MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => StockXpert.com => Topic started by: hatman12 on September 29, 2007, 17:38
-
I had a look at some of the images for sale in the Jupiter collection. Frankly I think the overall quality and creativity isn't any better than a lot of the work submitted to the microstock agencies; in fact, I've seen much better work in microstock.
There is a post on the StockXpert forums from some disgruntled photographer who has now been rejected twice; he's furious because he gets his stuff accepted by Getty and 'owns one of the best cameras in the world'.
Some of the macro photographers are going to get a big surprise when their work is seen as inferior and gets rejected by the microstock agencies. Owning a great camera doesn't make a great photographer.
I get the overall impression that the macro world is a bit of a 'club'. That club is going to find that it loses control, loses income, and life is about to become much, much more difficult.
-
But aren't some of the microstock companies owned by larger companies? Seems to me there are multiple market segments and that they are diversifying to meet the demands of each.
-
But aren't some of the microstock companies owned by larger companies? Seems to me there are multiple market segments and that they are diversifying to meet the demands of each.
That is correct, and the differences in image quality can go both ways, but while the technical quality is mostly very good at the micros, creativity is often lacking. I suspect one of the reasons for that is the reviewers. Most of them don't know the market well enough to understand the difference between "creative, but commercially interesting" and "strange photo with no potential".
The result is that most of the micro portfolios consist of technically perfect, but rather uninspired mainstream photos. Images that won't insult anyone, but they won't spur any strong feelings either.
Those who lose the battle are the macro-stock photographers who aren't creative enough to compete with the best, and not productive or technically skilled enough to compete at the micros. And no 48MP camera will change that. A bad photo is a bad photo, even if taken with a Hasselblad.
-
I had a look at some of the images for sale in the Jupiter collection. Frankly I think the overall quality and creativity isn't any better than a lot of the work submitted to the microstock agencies; in fact, I've seen much better work in microstock.
...
I've noticed this too. Last summer I had an enlightening conversation with a photographer who was in town on an assignment for Getty - he got the job because a good friend of his has an influential position there, not because of his skill with a camera. Like most professions, success in traditional photography markets is more closely tied to who you know than what you know. Vive la revolution!
-
hi, take a look at alamy and some the garbage there (that's not a criticism on anyone in particular, I have my fair share of garbage there too.) especially the lighting and artefacts.
Having started with alamy, upsizing 5-6mp images the quality expected at micros was a nasty shock. In my case it was a good thing, learn't more about photography and stock in 3-4 months than the two years before. But I seen images on almost any library that I wouldn't consider keepers, let alone stock worthy.
Phil