we'd be back to square one and offend the Arabs and Jews.

RTG, stockastic,...
thx to those who still believe arabs and jews, there i said it again... (bite me!!!)
even gay ones too... LOL... can agree on the same thing. in my travels i see lots of arabs and jews fighting with words, not guns... and they don't crucify christians either. neither do they throw holy books at each other quoting phrases but forgeting that the same "god" is the same one they all pray to.
it's as someone (athiest) else say, religion is the greatest opiate of the self-righteous.
we can't call a handicap handicap, yet the mute tells us in sign, "that's ok, you can us dumb and deaf, because that is exactly what we are. we are not whatver challenged... we are fine as it is.. deaf and dumb".

or as shakepeare once said, what, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

i did not answer the -100 because i did not want to qualify the absurdity.
but thx for being able to read exactly what i intended.

mojaric · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2015, 14:30 »

As what i know Photography is art . Microstock is business.

Hence for some easy mathematical rule Microstock is not Photography
Hence the crisis of Microstock is not the crisis of Photography

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #41 on:** August 25, 2015, 15:59 »

Quote from: mojaric on August 25, 2015, 14:30

As what i know Photography is art . Microstock is business.

Hence for some easy mathematical rule Microstock is not Photography
Hence the crisis of Microstock is not the crisis of Photography

+100
after all the veering and political incorrectness OT, i am glad someone is smart enough to let us know this.
yes, it has nothing to do with the myth of making "useful" pictures of pretty girl with headsets, or men in suits shaking hands. it is definitely not art, and definitely nothing to do with knowledge in photography.
it has everything to do with being lucky enough to be found in the search
while no doubt a million other better shots are buried in page 100, 1001, etc
whatever, it definitely will not have a Time-Life chapter printed in 2200 under Photography.
but it could be found in a museam in 2200 under Cat Litter and toilet paper

FlowerPower · « **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2015, 19:39 »

Quote from: stockastic on August 24, 2015, 09:38

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on August 24, 2015, 08:42
Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

But photography has always been "open and free for all to try". Who has ever been "locked out"? No degree, no license, no certification, no insurance required.

What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.

Traditional agencies in the days of film, were not open for all, based on what we shot. You couldn't get a interview without a big book of slides. Microstock is open door for anybody.

Your perceived value is down with to many students and new people using DLSRs, expensive lights and paid models. If somebody is teaching hundreds of new people how to beat us by out spending us, I don't see that as a friend.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2015, 14:44 »

6 million of good stuff would be much better option (for everyone in business), than 60 million with most of it being crap.
but things are as they are, and not as it would be good to be...

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2015, 22:01 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on August 27, 2015, 14:44

6 million of good stuff would be much better option (for everyone in business), than 60 million with most of it being crap.
but things are as they are, and not as it would be good to be...

i think you are right. if for those months of bickering by mass-rejection complainers were due to a message sent as "thanks but this is same old same old and you already have too much in your port", supported by good new approved pictures, it would be justified that ss is looking for new and better ideas.
but no, the new stuff that went through were even less impressive and mostly boring work by both new and old . which goes to show they are just stockpiling for the sake of trying to impress shareholders like , as i said before, something that the owner of a dump rental bldg would try to sell off his problem riddled apartments by filling every apt with full vacancy sign.
and looking at the short selling + the 85% earning rating on the right of this page,
ss sure looks like an apartment bldg waiting to be sold to some unsuspecting buyer who will be stuck with lots of hidden repairs like leaking pipes waiting for a ceiling to cave in,
and old plumbing long overdue to be replaced.

OTOH going over to getty or fotolia with adobe is even worse or no better respectively, so really there is no alternative in sight.
sure, some are saying, good... stop giving ss your new stuff so i get the sales and bigger piece of the pie. the only problem is there is not much pie left. does anyone actually report a large increase in sales compared to the past years???

robhainer · « **Reply #45 on:** August 28, 2015, 08:17 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22

does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Books, music and movies (digital downloads).

Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.

If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #46 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:16 »

Here in the UK streaming a newer film (through my sky box or my xbox) is pretty comparable with the cost of renting a DVD, more if you want it in HD, and that's without them having to pay for actual physical media or shops.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #47 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:29 »

Quote from: robhainer on August 28, 2015, 08:17

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Books, music and movies (digital downloads).

Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.

If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.

which all comes down to that today, anybody can make movies, write books, take photos...
whereas before, not everyone can make a record without an audition or get a movie part without going for a test shoot, or even write a book without finding a publisher.

you would think it's because there's more of it around the supply and demand that decides whether we get paid less ... but then again, there's just as many suppliers to coffee and nicotine and alcohol
even illegal drugs are supposed to be easier to get, (ie you can smell stench of marijuana and cigarettes and beer ..everywhere you go these days, so of course i assume it's easier to get)...
... but those things are much more expensive today.

so the problem has to be the marketer / pusher / seller /...
our agencies are the ones who f****d it up.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #48 on:** August 28, 2015, 09:56 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 28, 2015, 09:29

Quote from: robhainer on August 28, 2015, 08:17
Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 24, 2015, 14:22
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value

i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.

Books, music and movies (digital downloads).

Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.

If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.

which all comes down to that today, anybody can make movies, write books, take photos...
whereas before, not everyone can make a record without an audition or get a movie part without going for a test shoot, or even write a book without finding a publisher.

you would think it's because there's more of it around the supply and demand that decides whether we get paid less ... but then again, there's just as many suppliers to coffee and nicotine and alcohol
even illegal drugs are supposed to be easier to get, (ie you can smell stench of marijuana and cigarettes and beer ..everywhere you go these days, so of course i assume it's easier to get)...
... but those things are much more expensive today.

so the problem has to be the marketer / pusher / seller /...
our agencies are the ones who f****d it up.

No, you have to dig deeper to find the explanation.
The products you have mentioned are forbidden by law or heavily regulated and taxed. Leaving the inflation aside, this is why prices are not dropping: competition weakened by too many regulations.
Let the free market operate on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and you will be amazed how fast the prices will drop, across the board, followed by a plethora of counter-intuitive positive side effects (less drug related crimes, less drunk teenagers, etc). This has been proven over and over again.

On the other hand, fortunately, there are no regulations specific to microstock (e.g. we don't need a government license to be micro-stockers, etc) The reasons you mentioned in your intro apply very well to our industry: technology advancements made photography accessible to masses and, while the market is let to operate freely in this domain, the prices will continue to drop to the customer's benefit. (Unfortunately for them) Old contributors must face the competition of an ever growing number of talented newcomers (good for them).
Some of the unsatisfied contributors will probably have to quit. But again, this is the market giving them a signal to re-direct their skills and resources in areas where they can be more efficient.

weymouth · « **Reply #49 on:** August 28, 2015, 10:34 »

Quote from: Rinderart on August 21, 2015, 15:11

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27
Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56
I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them. digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

There is still lots of money to be made in the traditional markets but the photographers there keep quiet about it and for obvious reasons.

There are a couple of non public forums housing many of these photographers. Reading what some of these people are earning! oh boy, makes us all look poor.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS now at 60 million images! (Read 73073 times)

YadaYadaYada

stockastic

Rinderart

sgoodwin4813

etudiante_rapide

Shelma1

etudiante_rapide

Rose Tinted Glasses

Zero Talent

sgoodwin4813

PixelBytes

stockastic

Rose Tinted Glasses

Zero Talent

etudiante_rapide

mojaric

etudiante_rapide

FlowerPower

Dr Bouz

etudiante_rapide

robhainer

Justanotherphotographer

etudiante_rapide

Zero Talent

weymouth

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors