| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2005 04:25:32 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Why do you guys give your sh*t away? |
I think it's apparent that most of the folks from dpc that are selling on the low ball stock sites do so because it's so much easier to get in. Those "literally hundreds of professional rights protected stock agencies" are a lot more difficult to get into. From my own research, most of them are daunting to photogs at this level. It feels like you have to fight your way into an exclusive group. Whereas the low ballers are welcoming them with open arms. If pro photogs and the rights managed agencies feel threatened (they ought to) by the shutterstock's of the world they could work with new photogs to help them get up to their level instead of putting up barriers.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 05:02:58 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Why do you guys give your sh*t away? |
I think it's apparent that most of the folks from dpc that are selling on the low ball stock sites do so because it's so much easier to get in. Those "literally hundreds of professional rights protected stock agencies" are a lot more difficult to get into. From my own research, most of them are daunting to photogs at this level. It feels like you have to fight your way into an exclusive group. Whereas the low ballers are welcoming them with open arms. If pro photogs and the rights managed agencies feel threatened (they ought to) by the shutterstock's of the world they could work with new photogs to help them get up to their level instead of putting up barriers. |
The only barriers to being accepted by a right protected stock agency are descent iconic images at a descent resolution. Easier doesn̢۪t always mean better. A lot of the people on DPC who are selling to Shutterstock have both the equipment and the talent to be accepted by a respected stock agency. The only barrier I see in their case is their willingness to try. I know many of the photographers here lack the proper equipment (5mp camera, at least) and experience to go that route at the moment, but if they hope to ever become more then hobbyists (and there̢۪s nothing wrong with being a hobbyist) then participation in Shutterstock is not a wise career move.
My portfolio was accepted by Bruce Coleman, one of the oldest, largest and most respected stock agencies in the world, on my first try. And that was before the 1Ds.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 06:24:45 AM · #28 |
Seriously people, its fine if you don't like stock. Everyone has an opinion, but some people do like it and enjoy it. Its their business if they choose to sell their images. You may think they are stupid for doing it, but if they are happy because they made some cash, than that is what is important. Its not up to you whether they should do it, be happy for people because they are making money from something they love. Its money none of them probably would never have had before, and it may encourage them to sell else where too.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 06:58:54 AM · #29 |
I was looking through a magazine just recently and saw an eight page spread of isolated subject photos on a white background and a company's logo in the bottom right corner. After the 8th page, I turned one last time, and the page was completely white except for a company name in the very middle. On the bottom of that page, it said "PHOTOS BY:" and all that, and gave credit to the photographer who obviously made a good amount of money doing the shoot (I know this for sure because I looked him up on the internet -- like I do with every photog in the magazines who inspires me in some way).
I just couldn't imagine opening a magazine, seeing an eight page spread of something I shot, and getting paid a dollar sixty for it. Sure, that would be awesome to have eight photos in a magazine, and certainly my photos don't measure up to that type of quality at this point, but it got me thinking anyway.
If they buy eight photos from those sites, they're not even required to give credit. You can hope all day long, and quite possibly it will happen, but you're not assured anything.
--
I'm not trying to rant, and I'm not trying to pass my opinions on to anyone other than myself. Heck, I'm even refraining from sharring my opinions on the subject as a whole, just my thoughts directly after seeing that.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 07:44:47 AM · #30 |
I havent been accepted yet to any :( its not that easy....
But then I am not selling yet on dpcprints either...
my photos arent that good either :)
But what I am doing is studying, studying, studying,
and clicking my camera lots more,
finding recources....working on learning the intire process and understanding of what it takes to make a good print.
Maybe just maybe I will have a nice portfolio with work to submit to galleries and be published even just in the local newspaper...Other then that my website will have original works
I was thinking stock could be of use to me but then I have to agree on the giving up rights to all my hard work isnt worth 80 cents a day let alone $2.00 ....
Just my opinion
If its not hard for you to set up subjects to take pictures of, edit, load them, and its what you like then go for it....There are better stock agents out there though that would give you more money for your pics to use in magazines, logos, signs, billboards ,ect... Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 08:19:46 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Why does it annoy you so much? lol |
Because it's a shame to see talented people dismiss their work as basically worthless. |
Before last year, my total gross profit on my photography business wasn't enough to buy a clue, let alone a lens. With Shutterstock, I'll buy myself a nice Wacom graphire or a new lens or something. They are basically shots that we would do NOTHING ELSE with. What should we do, sell them on DPCPrints? *laughing very very hard*
Let's put it this way, I'd rather upload 10 junk pictures and make $20 bucks than upload one great shot to dpcprints and watch NOBODY buy it for 2 years.
 DPCPrints - Gross profit $0.75
 Stock - Gross profit $5.60
Which image should sell for more? Really.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 08:49:00 AM · #32 |
I notice most if not all of the images are 300dpi, does this present a problem with upsampling etc. Paul mentioned images from less than 3mp,I would have thought upsampling in these cases is a difficult task to get printable images at the sizes offered on shutterstock.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 09:30:13 AM · #33 |
hey when your a poor colledge kid, 80 cents a day is welcomed. I just signed up, thinking that most "professionals" wouldn't upload things, thats not where I want to end up but I like to eat
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 09:32:06 AM · #34 |
My portfolio was accepted by Bruce Coleman, one of the oldest, largest and most respected stock agencies in the world, on my first try. And that was before the 1Ds. [/quote]
can you give me a url please?
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 09:38:16 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
My portfolio was accepted by Bruce Coleman, one of the oldest, largest and most respected stock agencies in the world, on my first try. And that was before the 1Ds. |
can you give me a url please? [/quote]
Google for "Bruce Coleman" and it's the first on the results
//www.bciusa.com/index1.html
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 09:38:49.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 10:57:42 AM · #36 |
The saddest thing is just seeing people with all the tools to succeed not even try and just settle for pocket change. It's like seeing someone with Luciano Pavarotti level talent standing on the street corner for holding out a paper cup, begging for coins.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 11:31:26 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The saddest thing is just seeing people with all the tools to succeed not even try and just settle for pocket change. It's like seeing someone with Luciano Pavarotti level talent standing on the street corner for holding out a paper cup, begging for coins. |
I totally agree with y'all on this there are many very talented photographers at dpc, I think not only are we selling ourselves short, but for those folks who are professionals they won't have one left for long, not too mention if we ever want to be pro's it will be much harder when given out shots away for nothing. I regret that I have about 100 shots on shutterstock and no way to track who has downloaded them. Now even if I pulled those shots, chances are no one would want them because they are just 'out there'. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 11:37:32 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The saddest thing is just seeing people with all the tools to succeed not even try and just settle for pocket change. It's like seeing someone with Luciano Pavarotti level talent standing on the street corner for holding out a paper cup, begging for coins. |
How many people in the world have talent equivalent to Pavarotti? |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 11:43:37 AM · #39 |
Another thought. I already have a full time job, three children under 10 years old and not time to do real photographic set-up or field work which would lead to being a Coleman type stock photographer. If I were single, free, and not working to keep family healthy, I'd be out all the time shooting 400 shots per day or more, like a professional does with film. Pros burn a lot of film or disc space each day to make a living.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 11:49:32 AM · #40 |
Got rejected from istock for the very reason that noise was to high on my photos. I made 10 bucks this month so far on shutterstock. Seems to be the only chance for my... with my A70. I am still looking for an upgrade of my camera and maybe I'll get accepted to other stock sites
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 11:50:56.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 12:17:50 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by animes2k:
Originally posted by NinjaMom:
It is really only their business and up to them. |
I know some professional stock photographers that would say otherwise.
The problem here is that, to an extent, it devalues the whole industry.
I won't bother going into the extent of that effect or in which areas etc.,
but needless to say it is true. |
Yes, "we" are the China of the stock world. Is everybody here going to stop shopping at Wal-mart, since their massive iprtation of goods made by cheap Chinese labor is undercutting the market for quality products made by American workers? Protectionism is always a popular choice among the entrenched. This is all the extension of a process which began with the Industrial Revolution ... when's the last time you bought a shirt made of homespun linen?
And the other side of this is that, if I was publishing a newsletter for my non-profit clinic, we couldn't afford stock from Bruce Coleman. I think as much as "undercutting" the market, RF stock is creating a new niche to sell a similar but different product to the existing agencies. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 01:06:57 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And the other side of this is that, if I was publishing a newsletter for my non-profit clinic, we couldn't afford stock from Bruce Coleman. |
You probably could. A company such as Bruce Coleman charges for usage. That is a full page image used on the front cover of national magazine with the circulation of 800,000 may cost over a $1000 for one time use, while a 1/4 page image appearing on the third page of a regional magazine with a circulation of 50,000 may be $100. A usage in a news letter for a private company would come to less then $20.
I will disagree with the premise that companies like Shutterstock do much to devalue the market. Shutterstock does not sell to companies like Business Week, Discovery, Geo, Life, Maxim, Men's Journal, National Geographic, National Wildlife, Natural History, Newsweek, Reader's Digest, Scientific American, Smart Money, Smithsonian, Stuff, Time, Travel Holiday, U.S. News & World Report, Vogue, Woman's World, Addison-Wesley, Britannica, Grolier, Harcourt, Heinemann Library, Holt, Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill, Reader's Digest, Scholastic, Steck-Vaughn, The Gale Group, World Book, New York Times, L A Times, Wall Street Journal, Arnold Worldwide, Barnes & Noble, BBDO Worldwide, DDB Needham Worldwide, Discovery Communications, Foote Cone & Belding, Grey Advertising, Hallmark, Leo Burnett, Lowe & Partners, Microsoft, Ogilvy & Mather, Saatchi & Saatchi, J. Walter Thompson, Publicis Worldwide, The Territory Ahead, Tracy-Locke, Young & Rubicam. They are however all regular costumers of Bruce Coleman.
Shutterstock does not devalue the market. It is the individual photographer that is devalued.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 02:11:15 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Shutterstock does not devalue the market. It is the individual photographer that is devalued. |
OK, so that argument's out of the way. You will agree that not everyone can be Dan Rather, that some poeple will have to be stringers for their local paper instead? Isn't it the market that devalues the photgrapher? |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 02:29:17 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The saddest thing is just seeing people with all the tools to succeed not even try and just settle for pocket change. It's like seeing someone with Luciano Pavarotti level talent standing on the street corner for holding out a paper cup, begging for coins. |
How many people in the world have talent equivalent to Pavarotti? |
Not many, but that was just an example to make a point. There are some very talented photographers on here who are effectively giving their work away when it is worth much more. Then they start a thread bragging about it, as if it's something to be proud of. I'd be embarassed to admit that a photograph I created was valued at $0.25 . It's just a damned shame that some people don't even try.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 02:39:08 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
OK, so that argument's out of the way. You will agree that not everyone can be Dan Rather, that some poeple will have to be stringers for their local paper instead? Isn't it the market that devalues the photgrapher? |
Not the market. I understand that some people will never be great and successful at photography and that there others that never want to be. If you know yourself to be in either of these groups then I am not addressing you or in any way sugesting that Shutterstock should not exist. The people I am addressing are those who aspire to be great and successful photographers and look toward a career in the field. More importantly I am addressing some of the photographers on this site who have already produced great and imaginative photography.
Once you have sold an image thru an agency like Shutterstock that image is not now nor will it ever be of any commercial value to a rights protected stock agency. Think. You gave away what may amount to some of your best and most valuable work for 20 cents where as if you had held onto it and waited until you have a full portfolio to present, that same image could be worth thousands to you and your estate in future income. (Images if managed thru a reputable stock agency could possibly produce income for the estate of the photographer for a period of 70 year after the photographer has deceased.)
The amount of money you are talking about making with Shutterstock would not pay my weekly Rolling Rock tab.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 02:50:25 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'd be embarassed to admit that a photograph I created was valued at $0.25 . It's just a damned shame that some people don't even try. |
To those who feel differently than I do, please understand that I respect that opinion and am not trying to change it. But it's those of us who like the idea of royalty-free stock agencies that feel as if we are under attack.
I have a stupid little photo of a road sign showing arrows pointing in opposite directions on istockphoto (link below). That picture, for reasons that are totally beyond me, has been downloaded 17 times in the past six weeks, earning me a whopping $3. Big whoop. But if that continues and it earns me $20 or so a year for the next who knows how many years, why should I be ashamed of that? What if over time I take 1,000 such photos that together earn $20,000 a year or more? Seems like a good deal to me, especially considering the fact that such earnings will continue year in and year out.
I guess in a nutshell, my problem is that those of you who aspire to greater success seem so critical and condescending to those of us who do not, instead of being encouraging. Personally, I'll be proud to sell that silly little photo over and over and over again at .25 a pop.
//www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=358009 |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:06:45 PM · #47 |
man guys, I just started on shutterstock...really out of need not desire, but none the less I don't think stock photography is all that bad. I don't honestly think there are many people there that take pictures just for shutterstock. I personaly did a couple of series just to post on there, but that doesn't mean I can only take pictures like that. I say (as a poor college student) if it puts money in my pocket it's ok. I can still take great photographs and the ones I post on shutterstock in my mind are great, quality photographs. Mabey one day, after school, I can work for a magizine or something but for now I'm just trying to make enough to eat, is that a crime?
(edited for spelling)
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 15:08:15.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:11:12 PM · #48 |
One of the things that bugs me about this ongoing debate is that sometimes pro photogs blame the people who submit to the low ballers for undermining the value of their work but there is rarely a harsh word aimed at the operators of the shutterstocks of the world. To me, they are the ones who have done the most damage. Who's idea was it to set the photogs payout at the rock-bottom level of 20 cents? Why couldn't have the bottom of the market been set at a buck? or 2 bucks? or even 5 bucks? Probably too late to do anything about it now but whoever decided to make .20 the going rate was no friend of photographers.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:20:34 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
The amount of money you are talking about making with Shutterstock would not pay my weekly Rolling Rock tab. |
Quite ... I recognize your points, and appreciate the rationality you bring to the discussion.
I should add that I don't necessarily send my "greatest" work to Shutterstock; I have no desire to sell a $500 picture for 20 cents. I just get a little disturbed when some people suggest that I shouldn't sell a photo with a probable commercial value of zero for 20 cents. Unfortunately, I have no agent or volunteer curator to help me sort the images by value, and sometimes I may make a mistake -- that's how we learn. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 03:57:29 PM · #50 |
Why? Because they can. Your reasoning is backwards. Demand is what drives a market. The royalty-free agencies are simply responding to this demand and, as every other business does, attempting to get their supply of photos as cheaply as possible. The photographers submitting to these agencies are the ones who are price-setting, not the agencies. If they didn't have anyone willing to be paid so little they'd have to raise their prices.
I wouldn't submit to these agencies for the simple reason that it devalues individuals' work and time. If, as I've done in the past, sold a digital file for $300 (for advertising) why would I sell something for $0.20 and devalue any future work I may do? It doesn't make sense. People should respect their investment of time and energy more than they do. Just because it's there doesn't mean you should sell it. Why doesn't everyone sell tapes of themselves having sex, when they're doing it anyway? Huh? The answer lies in the dignity and self-respect people (usually) have for themselves.
Originally posted by coolhar:
One of the things that bugs me about this ongoing debate is that sometimes pro photogs blame the people who submit to the low ballers for undermining the value of their work but there is rarely a harsh word aimed at the operators of the shutterstocks of the world. To me, they are the ones who have done the most damage. Who's idea was it to set the photogs payout at the rock-bottom level of 20 cents? Why couldn't have the bottom of the market been set at a buck? or 2 bucks? or even 5 bucks? Probably too late to do anything about it now but whoever decided to make .20 the going rate was no friend of photographers. |
|
|
Stock - Gross profit $5.60
