Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: quietjim on July 11, 2006, 10:22:35 pm
-
I read with interest the essay on micro payment stock photography. It makes in a short, articulare way the same argument professional photographer friends of mine make.
I come to this issue from a different perspective. I'm not a professional photographer, for one thing, I'm an amateur. Perhaps as importantly, I edit a small national magazine. Finally, I use lots of photographs from iStockPhoto.
The essay argues that iStockPhoto and similar micro payment sites damage the future of photography by destroying the market for highly priced photos that in turn support the high cost of making those photos. The author suggests at the end that this may ultimately damage photography.
One effect of the internet has been to level some economic playing fields and lower the threshold for entrepeneurs to create businesses. Ebay is a good example. Twenty years ago, it took significant capital to start a resale shop; now it takes nothing but an online connection. In fact, thousands of people have created whole businesses around Ebay and become retail merchants.
Photography clearly does have a high threshold. There are all the costs the essay author points out. But equally clearly, today amateurs are paying those costs and making pictures. By amateur, I mean someone who does not make their main income from photography. The micro payment agencies are really an effect of these amateurs and a way for them to begin to make money off what they would do anyway.
Will this destroy photography? I think instead it may have the opposite effect. Think of all those people in the past who had the soul and eyes of a photographer but whose pictures were never seen because they could not get over the threshold set by "professional" photographers. The writer cites Ansel Adams but my sense of Adams was that he was in the service of his own esthetic vision, not the economic value of increasing the income from stock photos.
As an editor of a small magazine, the micro payment agencies are a godsend. There is no way we could afford to join high priced agencies let alone buy their pictures. These agencies allow us to find pictures to illustrate articles and often give new photographers their first showing in a national magazine.
I'm sure that stable boys, grooms and carriage drivers viewed with alarm the arrival of the automobile. But the auto gave the many the same opportunity to travel only a few previously enjoyed. The new economics of micro payment will certainly harm the fortunes of some. But they will also certainly let us see photographs we would never have seen otherwise. Isn't it possible that the next [fill in your favorite great photographer] is now selling through istockphoto?
[Just a disclosure note: I have no connection with istockphoto at all except that I buy from them. I use them here really as an emblem of the micro payment agencies]
Jim Eaton
-
*chomp*
Photography clearly does have a high threshold. There are all the costs the essay author points out. But equally clearly, today amateurs are paying those costs and making pictures. By amateur, I mean someone who does not make their main income from photography. The micro payment agencies are really an effect of these amateurs and a way for them to begin to make money off what they would do anyway.
*chomp*
The infinite monkeys idea is the driving force behind micro payment agencies. If you think getting a $20 check each year is doing anything other than taking $20 from a professional photographer, you're nuts.
There are people who make a living at this but they have to approach it as a business, not as a side thing.
-
While I can certainly understand why professional photographers are afraid of micro-payment, I think George Munday (along with others) is making a flawed assumption that's lies at the root of the fear.
The fear is that the price will drop by 100x, but the volume of sales will stay the same, resulting in a 100x drop in revenue. George himself states this when he says "Since then it has sold 42 times making approximately $10.000 of which about 40% came to me. If it had been sold through a Micro Payment Agency it would probably have made a shade under $100.00"
How many people owned digital cameras when they cost $10k each? How many own a digital camera now that you can get them for $100? Think it's the same number of people? No, the market generates orders of magnitude more revenue than it did when cameras were $10k "professional tools". They reached a price point where, not just the dedicated professional, but even "the common man" could afford to buy one -- even if they didn't really need it in the first place.
I believe the same will happen with stock photos, thanks to the micro-payment agencies. Let me give you my example: I'm not with an advertising agency. I'm not a designer. I don't make my living selecting photographs for magazine spreads. But, as part of my job I do a lot of PowerPoint presentations. I like to illustrate these with photos instead of the ugly overused clip art that's available, and spending $10 to $20 doesn't bother me. Would I do the same if a single photo cost me $1000 (or even $100)? Absolutely not. Would I do it if I had to negotiate rights to use a photo, and guess at what I was going to do with the PowerPoint in future? Absolutely not.
Micro payment sites have made photos accessible to me, the "common man", not a "professional". Are there others like me? Yes, and there will be more and more as the market matures -- orders of magnitude more than the buyers in design houses and national magazines.
But, step back and ask yourself, "today, without micro-payment sites, what would someone like this yahoo do?" They'd do what any god fearing American would do: they'd do a google image search and steal, for their own use, the image they find. But, they'd turn a blind eye to it, because there was no accessible, reasonable option.
Would easily accessible and easy to use micro-payment sites change this? Ever heard of something called iTunes? Before iTunes, people copied (illegally) most digital music, because it was the only way to gain access to the content. iTunes changed all that by providing an accessible and reasonable option -- because people like to do the right thing... if it's easy. It's increased overall industry revenue, not decreased it.
Will the much larger market created by micro-payment sites change the types of photographs people buy? Probably. And, that will be a windfall for some photographers and a terminal blow for others.
If I were in the shoes of a professional photographer, I wouldn't fear micro-payment sites. I'd fear that they aren't easy enough to use, easy enough to find, easy enough to subscribe to, easy enough to search; I'd fear they didn't have gift certificates and other simple/novel forms of payment. I'd fear everything which could marginalize their ability to grow the overall market.
What else would I do? I'd be yelling at Google to buy/team-up with a micro-payment agency and integrate it into google image search ("If you liked this copyrighted image, here's 15 similar ones you can legally use for only $5"). And, if I really had my way, I'd give the micro-payment stock photo site an extra 50% of my potential revenue if they shared with me the frequency of all the search terms used on their site, so I could optimize the types of photos I produced to maximize my revenue.
In the end, change is hard. Change is fearsome. But, if you're open, thoughtful, and adaptable, change can be very good. Oh, and one more thing I almost forgot: you can't stop change no matter how hard you try.
-
It's a very simple equation:
If you market yourself effectively, have good quality work that people want to buy and can differentiate yourself in the market then you can charge what you like.
If you are just providing the same undifferentiated images as everyone else then competition will drive the price to the lowest level possible.
-
how do i set a darn avatar on this board? ...i'll keep on traveling as always
-
It's a very simple equation:
If you market yourself effectively, have good quality work that people want to buy and can differentiate yourself in the market then you can charge what you like.
If you are just providing the same undifferentiated images as everyone else then competition will drive the price to the lowest level possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that what's generally missed in all the fear that's put about is that, since the advent of the Internet, the market for images is now significantly larger than it was, say, ten years ago. For most people who wish to create an attractive and professional-looking website, the imagery sold through traditional agencies is overkill. What's the point of paying big bucks for the rights to to use a 50Mb image-file when that same beautifully lit and carefully-composed picture will need to be reduced to the size of a postage stamp and then compressed until the pips squeak so that it loads quickly? Surely, if all you need is a postage-stamp image then you should pay postage-stamp prices?
On the other side of the coin, there is a need for glossy, professionally-shot imagery to fill corporate brochures and other publications where a good impression needs to be made. This sort of imagery will, in the main, still be the preserve of the traditional stock agency - especially as pros can get permission to set up a shoot in locations an amateur couldn't hope to reach: inside an industrial facility, for example.
My own feeling, writing as somone who has a tiny selection of (admitedly rather mediocre) images with iStockPhoto which nevertheless bring in a constant dribble of income, is that there is room in the marketplace for both models. I cannot believe that Getty would have bought iStock if it felt that it's core business was under threat. The microstock sites have, in my view, largely created a market where none existed before. How is that taking sales away from professional photographers?
-
There's another point that may have been missed in the article. Like most other unregulated commodities, the price of images will find their own level. And photographers will have to decide at what price point they want to play. When they started selling Yugo's, the price of a Porsche did not drop.
The argument that is presented in the article points out the difference in the cost of production of a 50 mpix photo vs. its sale at $1-$2. This may turn out to be a false calculation. I sell 3-5 mpix photos on a couple of micro-payment sites. I shoot them mainly with inexpensive 2nd hand digicams but I also downsize some scanned slides as well. I would not offer a high resolution pic for a measly buck or two. Makes no sense. If others choose to do that, that is their business but I can't see them doing it for long. It's a lousy way to spend the day, turning out high resolution high cost photos for little return.
Every market finds its own suppliers and the micro-payment photo market will do the same. High-end photographers will not sell their high-rez photos in that market. Why would they? But the existence of that market will not take away business from them, imo.
As an example, a low budget tourist bureau or chamber of commerce that wants to print and distribute a travel folder/brochure in local venues, may need a 2 inch square photo of a rural barn. It's folly to think that they will spend $500 on a rights-managed high rez image. My guess is that they would never even consider that. (I know several similar low budget organizations.) The choice, for them, is either micro-stock, or to send the secretary's nephew out with a digicam.
I find it difficult to believe that this market will cut into high-end photographers' income, based on the selling prices of the images. They would never have made those sales in the first place, it seems to me.
-
how do i set a darn avatar on this board? ...i'll keep on traveling as always
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Top menu bar -> my controls
Left menu bar -> Personal Prefs -> Edit Avatar
-
What an interesting idea! Price a picture based on how many pixels it contains!! It is really silly to pay for the cost or skill to make an image. Thank god for digital. Now everyone can make pictures and for no more than the cost of a camera - most folks already have a computer and a copy of Photoshop Elements. Hell, the internet and a right click will get you all the images you need. Photographers are a dime a dozen.
-
What an interesting idea! Price a picture based on how many pixels it contains!! It is really silly to pay for the cost or skill to make an image. Thank god for digital. Now everyone can make pictures and for no more than the cost of a camera - most folks already have a computer and a copy of Photoshop Elements. Hell, the internet and a right click will get you all the images you need. Photographers are a dime a dozen.
Well, I see your point, but don't people do this already? 11x14's cost more than 8x10's, which cost more than 4x6's. The cost of acquiring/developing the skill, experience and vision is amortized over the sales of all one's work.
From a purchaser's point of view, there is no reason why the price of a photograph should have any relation to the cost of the equipment or the training that the photographer had to bear. The buyer doesn't care about the business costs of the photographer. It's not the buyer's responsibility to ensure that the photographer makes a profit.
Besides, not all photos are works of art. Some photos are just run-of-the-mill 2 inch square pics of rural barns that simply aren't worth more than a buck or two to anyone.
-
It is impossible to see the changes in the photo stock business isolated from business in general. The current changes are sadly caused by politics and the religion known as "the free market". We live in a world infected with the Global Commerce virus, where the big fish eat the smaller fish and make no apologies for it. The Economic climate of today is all about growth, super profits and satisfying shareholders. Gone are the days of the Mom and Pop stores where building long lasting customer relationships and giving service were important. Gone are the days when corporations were founded to take on large projects for the good of society. Maybe I paint a historic picture with to many bright flowers, but there used to be a time when moral and ethics meant something, and young people gave their seats to the elders on the bus. To quote Martin Sheen (representing the older generation) in the movie Wall Street: "What you see is a guy who never measured a man's success by the size of his WALLET!". The film, for those who haven’t seen it, must be one of the most accurate prophecies ever made.
I work as a banker (to pay for my cameras) in the World's 400 and something largest corporation. I know from the inside how the business world works, and have seen it change dramatically over the last 10 years. I also know for a fact that most people, even stockholders and the CEOs, would have loved things to be different, but it's a matter of being predator or prey. This is a development caused by blind market thinking which has taken the power away from the people and given it to the big players in the business world. So how can this go on? Simple, we are intoxicated by our own wealth. With the help of legalized slavery in third world countries we can afford a material wealth, never before experienced by so many people at once. Just think about all that can be acquired by an average individual these days, compared to just fifty years ago. Houses, cabins, cars, clothes, electronics, travels… The only thing we're missing is more time, to spend even more!
So how does this relate to stock photography? It should be obvious! There is some poetic justice in all of this. Just as most of us can afford high-end cameras and digital darkrooms to make professional grade images, the market seems to be disappearing before our very own eyes. We can't have the cake and eat it too. Does this cheapen the status of photography and possibly threaten it as "Art"? Yes, just as fast food is an insult to real food, samplers and synthesizers are and insult to real musicians, and IKEA is an insult to every furnituremaker that ever lived. Mass production equals less art and more consumption.
If there is to be any hope in saving the Art and craft of photography we need to see the bigger picture. What comes around goes around. One can't enjoy the cheap and abundant availability of merchandise in a supermarket and at the same time cry over the rise of micro-payment stock agencies. To save the Art and craft of photography we must change as individuals, parents, neighbors, members of society and the human race. If less truly is more, then we must support and value only what matters.
-
(moved over from About This Site)
Micropayment Agencies - A Force for Good or Evil ? Well it depends on your perspective.
I'm tempted to say "so what" about the decline of photography as a business. Why does photography have any particular right to survive as an independent business area ? When photography was far more specialist, and far harder to come by, then it simply had more inherent commercial value. Now, the world+dog has a digital camera, and even avoiding the infinite number of monkeys hypothesis, it cannot be avoided that quite a fair number of people produce pretty good photos. There's nothing wrong with George's 2 photos included in the article, for example, but I've certainly got similar ones, which just for once I'm going to be immodest enough to claim are certainly in the same league. The only difference is that I have not attempted (much) to market them, mainly because I'm not an entrepreneur. Both of these photos appear to have been taken ad-hoc, whilst doing something else (spending time with his family, on vacation). The overheads associated with them, apart from the camera, are essentially irrelevant as they were going to be incurred anyway. So one could argue that these are hobbyist photos too.
It is simply a case of supply & demand, and frustrating as it might be, there is no more point whingeing about this than there is moaning that the market for Zeppelin pilots has dried up.
As for the "art of photography" being a loser, well, frankly, that is rubbish. There is no reason why the artistic value of photography depends on the strength of the stock photography market. For a start, much (most) stock photography has no artistic motive. It is skillfull, sure, but artistic ? I would wager that Adams, Steigletz and Weston (especially Weston) would have carried on photographing even if they'd sold nothing. They were driven by art, not commerce, although there is no denying that Adams made a succesful business out of it - eventually. Personally, I don't give a damn about the "the status of photography in the eyes of the picture buying public" - for me, photography is a means of creative expression, and what the public thinks of this matters not a jot. Just because stock photography is dropping in price does not make me feel that the medium is becoming "cheap, something trashy, something disposable and something without value".
I'm sorry if professional photographers are going out of business, but no more so than I am, say, for film processing lab workers. There are an awful lot of average pro photographers around. Perhaps the market wil simply operate as markets do, and cut out the dross. At the stock end, the world+dog will provide a healthy supply of "good enough" photos, and will be happy to get a bit of money back to support their hobby. At the top end, truly talented photographers will still find a market, provided they are or know good businessmen. I don't think we have to look very far for a good example (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/).
-
The infinite monkeys idea is the driving force behind micro payment agencies. If you think getting a $20 check each year is doing anything other than taking $20 from a professional photographer, you're nuts.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70426\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So what ? Sorry, but so what ? Would you write a letter in MS Word and print it out, or take it to a pro typist to type it and print it for you ?
Embarking on a business where there is no good business model is also nuts. Pro Photographers have no God-given right to be Pro Photographers.
-
The infinite monkeys idea is the driving force behind micro payment agencies. If you think getting a $20 check each year is doing anything other than taking $20 from a professional photographer, you're nuts.
You should not assume that people who contribute to micro-stock agencies are talentless or without skills. Everybody started somewhere. There may be many reasons why they choose that alternative.
Also, you should not assume that the existing professional has any greater right to earn that $20 than anyone else.
-
So what ? Sorry, but so what ? Would you write a letter in MS Word and print it out, or take it to a pro typist to type it and print it for you ?
Embarking on a business where there is no good business model is also nuts. Pro Photographers have no God-given right to be Pro Photographers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70469\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And I said that they had such a God-given right?
The op indicated that microstock agencies might actually help amatures get better. I disagree. The fact that you might be able to get 10 people to buy one of your vacation shots is likely to do little more for you than fund a Fresca.
-
And I said that they had such a God-given right?
Well you certainly implied as much, when you talked about "taking $20 from a professional photographer".
What's a Fresca ?
-
You should not assume that people who contribute to micro-stock agencies are talentless or without skills. Everybody started somewhere. There may be many reasons why they choose that alternative.
I think the ones that are successful at it are treating it like a business. That kind of defines them as pros right there.
And I'm trying like crazy to see where I said anyone was talentless or without skills.
Also, you should not assume that the existing professional has any greater right to earn that $20 than anyone else.
Where the &#$% did I say they had a greater right to earn it? The only thing I see happening is money goes from a smaller group A to a much larger group B. Make of that what you will.
-
Well you certainly implied as much, when you talked about "taking $20 from a professional photographer".
What's a Fresca ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Read the words.
Fresca is a type of soda.
-
I have an interest in the microstock / micropayment stock sites for three reasons; I contribute work to four of them, I run (under my Douglas Freer pen name) the leading forum where these sites are discussed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/) and I have been comissioned by a leading publisher to write a book about them.
Many, like the author of the article, dislike the micropayment model because they believe (in my view, wrongly) that it debases the value of photography. But there is no moral dimension. The micros are the inevitable outcome of a confluence of events: the internet and movement of image libraries on-line, broadband always-on internet access, digital cameras with no per image costs to the photographer, the royalty free sales model, and an explosion in image use for websites, DTP, community journals etc.
Why should a routine image sell for $50, $100 or more set against this background? You can download a top artist's music for a few cents a track, so why not the same for images?
There will always remain a demand for exceptional images at a high price, and for rights managed photpgraphy. But a huge market exists for high quality, low cost photography that is better served by the microstocks than by traditional agencies who, in my personal opinion, are in some cases selling images inferior to, or no better than, those available from the micros. Many of the images on the better micros are of very high quality. Quite a few Jaguars among the Yugos
Is it possible to make money from the micros? Well my portfolio of around 450 images spead over 4 micros earns about $300 per month in total. Not a fortune, but a decent per-image return compared to the average RF library.
The micros are part of a digital revolution that is unavoidable and whose effects have probably only just begun to be felt - for better or for worse.
Quentin
-
And I'm trying like crazy to see where I said anyone was talentless or without skills.
It was your use of the term "monkeys". It implies a low opinion. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way it came across to me. Unfortunate choice of words.
Where the &#$% did I say they had a greater right to earn it? The only thing I see happening is money goes from a smaller group A to a much larger group B. Make of that what you will.
Again, the choice of words implied it. When you write that someone conrtibuting to micro-stock is taking $20 away from the pros, it implies that you think it "belongs" to the pros in the first place. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
-
It was your use of the term "monkeys". It implies a low opinion. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way it came across to me. Unfortunate choice of words.
Again, the choice of words implied it. When you write that someone conrtibuting to micro-stock is taking $20 away from the pros, it implies that you think it "belongs" to the pros in the first place. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We're all monkey's.
The $20 doesn't belong there. But that's where it is. I was trying to say that the only effect I see of microstock on photography is the money moves somewhere else. This "this could be a benefit to photographers" idea bugged me. I see no effect other than the above.
-
The current changes are sadly caused by politics and the religion known as "the free market". We live in a world infected with the Global Commerce virus, where the big fish eat the smaller fish and make no apologies for it. The Economic climate of today is all about growth, super profits and satisfying shareholders. Gone are the days of the Mom and Pop stores where building long lasting customer relationships and giving service were important. Gone are the days when corporations were founded to take on large projects for the good of society.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This whole discussion seems to me to be a good example of the smaller fish eating the bigger fish.
As far as markets go, everything is a market -- even in non-market societies; things are just arranged differently. In the old Soviet Union, the leaders had their dachas; in Maoist China, the sons of the influential did well and got rich.
Most of the American economy, and most job creation, could be attributed to what might loosely be called "mom and pop" organizations.
Corporations were never formed to take on large projects for the good of society. They were always about profits. That creates no problem, as long as everybody keeps it clearly in mind.
I've always thought some aspects of high-end photography were absurd. Do you really need to pay somebody $50,000 to take a picture of a Buick? It occurred to me any number of times when I was working as a reporter, and I'd see a big photo shoot somewhere, that (as a longtime amateur photogapher) I could do something that would be 90 percent as good, for 10 percent of the money, and that 99 percent of the people who viewed the resulting ad would never be the wiser...Some of the newspaper pros I worked with were as good as any high-priced custom pro I ever encountered, but preferred the newspaper life (and security)...
Anyway, those over-priced chickens are now coming home to roost. People will still pay for exceptional talent, so we don't have to worried too much about the talented. The ones who will get squeezed are those in the middle; those who generally do average-to-mediocre custom work. The people at the lower levels of professional work -- wedding photogaphers, portrait photographers -- don't have to worry for the same reason that waiters don't have to worry about their jobs being outsourced to China. That is, the work has to be done here; a micro-stock agency isn't going to take away somebody's wedding work.
On the whole, I think the change will be for the better. There'll be a lot of new photography out there that'll be judged on the basis of quality, rather than the basis of connections or who-you-know in the industry, and may give some real talent, that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, a chance.
JC
-
Long time reader, first time poster...yes, it's THAT compelling an article!
Some great points made here. I think the best being the fallacy of equating the volume done via Micropayment being equal to more traditional means. I'd bet the idea is that if you can grow the market AND you shoot great shots, you'll still be able to adapt and sell more at lower prices - IF you want to. I mean, who once would have thought that 1 MEGA byte of storage could be sold for .04 pennies - nonsense!
I also think the law of unintended consequences could also serve great photographers well here. IF the Micropayment market segment gets flooded with lousy pictures by casual picture-takers, then the value of the high-end segment will actually be supported by these "huddled masses". Great photographers can then continue to serve the premium market.
Lastly, I think the author does a disservice to his "rewarded for cost" point by posting two images he took fairly casually, one while out with his kids and one on holiday. The cynic might take that to be a bit contradictory to his point.
-
IF the Micropayment market segment gets flooded with lousy pictures by casual picture-takers, then the value of the high-end segment will actually be supported by these "huddled masses".
They won't. the standards at the better micros - take iStockphoto as a specific example - are technically very high. Send in a casually taken shot, or a shot with CA, noise, dust bunnies etc, and it will be rejected. Rejection rates are pretty high - quite a shock for new members thinking they can use the micros as a dumping ground for second rate rejects.
Quentin
-
What I would ask is why people consider their work to be of so little value given the expenditure taken to produce it? I think in that at least the article is spot on. Why should I bother for a few bucks, not worth me getting out of bed for...
I have tens of thousands of pounds (£) of photographic equipment plus all the sweat money and tears that it has taken over the years to reach a level where I make all my money from photography. It isn't that hard to explain why I charge £3.50 for a 7X5" print for my wedding clients when if they had the disk they could print it for £0.12 in the local supermarket. Why would I think differently when shooting for stock. It's one thing if it is a by-product but to shoot for stock, for micro stock agencies just doesn't make sense economically, how can it when you would need the income of many hundreds of images just to pay off your camera body never mind the lens and the rest of the gear, your expertise and experience, the insurance and depreciation, your travel and significantly - outlay in both time and cost in the processing of these images.
Seriously, can someone shooting for this market explain their balance of the economics so that the guy working for minimum wage is not making more per hour once you balance the expeditures?
-
Seriously, can someone shooting for this market explain their balance of the economics so that the guy working for minimum wage is not making more per hour once you balance the expeditures?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're working from the (IMHO false) premise that somebody shooting for this market is expecting to make a large part, or all, of their income from it. That simply isn't how it works anymore. Clearly, a wedding photographer cannot be replaced by a stock library - well, unless somebody has truly awesome Photoshop skills :-) - but for non-specific stock images, is a library going to try to charge $500 for a photo of a tree by A. Famous-Pro, or $5 for the same tree by me ? If I'm not expecting any income, as a pure amateur, then $5 (for my soda) is free money. I'm happy. The client is happy. The library is happy. The pro is screwed.
So there's nothing to explain, really. You cannot make a living from stock photography any more. Game over.
-
Seriously, can someone shooting for this market explain their balance of the economics so that the guy working for minimum wage is not making more per hour once you balance the expeditures?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, its easy; you look at the average annual per image returns, not the fees paid for each sale. 200 sales at, say, 50c per sale commission gives you $100. 1 sale at $100 gives you $100. You might feel better with the latter, but you have earned the same with both systems.
Average earnings per image per year with a typical microstock portfolio should earn you about the same as, but possibly more than, the similar average per image earnings from a traditional agency (excluding high-end work on the likes of Getty, of course). The difference will be more of your images will have been sold more times with the micros. I base this on reported earnings from the microspayment stock forum.
Of course that is a comparison between traditional and microstock agencies. Any form of stock photography is tricky to earn a full time living from. Many microstock contributors will, just like other stock photographers, have a day job - as a photographer in some cases, but also as pretty much any other occupation.
Quentin
-
So there's nothing to explain, really. You cannot make a living from stock photography any more. Game over.
This is probably true for those selling the occasional general use low rez images. Say, a 3-5 mpix pic for $1-$2 or something. Hard to make a living like that. Just another McJob, or a hobby at best.
But in general, shouldn't there still be a stock photo market for high rez (aka large final print) images that sell for reasonable amounts of money. There may be well-heeled amateurs out there with high-end D-SLRs' who are shooting 50 mpix pics and who are willing to sell them for a buck, but I can't believe that there are that many. Why would anyone do that?
But this is no more than conjecture on my part. Are the high-enders losing any business, is the question?
-
Sure, its easy; you look at the average annual per image returns, not the fees paid for each sale. 200 sales at, say, 50c per sale commission gives you $100. 1 sale at $100 gives you $100. You might feel better with the latter, but you have earned the same with both systems.
Average earnings per image per year with a typical microstock portfolio should earn you about the same as, but possibly more than, the similar average per image earnings from a traditional agency (excluding high-end work on the likes of Getty, of course). The difference will be more of your images will have been sold more times with the micros. I base this on reported earnings from the microspayment stock forum.
Of course that is a comparison between traditional and microstock agencies. Any form of stock photography is tricky to earn a full time living from. Many microstock contributors will, just like other stock photographers, have a day job - as a photographer in some cases, but also as pretty much any other occupation.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70494\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's rather partial information. I'd like to know the macroeconomics -- of the $2B in annual revenue, most of it going to Getty, Corbis and Jupiter, how much ends up in photographers' pockets? That's what we all, from businesslike pros to wannabees to hobbyists, will divide up. Thanks to a friend who is consulting with some RF and RM companies on the very serious need to move their software backbone from mom-and-pop to Internet grade, I got some numbers. For example, the shooting budget for new material each year shot to order is only about $20M. Probably that goes into the RM category, and I doubt if more than half of that ends up in photographers' pockets.
Do you know what the overall numbers are on royalty payments, and what the breakdown is betwen RM, RF and micro?
scott
-
This whole discussion seems to me to be a good example of the smaller fish eating the bigger fish.
As far as markets go, everything is a market -- even in non-market societies; things are just arranged differently. In the old Soviet Union, the leaders had their dachas; in Maoist China, the sons of the influential did well and got rich.
Having gouvernment (elected by the people) controlled markets is not the same as welcoming communism and totalitarian regimes. The so called free market of today works much like the world in the middle ages when kings (aka individuals with great wealth) ruled as they wanted. When gouvernments no longer represent the people, but major shareholders of the worlds largest corporations, we can no longer talk about free markets as we know them from economic theory. Strongly controlled markets can work, just look to f.ex. Norway and the Scandinavian contries which have managed to combine democracy, public welfare, personal wealth and regulated markets (Just read the reports of IMF and UN).
Corporations were never formed to take on large projects for the good of society. They were always about profits. That creates no problem, as long as everybody keeps it clearly in mind.
“Early corporations of the commercial sort were formed under frameworks set up by governments of states to undertake tasks which appeared too risky or too expensive for individuals or governments to embark upon.” “In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons.” (Micklethwait/Wooldridge)
I've always thought some aspects of high-end photography were absurd. Do you really need to pay somebody $50,000 to take a picture of a Buick? It occurred to me any number of times when I was working as a reporter, and I'd see a big photo shoot somewhere, that (as a longtime amateur photogapher) I could do something that would be 90 percent as good, for 10 percent of the money, and that 99 percent of the people who viewed the resulting ad would never be the wiser...Some of the newspaper pros I worked with were as good as any high-priced custom pro I ever encountered, but preferred the newspaper life (and security)...
I don't know about the Buick, but I know that car phtography is a very demanding on equipment and studio facilities. In a big marketing campain you need images that can be used for billboards and magazine ads with equal quality in both mediums. This reminds me of the argument of people seeing a modern painting and claiming their kid could do it better... On the other hand you have a point, and I'm sure there are some well fed photographers out there overcharging!
On the whole, I think the change will be for the better. There'll be a lot of new photography out there that'll be judged on the basis of quality, rather than the basis of connections or who-you-know in the industry, and may give some real talent, that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, a chance.
I agree and disagree. Competition might spark a few bright stars, but I think micro-payment stock is the beginning of the devaluation of photography as a whole. Photography as a business isn’t very different from many other businesses, and once things have become cheap, they’ll tend to stay cheap. Sure, there will always be niches, but I think lots of talent will go to waste if the industry can’t provide a decent income.
We need professionals to keep educational institutions alive and to develop the art and craft of photography in a professional way. I have met enough amateurs that can make sharp and perfectly exposed images, yet know nothing about visual communication, art history and professional ethics. An amateur rarely can compete with someone making images 24-7 in terms of professional output and ethical standard. I think less is more, and overflowing the market with terrible images just because they’re cheap is tragic. Then again, I agree that becoming a photographer isn’t a birth given right, nor should it be. Life will go on without it, but with a little less spice.
-
Do you know what the overall numbers are on royalty payments, and what the breakdown is betwen RM, RF and micro?
scott
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70496\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I rely on the data I see on various forums. I should emphasise I am no microstock apologist; the micropayment forum was set up because free (read critical) discussion of the micros was impossible on their own forums. iStock in particular police their own forums and delete critical threads.
The position is further complicated by different sales models. Shutterstock, for example, is a subsription site that pays a flat 25c per download. Jon Oringer who owns SS claims that if each subsriber downloaded their full allowance Shutterstock would make a loss... believe that if you must iStockphoto's base comission is 20% of the sale price - far too low, in my opinion. This rises to a maximum of 40% for exclusive members who only sell RF through iStock and are at "Gold cannister" level - 10,000 or more downloads. The minimum payment for a non-exclusive photographer is 20c, with higher payments for larger file sizes, up to around $10 or a lot more for extended licensing arrangements. Other sites have other twists. Fotolia seem to be the up and coming kid on the microstock block.
Quentin
PS Don't anyone please fall in to the trap of thinking the micros are only full of mom and pop amateurs sending in pictures of aunt mabel and sunsets. There are plenty of pros on the micros submitting highly professional work. Maybe that should be a cause of more concern to the trads.
-
I agree that X amount of images will pay X, what I still am incredulous about is the economics of producing those X images relative to what you are being paid for them. Yes you can make money on those 200 images mentioned, shame that making them in the first place is likely to cost as much or more than you will get paid, don't know about you people but I can earn far more for the same amount of time and expenditure.
-
I agree that X amount of images will pay X, what I still am incredulous about is the economics of producing those X images relative to what you are being paid for them. Yes you can make money on those 200 images mentioned, shame that making them in the first place is likely to cost as much or more than you will get paid, don't know about you people but I can earn far more for the same amount of time and expenditure.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your comments must hold true for all stock. I don't spend a fortune on producing microstock; its not my primary source of income.
Quentin
-
I just don't get the reason why people stand in line to get screwed with microstocks . All you are doing is putting money into someone else's pockets . While I do agree that there is a need for rf images and sell some my self I see no need to give it away to designers for nothing . I can see selling web images for say $20 -$100 a pop and the photographer gets 50% but selling for $1 is just stupid .
I have been talking to some of my clients and they are saying they are still paying a lot for images used on their websites . They were pissed when I pointed out that the designer was paying a buck a image and charging them over $100 a image and pointed them out of istocks website . Designers and microstock site owners are the only true winners in this game . Photographers and end users are the ones getting screwed . I read through the microstock forums and see a bunch of amateur photographers cheering over the screwing they just got . I see designers crying because they had to spend $3 for a image because there is too much white area for them and they had to spend a extra $2 for a image so they could crop it . I have started informing everyone I shoot for about designers and how they are screwing them on images . Designers are bottom feeding scum and they are behind this microstock crap .
People that sell to istock and shutterstock are sell outs . Yes there needs to be some lower priced images for web use but not at that price . $20 -$150 a shot for shots that are rf are ok in my book but people need to stop feeding the istock and shutterstock monsters .
I am doing good with stock sales but rf is down and rm is way up . I have started to find speciality agencies and placing my images there and am having better luck . There is still a demand for better images and I really hope pro shooters will stop selling to the istocks of the world . People who are selling images there are losing any value the image may have and are turning them into a image that will only earn a few bucks a sale and can't really be sold on a conventional agency ever again .
-
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html)
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/articl...t_id=1001806311 (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001806311)
-
People that sell to istock and shutterstock are sell outs . Yes there needs to be some lower priced images for web use but not at that price .
Actually the people who sell to the micros seem happy enough, and most have heard the criticisms many times before. The right price for an image? What is that exactly? And why should anyone pay what you might think is the right price if they don't have to? It's such utter nonesense to rage againsts the existance of a business model that was always going to happen for the reasons I mentioned in my first message in this thread.
Stock photography has changed utterly and forever and we'd all better learn to deal with that fact.
Quentin
-
Microstock or micropayment if you want certainly is a hot button topic but the article here has at least one glaring error and that is the cost of equipment needed to submit to these agencies. I submit to most major microstock agencies using a Canon Digital Rebel and so my investment is not even close to the authors estimate. In this case he has errored in his facts or used his facts to support his case.
There is still and always will be (I think) a place for rights managed work of high quality but there is such a high demand for photos these days with web pages, online journals and easy small run publishing and yes even the odd print for your wall that micros will continue.
I know there is at least one instance of a major add campaign by two compeditors that used very similar RF images, as big business realizes this pitfall they will probably continue to use RM images.
Too bad the author wrote this piece from a biased point as it calls his whole view into question.
And yes I don't make much from this but enough to by the odd lens.
KLW
-
This exact topic came up on one of our ProForums here in Australia with the same arguements being put forward. One critic of microstock said that he had never heard of anyone mading much money out of $5 payments and only the company made the big bucks.
Well, a new poster popped up, a member of our Pro Association (AIPP) and revealed that he had many thousands of images with IStock et al and made over AUD30,000 last year.
That shut everyone up.
Quentin has the right point of view on this, and I agree with him totally (from the perspective of a stock shooter since 1987). I also agree that it is a hard industry to make a living from, in isolation. Having said that, at the height of the stock market in the 90s, one individual whom I know of used to make upwards of $1,000,000 a year in travel stock sales.
Anyway, this concept of images being somehow 'precious' just because the were difficult to shoot and/or expensive to shoot and/or shot by a famous photographer is totally flawed. An image is worth what someone will pay ie what it is worth to them.
The proof of this is in the following:
My single best selling stock image has earned me roughly AUD50,000 over the past 10 years. However, the individual sales themselves have ranges from less than $100 to $21,000. Same image - different uses, therefore different prices.
This is the way the rights-managed stock industry has always worked - price is based on use. All the micro stock agencies are doing is opening up smaller and smaller 'uses' so that now imagery is accessible to small publishers, Powerpoint producers etc.
Personally, whilst I don't use microstock myself, I don't really care if I sell one image once for $1000 or 1 image 100 times for $10 - that image is still worth $1000 to me.
-
What no-one seems to point out is that there is any amount of photography available for free either legitimately (e.g. via Microsoft Clip Art Gallery and other online sources) or illegitamtely because people download images and use them without paying any license fees. If the micro-stock agencies can tap into this market and persuade people to pay modest amounts of money for properly licensed images then that is a good way to go.
What is missing from the system is not so much a tiered pricing structure from a buck to a zillion dollars, but a system to enforce copyright protection on images so that cash flows into the system rather than down the drain. As the music industry is finding out, if you provide a low cost/cost effective charging structure that people can buy into at low cost for quantities that they actually want, then perhaps you don't need a strong enforcement system.
I can't help but conclude that what is happening to photographers is also what has been happening in the music industry. If Adobe Stock Photo is the equivalent of iTunes and offers images at 99 cents a pop with simple-to-use client software then the two are pretty much comparable.
-
So for those who want more money than micro stocks will provide, what is the best way for the future of targeting RM so as to maximise potential and profits? Is it shooting with high quality gear whose output will provide the potential that lesser quality cannot? It is targeting niche markets? I think we need to ask, who is still paying for RM instead of Micro, WHY, and how do we maximise that?
I've been interested in shooting stock for RM for a while, I have a specific niche in mind that although exploited has not been done in the best way. I think those of us who would not like to be told that our image that in terms of equipment, expertise and time is only worth a few dollars, need to maybe stop bemoaning a ever growing industry and work out how to maximise the potential at present and in the future, for the RM stock sales that we would like to target.
Does that make any sense? I think answers to the above questions my put things into perspective. If there are people out there paying for RM at present we need to know why they are paying those big bucks, and use that to put the bread on our tables...
-
The argument that photographers should somehow earn protection by being "good" or by owning expensive equipment really doesn't hold water, thank god. Think about the craft of book writing, either fiction or non-fiction. The author buys a computer and printer and software, does all the research, then spends hundreds of hours writing the book, and most of the time, especially for beginners, has no guarantee at all that he'll ever be published. In fiction writing, most first timers are not published...and some people write a dozen books and never get published. There was something of a scandal in 2004 when none of the books of the five finalists for The National Book Award in fiction had sold more than 3,000 copies, and one had only sold 150...a 3,000 copy sale of a typically priced hardcover book would earn the author around $10,000.
Nobody gives that system a second thought, but if you think about it, you realize that there is in place a system which has literally hundreds of thousands of workers devoting a large part of their time to doing work of potential commercial value, but only a few will be chosen for publication and even fewer will be well-rewarded for their work. Sound familiar? Would we prefer a system in which, say, a government commission chose the books to be published? Or we have a commission that sets up standards which say you must have graduated from a recognized creative writing program before you could be published? Or that you have to sstart with small magazines, and go to middle magasine, and then to big magazines, before you can write a book? Bull----. Better to have a system in which anybody can play.
I say, if you're 17 years old and shooting a Canon G1 Point-and-Shoot and the stock companies are listing and selling your photos, god bless you and keep it up.
I said earlier in this discussion that it's really mid-level pros who get squeezed, and I continue to think that, despite the arrguments. The top pros do good work and have a name that's salable. The bottom-enders are doing work that the stock agencies can't touch. But the middle guys are getting squeezed -- and man, that's just life in the big city, 2006.
JC
-
"Just as most of us can afford high-end cameras and digital darkrooms to make professional grade images, the market seems to be disappearing before our very own eyes."
Svein Frode
I stongly disagree. In my case I have seen a market open right in front of my eyes. I wouldn't be where I am if it wasn't for digital photography, be it stock, fine art or other. I am also seeing a radical increase in my business this year, essentially because the very fact that many people can afford high-end cameras, shows individual abilities better than ever. It is no longer possible to say "I don't have good equipment". The difference in output is therefore more than ever due to the abilities of the photographer, and more and more people are becoming aware of this and in turn doing business with people who not only have the equipment, but are able to create top quality work with it.
-
Do you really need to pay somebody $50,000 to take a picture of a Buick?
I don't think you understand pricing very well. $50,000 is not a lot of money for a company that is going to make millions from a national advertising campaign. Also, when you are dealing with such numbers, why take a chance on a cheap photographer rather than one you know will be able to get the picture?
-
I am doing good with stock sales but rf is down and rm is way up .
excuse me, but I've seen the terms a few times and don't understand them. what do rf and rm mean?
People who are selling images there are losing any value the image may have and are turning them into a image that will only earn a few bucks a sale and can't really be sold on a conventional agency ever again .
couldn't you sell low-rez images through the micros and hi-rez images through the traditional agencies? after all, aren't the micro agencies targeting web sites and low cost outlets?
-
"Do you really need to pay somebody $50,000 to take a picture of a Buick?"
It all depends how many Buicks that one photo sells ;-)
-
couldn't you sell low-rez images through the micros and hi-rez images through the traditional agencies? after all, aren't the micro agencies targeting web sites and low cost outlets?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no reason at all why you shouldn't do this - providing you aren't supplying the same image to both models. After all, if somebody has paid $100 for an image, ignorant of the fact that this same image is available for $1 elsewhere, and with a little upressing and general massaging could also fill the requirement, he or she will not be very pleased if he/she were to find out and might decide never to do business with you again.
-
"Just as most of us can afford high-end cameras and digital darkrooms to make professional grade images, the market seems to be disappearing before our very own eyes."
Svein Frode
I stongly disagree. In my case I have seen a market open right in front of my eyes. I wouldn't be where I am if it wasn't for digital photography, be it stock, fine art or other. I am also seeing a radical increase in my business this year, essentially because the very fact that many people can afford high-end cameras, shows individual abilities better than ever. It is no longer possible to say "I don't have good equipment". The difference in output is therefore more than ever due to the abilities of the photographer, and more and more people are becoming aware of this and in turn doing business with people who not only have the equipment, but are able to create top quality work with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have a good point Alain! My comment was a bit tongue in cheek though. There is no doubt that the realtive low cost of photography today has given mediocre pros a lot more competition from amateurs. I just hope I can be as optimistic as you when it comes to the Market's ability to identify and pay for quality. Also I think there is a big difference between Europe and the US here. In Europe there isn't much of a fine art market for photography as it has never really caught on. Photography has always been the ugly duckling of Art over here and seen as inferior to painting and sculpturing.
To me this boils down to values, and selling images for a few cents a pop just isn't right, unless we're talking about pure trash.
-
excuse me, but I've seen the terms a few times and don't understand them. what do rf and rm mean?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
rf = royalty free
rm = rights managed
- DL
-
"Well, a new poster popped up, a member of our Pro Association (AIPP) and revealed that he had many thousands of images with IStock et al and made over AUD30,000 last year."
I think that person is the exception to the rule there . I think there are a few people there making money but most I believe get the table scraps .
-
"Well, a new poster popped up, a member of our Pro Association (AIPP) and revealed that he had many thousands of images with IStock et al and made over AUD30,000 last year."
I think that person is the exception to the rule there . I think there are a few people there making money but most I believe get the table scraps .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To which 'rule' do you refer?
If someone is able to do well out of a particular market then I say 'well done'. If other people are less successful then I say 'that's life'.
The primary reason some people end up with table scraps is that they didn't cook a proper meal for themselves. So many photographers treat all forms of stock as a place to ditch old and second rate work. This simply does not work - regardless of whether they are aimed at rm, rf or micro markets.
The truly successful operators treat stock like a proper assignment and shoot professional quality images which are carefully aimed at their market. Topics like 'Lifestyles' and 'Leisure' shot with professional models will outsell any number of scenic or travel image by a factor of hundreds. These topics are hard to shoot well and expensive to produce, but hey, if it was easy everyone would be doing it!
-
You can download a top artist's music for a few cents a track, so why not the same for images?
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70477\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Aren't you a lawyer? There is a difference between a commercial license and a license for private consumption. You can of course NOT use 'top artist's music for a few cents a track' for commercial purposes without a dedicated (and usually very expensive) license agreement.
-
What is killing the market for stock photography (as we know it today) is not microstock but the missing economical link between agencies/ portals and photographers in general. The Getty shooter has exactly the same problems as the microstocker albeit on a much higher level.
In the past both photographers and agencies shared the desire for maximising the price per single license because they had a similar cost structure. The shooter had to pay for all direct costs of getting the picture and the agency also had a lot of direct costs for making the deal (sales personnel, archiving, billing...).
Today the photographer sits on the same costs (probably even higher costs as he is doing a lot of photoshop work that was formerly done by pre press people) but the cost structure of agencies has changed dramatically. Direct costs have been replaced by huge investments in IT. Automated sales procedures make agencies tick completely different than in the past.
Today it makes not much of a difference if agencies have 500,000 or 5,000,000 pictures in their archives or if they work with 500 or 5,000 contributors. Also it makes no longer any difference for the bottom line if they sell 100,000 pictures for 10$ or 1,000 pictures for 1,000$. The high costs for their IT architecture will be there anyhow.
In a 'normal' industry suppliers would realize that this model can not work to their benefit and would either negotiate a minimum fee covering their costs, build up their own sales channels or simply leave the market.
The remaining question is: How 'normal' are photographers?
-
Aren't you a lawyer? There is a difference between a commercial license and a license for private consumption. You can of course NOT use 'top artist's music for a few cents a track' for commercial purposes without a dedicated (and usually very expensive) license agreement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Besides, where can you download tracks legally for just a few cents? Last I checked iTunes they charged way too much for each track and album. The file format sucks and the quality of the sampling is abysmal, too low to listen on a real stereo, so I will stick to CDs for now - I can get them much cheaper as "nice price" CDs. iTunes of today is like a stock agency selling images in GIF format only!
-
The remaining question is: How 'normal' are photographers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'd better ask the 30,000 photographers contributing work to Shutterstock, or the 100,000 members of Fotolia, etc
Quentin
-
You'd better ask the 30,000 photographers contributing work to Shutterstock, or the 100,000 members of Fotolia, etc
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why not ask all 200,000,000 eBay members or 1,300,000,000 chinese. This would give an even larger sample…
-
The inference in the original article is that a photograph will somehow sell the same number of copies if you offer it for $2 as if you offer it for $200, and therefore it would be impossible to recoup your costs.
It also infers that buyer will be unable to differentiate between the pro and the amateur which will put the pro out of business.
Both points are clearly nonsense.
The point about the micro-payment agencies is that they dramatically increase the market, making it possible for everyone to put relevent photos with high production values onto their websites and small scale publications.
This vast new market will make its own mind up about what is a good photograph and what is not. The good photographs will get thousands of sales and the bad ones a few tens if they are lucky. Just because a photograph sells 1000 copies at $2 does not make it worse than a photograph that sells 10 copies at $200.
A good analogy is the calendar market. In the UK there is a concession that opens up in empty retail units in Malls around Christmas and the New Year called Calendar shop. The calendars basically fall into two categories, pictures sold on their subject matter (classic cars, cute pets, glamour models) and those sold on their artistic merit – usually by artist. These include fine art calendars (Picasso, Monet etc) and photo art (Cartier Bresson, Ansell Adams etc).
Are the Ansell Adams photographs fine art prints sold at thousands of dollars each? No, they are high quality magazine style reproductions on heavy guage paper. Do they sell lots of copies? You betcha. They are usually the first line to sell out. A pity the man himself could not have benefitted from this while he was alive.
Are there any calendars produced showing a random selection of pictures by Bert Figgins, accountant and occassional amateur photographer with his brand new Canon Rebel? No. Why? Because no-one would buy it.
Good, professional, photographers have nothing to fear from the micro-payment agencies. If their work really does have merit then it will sell by the bucket load. Not only will this bring more money to the photographer but it will make their work more widely known and appreciated. I have faith in the artistic sensitivities of the ordinary man. I believe that most people instinctively know the difference between a good and a bad photo, even if they cannot articulate it or understand the process.
Making good photographs more widely available and appreciated is an unalloyed “good thing” and should be encouraged.
One final point. As others have said here, you do not have to make your 50mb tif available for $2, most people will be happy with a 1280 x 1024 jpg. Most only want them for web sites or the parish magazine or whatever.
-
The point about the micro-payment agencies is that they dramatically increase the market, making it possible for everyone to put relevent photos with high production values onto their websites and small scale publications.
This is not a fact but your very personal prognosis. For example the Getty CEO does not agree and talks about Microstock already cannibalizing other markets.
Good, professional, photographers have nothing to fear from the micro-payment agencies…I believe that most people instinctively know the difference between a good and a bad photo, even if they cannot articulate it or understand the process.
Aesthetically I agree with you, but not commercially. A lot of art buyers have a 'good enough' mentality, driven by cost cuttings and the increasing power of accountants.
They often are forced to choose a 'somewhat usable' image for 5$ over an excellent image for 200$ or more.
-
Why not ask all 200,000,000 eBay members or 1,300,000,000 chinese. This would give an even larger sample…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because they are not, for the most part, photographers submitting work to stock libraries.
-
They often are forced to choose a 'somewhat usable' image for 5$ over an excellent image for 200$ or more.
What is to stop the excellent image being marketed for $5 too? If the excellent image is put side by side with the 'somewhat useable' image and they are the same price, who is going to buy the 'somewhat useable' one in preference? The end result is that the excellent one will sell more copies. Hence it will valued more highly not on the basis of the price of an individual copy but on the number of copies sold.
This puts it on a par with the sale of book. A paperback by Bert Figgins, accountant and part time author may well have the same cover price as a book by Philip Roth, but who will sell the most copies, be reviewed in Time Magazine and get a slot on the talk shows? Not Bert Figgins I suspect.
Inevitably there will be some 'canibalisation' of the Getty images market. But why should Getty images have a monopoly?
-
What is to stop the excellent image being marketed for $5 too?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe there are some photographers left who know how to use a calculator? Personally I will start contributing when Porsche will launch a micro car line in the 50$ range.
BTW I have portfolios with some microstock agencies. Not because I believe in making money with them but to understand the business.
-
Are there any calendars produced showing a random selection of pictures by Bert Figgins, accountant and occassional amateur photographer with his brand new Canon Rebel? No. Why? Because no-one would buy it.
This is too awesome. Look for it this fall. At $5 a picture for one big enough to put in a calendar I can make a Lulu.com calendar for $60.
Then we see how many people buy it.
Any suggestions on how to market a calendar?
-
Are there any calendars produced showing a random selection of pictures by Bert Figgins, accountant and occassional amateur photographer with his brand new Canon Rebel? No. Why? Because no-one would buy it.
Wouldn't it be ironic if this Bert Figgins character turned out to be the next Ansel Adams but nobody found out because his calendars were too cheap and nobody bought them?
-
As an editor of a small magazine, the micro payment agencies are a godsend. There is no way we could afford to join high priced agencies let alone buy their pictures. These agencies allow us to find pictures to illustrate articles and often give new photographers their first showing in a national magazine.
I'm sure that stable boys, grooms and carriage drivers viewed with alarm the arrival of the automobile. But the auto gave the many the same opportunity to travel only a few previously enjoyed. The new economics of micro payment will certainly harm the fortunes of some. But they will also certainly let us see photographs we would never have seen otherwise. Isn't it possible that the next [fill in your favorite great photographer] is now selling through istockphoto?
Wow -- quite a variable approach, I'd say.
These two paragraphs are mutually exclusive so let's separate them.
In the first instance, I can see that it's cheaper for a magazine to use a micro payment agency. However, the problem is that photographers are not receiving fair and adequate compensation for their work. What is being offered generally doesn't even cover the material cost. We all understand that a small publication won't have the same budget and won't pay as much as one of the behemoths. But, financially and morally, it's no excuse not to pay fair and adequate compensation.
This leads to the virtually disingenuous analogy to horse and buggy days and cars. This is not replacement technology and, if it was an accurate comparison, cars were more expensive than horses! However, while we all like a good car deal, I think we'd also have to agree that you wouldn't go into the showroom and expect to pay LESS than the cost of manufacturing and distributing the car!
-
Cheap digital cameras and the internet have brought photography to everybody who is willing to experiment it. It is not the feud of pro photographers anymore. Take the photo of Menorca in the article. Millions of tourists have probably taken the same, or similar, photo.
While the pro is selling it for thousands of dollars, the average Joe is quite happy to make a few bucks and feeling successful. Nothing wrong with that!
I would expect the pros to adapt, and instead of feeling threathned, just go back to take better pictures than the average Joe. Thta is where the difference lies, in the willingness to achieve a better photo. In the end, the quality will end up paying itself.
-
In the first instance, I can see that it's cheaper for a magazine to use a micro payment agency. However, the problem is that photographers are not receiving fair and adequate compensation for their work. What is being offered generally doesn't even cover the material cost. We all understand that a small publication won't have the same budget and won't pay as much as one of the behemoths. But, financially and morally, it's no excuse not to pay fair and adequate compensation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Careful, What I get paid from MicroStocks covers my cost, of course I am not a pro but don't go saying I'm being ripped off. I get decent return for my effort which I grant you is minimal. So I'm paid fair and adequate compensation for my photos.
KLW
-
Cheap digital cameras and the internet have brought photography to everybody who is willing to experiment it. It is not the feud of pro photographers anymore. Take the photo of Menorca in the article. Millions of tourists have probably taken the same, or similar, photo.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is unfortunate that the photos used to illistrate this article were technically correct, pleasing but really unremarkable photos. Certainly no wow that's worth $1000.00.
There are two markets here then mundane basic ever changing viewed for a second website, the small market publication reaching only a handful OR the market where the picture will pay a role in a 6 figure profit for a company.
Now if a company stakes it's reputation and marketing budget on a very good photo purchased from MicroStock to sell say Vitamins and that same photo get used in say a AIDS prevention add or say in their biggest compeditors vitamin add well that's a mistake they will not make again
So you see RM work will always be there. now how much people get paid for it in the future who knows...
Of course the astute among you will notice that I kind of negated my first paragraph here since used in the right context maybe the photos in this article would command more money but even then I would assume they would have a lot of competition. That paragrpah is sort of a personal observation.
KLW
-
Hi folks
I think that most of you writing here on this topic have not really had much personal experience of working in stock. I also think that you are making an amazing number of totally false comparisons between bananas and peaches.
I did spend a great deal of time in an association with the pre-Getty version of what used to be Tony Stone Worldwide, a London-based agency with sub-agents and offices around the globe. I also managed to get some very high-value sales courtesy of Mr Stone's talents in the marketplace.
The important thing was that the production of my stock work was paid for by commissioned work, with the useable off-takes finding their way into stock. My field was calendars (I designed, photographed and produced them) and as such I had quite a lot of freedom over what I could do with the fruits of my talents and labours. The nub of the thing is this: to travel, hire models, cars, pay hotel bills for a photographic group costs mega-bucks. You can't usually do this on your own and expect to survive for long; photography is a business and unless you treat it as such, then you had better have a second string to your bow - you will need it pretty soon! Or, you have the backup of running a stock company of your own and can use funds from other sales to finance your own pleasures.
Unless you get a pretty good return on your work it becomes unviable; this is true for all of the bananas and peaches referred to earlier.
However, and a huge however at that, photography has always been a pursuit which has been open to everyone. The current chat about pixel-counts is not really the point; the money to do good stock is way beyond any of those considerations, at least in model-related work. Many amateurs can afford equipment that some pros cannot justify (note the word justify - it's business) and that is not the basic problem; the basic problem is that the pro has to sell for enough money to allow him to survive at a reasonable level; the amateur isn't concerned with money, he would probably PAY somebody just to use his product on a calendar or some such device.
Therein lies the problem and, unlike some contributors here, I do not believe that talent will always win through. I have very bitter memories of standing in front of an art director at an advertising agency and being told that my work was infinitely better than so-and-so's, but that they simply had to use him because he was so much cheaper... And that was back in the early 70s and the agency was billing millions of pounds (£).
Yes, I agree that the stock world has changed, and I think not for the better; there is also little doubt that the lower prices drop the lower they will continue to drop. Death has its own momentum and I think we are seeing the death agonies of part of the photographic business.
No doubt many will disagree; fine, it matters little. For those actually working in photography there is not a lot left of which to be happy and before anyone brings up the 'stars' as proof of the opposite, just ask yourself: how many of these supermen/women are there out there?
Ciao - Rob C
-
<snip> photography is a business and unless you treat it as such, then you had better have a second string to your bow - you will need it pretty soon!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70608\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is the key point. Photography is a business, selling to other businesses. Businesses expect x quality in whatever they're buying, which might be lower (WalMart) or higher (Nordstroms), and will pay whatever they have to to get that quality...but if they can get the quality they require for less, they'll do that, because they'll get more sales and their customers will be happier. I don't think photographic customers are accepting less quality because of micro-payment stock agencies -- I think they're getting the same quality for less. Or, in any case, the level of quality that they need, for less.
The complaints, I believe, tend to come from people who try to provide the same level of quality and service that their customers can get from micro-payment agencies for a lot less. You have a pro photographer look at his stock of equipment and skills and ask, "How can I compete with some guy who'll got out and shoot almost for free?" The answser, unfortunately for him, is "That's not really our problem, is it?"
Pros have to adapt. They have to kick up their level of service, the level of quality, or they're screwed. I once owned a piece of a pretty decent bookstore in a middle-sized Midwestern city, and early one fall a Barnes and Noble opened across town. We closed after Christmas; they were selling bestsellers for almost what they cost us from our distributor. This was a disaster for the employes of our store; but for everybody else in the city, the cost of books dropped a lot, and the selection increased a lot. Life in the big city...or in that case, the middle-sized city.
JC
-
Rob, you make good points, I'm not a pro, no doubt about that but I submit images to Microstocks to make money, money to pay for my hobby. I put in the effort required to generate a certain amount of cash. That amount is very small in business terms. I don't shoot people so right there I'm very limited in the Micros.
Now if I buckled down quit my day job, dedicated myself to the business of photogrpahy and still used Microstock as my only stock income source, I bet if I am as good a photograher as I think I am ;-) and I am a good and clever business man I bet I could make decent money, now I personally don't think I could make a living off it, certainly not in the style I am acustomed to, BUT i'm not sure how many people derive 100% of their income from stock, you obviously did not, it was the iceing on the cake maybe (sorry not trying to speak for you but you see where I am going here).
I certainly don't do this to see my work published, since most of it I have no idea where it goes.
Now lets say someone, a pro making a living in the photogrpahy industry wanting to shoot stock well then yes do exactly what you are doing the un-used oned from a shoot go to stock (a traditional Stock agency) and selected ones got to Microstock agency I bet in the long run you would do better than if you submitted to traditional stock only.... maybe who know unless someone wants to do a study.. BUT you get what I am saying.
KLW
-
You have a good point Alain! My comment was a bit tongue in cheek though. There is no doubt that the realtive low cost of photography today has given mediocre pros a lot more competition from amateurs. I just hope I can be as optimistic as you when it comes to the Market's ability to identify and pay for quality. Also I think there is a big difference between Europe and the US here. In Europe there isn't much of a fine art market for photography as it has never really caught on. Photography has always been the ugly duckling of Art over here and seen as inferior to painting and sculpturing.
To me this boils down to values, and selling images for a few cents a pop just isn't right, unless we're talking about pure trash.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I totally agree about selling your work for "a few cents a pop". My goal is quality, not quantity. I detail my approach in my essay "Being an Artist in Business" on this site. In my experience, the two are incompatible. However, if you can prove me wrong go for it. I''m not opposed to "crancking out" world class images and prints in a factory like fashion! I just know that this is antithetical to the process. While genius and quality are linked at times, eventually there is no way to actually control the output volume when it comes to art unless mass-production is used. I have seen "penny stock" photographers work, and they shoot everything and anything with the goal of returning home with the largest number of marketable images possible. Very different from the way I work.
-
I'm not sure if this has already been addressed in the thread, but do people put their best photos for sale as stock images? I've sold just a few photos in my time, as finished prints, and have thought of making my images available on the net for anyone who wants to use them, for a small fee.
Fortunately, I don't need to, but serious hobbies can gravitate towards being a business and any sale can be a validation and/or recognition of one's efforts, which is arguably the only praise ultimately worth anything, although I can quite believe I just expressed such a grossly materialistic point of view .
I think most of us can grade our photographic results along the lines of, passable; good; very good; superb, with the main bulk of the images being in the first category and a mere handful in the last category.
-
do people put their best photos for sale as stock images?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is actually very difficult to find out what people like so deciding to put your best or not your best work is a pretty difficult job. How do you know what's the best and what's not the best, besides technical considerations? For you, it may be your best. But for the audience at large the choice is usually different than for the photographer.
-
I've always thought some aspects of high-end photography were absurd. Do you really need to pay somebody $50,000 to take a picture of a Buick? It occurred to me any number of times when I was working as a reporter, and I'd see a big photo shoot somewhere, that (as a longtime amateur photogapher) I could do something that would be 90 percent as good, for 10 percent of the money, and that 99 percent of the people who viewed the resulting ad would never be the wiser. Anyway, those over-priced chickens are now coming home to roost.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was a witness to an example of this price gouging a while back . . . a motorbike manufacturer wanted a still ad photo of their latest model, on a pedestal, on a beach, at sunrise. There were three ways this could be achieved :
1. Use stock photos of the beach, and pedestal, commission one for the motor bike, and post-process it all digitally (probably the most cost effective),
2. Commission photos of all three components, and post-process digitally (more expensive, but still reasonable),
3. Assemble a team of marketers, stylists, photographers, other hangers-on and 3 models of the motor bike, fly 8000 miles to a foreign destination, put everyone up in a hotel and provide food and transport, wait a week for the right sunrise.
Which did they choose? . . . well, option 3 of course! Instead of telling the client that the exercise could be done as effectively via options 1 or 2 they spun only option 3, and milked it for all it was worth.
Crazy thing is, I got to know of it because they managed to break one of the pedestals, so used a quick-fix boxwood one, and PhotoShopped the end result back in Europe! Although the microstock scenario might not be directly comparable, the changing mindset will hopefully lead to a shift in this sort of client robbery, giving the client more options on how to achieve a desired result.
I don't buy into the excuse of justifying inflated prices based on potential large rewards (i.e. what's $50 000 if the car sells $50 million). On that basis we should be paying variable prices for everything, from food to cameras, based on our individual net worth.
-
It is actually very difficult to find out what people like so deciding to put your best or not your best work is a pretty difficult job. How do you know what's the best and what's not the best...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good point, Alain. So the only solution I see is to make the whole lot available, excluding the obvious rejects.
-
I don't buy into the excuse of justifying inflated prices based on potential large rewards (i.e. what's $50 000 if the car sells $50 million). On that basis we should be paying variable prices for everything, from food to cameras, based on our individual net worth.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not about excuses, it's about fair business. Everyone involved in creating a good project should be paid fairly for their contribution. An image sold for personal use should cost less than a commercial image because they will be valued differently by the user. That is how a proper and sound market works and creates segments with differences in price and quality. Underpricing is bad for business and leads to devaluation and deflation. On the opposite end, overpricing leads to inflation and in severe cases, bubbles. Disfunctional markets creates a few winners, but mostly losers.
Micro-payment stock agencies are big fish screwing small fish. If you like to be screwed join 'em. It's a free world. I'd rather pump gas than give my images away to people laughing all they way to the bank. My time and effort is not negotionable, life is just too short to spend it feeding sharks like Getty and the rest of 'em. That is my personal choice and opinion.
-
HiltonP
Price gouging: now there's a happy idea!
Have you ever actually tried to do product photography to the level require by the international advertising market? Exactly.
Take the time to look at some specialist car photographers' sites; think about what it means to run a big-time business and offices and almost certainly an expensive agent; consider the logistics of even a relatively cheap magazine shoot somewhere exotic (and that's nowhere near advertising level costs in any aspect) and you will suddenly find that your hymn book is seriously passé.
Advertising agencies spend big money making pitches to prospective clients; they have to come up with good ideas and then sell them on and finally deliver what they promised. Do you think for even one misguided moment that they are going to call in Joe Soap from the sticks to carry all that accrued responsibility? Have you ever heard of the buck stopping somewhere? Have you ever heard of professional liability insurance? Do you think that a real ad agency will go along on a trip with somebody that can't come up with the means for a re-shoot if and when things go wrong? They often do; been there, suffered the fear and the frustration.
The assurance that a big name brings to a shoot is immense; don't confuse this commercial aspect of photography with so-called art photography, where different rules apply for many different reasons, most of them to do with the skills (marketing) of gallery owners in moving prints. I buy a lot of art-photogaphy related magazines and visit many similar websites - much of what I see is crap, only on sale because the end buyer is thinking that if it's in a gallery then it must be good, and if it's printed larger than A3 then it must be even better.
We are a little off the stock theme here, but I do think that some of the wilder opinions you can find on this site need to be stood up to, if only to prevent the perpetuation of so much more ignorance.
Lesson over; you can all relax now and have a Coke or whatever.
Ciao - Rob C
-
correct me if I'm wrong but after joining and looking at the samples at iStock, I don't think my photos are appropriate for these stock agencies. many of the photos in their collection while probably technically correct look very artificial to me; too perfect to be true.
I'm a casual shooter, an opportunist photographer. I shoot when I come across something I find interesting or photographically (to my eye) attractive. I photograph a lot of nature: birds, scenery and other animals that I might come across in my walks around the hills and mountains of Hong Kong and other countries. none of these subjects seem to be the target for the stock agencies, or at least their 'most popular' images.
is anyone else selling natural (ie, not 'too perfect to be true') nature photos to stock agencies?
I found a couple of the rules at iStock to be interesting. (a) releases must be obtained on every photo where faces can be identified. that rules out my people photos from my trip to Indonesia. (b) people who purchase images from iStock can not use them in a product to be resold; eg, calendars, cups, etc. I like this rule but wonder how many people are going to abide by it. remember the (joking) note by another forum reader about buying a few $5 images and selling calendars made from them?
lots to think about...
-
It's not about excuses, it's about fair business. Everyone involved in creating a good project should be paid fairly for their contribution. An image sold for personal use should cost less than a commercial image because they will be valued differently by the user. That is how a proper and sound market works and creates segments with differences in price and quality. Underpricing is bad for business and leads to devaluation and deflation. On the opposite end, overpricing leads to inflation and in severe cases, bubbles. Disfunctional markets creates a few winners, but mostly losers.
Micro-payment stock agencies are big fish screwing small fish. If you like to be screwed join 'em. It's a free world. I'd rather pump gas than give my images away to people laughing all they way to the bank. My time and effort is not negotionable, life is just too short to spend it feeding sharks like Getty and the rest of 'em. That is my personal choice and opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
not to make this personal, but who is small fish and whi is big fish? it's all relative. and the truth of the matter is every single free market has only two inputs, supply and demand. at the same time that we see these micro-payment shops selling pictures for 2-3 dollars, we also see record prices being paid for pictures at auctions. things get priced for what they are worth, period! i'm sorry some think their pictures are worth more, but they aren't. micro-payment shops and the like are just part of reality, they allow people to fairly price a product. if you think your picture is worth a hundred dollars, more power to you.
i wonder how many of you refuse to go shop at walmart and the like, because they are "sharks"?
amnon
-
i wonder how many of you refuse to go shop at walmart and the like, because they are "sharks"?
amnon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I won't shop at Walmart. The list of reasons is a mile long. But that's on there.
-
Gregory,
there is not that much demand for nature and casual photography on iStock, I am afraid, unless the images have some interesting angle or are technically truly excellent.
The best selling images on the micros are those that are the hardest for the caual shooter to take. Business shots (with model releaes where appropriate); lifestyle, high quality food, concept shots etc all do well. Travel shots are perhaps better sent elswehwere, to a specialist travel library.
Quentin
-
not to make this personal, but who is small fish and whi is big fish? it's all relative. and the truth of the matter is every single free market has only two inputs, supply and demand. at the same time that we see these micro-payment shops selling pictures for 2-3 dollars, we also see record prices being paid for pictures at auctions. things get priced for what they are worth, period! i'm sorry some think their pictures are worth more, but they aren't. micro-payment shops and the like are just part of reality, they allow people to fairly price a product. if you think your picture is worth a hundred dollars, more power to you.
i wonder how many of you refuse to go shop at walmart and the like, because they are "sharks"?
amnon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To get things priced for what they are worth you need a free market, which of course is utopia. In an economy where there are very few significant suppliers they will determin price to a larger degree than demand. The stock business has over the last years become more of an oligopoly. Prices has not be lowered because of low demand, but rahter to increase demand as the big sharks have the volume and market power to do so.
I rarely feed "Sharks" and stay away from chainstores and most global brands like the plague. Wal Mart and the like screw suppliers to get sufficient volumes of goods so they can sell 'em cheap to people who don't really need 'em. This forces suppliers to become overly efficient which in turn leads to more unhealty and unsafe food, outsourcing of jobs to third world countries and massive waste and overconsumption in our society, which isn't sustainable over time! In the end we all lose. Like I said before, it all boils down to values and common sense.
-
I won't shop at Walmart. The list of reasons is a mile long. But that's on there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i understand that you won't, and that many others won't, but the truth of the matter is for every one who won't there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, who will. regardless of our personal opinions, there will always be someone willing to undercut, and someone willing to buy cheaper. photography is a product like any other, and a business model that treats it as such will succeed.
amnon
-
While I am sure we should all wear flowers in our hair and hug trees, most of us have other priorities and recognise a clever business idea when we see it. The micros are a clever business idea that was waiting to happen. Bruce Livingstone of iStock saw it first, and now many others have followed. As the micros are not only here to stay, but growing at a rapid rate, the only point worth debating is how to make the most from a situation that is not of our making. Liking, or not liking, the micros is simply irrelevant in this context.
Quentin
-
hmm. to stay away from walmart (or any other "big" chain or oligarch or etc...) because of principles or values is one thing. we all have the power to effect change in some way by deciding where and how we spend our money and time. but to open up a furniture store let's say next to walmart is stupidity. regardless of our personal opinions the reality is this is what the stuff is worth today. to stay away from a market because there are fewer suppliers than we would like in an efficinet market is quite extreme. in that case we will not buy any cars, any new houses, any shoes, etc...even cameras!!! last time i checked there were very, very, very few makers of pro-dslrs around!
-
Good point, Alain. So the only solution I see is to make the whole lot available, excluding the obvious rejects.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's the idea. That's why stock sales are a number's game. I remember a stock photographer I met at Canyon de Chelly around 1998 telling me about his last delivery to his stock agency in London. That was back in the film days: he carried two of the largest Delsey's suitcases filled with 35mm transparencies via the tube (the subway for those not versed in London's transit system). That was one delivery, and he would do that 2 or 3 times a year. Now with digital things are easier (no more carrying suitcases of slides) but the numbers are most likely higher as well.
-
Are the high-enders losing any business, is the question?
Personally, my stock business is still growing, and from the industry surveys that I read, I gather that experienced stock shooters are doing quite well in general. A $10,000 client is not going to use a $1 image.
-
My single best selling stock image has earned me roughly AUD50,000 over the past 10 years. However, the individual sales themselves have ranges from less than $100 to $21,000. Same image - different uses, therefore different prices.
This is the way the rights-managed stock industry has always worked - price is based on use. All the micro stock agencies are doing is opening up smaller and smaller 'uses' so that now imagery is accessible to small publishers, Powerpoint producers etc.
Personally, whilst I don't use microstock myself, I don't really care if I sell one image once for $1000 or 1 image 100 times for $10 - that image is still worth $1000 to me.
I don't object to licensing an image for $1 for a powerpoint presentation by an all-volunteer organization, or an individual for non-commercial purposes. In fact, when asked, I will take the time to grant a free written permission to do so. What I object to, is to give *unlimited rights* to one of my images for $1, when everybody else in the image-use chain is compensated fairly. Your mileage may vary, but personally, I find that devaluates my work. There is more in life than a checkbook balance.
-
Hi folks
I was just wondering about the notion put forward that getting 1000 sales at $1 each is the same as one sale at $1000; there must be some awfully boring and time-consuming work involved in going through 1000 different $1 sales reports...
In the long run, I think that the idea that there HAS to be room for all sorts of stock outlets is true and is the only possible outcome; that the buying market will find its own area of suppliers is also probably true, but as Alain points out here and in his recent Lu-La article, the bulk marketing of anything takes a hell of a toll on time and resources and, ultimately, on the quality of the goods on offer.
My own experiences with stock started back in the late 70s and ended more or less with the advent of CD sales; it became very clear to me that change were irreversibly afoot and that it was costing me a heck of a lot more to produce stock than it used to. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my stock was largely derived from commissioned work 'extras' which became available to me that way. As this was mainly with calendar models and the opportunities for travel pics afforded by the foreign locations, it all made commercial sense. However, another unwelcomed storm was lurking just below the horizon: the madness imported to Britain from some of the more strident sisters in some US colleges and universities: political correctness.
Almost at a stroke, clients became afraid of pretty girls; pretty girls began to lose a hell of a lot of work and so did photogaphers who worked with them. This was all greeted with whoops of joy by the similarly weird women of some of the UK establishments who imagined that because their more attractive sisters were now less visible, it would somehow make their own plainess less apparent. Yes, of course...
Thing is, most of the girls I worked with were really very nice people, felt not in the least exploited (laughed at the very idea, as did their bank managers) and were simply doing the best with the deal that mother nature had handed to them.
Anyway, like cheapo stock, the situation was created and nobody won very much of anything whilst many, like myself, lost a hell of a lot!
So, getting closer to the stock theme: after investigating different agency options, I realised that for MY TYPE of interest, there simply was no future. Others will have different experiences - that's the way it goes. I simply happen to believe that photography, when you are as committed to it as I have been all my life and it has been my provider all that time, deserves a better deal from ME, the doer of the deed. In other words, if I feel I'm prostituting it then I carry the guilt; as I feel guilty enough for many things in my life already, that's one additional guilt I can avoid!
Ciao - Rob C
-
I'm not a professional photographer, just an avid amature.
It seems to me that the core problem is that professional photographers have lost control of their product to a small group of non-producers and have allowed the non-producers to dictate the rules.
I'm not sure what the answer is to the solution, but, if you keep feeding the stray dog, it will stay.
Jerry
-
I was just wondering about the notion put forward that getting 1000 sales at $1 each is the same as one sale at $1000; there must be some awfully boring and time-consuming work involved in going through 1000 different $1 sales reports...
Rob C
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=70752\")
Definitly. You get what you pay for I believe. I discuss what I call "quality versus quantity" in my Artist in Business essay on this site:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/Artist%20in%20Business-2.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/Arti...usiness-2.shtml[/url]
Personally, doing quantity nearly killed me and I have no intention of going back.
-
Personally, my stock business is still growing, and from the industry surveys that I read, I gather that experienced stock shooters are doing quite well in general. A $10,000 client is not going to use a $1 image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70726\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am selling more and more stock every month as well . The key is to be specialized . Most istock shooters are never going to get access to what the commercial shooters are shooting .
-
Hi folks
Is it that I have lost the ability to use my keyboard, or have a bunch of recent posts been deleted, scrubbed from the face of the planet?
I was (I thought) having an exchange of ideas with someone using the name situgrrl: Que pasa?
Ciao - Rob C
-
Hi
Just answered my own question - topic moved to more appropriate section!
Ciao - Rob C
-
What I object to, is to give *unlimited rights* to one of my images for $1, when everybody else in the image-use chain is compensated fairly. Your mileage may vary, but personally, I find that devaluates my work. There is more in life than a checkbook balance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's worth mentioning that IStock, and others, do not market 'unlimited rights'. The whole RF concept is slightly mis-named because there are limits put on what a client can do with the image. What RF really means is that there are no more royalties payable for that image as long as it is used within the basic license parameters set by the stock company in their T+Cs.
In the case of IStock you cannot use the images to on-sell products. IOW you are not allowed to print posters, manufacture mugs, postacards, calendars etc and then sell them. You can only use the images for promotional and editorial 'entertainment' purposes, ie promoting your business or in a magazine.
Quote: "(May not) use the Content in any posters (printed on paper, canvas or any other media) or other items for resale, license or other distribution for profit"
If you want to sell the products which are using IStock images, you have to pay more. You could not, for instance, print a calendar of IStock images and then sell the calendar - but you could give it away as a promotion for you business.
RF is only RF up to a point, after that it becomes more like RM.
-
Quote: "(May not) use the Content in any posters (printed on paper, canvas or any other media) or other items for resale, license or other distribution for profit"
Very good point and one that seems to have passed a lot of people by. I think the micros are clearly good for the small web site / newsletter / e-bay advertiser but are not really designed for commercial publishing. Anyway, do you really think the editor of Vogue, or FHM would use a micro rather than one of the big agencies or their own photographer?
What they do is make images with high production values available to the "consumer" end of the market as well as the "producer". I like to have nice pictures on the calendar that I put my families events on. I also like to buy nice postcards of the places I visit. I can buy both from a shop without the photographer complaining that his images are being sold for a few dollars. What is the difference between buying a postcard and buying an image which you then print on card and send as a postcard?
Unlike most of the contributors here I am a user of photographs rather than a producer, and I suppose my views reflect that. I like to have nice images on my personal web site and on some of the internal presentation work I do for the company I work for. I am not even a half-good amateur photographer and the availability of decent stock imagery at affordable prices is a god send. I am not suggesting for one minute that Alain and Michael should put a large collection of 50mb tiff files on the micros for all to download, but making a small selection of 1280 x 1024 jpegs might be an excellent way of making their work more widely seen and appreciated - and frankly excellent advertising for their higher value products (hint, hint!)
-
I am not suggesting for one minute that Alain and Michael should put a large collection of 50mb tiff files on the micros for all to download, but making a small selection of 1280 x 1024 jpegs might be an excellent way of making their work more widely seen and appreciated - and frankly excellent advertising for their higher value products (hint, hint!)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=70921\")
Regarding using microstocks to make my work "more widely seen and appreciated" I strongly doubt the validity of this approach. Can you, right here right now, name one photographer who sells his/her work via microstock agencies, without being in the microstock business yourself and therefore being familiar with other microstock photographers as "colleagues"? Fact is, most people can't. Often, the name of the photographer doesn't even appear, only the name of the microstock agency.
Regarding making low price microstock images available as " advertising for my higher value products" I know for a fact this does not work. Why would anyone buy the same photograph at a higher price if they can have it for pennies? Seems like commonsense and logic aren't being exactly followed here! If you doubt this, I recommend you read (or re-read) my Artist in Business Part 2 essay. In it I describe how I tried to use this exact approach with fine art, and how it nearly killed me:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/Artist%20in%20Business-2.shtml]http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/Arti...usiness-2.shtml[/url]
And, without trying to be conceded or pretentious, my work is well known worldwide as it is. Furthermore, if you read (or read) my essays on Being an Artist in Business, you will learn that my first goal was not fame.
But eventually, while I can't speak for Michael, my approach, which I detail in my ongoing series of essays is "quality and not quantity". That being said, and while I have nothing against microstock agencies, it doesn't exactly fit their marketing model.
As a case in point, I had a 5 figure stock order on Friday from a store designer who originally bought stock photo CD's from Getty, only to realize the resolution of the images on the CDs were far too low to be enlarged at the size they needed (96"x96"). This size was no problem for me since I work with large format. The order was for 5 images, but the sale amount was equivalent to selling thousand of images at micro stock prices.
Again, I have nothing against microstocks. I just know that it doesn't fit my approach which is to produce quality and not quantity.
To each his own.
-
Again, I have nothing against microstocks. I just know that it doesn't fit my approach which is to produce quality and not quantity.
To each his own.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can have your cake and eat it. I send entirely different work under a different brand name to the micros. Occasionally the choice is difficult, but normally it is obvious which image goes where.
Quentin
-
I send entirely different work under a different brand name to the micros.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70967\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I appreciate the tip but doing this wouldn' t make me feel good about what I do. And, if I can't do something in a manner that makes me feel good about it, then I won't do it at all. I talk about that in part 3 of my essay. Again, to each his own. Not a criticism of what anyone else does. Just a description of what I do.
I do think that your tip is an interesting comment on the previous suggestion about using Microstocks to become better known...
-
As an amateur I think many of us have a fascination in getting a little ego boost by selling a few of our pictures, even if the rates are a joke and make your artistic hobby seem like a total waste of money.
There are enough people willing to dabble in it to make these sites work and cheapen the value of the photos.
I've tried it very briefly and sold a couple photos. The agency kept all the money and is earning interest on it until I hit a certain $ amount.. It's very obvious who wins in this business model. They get 100,000 photographers willing to dabble in selling a few photos and everyone who sells very small amounts never even gets their money.
I realized I would have to shoot completely different subjects & styles if I really wanted to seriously sell stock photos so that pretty much ended my interest in it. I don't need to be able to tell people I sold $50 worth of photos a year to feel good about my hobby and I honestly don't want to take the money away from someone who might be struggling to make a living.
I would much rather focus on the quality of my work, showing it only to people I know. Heck even sharing the photos on the internet for free often represents a waste of time IMO, while there is value in sharing photos on the interent for critique and comments some of it consists of an internet popularity contest and it takes away a lot of time that could be used for something else.
-
As an amateur I think many of us have a fascination in getting a little ego boost by selling a few of our pictures, even if the rates are a joke and make your artistic hobby seem like a total waste of money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, this is the case for many amateurs. But by doing so many confuse art & business. Creating art and selling art are two entirely different endeavors. The "ego boost" that "selling a few pictures" may bring can quickly be replaced by depression when the realities of the business world hit you square in the face.
I always say that art is not validated by how well or how poorly it sells. Art is validated by how much you like what you do, by how good creating art makes you feel and by the response you receive from the audience for whom you create (and not from everyone out there since not everyone is your audience).
Your business abilities on the other hand are validated by how well you can sell your wares.
Don't confuse the two.
-
I'm not confusing the two but there are certainly tons and tons of amateur photographers who do confuse the two.
Frankly as an amateur who makes his living in a more stable field.. photography as a business seemingly sucks. Compared to many fields it's closer to moving to LA and trying to get into Hollywood. A very tough proposition.
Lots of people want to do it, and it's not the best job unless you're very good at both creating the work and selling yourself.
All it takes is a steady stream of amateurs who are willing to dabble a bit from time to time. The power of the internet turns them into a big money making machine for a company like iStockPhoto and a big headache for working photographers.
Put me squarely in the camp of "This genie is not going back in the bottle." Every working photographer from now on has to deal with it, just like everyone in engineering has to deal with Indian and Chinese universities pumping out hundreds of thousands of engineers willing to work for next to nothing.
-
As an amateur I think many of us have a fascination in getting a little ego boost by selling a few of our pictures, even if the rates are a joke and make your artistic hobby seem like a total waste of money.
There are enough people willing to dabble in it to make these sites work and cheapen the value of the photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
... some wag once said:
"Photography is like prostitution - it's a profession spoiled by amateurs".
-
I don't need to be able to tell people I sold $50 worth of photos a year to feel good about my hobby and I honestly don't want to take the money away from someone who might be struggling to make a living.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'd have to be a spectacularly unsuccesful microstock photographer to make so little. On the other hand, to make a go of any type of stock photography, you do need to shoot for the market. If you are not prepared to do that, then stock photography in general is not for you.
Quentin
-
how great would it be if this forum allowed AVATARS!
-
You'd have to be a spectacularly unsuccesful microstock photographer to make so little. On the other hand, to make a go of any type of stock photography, you do need to shoot for the market. If you are not prepared to do that, then stock photography in general is not for you.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You'd have to be spectacularly unsuccessful to make so little IF you are putting lots and lots of time into it. I put a grand total of an hour into it when I started.
Didn't you say you are a member of 4 different stock photo sites and run a forum about it? You've obviously got a lot of time into it. If you're a photographer and don't have a normal day job you probably have the time to do so. And then you can be one of the top guys on your particular site. But when the sites have tens of thousands of members many of them are people like me who put a very minimal effort in. A single upload of 50 random photos, and then never putting any more work into it.
If someone buys something it's free money, if not I'm not losing money by way of spending lots of time on it that could be spent on my real job, going out shooting pictures, or generally having a life.
But the site(s) work based on having thousands of people upload pictures. That's how it works.
Looking at the photo requests I'd need to go out and shoot all kinds of random things I never bother to shoot. This would take lots of time and money. Then I would compete with thousands of other submissions for a payout of a few dollars? It's almost like playing the lottery... it's not a smart business.
It's like eBay.. there are a few people without day jobs making a living on it by spending all day selling knick knacks.. but in general what drives the business are the thousands of people buying or selling an odd item here or there. That equals tons of money for ebay, a new market for cheap goods, and a general driving down of prices & profits for the traditional buyers and sellers of such items.
-
I'm not confusing the two but there are certainly tons and tons of amateur photographers who do confuse the two.
Frankly as an amateur who makes his living in a more stable field.. photography as a business seemingly sucks. Compared to many fields it's closer to moving to LA and trying to get into Hollywood. A very tough proposition.
Lots of people want to do it, and it's not the best job unless you're very good at both creating the work and selling yourself.
All it takes is a steady stream of amateurs who are willing to dabble a bit from time to time. The power of the internet turns them into a big money making machine for a company like iStockPhoto and a big headache for working photographers.
Put me squarely in the camp of "This genie is not going back in the bottle." Every working photographer from now on has to deal with it, just like everyone in engineering has to deal with Indian and Chinese universities pumping out hundreds of thousands of engineers willing to work for next to nothing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personally I found the exact opposite to be the case and I wrote a post about this earlier in this same thread. I don't think it is that much different with stock photos, although as I mentioned I don't work with microstocks so I can't really comment on it.
-
You'd have to be spectacularly unsuccessful to make so little IF you are putting lots and lots of time into it. I put a grand total of an hour into it when I started.
Didn't you say you are a member of 4 different stock photo sites and run a forum about it? You've obviously got a lot of time into it. If you're a photographer and don't have a normal day job you probably have the time to do so. And then you can be one of the top guys on your particular site. But when the sites have tens of thousands of members many of them are people like me who put a very minimal effort in. A single upload of 50 random photos, and then never putting any more work into it.
If someone buys something it's free money, if not I'm not losing money by way of spending lots of time on it that could be spent on my real job, going out shooting pictures, or generally having a life.
But the site(s) work based on having thousands of people upload pictures. That's how it works.
Looking at the photo requests I'd need to go out and shoot all kinds of random things I never bother to shoot. This would take lots of time and money. Then I would compete with thousands of other submissions for a payout of a few dollars? It's almost like playing the lottery... it's not a smart business.
It's like eBay.. there are a few people without day jobs making a living on it by spending all day selling knick knacks.. but in general what drives the business are the thousands of people buying or selling an odd item here or there. That equals tons of money for ebay, a new market for cheap goods, and a general driving down of prices & profits for the traditional buyers and sellers of such items.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But the same is true of all stock. To make more than peanuts, you need to put in the effort. With the exception of a handful of photographers on the likes of Getty, stock photographers in general have to develop large portfolios of thousands of images in order to make serious money.
From the stats I have seen, the average per image income from successful microstock photographers bears comparison with traditional stock. With microstock, you rely upon low price / high volume, and with traditonal stock you rely upon low volume / high price. The net income should, however, be similar.
Quentin
-
Alain
The truth about stock is brutally simple: the stock company is in the business of selling a product and creating a profit, a middleman enterprise; the contributing photographers are the suppliers who provide the material that the stock company sells. It is in the interest of the stock company to create the highest margin of profit that it can. The problems of its suppliers are no more its concern than the problems of third-world tailors and cobblers are to the high street stores that sell their sweated goods in the first world.
Frankly, all you can do as a photographer is to decide whether you want to play that game.
The so-called bigtime photographers are something else, both in talent and in the opportunities available to them to create stock.
Don't forget that it isn't just photographers trying to sell product: publishers have already forced photographers into contracts whereby their commissioned feature work can be re-used, sold on and virtually worked into the ground for next to zilch. Stock libraries have contracts with major magazine groups to market some of their feature images etc. etc. and so the playing field is not only not level, it is like a chest of drawers!
As another contributor just wrote: as a job, photography sucks. It does. You have to be dedicated and then it is no longer a job.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Quentin I could certainly put in the time and upload 1000 files to my account.. it remains to be seen if it would be worth it. I'd have to pay extra for all that space.
If it meant it started generating some income maybe it'd be worth it. Regardless I'm not sure I have the time to prep & upload 1000 files.
-
It's worth mentioning that IStock, and others, do not market 'unlimited rights'. The whole RF concept is slightly mis-named because there are limits put on what a client can do with the image. What RF really means is that there are no more royalties payable for that image as long as it is used within the basic license parameters set by the stock company in their T+Cs.
True enough but the T + Cs are very liberal and in no way limit a purchaser of a RF image
to using an image exclusively in the domain for which they originally needed the image,
i.e. many clients are now amassing their own small internal RF libraries using images which
they liscensed legitimately and are reselling these same images to other of their clients when
the opportunity arises. To me that's dirty pool and,even if an RF supplier had terms forbidding
this secondary resale there is virtually no way for the original vendor to track what is,and is not
a secondary resale as useage info is not required as a term of sale.
I make my living exclusively from stock (predominantly in RM but am dabbling around the edges
of RF) and am opening a gallery in Montreal in the next week or so.
As it was almost impossible to resist the reality that RF is quickly becoming a dominant
force in the liscensing of stock images (over 50% of the global dollars spent on stock
photography is spent on RF) I put a few questions to the legal department of my principal
agent so as to educate myself on what backend problems i might run into when trying to
determine which images go into the RF stream and which into the RM.
The most notable,among a few other lesser issues,for me knowing that I would be
eventually owning a gallery and selling 'fine art' prints was that there exists no exclusion for
most,if not all of the big distributors, for fine art use meaning that an unscrupulous RF
purchaser could liscense images at high enough resolution to print and market fine art
reproductions without compensation to or even recognition of the image creator.
It was noted by the legal department contact that the area was a little 'gray' and that
possibly a successfull defense could be presented in court if the need arose but the fact remains
that no specific protection currently exists in present T + Cs.
It's obvious,for anyone doing their homework,to note that quality of RF content is very
high (and there is volume junk) and is no longer the poor sister of RM imagery.
I suspect that micropayment stock will also follow a similar creative path and I think one has
to think carefully on how ones images can be used once it enters the 'semi public' domain
of royalty free liscensing
Mark
-
Is iStockPro considered a MicroStock? I think there was an offer to join this agency in the last release of Photoshop.
-
Alan, your view of this argument seems to be pretty self-centered -- YOU may not get increased attention by working for micro-stock companies, because you're already well-known. Your situation doesn't necessarily apply to everybody. If you take a talented photogapher living in West Bumf--- Arkansas who sells a few hundred microstock photos, being able to put that in a portfolio (under "works sold") might be crucial to a budding career.
You do make an important point in that people should not confuse art and business. I would make the further point that nobody should confuse almost anything with business -- just because you went to Harvard Law doesn't mean that anybody owes you a living; just because you went to RIT shouldn't mean that a self-taught amateur photographer shouldn't be allowed to get his stuff in an art magazine. Anything -- work, effort, good intentions, intelligence, art, training -- are meaningless in terms of making a living, if you can't somehow sell your product or service.
All microstocks do is provide another way for a service to be sold. Microstocks are not interested in driving experienced photographers out of business; nor are they interested in preventing Harvard Lawyers from joining the country club -- they are interested in one thing: selling photos and making money. Complaints about that process are simply more-or-less subtle restatements of the argument that some people should be priveleged, due to talent, training, effort, good intentions, good taste, intelligence, or whatever.
Microstocks aren't interested in all that. They simply say, upload, and if we can sell it, you'll get some money. If we can't, you won't. Period.
Also, I see nothing at all wrong with Quentin selling under as many different names as he wishes. He's a commercial photographer, using brand names to differentiate between his brands, no different than Pepsi and Fritos, which are owned by the same company. The situation may be different for a person selling photos as art, because a sideline might appear to cheapen the value of his art works, which are priced partially on the basis of scarcity and implied overall quality of artistic output...Although that didn't seem to bother Rembrandt, who did lots of cheap multiples, engravings, to supplement his painting income...
JC
-
Lads - I think this thread has now gone circular. In other words, I reckon we have got down to the black is white situation where the original point/discussion is secondary to winning the argument; last man standing and all that jazz...
Ciao - Rob C
-
Is iStockPro considered a MicroStock? I think there was an offer to join this agency in the last release of Photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71168\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, Alain. It was supposed to be the upmarket iStockphoto, but in practice, according to the rumours I hear, iStockpro is moribund, and most photographers stick with iStockphoto which is where all the investment and time seems to be directed.
Quentin
-
No, Alain. It was supposed to be the upmarket iStockphoto, but in practice, according to the rumours I hear, iStockpro is moribund, and most photographers stick with iStockphoto which is where all the investment and time seems to be directed.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Quentin. So what are the non-moribund high-end pro stock agencies?
-
The most notable,among a few other lesser issues,for me knowing that I would be
eventually owning a gallery and selling 'fine art' prints was that there exists no exclusion for most,if not all of the big distributors, for fine art use meaning that an unscrupulous RF purchaser could liscense images at high enough resolution to print and market fine art reproductions without compensation to or even recognition of the image creator.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71155\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Mark,
Well, these days, if the license doesn't exclude fine art use, then that's not "uncrupulous", just "entrepeneurial". "Unscrupulous" seems to be the order of the day anymore what with stock agencies posting RM images on entrapment pages saying you're free to use them on your website, then when you do, sending extortion letters demanding high fees. And photographers aren't missing out either, signing exclusive RM agreements with stock agencies then trimming a few pixels off the image and putting essentially the same image on microstock sites for a tiny fraction of the price.
For specialized photographers like myself, it's entirely possible these days (thanks to the internet and google) to set up your own stock agency, and this is what I plan to do, offering my images as anything from low cost low-res web images for a few dollars, to prints for an intermediate price, to rights managed high-res (fine art use excluded) for much higher fees. Why give 1/4 to 3/4 to an agency anymore, particularly when they're so dumb with their license terms and haven't figured out multi-tiered use yet?
- DL
-
Why give 1/4 to 3/4 to an agency anymore, particularly when they're so dumb with their license terms and haven't figured out multi-tiered use yet?
- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am sure I am stating the bleedin' obvious but the reason you relinquish 50% of sales revenue is because they do the work of selling. I am a poor salesman and I do not want to spend my days on the phone drumming up business for my stock library. I am happy to pay someone else to do this effectively, rather then me do it myself. I'd rather be out taking photos.
It is possible to set up an automated system, sure. But if you build it, will they come? No, not very likely. Any web based enterprise needs to be marketed as aggresively as any other business, this much has been proven.
Better to find an agency with the skills you think important and let them do the marketing work. There are quite a few very progressive traditional agencies starting up who have identified the shortcomings of the big agencies. I have just started with one and a: I am a medium sized fish in a small pond and b: the owners are actively marketing very effectively - after all it's in their own best interest.
In 1 month I have racked up AUD1000 in sales so I'm happy with that as a start
I think it's all about playing to your strenghts. I am a better photographer than marketer - I am comfortable with this and now prefer to deal with people whose strength is marketing. Having said that, there are plenty of broadly talented types out there who may well be good at more than one thing - more strength to them I say.
If you can shoot good images and market them effectively then why not keep all the pie - I would just say that it's not as easy as it sounds...
-
As mentioned before I think most people in this thread are not actually involved in stock photography, and most of them have clearly not bothered to take a look at iStock. I am a professional photographer and have images represented by a medium-sized RM only library here in the UK, but I have been looking at iStock closely....the more research I do the more I see as an opportnity than a threat.
To bring some well needed facts about iStock into the discussion:
1) The quality of pictures is generally very high. All pictures are reviewed before being accepted, for content as well as technical issues. The average quality is much higher than Alamy for example, which many people really do treat as a "dumping ground" for their second tier images.
2) Pictures only sell for $1 if you are buying a tiny image, for a powerpoint presentation say. a 50MB file costs $40...true, much less than a "traditional" stock site, but much more than $1.
3) The sales volumes for good images are enormous. Look at the "most popular" page and you will see there are many images which have sold over 5000 times. These tend to be the images that are more difficult for amateurs to shoot - model released corporate and lifestyle shots.
4) The net effect of points 2 and 3 is that there are a significant minority of contributors who are making very good money ($thousands per month) from iStock. Just browse the forums and you will come across threads where people openly discuss how much money they are making. The successful ones are often treating it as a full-time or nearly full-time job.
Micropayment sites are vastly expanding the volume of images that are sold, by selling images at rates affordable to small businesses. They are also creating wealth not only for their owners, but also their contributors. While there will aways remain market for commissioned photography and rights managed stock, iStock is a viable business model and is here to stay.
Whenever the status quo in an industry changes, there will be winners and losers. The winners are those who exploit the opportunities that were not available before, or adapt to the new business landscape. The losers are those who do not or cannot adapt. Look at the s an losers from the rise of the internet in the 1990s or the growth of outsourcing today.
Sitting there and moaning about it certainly won't help you.
Julian
-
To bring some well needed facts about iStock into the discussion:
2) Pictures only sell for $1 if you are buying a tiny image, for a powerpoint presentation say. a 50MB file costs $40...true, much less than a "traditional" stock site, but much more than $1.
$40 files don’t get much downloads at IStock. In my experience the average price per download is slightly above $2
3) The sales volumes for good images are enormous. Look at the "most popular" page and you will see there are many images which have sold over 5000 times. These tend to be the images that are more difficult for amateurs to shoot - model released corporate and lifestyle shots.
If you look at the most popular page here http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php) you will see that there is not even one with 5,000 downloads. In fact there are only three pics with more than 1,000 downloads.
Sitting there and moaning about it certainly won't help you.
Poor research neither
-
If you look at the most popular page here http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php) you will see that there is not even one with 5,000 downloads. In fact there are only three pics with more than 1,000 downloads.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The numbers next to the images are the number of downloads in the last 3 months.
If we use your average of about $2 per download, some images are generating over $1000 per month in revenues, and $400 per month in commission for an exclusive "gold" iStock photographer ($200 for a newbie) - from a single image. These are best case scenarios, but it should be readily apparent that photographers with a collection of several hundred images of popular subjects are making very good money from the site.
Poor research neither
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quite.
Julian
-
Just a thought....
How long will it take before a microstock pic attracts a big fat lawsuit because the model/location are not properly released...?
I think that details like these will force the stock libraries to become more careful with what they accept... and that comes at a price...
Others, however, will probably pass the risk (of the lawsuit) on to the photographer...
-
Just a thought....
How long will it take before a microstock pic attracts a big fat lawsuit because the model/location are not properly released...?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is not just an issue for Microstock. e.g. Alamy does not require proof of model / property releases for images. iStockPhoto is actually one of the better ones in this regard. They will not accept any picture containing a recognisable face without simultaneously uploading a copy of a signed model release. Other sites are much less rigorous though.
Julian
-
yeah, quite agreed.
If anyone is going to sit on a lawsuit it is alamy or myloupe.
The micros (or most of them) are probably the more careful agencies.
tyler
---------------------------------
Microstock Group (http://www.microstockgroup.com)
A meeting place for microstock photographers