iStock in action...? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

02/13/2005 11:06:17 AM · #1

here's the photo...

//www.1073kool.fm/

and here's a quote from the person who discovered it...

"Kool FM just opened up here and I think Lise is the "promotional" look for their marketing ads.

She is on sides of the buses, in the studio as a banner and television commercials on the new VI here in Victoria. And also their website too."

--

Does anyone else see anything wrong with getting $.20 or $.30 cents for your image -- then to have it plastered on sides of buses, in studios and on TV commercials?

--

I realize that it's all about how many people download your photos and that quantity pays off *and* that lise gagne makes decent money on istock, but really...is that fair that that company paid $.50 for that picture and that the photog only got $.20 cents or there abouts?

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

02/13/2005 11:15:17 AM · #2

I have a problem with such cheap prices. I don't want to offer my photos at that price. This is why I haven't registered for one of these sites yet. I would much rather sell a print for $25 and up and know there are not millions of copies of one of my photos out there.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 11:15:39.

Pedro

Nikon D200

02/13/2005 11:15:56 AM · #3

it's not like the rules of the stock photography business were a secret when the image was uploaded. if you offer something for sale for 50 cents, you can't be upset when someone buys it.

awpollard

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/13/2005 02:08:23 PM · #4

Isn't thats what it's all about?

Last count:
10,211 pictures on my Hard disk, 18 CD's full of pictures. No one will ever see them...so why do I do this? Heck if I know, my job has nothing to do with photography.

Reallity:
Challenge Photos and Out-takes only good for 1 week.
My walls are not lined with 100s of my own photos.
$20-30 bucks doesn't seem like all that much to hold out for, aren't we really shooting for gallery shots that net hundreds of dollars per?

One can remain anonymous on stock sites, so can't not use the I feel like I'm selling out excuse. One can still hold out on portfolio prints hoping to one day score big.

If I had seen one of my pictures on the web or going by on a bus, It would tickle the cockles of my heart...I would tell everyone I know hey look that is mine...out of hundreds of thousands of prints they used mine...

I think the real problem is that the professional stock photographers see the Week-end Warriors as a threat to their lively hood. Awesome pictures are popping up on these new style stock sites and many times better and with less effort and over head in the making of those shots. Young, Fresh eyes with a different way of seeing things are uploading to these new sites. Start-ups and Thrifty Companies are going to use these sites whether or not any of our stuff is up there.

You can't win the lottery, if you haven't bought a ticket.

Just my thoughts...

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/13/2005 02:16:14 PM · #5

Agree with the sentiments aw, all except the part about "tickling your cockles"... :> I don't think this dispute will ever die.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Nikon

02/13/2005 02:43:13 PM · #6

Originally posted by awpollard:

Start-ups and Thrifty Companies are going to use these sites whether or not any of our stuff is up there.

You can't win the lottery, if you haven't bought a ticket.

A man who used to live down the street from where I did pulled up to the dock one morning with 5 dead wild hogs in his boat. He had just come back from the delta and told me he saw them crossing a stretch of shallow water so he shot them. I asked him why he didn't shoot just 1 and what he was going to do with 5 hogs. I mean you can't eat 5 hogs at once. His reply to me was "If I didn't shoot them somebody else would have."

If the majority of people who went into the wild with a bow or a rifle felt that way we wouldn't have anything left to hunt in just a few short years.

By the same token if the majority of photographers just started giving away their work it would be imposible for any of us to make a living from the profession in a just few short years.

Every photographer who participates in lowering the the value of the market hurts not only the value of their own future creations but but devalues the market as a whole for the present and the future, thus hurting every one of us.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

02/13/2005 02:58:08 PM · #7

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by awpollard:
Start-ups and Thrifty Companies are going to use these sites whether or not any of our stuff is up there.

You can't win the lottery, if you haven't bought a ticket.

A man who used to live down the street from where I did pulled up to the dock one morning with 5 dead wild hogs in his boat. He had just come back from the delta and told me he saw them crossing a stretch of shallow water so he shot them. I asked him why he didn't shoot just 1 and what he was going to do with 5 hogs. I mean you can't eat 5 hogs at once. His reply to me was "If I didn't shoot them somebody else would have."

If the majority of people who went into the wild with a bow or a rifle felt that way we wouldn't have anything left to hunt in just a few short years.

By the same token if the majority of photographers just started giving away their work it would be imposible for any of us to make a living from the profession in a just few short years.

Every photographer who participates in lowering the the value of the market hurts not only the value of their own future creations but but devalues the market as a whole for the present and the future, thus hurting every one of us.

AMEN!!

An image used for such an ad campaign would of cost in the 10's of thousands. So was that photographer smart for letting his image go for $.50?

The istock user who is serious about a future in photography is only shooting themselves in the foot, along with the rest of us. Do you think the istock (or similar agency) has the photographer's best interest in mind? Why do you think they target photo sites like this to recruit? There are many talented photographers here who know little about the business, and just giggle at the chance to see their work used. Who can blame them, it feels good.

A suggestion, if you don't care about the money, hook up with non-profit organizations and DONATE your work. You'll get it in print while you hone your craft so one day you can earn what you should.

Node

Nikon D300

02/13/2005 03:25:48 PM · #8

Its an interesting argument that will never be resolved to either sides satisfaction.

I believe at least part the answer is in the resolution of the image. Istock, Shutterstock and Dreamland all have a minimum resolution requirement. For anyone who can shoot above this I feel they should try to reduce the resolution of their photo to just above this standard.

The photo will still sell for most things like newsletters, web pages and advertising pamphlets etc but will not meet the requirements for magazines and posters advertising etc. The client gets what they pay for.

I look at it this way.
Lets just say your a little thirsty, you pay at the counter for a 750ml can of coke and they give you a 2 litre bottle of coke are you going to complain? I don't think so.

Now your very thirsty, I would return to that same shop and only have to pay for 1 can of coke and receive a 2ltr bottle where at another shop I would have had to pay for the full 2 litres to satisfy my thirst.

I hope this make sense.
Edit: Changed Revolution to Resolution ;)

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 15:28:45.

frumoaznicul

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

02/13/2005 03:31:16 PM · #9

I think it's ok to sell for .30$ a photo but not any kind of photo. I think the photo's I sell on sites like that are photos that are good but are not so good to sell on sites where they pay more. Last week I uploaded alot on istock and 90% got rejected for all sorts of stupid reasons, and among them a shot that is my best hit so far wich sells verry good on shutterstock and others that pay similar. On most of them people who buy it left verry good feedback. So it looks like istock is looking for the best quality photos to sell for 20 cents and that is really wrong. I don't think I'm going to put there anything anymore if I ever get something that is verry good I reather try selling it on sites that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/13/2005 03:41:21 PM · #10

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

I don't think I'm going to put there anything anymore if I ever get something that is verry good I reather try selling it on sites that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents.

Where are these sites?

02/13/2005 03:49:17 PM · #11

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:

sites that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents.

Why not hold out til you are good enough for sites that pay $200 or $2000?

A writer who publishes everything he writes from the first to the last may mature and even write some great novels, poetry and short stories. But in the end his works and creations will be evaluated as a whole and not based solely on his best works.

The general attitude will be: â��Yeh, some of his stuff was good, but most was just average.â�� And thus he is cast with the millions who came before him into the vast space of mediocrity

Why be in such a hurry to publish?

02/13/2005 03:50:41 PM · #12

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
I don't think I'm going to put there anything anymore if I ever get something that is verry good I reather try selling it on sites that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents.

Where are these sites?

Do a web search and type in "stock photography".

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/13/2005 03:54:40 PM · #13

Originally posted by MeThoS:

A suggestion, if you don't care about the money, hook up with non-profit organizations and DONATE your work. You'll get it in print while you hone your craft so one day you can earn what you should.

There are a lot of warm cockles down that road. I've had several magazine publications via this route and good karma to boot.

StevePax

Canon PowerShot S50

02/13/2005 03:59:24 PM · #14

I think you folks who think your stock photography is worth 20, 200, or 2000 dollars are soon going to have to realize that the times have changed. The photographs are only worth 50 cents or a dollar these days, as that is what the market is bearing. You aren't shooting yourself in the foot selling it for that price - you're trying to set up a price-fixing scheme if you try to get others to hold out for a higher price. Stock photography isn't worth the money it used to be.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/13/2005 04:17:10 PM · #15

Originally posted by StevePax:

I have done great and exaustive research into what the market is bearing and believe me when I tell you that only a very small percentage of the sucsesful stock agencies out there offer their photographers under $20 an image even for royalty free. No photographer with any talent or potential should sell there images to the few exploitive fringe stock agencies that have popped up in the last 2 or 3 years.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/13/2005 04:43:46 PM · #16

It seems to me that some of you are saying that the images being sold to the RF agencies are worth a lot more than the prices being paid. Speaking in general terms, I disagree. Accomplished amature photographers are a dime a dozen, and it is they (we) that are the source for the RF agencies. There is an almost unlimited supply of such photos, and the prices being paid reflect that fact.

Professional photographers who produce excellence will continue to be paid well for their work. It is the quality in their work that makes it valuable. The large majority of RF photos are nowhere near that level of excellence. Those photographers are no threat to the real pros.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

02/13/2005 04:43:52 PM · #17

I think it is insane that a company can get material that can be used for promotion in this way for almost nothing.

Edit:
Either the photographer is not getting paid enough or the terms of the stock agency are crap. They should be more like: 50cents for single use small size on a website and 500-2000 bucks for full promotional campaigns.

Message edited by author 2005-02-13 16:45:40.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/13/2005 04:50:27 PM · #18

I'm not going to get rich off my photography and I don't plan on making a career out of it. I have a good job and I take pictures just for fun. If I want to waste my time and under sell myself on stock sites, who cares? I don't.

The market is changing. Adapt or find a new career. I'm sick of people telling me what I should or shouldn't do just so they can stay profitable. If you want to make money at a hobby, you need to be exceptional. If me being on Istock is a threat to you, you are not exceptional.

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

02/13/2005 05:57:15 PM · #19

well...I'll clarify a bit. I'm not talking about your average, throw-away photo you have sitting on your hard drive collecting dust. Shoot -- I'll take $.20 for 99% of my photos no problem if someone was willing to pay that.

What I'm talking about is $.20 cents for a photo that is going to be a company's #1 image...plastered on buses, magazines, flyers, and tv commercials. Let's face it, the defense of "oh blah blah it's just lying on my computer collecting dust" is out when you're talking about a picture so valuable that it can become a company's #1 image. So sell it for $100 -- I don't care, but getting $.20 just seems disqusting to me.

aznym

Fujifilm X-T3

02/13/2005 06:05:35 PM · #20

If what you are getting is 20c per download, upload images that you consider are worth 20c. Everyone is happy.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2005 06:18:21 PM · #21

Originally posted by xion:

If what you are getting is 20c per download, upload images that you consider are worth 20c. Everyone is happy.

there's my point...thanks. If you're photo is worth $.20 then sell it for $.20. I know just about all of mine are worth about that except for a few.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/13/2005 06:21:16 PM · #22

Originally posted by deapee:

Those $0.20 cent images are not allowed to be used in any old way -- there are restrictions. For example, you can't print a Shutterstock image on Tshirts or shopping bags or other mass-produced items. Shutterstock Licensing Terms.

I usually DO send them images I don't think anyone will pay over $0.20 for ... I haven't had much argument over my choices either. If I have an image I think I can get $100 for then that's what I'll ask for it. But if it's going to become the basis for a corporate identity then $10,000 would be more reasonable, especially since it would have to be an outright sale. With Shutterstock I have free rein to sell prints, cards, Tshirts, or whatever, myself, as well as to license them separately.

I think if anyone wanted to send me $100 for any of these pictures I'd pull it from Shutterstock immediately.

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

02/13/2005 06:52:46 PM · #23

I'm not selling out for 20 cents

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/13/2005 07:53:39 PM · #24

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Every photographer who participates in lowering the the value of the market hurts not only the value of their own future creations but but devalues the market as a whole for the present and the future, thus hurting every one of us.

i can agree with most of your points, but here, i beg to differ.

photography is no different than anything else in that some people are GREAT at it and most aren't. if you've spent any time supporting a minor league baseball team, then go to a major league game and really watch the game, you can tell the difference. if you like live music, then get to see someone like springsteen or neil young live, you can tell the difference.

granted, digital and ps have gone a long way to break down barriers to entry, but just because someone has the ability to pack a harddrive with images doesn't mean that they are producing anything of value.

i'd even go as far to argue that all of these little rf sites are good for the industry as a whole, in that they will force the ones at the top to stay on the top of their game, and they will also make it that much easier to differentiate between the best. i think that in the long run, the professional photographers that really stay on top of their craft and keep their vision fresh will never have anything to worry about.

just my 20 cents