Finally got into istockphoto - DPChallenge Forums

06/18/2004 10:21:39 AM · #26

Originally posted by louddog:

Well, I take pictures for fun not profit so there is no comparison between photography and what I do for a living. I also hike, backpack, climb mountains and kayak for fun. I could chose to become a guide, but insurance, equipment, hassles of running a business and having to deal with customers isn't worth the money I'd make and it probably wouldn't be as fun anymore. Just as buying a fancy camera and taking, processing, and uploading 30 pictures just for the chance that I may make some money isn't worth the the bother for me.

Istock and dreamstime are simple, quick and easy. If I make some money, WOOHOO! If I don't no big loss. If it turned out I was a great photographer and I started moving pictures on Istock, I'd consider shutting it down (which I can do at any time) and moving my images to a more profitable location.

Now, if it's relevant... I happen to have a job that I enjoy very much and get paid very well to do. If I didn't enjoy my job, yes I would accept less money to do something more enjoyable.

PS in the last few hours I doubled the money I have made as a photographer!!! Maybe I am pretty good!

PSS Istock has Istock pro which only allows higher quality and better images where you could make some good cash.

It was a pretty simple question, what is your profession? Mine is art & photography, what is yours?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/18/2004 10:33:25 AM · #27

Originally posted by MeThoS:

It was a pretty simple question, what is your profession? Mine is art & photography, what is yours?

Could you assume that he's a plumber and then make your point or does it actually make a difference what his profession is if he's not a photographer?

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/18/2004 10:46:01 AM · #28

Granted I don't currently submit to IStockPhoto (although I've considered it), but if it's any use as an example, I'm a software developer.

06/18/2004 11:18:58 AM · #29

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
It was a pretty simple question, what is your profession? Mine is art & photography, what is yours?

Could you assume that he's a plumber and then make your point or does it actually make a difference what his profession is if he's not a photographer?

It might it home more if I can relate it to something that is personal to him. What do you do since louddog is being uncooperative.

06/18/2004 11:25:19 AM · #30

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Granted I don't currently submit to IStockPhoto (although I've considered it), but if it's any use as an example, I'm a software developer.

As a software developer, what are your feelings on the outsourcing of software development to India for half of what you make? Given the fact that the quality they turn out is less than yours, but the price difference makes up for the difference in the level of quality. And keep in mind that if the trend continues, your (and all your coworkers) income will be directly effected to the negative side or out of work completely.

06/18/2004 11:26:09 AM · #31

Originally posted by MeThoS:

It might it home more if I can relate it to something that is personal to him. What do you do since louddog is being uncooperative.

I'm a computer network administrator.

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

06/18/2004 11:31:47 AM · #32

Originally posted by MeThoS:

[quote=PaulMdx]
As a software developer, what are your feelings on the outsourcing of software development to India for half of what you make? Given the fact that the quality they turn out is less than yours, but the price difference makes up for the difference in the level of quality. And keep in mind that if the trend continues, your (and all your coworkers) income will be directly effected to the negative side or out of work completely.

We could argue about 'quality' all day long in a separate thread. If you are against the concept of inexpensive royalty free stock photography, there isn't much point in arguing because you have your goals.

Would you ask those software developers in India to stop what they are doing or raise their prices so your rates are competitive with theirs?

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

06/18/2004 11:43:26 AM · #33

There has been a lot of talk about stock photos here for the last few weeks and a few links, f. inst. istockphoto, dreamstime, can stock photos and now masterfile. I havent submittend anything into these pages jet but have been considering it.

What I was wondering was if you submitt to one of this page are you alowed to submitt the same image to another or do they gain some rights of the image you submitt so that you are not alowed to use it in another purpose. Can anyone answere that?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

06/18/2004 11:54:05 AM · #34

istock, dreamstime and canstock are all non-exclusive therefore you can submit the same image to all three and elsewhere if you like.

From what I read on the masterfile site, it is exclusive, therefore if you submit there you can't submit anywhere else.

The copyright, in all cases, I believe remains with the photographer.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

06/18/2004 11:56:24 AM · #35

Thanks cpanaioti. Think you are right.

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

06/18/2004 12:01:14 PM · #36

Any rights managed site is going to require exclusivity. People buy from those sites because they don't want images that have been used before in a lot of cases. They want something unique and they do pay a higher premium for it.

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

06/18/2004 12:12:41 PM · #37

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

And Masterfile is rights managed but the other ones are not?

Find it pretty hard to get the infomation that I would like to have on at least some of these pages. F. inst. is any side ratio alowed (know what I mean)?, do you submit one large high resulution image or do you submit three sizes of the same image?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/18/2004 12:12:44 PM · #38

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
[quote=PaulMdx]
As a software developer, what are your feelings on the outsourcing of software development to India for half of what you make? Given the fact that the quality they turn out is less than yours, but the price difference makes up for the difference in the level of quality. And keep in mind that if the trend continues, your (and all your coworkers) income will be directly effected to the negative side or out of work completely.

We could argue about 'quality' all day long in a separate thread. If you are against the concept of inexpensive royalty free stock photography, there isn't much point in arguing because you have your goals.

Would you ask those software developers in India to stop what they are doing or raise their prices so your rates are competitive with theirs?

It's all about education. And with time, they will raise their rates when they learn that market will withstand it. What cracks me up is the resistance that you guys are showing to charging more when it's in your immediate best interest. I guess you can lead a horse to water... :D

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/18/2004 12:29:26 PM · #39

I keep my profession to myself for my own reasons. If you're trying to make a point on how I handle a hobby, make your point with comparison to one of my other hobbies. There is no comparison between what I do to pay bills and what I do for fun.

For the sake of argument, letâ��s say Iâ��m a professional stock photographer and Iâ��m really good at it, top of the line. If John sells stock pictures that do the job just as good as mine for $1 why should anyone pay $80 for mine? Johnâ��s well lit picture of a fork works on their web site or advertising just as well as mine for a fraction of the cost. Would it be smart to go convince John that he should charge more for his pictures so I can keep my inflated prices? Probably not. I should realize that making a career out of something most people do as a hobby or side job makes it very difficult to prosper. I would try to show customers how much better I am then John and make it obvious why they should pay more for my pictures. If I canâ��t do that, I should become a software developer in India.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/18/2004 12:37:33 PM · #40

Originally posted by MeThoS:

I think I asked before but I'll ask again... How much are you making on rights managed photography annually?

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/18/2004 12:38:57 PM · #41

It's called a free market society. Maybe you should look into it before you get burned by it. Just as I can chose to hire the lowest bidder when I want work done on my house or car, companies can chose the lowest bidder when they want something done. If you are not the lowest bidder I suggest you do something quick.
Convincing others to bid more so they lose their job and you can keep yours isn't going to work.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/18/2004 12:39:53 PM · #42

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

It's all about education. And with time, they will raise their rates when they learn that market will withstand it. What cracks me up is the resistance that you guys are showing to charging more when it's in your immediate best interest. I guess you can lead a horse to water... :D

I think I asked before but I'll ask again... How much are you making on rights managed photography annually?

I think he's being uncooperative.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/18/2004 12:53:11 PM · #43

There is still a market for custom stock photography that everyone can try to cash in on. There are LOTS of companies who will pay high premiums for SPECIFIC photos that simply aren't available online at royalty free or rights managed sites.

When someone is looking for a simple photo to add to a website, newspaper, or magazine ad, it's not always profitible for them to pay $500-$5000 per image. When some larger company wants a photo for a billboard that shows a specific type of person using a specific product in a specific way, they will pay the price for the images. This is where your $1200 per day comes into play.

If I was building a website for Joe Blow Burger Shack down the street, I wonder if I could charge them $1200 per day to make them some photos for their website. I wonder if they would pay $2000 for a great photo of a cheeseburger... $500? Hmmm.. maybe, maybe not. They need about 30 photos for the specific website they have in mind. I think that $15000 - $30000 for images to go on their website/promotional materials when their annual profit is less than $500k seems a bit high to me.

Here's my thought on the entire picture...

Economics will not change. Supply and demand will determine what people will pay for stock photography, not the photographers. Currently, the supply is heavy. I don't know what the demand is. I can imagine that the supply will increase at a much higher rate than the demand since every soccer mom with a digital camera can now compete in this market. Whether or not they can make a living at it is a different story. Its easy extra money. We all could put our efforts into rights mangaged stock instead. We would sell lower quantities at higher prices. Would we make more? Less? It's hard to say.

I don't think 'quality' can be compared between royalty free stock and rights managed stock. There are going to be high quality images in both arenas. What I do notice when I browse various sites is that the royalty free sites do contain a lot of 'garbage' in my eyes. The rights managed sites are full of more visually appealing images. Go do a search for 'cherry' on any given site and see if you don't find at least a handful of high quality images. On the royalty free sites, you will find these high quality images along with a lot of crud. :)

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

06/18/2004 01:01:54 PM · #44

For those on istockphoto, why not try their pro version istockpro.com

Images go for more (unlimited I think) and you will only need one sale to equate to a thousand sales on istockphoto.

I currently have 94 images on there, although I got excited and uploaded all my crap.

The application proces can be very long, but worth it even if you only make a few hundred bucks.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

06/18/2004 01:33:22 PM · #45

Originally posted by MeThoS:

As a software developer, what are your feelings on the outsourcing of software development to India for half of what you make?

My life would certainly be easier if cheaper competition didn't exist, but I'm used to the fact that the IT industry (post .dot bust) is very competitive. I didn't find it very easy getting the job I'm in, and the fact I did is because I make a particular effort to have the edge over competing developers.

I don't like cheaper competition, but I respect it. If I could make a living by charging less than them, I'd do it.

Originally posted by MeThoS:

And keep in mind that if the trend continues, your (and all your coworkers) income will be directly effected to the negative side or out of work completely.

That's not necessarily true. Developing economies are growing rapidly - and also need IT services/etc. As an example, the company I work for has just bought an operation in a developing economy. Sure, they'll save money on a few developers here, but the company gains access to a huge market. So potentially, it makes the company stronger and they're more likely to hire new developers here as well as abroad.

Why do I think they will continue to hire developers in the UK? Because, as you mention, the quality in a lot of cases is higher.

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Would you ask those software developers in India to stop what they are doing or raise their prices so your rates are competitive with theirs?

I accept they offer the edge price-wise, and will make sure that I continue to develop my skillset so I have the edge skill-wise.

If you want a real example of how competitive the industry is - people GIVE AWAY high quality software all the time in the form of GNU licensing.

06/18/2004 03:40:09 PM · #46

This thread is out of hand and misunderstood. I was trying to give insight into an industry I'm part of. No harm, no foul. :D

06/18/2004 03:54:07 PM · #47

Originally posted by MeThoS:

This thread is out of hand and misunderstood. I was trying to give insight into an industry I'm part of. No harm, no foul. :D

Are you going to share some information about the amount of money you make on rights managed stock? If you come in and tell us that we are underselling ourselves, it would be lovely to know by how much.

06/18/2004 04:00:32 PM · #48

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by MeThoS:
This thread is out of hand and misunderstood. I was trying to give insight into an industry I'm part of. No harm, no foul. :D

Are you going to share some information about the amount of money you make on rights managed stock? If you come in and tell us that we are underselling ourselves, it would be lovely to know by how much.

I'm not going to disclose my earnings, but I'll give some actual cases.

1. While working as an art director developing a package design we were in the need for top class landscape photos that hadn't been used before. Like every other Art director / media buyer I called a few stock houses. For a 5 year unlimited usage internationl license, that could be used for everything except advertising and billboards, the price was roughly $100K an image.

2. An aquaintence of mine sold the usage rights for a photo to be used on a high traffice website for MSN, the price I believe was $50K

I'm trying to help you guys and keep the stock industry prosperous. I would think you would appreciate it. :P