She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | PRO digital corner | Join Image Upload
1

end

calvillo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #1 · She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

annayu wrote:
Sheila wrote:
Its not just "micro" stocks which are selling images on the cheap. I was recently contacted by a photographer inviting me to join his site.

http://www.affordable-stock-photography.com/

I replied that I don't sell RF images and I certainly won't contribute to microsites. He responded and was rather indignant that I should think that his site was an MS site. I quote "Can I ask you what it is about my site that makes you think it is a micro stock site. Low res images selling for an average of $24usd.". He seemed to think that selling images at between $8 and $36 did not make his site a micro. Near as dammit I say!

Cheers
Sheila

Just curious, how much stock income did you make per month over the last 3 years on the average, Sheila?

Hopefully your point isn't that you made a lot of money undermining the industry.

Jul 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Jorgen Udvang
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

calvillo wrote:
Hopefully your point isn't that you made a lot of money undermining the industry.

That is labour union speak. Much more than some photographers "undermining" the industry, the falling prices of photography are a result of two new technologies: internet and digital cameras. I can hear the echo from the sound of the typographers of the sixties and seventies. The big difference is that they had the power to halt newspaper production. Photographers hold no such powers.

I'm afraid this is a question of "adapt or die" for many. Those photographers who are really outstanding, will still be able to charge premium prices for their work. The rest of us will have to take whatever the market gives. It may sound unfair, and it may reduce the income for some, but it's reality.

New technologies have opened up some huge new markets for photographers as well. Don't forget that 20 years ago, nobody bought photos for use on the internet, simply because it didn't exist, at least not in its current form. Now, there are millions of web photos out there, but nobody would pay a dime for that kind of usage if they had to pay more than.... well, a dollar.

It's important to remember also, that the competition, very much because of the above mentioned technologies, is now coming from all over the world, including countries with a cost level way below that of North America and Western Europe. A normal salary here in Thailand is less than 20% of that in the west, and there's a similar situation in most Asian and many Eastern European countries. But even against that competition, there are photographers in the west who have taken the challenge and do make a healthy profit, even with prices that are a fraction of what they used to be, probably because they are smart or skilled, or maybe both.

So here's the choice: get smart or keep on whining.

Edited on Jul 27, 2008 at 03:09 AM

Jul 27, 2008 at 03:04 AM

calvillo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #3 · She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

It's funny some think undervaluing their work is smart!

Jul 27, 2008 at 03:20 AM

Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

second that.

and they seem to like the tone of their own important voices. dumb schmucks.

Jul 27, 2008 at 03:30 AM

Jorgen Udvang
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

If I was an artist, I would care about the value about my work, but I try to make a living from this, so I care more about the profit. I currently do traditional stock as well as micro. If I had to choose one, I'm afraid I would have to choose the one that pays my rent, my food and my cameras. If that is called undervaluing my work, so be it.

If I become a better, more clever photographer in the future, that may change, but at the moment, I'm not clever enough.

A few additions to all this: I'm not particularly fond of selling images cheap, and I disagree strongly with the policies of some microstock agencies (20% commissions, subscriptions etc.). However, that doesn't change the realities:

- The micros are here to stay
- They are taking over certain parts of the stock photo market
- They have opened up new markets, markets that would never pay hundreds of dollars for a photo anyway
- Microstock represent an excellent profit possibility for a lot of photographers
- Most photographers who do microstock have never even tried traditional stock, and they couldn't care less if the old marketplace is undermined
- Most of those who do sell through traditional stock agencies as well as micro agencies, make a much better profit (dollars per image per year) from the micros than from the traditional ones

When a publisher publishes a book, the photos in that book live for years, and for x number of reprints. Now, a photo on the internet lives for a couple of months, weeks and sometimes only for a few hours. For that kind of usage, expecting the same pay per photo as 20 years ago is naive. The money isn't there and/or the buyers aren't willing to pay.

You can of course always start negotiating, and tell the website owner that he should buy your photo for 400 dollars instead of some p&s maniac's photo for 10 bucks, but before you have even started negotiating, he is in another place, looking for another photo, and the guy with the p&s has added 2 or 3 or 5 dollars to his stack of silver coins. while you get nothing.

There are obviously lots of exceptions to the rule, and babies being thrown out with the water, like a recent front page of Time, that contained a manipulated version of a microstock photo. Not only did the photographer get a minimal pay, but he wasn't even credited. Bad, bad, bad.

At the current rate, a couple of hundred thousand images are added to the microstock agencies every week. And here we are, discussing if it's good for business or not. I don't think it helps.

Edited on Jul 27, 2008 at 05:47 AM

Jul 27, 2008 at 04:00 AM

JonStafford
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · She sold image for $1.60 and is now complaining!

calvillo wrote:
It's funny some think undervaluing their work is smart!

I've always been under the impression that the value of your work is limited by what someone is willing to pay for it.

Jul 28, 2008 at 08:19 AM


FM Forums \| PRO digital corner \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end