Microstock ?

[free1000]

I dont know where you get the $50k from he says 650000 licenses PA
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I was just netting up his iStock downloads.  I agree it could add up. Maybe there is a business there.

Anyhow... iStocks owners Getty are now starting even to cannibalise this, their own  market.

www.picapp.com

The reality is that on the internet, the value of any digitized media tends to zero as the volume rises.  

In the end there is plenty of room at the bottom (and thats where the micros feed), but it will be more comfortable at the top.

[a href=\"http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/03/19/a-thought-on-the-future-of-photography/]http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/03/19/a-thoug...of-photography/[/url]

[timhurst]

Its not true.  Popular images seem to remain popular. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Seem to? Well do they or not? What's you data? What's your time scale? Popular for you could be peanuts for someone else. Are you willing to put some solid numbers on this?

Tim is right in that the real argument was against RF generally, but that argument was lost years ago.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really? In my view this new micro RF proves the very opposite - that RM is the only long term stable business model that any serious photographer can work by. The same business model (fees based on usage) that any commissioned photographer worth their salt is working by.

Emotionally I prefer (and therefore still sell) RM stock, but you can't get away from the fact that RF, and now its microstock sub-set, makes money and is a popular choice with buyers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Be under no illusion that by entering that market you are seriously limiting the earnings potential of your pictures - but if all you want to do is shoot cookie cutter images then fair enough.

I came across that fellow Yuri when trawling a micro stock forum and he stated that he had hit the ceiling of his earnings potential. He sunk several thousand in production costs on a shoot and saw zero rise in revenue/volume.

Every market has a finite size (Getty, Alamy, micros whatever) and if you are selling at a dollar price point and giving away all rights for that one off fee you can only grow so far. Imagine what he'd be earning if he wasn't shooting for micro prices.

[Quentin]

Yea, whatever, Tim, I have had this debate so many times before and I and many others have backed up our assertions that honestly, no offence, I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.  Its like Deja Vu all over again  

Enjoy your Easter

Quentin

PS e.g. see this near 1,000 message thread on Alamy http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=816

There are opinions on microstock to suit all tastes somewhere in there.  Have fun rummaging through it - always assuming you don't lose the will to live half way through...

[timhurst]

Yea, whatever, Tim, I have had this debate so many times before and I and many others have backed up our assertions that honestly, no offence, I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.  Its like Deja Vu all over again   
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, I'm just interested in business models is all! It can obviously work for a select few but I personally can't see the long term prospects.

PS e.g. see this near 1,000 message thread on Alamy [a href=\"http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=816]http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=816[/url]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My interest doesn't stretch that far though!  

[Gary Yeowell]

I know for a fact that the fastest growing sector of the market right now is in Microstock but quite honestly i would rather look for a different outlet for my imagery than join the bottom feeders in the stock business.

This month i saw my first ever Royalty Free sale where i grossed around 20pence....  in fact i only have 2 RF images, all the rest are in Rights
Managed collections, and that's where i will be sticking, dwindling marketplace or not as i'm used to selling images for 5000 times as much, times are changing but not that much.

[RobertJ]

I don't mean any disrespect, but:

You guys who have no experience in microstock are incorrect with your calculations on how much money a microstock photographer earns.

For your info, you earn a lot more than $1 per sale.  

Images that sell, will continue to sell over time, period.  I don't know how, or why, but some images are just downloaded at an insane rate.  (One at iStockphoto has sold over 10,000 times).

Also, iStock has recently raised the prices (in January), not lowered.  Even though the volume of images is rising rapidly, the photographers are now earning more than ever, and will continue to earn more in the future.

Now here comes the flames from the old school photographers, but hopefully, Quentin can back me up on this.

A quick note on that "Yuri" guy:  I believe he's sponsored by Hasselblad now.  He probably didn't pay for his camera.

[Quentin]

Now here comes the flames from the old school photographers, but hopefully, Quentin can back me up on this.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm reluctant to post again because we all know what happens to threads about microstock.  But, yup, you are right, of course     Not that being right seems to make much difference in this debate

Quentin

[Streetshooter]

I don't mean any disrespect, but:

You guys who have no experience in microstock are incorrect with your calculations on how much money a microstock photographer earns.

For your info, you earn a lot more than $1 per sale. 

Images that sell, will continue to sell over time, period.  I don't know how, or why, but some images are just downloaded at an insane rate.  (One at iStockphoto has sold over 10,000 times).

Also, iStock has recently raised the prices (in January), not lowered.  Even though the volume of images is rising rapidly, the photographers are now earning more than ever, and will continue to earn more in the future.

Now here comes the flames from the old school photographers, but hopefully, Quentin can back me up on this.

A quick note on that "Yuri" guy:  I believe he's sponsored by Hasselblad now.  He probably didn't pay for his camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In Microstock then how much do you earn per license ? Whilst I admire Yuri's business acumen it all depends if you treat photography just as a money making exercise.  It looks like he works hard for what he earns, but there's no way I could shoot his smiley shiny faced models day in and day out even if it is well paid.

Pete

[mmurph]

but there's no way I could shoot his smiley shiny faced models day in and day out even if it is well paid.

Pete

Agreed!  

When you look at what does sell well, you have to ask - do I want to make those images?  Worse than reading the 1,000 post thread. Tedius.  

No offense to others that do.  Especially when starting out, it is fun to take any kind of photos.  

But I have been at this for 30+ years since getting a  degree in photo. I want to challange myself, and follow my own initiative, and create a niche for myself *prior* to thinking whether it will sell.  That said, I also have an MBA, so I am not an "artiste".   Just getting too old to do what doesn't really engage me.

Also seems odd to be discussing micro in the MFDB thread - buy a $30K camera for micro?

Best,
Michael

[andrewparker]

I make about $700 per month in total from microstock on a potfolio of about 700 images - not many by stock standards.

Quentin- what exactly do you mean by "make"?

Is that a gross or a net figure? Is it your profit after your costs?

I understand that you invest in your own photography business using money earned in the legal profession. Are you in profit after that investment? It's a different situation from many others here who are having to make a living from the real profit/loss equation on their business. Perhaps you aren't asking the question because you don't need to.

I'm asking it because I too earn the majority of my income from another source (television production)- some of which I plough back into photography at very modest levels of profit.

You have complained about the poor quality of the microdebate and I have to agree. Why it is that so often those who agitate most against micrsotock are those whose market is least affected by it- i.e editorial photographers selling non-generic images to newspapers and textbooks?

I haven't yet seen anything to alter my view that micrsostock is essentially a file-sharing community of small graphic designers whose benefit comes not from their income on stock sales but from the benefit to their main business of being able to find affordable imagery- at last. They know what they're doing because they are their own customers.

Why should we begrudge them that?

Looking at the latest microstar Yuri you have to say his work would be fine for tens of thousands of small business leaflets but it doesn't look like page layout stuff to me.

How can a young man be so aesthetically worn out? Many of his frames are too cluttered with teeth and faces and don't communicate anything emotionally. Not much competiton for RM advertising market there, though it is slick and clean. He knows what he's doing.

I don't think anyone is going to be producing stock that gives advertisers the contemporary emotional message rquired to cut through to a jaded/sophistcated public in the numbers required to "make money" from the microstock model.

Vive La Difference!

Andrew Parker

[Gary Yeowell]

I don't think anyone is going to be producing stock that gives advertisers the contemporary emotional message rquired to cut through to a jaded/sophistcated public in the numbers required to "make money" from the microstock model.

Which is exactly why i will continue to put 95% of my energy into producing Rights Managed imagery..

been doing this for the last 10 years as sole income, and have no intention changing..... time will tell.

[eronald]

Imagine what he'd be earning if he wasn't shooting for micro prices.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe he wouldn't be. My impression, from the people I meet  in Paris, is that the people at the top of the pyramid make good money, but the middle tier are steadily getting less well paid.

Edmund

[Quentin]

Quentin- what exactly do you mean by "make"?

Is that a gross or a net figure? Is it your profit after your costs?

I understand that you invest in your own photography business using money earned in the legal profession. Are you in profit after that investment? It's a different situation from many others here who are having to make a living from the real profit/loss equation on their business. Perhaps you aren't asking the question because you don't need to.

I'm asking it because I too earn the majority of my income from another source (television production)- some of which I plough back into photography at very modest levels of profit.

You have complained about the poor quality of the microdebate and I have to agree. Why it is that so often those who agitate most against micrsotock are those whose market is least affected by it- i.e editorial photographers selling non-generic images to newspapers and textbooks?

I haven't yet seen anything to alter my view that micrsostock is essentially a file-sharing community of small graphic designers whose benefit comes not from their income on stock sales but from the benefit to their main business of being able to find affordable imagery- at last. They know what they're doing because they are their own customers.

Why should we begrudge them that?

Looking at the latest microstar Yuri you have to say his work would be fine for tens of thousands of small business leaflets but it doesn't look like page layout stuff to me.

How can a young man be so aesthetically worn out? Many of his frames are too cluttered with teeth and faces and don't communicate anything emotionally. Not much competiton for RM advertising market there, though it is slick and clean. He knows what he's doing.

I don't think anyone is going to be producing stock that gives advertisers the contemporary emotional message rquired to cut through to a jaded/sophistcated public in the numbers required to "make money" from the microstock model.

Vive La Difference!

Andrew Parker
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gross,  but its just 700 or so images.   Anyone looking to make a living from stock would have a larger portfolio than that.

I receved an email recently from Getty with the top ten images from Getty and the top ten from iStock shown as thumbnails.   the iStock images in my view were better.

The quality divide has vanished, except for the highest "high end"; that's why a number of  traditional stock photographers feel threatened.   Their comfort zone is threatened, probably not before time.  

Don't underestimate the quality of microstock imagery, even if a lot of it is artistically unimaginative.  The same is also true of most traditional stock library fodder.

It all started out as an experiment; odd how it has developed from a newsgroup, to book project.     I'm not an obvious candidate for microstock, but I recognize a good business idea when I see it.

Quentin

[Quentin]

Quentin,

I mean no disrespect, but I must ask, how can having only 700 images in mircostock and making only $700 a month make you (or anyone) an expert enough about the microstock industry to write a book that will instruct others?

I think this is a fair question that no one else has brought up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also set up and run the yahoo micropayment group on Yahoo, which was the first independent (non-library controlled) discussion forum, a rich source of information; I have interviewed many other microstock photographers and exchanged info with four of the leading group owners.  In short - research, just like anyone else who writes about a subject.  My direct experience is a bonus.  

Additionally, I used to run a small RM stock library so I have direct experience of the industry, albeit the traditional side.

The suggestion that I write a book came from a library owner, Jon Oringer of Shutterstock.  He, rightly or wrongly, thought I was the best person to do so.  To quote his comment from the back of the book:

"Douglas's book [that's Douglas Freer, my microstock persona] is a much needed guide to the exploding Microstock market.  with information for contributing photographers and image buyers, its a tool for both groups to navigate and benefit from this exciting industry"

That answer your question, John?  

Quentin

[Gary Yeowell]

With all due respect Quentin, actually going out and taking the pictures  and earning your living with them is 'the' only way of judging if it makes business sense. Any amount of interviewing Photographers, agencies etc will not give you firsthand experience to become an expert. I have had many discussions with stock shooters over the years, and sat in countless seminars with the likes of Getty, also been asked on behalf of Getty to  represent them as a travel shooter with clients, but i know there's nothing like doing it full time and having to make it pay.

Gary.

[Quentin]

With all due respect Quentin, actually going out and taking the pictures  and earning your living with them is 'the' only way of judging if it makes business sense. Any amount of interviewing Photographers, agencies etc will not give you firsthand experience to become an expert. I have had many discussions with stock shooters over the years, and sat in countless seminars with the likes of Getty, also been asked on behalf of Getty to  represent them as a travel shooter with clients, but i know there's nothing like doing it full time and having to make it pay.

Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hear what you say, Gary, but  the microstock industry is so new (it started in 2003, and really only got going in 2005) that there are very few contributors making a living from it full time as yet.   Most of the book is directed towards new entrants to stock photography who should find the advice of value and its not expensive.  

But there we are, if you are not persuaded, that's too bad, I'm not here to promote microstock and this, therefore, is my last message on the subject, as I'm here to discuss and read about other matters (I get quite enough input on microstock elsewhere, thanks very much).  Talk amongst yourselves  

[Gary Yeowell]

I hear what you say, Gary, but  the microstock industry is so new (it started in 2003, and really only got going in 2005) that there are very few contributors making a living from it full time as yet.   Most of the book is directed towards new entrants to stock photography who should find the advice of value and its not expensive. 

But there we are, if you are not persuaded, that's too bad, I'm not here to promote microstock and this, therefore, is my last message on the subject, as I'm here to discuss and read about other matters (I get quite enough input on microstock elsewhere, thanks very much).  Talk amongst yourselves 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184458\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fair comment!  As i have said before, time will tell.

Gary.

[Streetshooter]

Gross,  but its just 700 or so images.   Anyone looking to make a living from stock would have a larger portfolio than that.

I receved an email recently from Getty with the top ten images from Getty and the top ten from iStock shown as thumbnails.   the iStock images in my view were better.

The quality divide has vanished, except for the highest "high end"; that's why a number of  traditional stock photographers feel threatened.   Their comfort zone is threatened, probably not before time. 

Don't underestimate the quality of microstock imagery, even if a lot of it is artistically unimaginative.  The same is also true of most traditional stock library fodder.

It all started out as an experiment; odd how it has developed from a newsgroup, to book project.     I'm not an obvious candidate for microstock, but I recognize a good business idea when I see it.

2Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quentin,

I agree the quality divide has almost vanished, some Microstock is good quality, rivalling and often exceeding RM material. But now people are paying stupidly low fees for good photography will they ever pay more? I doubt it personally.

Photography, like the music business is undergoing a major revolution. Heaven knows where it will end up. In the old days of transparencies, photo libraries made a large portion of their turnover from search and admin fees. Now of course they can't do this as everything is digital and online. As these microstock agencies get bigger and bigger what will happen next ?  Maybe the next logical step in the evolution of stock photography is that the images will be given away free.

With this statement-

"The quality divide has vanished, except for the highest "high end"; that's why a number of  traditional stock photographers feel threatened.   Their comfort zone is threatened, probably not before time. "

One would think you've got something against good hard working stock photographers. Why is that ?  

Pete

[Gary Yeowell]

[/QUOTE]I agree the quality divide has almost vanished, some Microstock is good quality, rivalling and often exceeding RM material

'Some' is the word, this hardly constitutes 'the quality divide has almost vanished' does it. If people think that the majority of what's on Microstock sites is almost as good as most Rights Managed stuff, god help us all..

Gary.

[Quentin]

No offence, Pete, but I said above

"this, therefore, is my last message on the subject"

Well I lied;  this, though is.

cheers

Quentin