There is no pleasing some folk http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt41587.html

Have those who submit images to microstocks now waking up to the fact that they are being ripped off or what?

I am sure Tone will jump in (as she always does) to support MS sites. We await with bated breath her response to this complaint by an MS member.

Sheila


Edited by Sheila on Jul 13, 2008 at 01:37 PM GMT

!!!


Like the experienced people never saw this one coming../

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Many of the best microstock photographers are currently building portfolios at traditional agencies parallel to their microstock work. The above mentioned is one reason. Another important reason for the move is that an increasing number of agencies offer subscriptions to their clients, something that lowers the profit for the photographers.

There are lots of nasty surprises to be had within microstock, but at the same time, don't forget that there are photographers making a considerable profit, at 5-10,000 dollars per month or more. Although that is a rather small group, there aren't very many photographers within the traditional stock market who make that kind of money either.

Just think how much profit they would realize if they were actually paid a living wage for their efforts.

I especially found this post priceless!

I agree with Laurin's original post that it seems kinda wrong that someone can purchase a fabulous image for next to nothing and start making huge profits on it.And profit from someone else's talent and hard work, while the original artist gets a couple of bucks at best. I think there ought to be a fairer deal for artists, althought that's probably just my wishful thinking


The chickens are definitely coming home to roost I did think of replying to the thread but that would mean I would have to join that insidious site!

Sheila

"Fine Art" Print : $200
Royalty to Photog : $1
Seeing a microstocker finally get it : priceless

cm0rris0n wrote:
"Fine Art" Print : $200
Royalty to Photog : $1
Seeing a microstocker finally get it : priceless



+10

cm0rris0n wrote:
"Fine Art" Print : $200
Royalty to Photog : $1
Seeing a microstocker finally get it : priceless

This makes my day .

Indeed it does!

I find it hard to read that sort of thing without my blood pressure shooting up.

Fecking muppet, devalues professional photography then is surprised when business exploits them.

I can't even feel schadenfreude because you just know there's 10,000 others with a 10x zoom fuji or a D40 waiting to take their place.

Chris Beaumont wrote:
I can't even feel schadenfreude because you just know there's 10,000 others with a 10x zoom fuji or a D40 waiting to take their place.

It may come as a shock to some photographers, but among successful microstock photographers, professional equipment is the rule rather than the exception. I know two who use H3D, and countless photographers who use 1DsIII and similar cameras for this purpose.

Unfortunately, all these microstock vs traditional stock discussions are totally fruitless, since the ignorance is rampant on both sides of the fence. Still, here are a few points to consider:

- For some kinds of images, like a simple studio shot of a glass of water or "cute girl talking on the mobile phone", microstock is taking over the market. Very few will pay a proper price for shots like that. They are simple to make, and any amateur can do it with some degree of success. Unfortunately, not all traditional photographers understand that.

- Unique photos, photos that are expensive to produce, and photos that will sell in small numbers but have a high value for those who need them, will never be profitable as microstock, and is better sold as traditional RM. Unfortunately, not all microstock photographers understand that.

- It's a myth that all microstock photos are sold for a dollar. Sometimes, they sell for hundreds and even thousands of dollars. One reason for this is that most microstock licenses have a lot of limitations, forcing the clients to buy an extended license for a much higher price.

- Not all microstock agencies pay 20%. Some pay 50 or even 70%, and some let the photographers decide the pricing of the photos themselves. Interestingly, some successful microstock photographers prefer agencies with a low commission but an aggressive marketing policy, like iStock. It must be said though, that even iStock has a progressive payment policy for successful and/or exclusive photographers.

Do I like microstock? Not really. But when I look at the earnings per year per photo, I make so much more money in that market than with traditional stock that there isn't really any competition. Even if I'm not a particularly successful stock photographer, almost every image in my portfolio have sold at least once, and many have sold hundreds of times for price between one and several hundred dollars.

But again: these are two separate markets, and both of them will continue to exist, regardless of what any of us have to say about it. It's all about money.

<---- quickly leaves to go start a new "fine art" website, buy a bunch of stock images, reap benefits of other people's sillyness.

JakeB. wrote:
<---- quickly leaves to go start a new "fine art" website, buy a bunch of stock images, reap benefits of other people's sillyness.

Yeah, content provides always get screwed. Look at the old record deals, where folks like Jimi Hendrix wind up owing the label money when they tour or release an album.

we were finally getting that fixed ...

Gotta own the distribution. Looks like that is true as always. Plenty of free content out there ....

Best,
M.

Depends on which side of the table you're on.

I've got several hundred images up on various microstock sites.

The money I've earned over a couple YEARS on MS equals the money I earned on ONE SALE of a traditional stock image.

Is the MS worth it? Not compared to traditional stock, yet it's a nice addition to get checks in the mail periodically.

On the other hand, I purchase MS images periodically for my website to spruce up articles I write and it's wonderful as a buyer to be able to obtain RF images for so cheap.

So I understand both sides of the argument. Yeah you get screwed as a shooter for posting images on a MS site, but the tiny checks are a nice addition to the rest of what you do.

On the other hand, it's very nice being to purchase images for such negligible amounts of money. The money from the images I sell can even be converted to credits so I can effectively get images for "free" by selling images on MS.

It's a trade-off.

It's good to see that people are recognizing that for the most part, yeah you DO get royally screwed up the wazoo if you sell on a MS site. Deal with it.

I've said from the beginning of MS, it's great if you own a MS company or are the end buyer.

But there is a reason why it started out with amateurs naive of current photo business practices...

Brent Ward wrote:
I've said from the beginning of MS, it's great if you own a MS company or are the end buyer.

But there is a reason why it started out with amateurs naive of current photo business practices...



And there's a reason why many professionals currently make a comfortable living from microstock.

Would you say that Honda is stupid for selling millions of light motorbikes each year, earning a few hundred bucks on each, when they could have sold Rolls Royce class limousines, earning a thousand times more from each?

There is segmentation like this in most markets. Some want top quality, and pay top prices. Others buy from the bottom shelf, and pay dimes. If they play their cards right, the suppliers to each market usually make a profit anyway. It's a question of price vs. volume.

As photographers, we can choose to supply to either market, or to both. That's a pretty unique situation, and the winners are those who can maximize their earnings by supplying the right product to any of the segments.

Jorgen Udvang wrote:
And there's a reason why many professionals currently make a comfortable living from microstock.

I bet you a beer that the ratio of professionals who are able to make a living at all from selling microstock vs. the number of professionals licensing their images to microstock is a helluva lot lower than the number of professionals able to make a living selling RM stock vs. the number of professionals who license their images as RM stock.

"Many" is a relative term - it's only significant when compared to the total sampling. If it's 1 out of 10,000 for MS and 1 out of 100 for RM then it's not "many" at all.

Of course there's a difference. My guess is that on world basis, there are less than 500 who can make a living from MS, and less than 100 who can make a comfortable living from it. This is also like in most other industries. There's only really space for those who are willing to look at this as industry more than art.

Doing high end stock photography, be it commercial or editorial, is much more rewarding, and what most stock photographers would like to do, but not everybody have the skills or even inclination to do that. They're simply happy to stay in their studio, making yet another 100 images of the daughter of their neighbour and sell as many copies as possible, for whatever price they can obtain.

It's not art, and it only generates a limited amount of income for most, but it's happening, and it's taking over the low end of the market. If it's done in the right way, it generates some profit, and it certainly opens up some new markets for photography. The real losers are those who generate high end photography and sells it in that same market. That's a waste,

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

Sheila wrote:
He seemed to think that selling images at between $8 and $36 did not make his site a micro. Near as dammit I say!


If he's selling unlimited RF licenses for those prices, he's actually cheaper than most micros.

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?

This makes an interesting business proposition... Why spend all those hours chasing the light, when you can just go ahead and "fill" up from these MS sites.

As an example: This particular project I´m working on has taken me 3 months(and counting), and have gotten me real close to a family of Red Foxes in North Norway, setting up specific areas to feed them regularly, hoping to get some even more spectacular wintery scenes shots, this coming winter. Considering the payoff and competition from MS sites, why even bother. I would not even be close to break even, considering; time, effort, write off, insurance, etc, etc.

There is a definite need for the MS sites, and they are here to stay. Pictures are not worth much these days, everybody can take pictures, with increasingly good affordable cameras. But except for the degrading value of good pictures, any competition is good. It makes us evolve as artists, and makes us work harder.

From each and every shoot I do, I get thousands of OK shots, a good deal of Great shots, and some Awesome shot.. Normally during the editing, I would delete the OK shots, as well as a great deal of the Great shots, rendering them useless as assets. In essence, any income they would bring is gone forever. Perhaps sending these "lower rated" shots to the MS sites, would bring in some "bonus" cash. The remaining shots would be used as income generating assets, and would be supplied thru your regular channels..

So what about your "image" as a photographer, and the goodwill or reputation you´re trying to build up thru your portfolio. Would that suffer if you put out sub-par images thru the MS sites Maybe we need to use aliases?

Which outlet will be the stronger long term, will photography as a proffession survive, or will we all have to rely on government grants, subsidies, or second jobs, to take up non-commercialized projects..