Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want. Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D
This post should be of interest to you http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55677.0
- post 191 sums up my feelings about RM v istock for commercial use.
From face to face conversations with istock contributors, often a blank look comes over their face when discussing the 'true' costs involved in supplying images - camera equipment costs, maintenance and repairs, computer equipment, insurance, travel and subsistence costs, time spent transferring images from the camera to the computer, RAW processing, image specific captions and important key-wording and finally but not least, the time taken to upload images. Having travelled the world and run a library, full time since 1993, all of these costs and my time (stuck at a computer, processing images, is not my idea of free time) have to be taken into account - when I run my car for business use, the full running cost includes depreciation
, not just the petrol.
Only the other day I spoke to someone who informed me her partner has made 30 sales (from the same image) at istock (Getty) over the past year, a photograph of some wooden planks. The net profit was a pitiful £10. There again I note in past years that some excited istock users haven't been able to resist letting the world know they have earned enough over a year to purchase a new Canon 5D!
It is tough to sell a RM image at a slightly higher price against top competition, it's easier to sell an image that only costs peanuts. I hope for the sake of istock users and the photo industry, prices rise to reflect the true costs involved in taking images and to realise their potential commercial worth.