Micro Stock VS Macro Stock a civizlied discussion

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/13/2005 03:07:26 AM · #26

Wow, you met Lisa Gange,... that is like meeting Wayne Gretzky :)
I feel that she is an extreme exception, but something to aspire to none the less.

My point with micro stocks outselling macro stock 100:1 was that, I fell for the two to be equal that is about wha has to happen. I have sold one RF image at Alamy and recieved $50.00. If I say a micro stock image is worth 50 cents, I have to sell 100 micro images for one macro image... So far I am doing that.

and for the record Melisa, I think you by far DO have good enough images for Alamy, apply away, You would definatly get in (if that is what you want).

And I don't actually think Alamy's submission rules are so nasty after following them a few times. Set up an action in photoshop to do the upsizing and leave the computer to slave away through the night. If the images are keyworded from before, it is just a mater of burning them on a disk and sending them away. AFter doing this, it seem VERY painful uploading the images one stinking image at a time to places like istock and dreamstime (shutterstock has a very nice uploading system).

danderson107

Canon EOS-30D

10/13/2005 03:18:02 AM · #27

Originally posted by leaf:

Here is a TV commercial with images from istock. here
I had the image of a van in there.

Did i feel 'used' to get paid only 50 cents for that image: Yes
However I HAVE earned $15.00 from that image in the last 6 months... which is closer to a better price.

I sold my soul for $15.00 too.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/13/2005 06:17:53 AM · #28

Originally posted by leaf:

AFter doing this, it seem VERY painful uploading the images one stinking image at a time to places like istock and dreamstime (shutterstock has a very nice uploading system).

To be fair, pretty much all the micro sites have multiple file upload options (why oh why can't Alamy let us all ftp to them? grr). Certainly dreamstime have a multi-upload button and istock has their Image Manager software.

The nice bit about shutterstock is they give you all kinds of ways to upload, including the oh-so-civilised ftp :)

10/13/2005 06:19:09 AM · #29

I quite agree.

10/13/2005 06:45:23 AM · #30

There have been many threads about this topic before and I posted on them previously. Here's a repost of a post I made in one of those threads (edited a bit for clarity and to use the macro/ micro terminology we're using in this thread), in response to a suggestion by someone else that anyone posting images to micro stock sites could do better/ was wasting their efforts etc. etc.

If the goal is to make money then it's clearly not wise to rule out micro sites. I don't know if you followed the Alamy thread but both Melissa King and Jodie Coston posted their earnings from stock split down by the site from which they came and... the dollar/ image earnings per year from micro stock sites seemed to match up VERY well with the long-time industry standard guidelines of how much one could expect to make averaged out by the number of images one had up... and those guidelines refer to macro stock site earnings. I certainly wouldn't dismiss this earning potential as the evidence speaks for itself.

If the goal is to make money from images that would not be accepted (because of insufficient resolution, even after upsizing) by traditional agencies then it's not a case of "could do better" but of recognising the limitations of one's equipment and doing the best one can with what one has. Many of the images we post to micro stocks would simply not be acceptable to macro sites due to resolution and other quality issues. They are acceptable at lower resolutions but would not upsize well.

If the goal is to maximise potential earnings by targeting different markets then selling some images (for higher prices but in less volume) via macro stock agencies AND some images (for lower prices but in higher volumes) via micro stock agencies is simply good business sense.

If the goal is to grow a reputation and a name for oneself as an artist and a unique creative talent then, absolutely, micro stock sites are not the path to take (nor macro stock sites either, for that matter), but I doubt any of those happily selling images at Shutterstock, Dreamtime, Istock are, with those images anyway, trying to create fine art.

Knowing the time I have invested in my very favourite images I too was very wary of the "sell 'em cheap and often" concept. However, when I started thinking about it in more detail I realised that it doesn't have to be an either-or situation.

My plan is:-

-to retain control of my "hero images" (to borrow a phrase from Bruce Fraser) in the hope that I can develop a market for mounted, signed prints sold directly or via galleries.

-to reserve the best of the rest for macro stock agencies (RM licences). These will be images I consider to be suitable for upsizing to Alamy/ other macro sites quality guidelines.

-to submit those images that are acceptable (not just any old dross) but not as good as the previous list to the sell-'em-cheap agencies. These will include images shot quickly and en-masse specifically for the micro stock agencies as well as older images taken on cameras such as the Dimage 7i, that are simply not suitable for upsizing to Alamy minimum sizes.

I'll be grateful for any pennies the micro stock images earn since, even if those pennies prove to be few and far between, they'll still bring me closer to a new lens/ accessory/ trip to somewhere cool.

Another point I want to counter is the idea that surely customers will first look for what they want on a micro stock site before trying the expensive macro stock sites.

Actually, no. Many professionals won't do this for a number of reasons. Much of the content of micro stock sites is dross. Time is money and they don't want to waste tonnes of it wading through several thousand images that are displayed in response to their keyword search, especially when a huge proportion of them would not be of suitable quality for many uses such as large size, high quality printing. Far better to go to a macro site known for it's QA process and wade through a set of images, more of which will be decent stuff, knowing that when you find the right image, it will very likely be of sufficient resolution and quality for the intended use. It may cost more but for many organisations the few hundred more they are paying is more than offset in the speed/ ease of the transaction.

10/13/2005 06:58:38 AM · #31

Hi, I guess I am very happy shooting stock for Istock and the other stock sites, plus I love the forums on the sites....I make About $600.00 US a month right now and every month gets better. I guess I could submit to alamy but right now I like where I am....with these sites there is no pressure to shoot, you just do what ever you want to!

Melissa

10/13/2005 07:02:47 AM · #32

Melissa
Given the camera you have and your skills, you are definitely capable of producing images that would be accepted by Alamy, without question, and Alamy do not impose any volume requirements (as some other macro stock sites do).
So if you happen to do some shoots, you could certainly split the images you produce between macro and micro and begin to get a handle on what works best for macro sites and whether they are indeed for you.
However, I would like to stress that I do not think you are devalueing your skills by earning $600 a month from them, however you choose to do it, especially given that this is not a full time career for you.
Do what feels right for YOU, not for anyone else!
Go Melissa!

10/13/2005 07:16:01 AM · #33

Originally posted by Kavey:

Thank you very much....I am very happy that people on here think I can get into Alamy...Makes me feel very good! No this is not my full time thing....I do it just for fun really....I am a full time stay at home mom with one on the way so my time will be getting cut short for a while...hehe and I will still be making money even if I don't turn on the computer for a month....Which would never happen.. but I don't have to do anything and I still get paid! Which is good for me right now!

Thanks everyone for supporting me!
Melissa

10/13/2005 07:39:34 AM · #34

I think you said it well there Kavey.

10/13/2005 08:03:09 AM · #35

Originally posted by melking23:

I make About $600.00 US a month right now and every month gets better.
Melissa

That is good, especially since you are in canada, and the income is american. almost equals a poorly paid full time job.... perhaps soon it will up to a not bad full time job.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

10/13/2005 08:38:34 AM · #36

Originally posted by leaf:

Originally posted by melking23:
I make About $600.00 US a month right now and every month gets better.
Melissa

That is good, especially since you are in canada, and the income is american. almost equals a poorly paid full time job.... perhaps soon it will up to a not bad full time job.

I hope so
More Camera Equipment

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

10/13/2005 08:46:57 AM · #37

Micro is a new wave and it will stay and keep growing. I stated uploading to the micros just to hone my skills to eventually make it the the "big boys". Then I realised that I was making roughly $250/month with an average of 300 photos per site. And I heard it took almost 1000 images on Alamy to start selling 1-3 images a month at roughly $200/image for RF.

One way or another, I think the effort put in on macro or micro should have the same financial rewards. I'm currently upsizing my micro images and sending them to macro sites that don't ask for exclusivity. So if someone wants to buy my image for $0.20 or $200.00 they'll have that option. :-)

aKiwi

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

10/13/2005 10:48:28 AM · #38

May I ask which macro sites those are. I would also be interested in that arrangement.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/13/2005 12:53:41 PM · #39

Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:

So you place the same image on both a macro and a microstock site? Bad business IMO. Seem like a great way to ruin your name.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

10/13/2005 02:34:55 PM · #40

Originally posted by aKiwi:

May I ask which macro sites those are. I would also be interested in that arrangement.

who are you asking?

aKiwi

Canon EOS-7D

10/13/2005 02:41:16 PM · #41

Originally posted by melking23:

Originally posted by aKiwi:
May I ask which macro sites those are. I would also be interested in that arrangement.

who are you asking?

Kosmikkreeper, as he said

Originally posted by Kosmikkreeper:

I'm currently upsizing my micro images and sending them to macro sites that don't ask for exclusivity. So if someone wants to buy my image for $0.20 or $200.00 they'll have that option. :-)

oOWonderBreadOo

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

10/13/2005 03:47:47 PM · #42

Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

10/13/2005 03:50:33 PM · #43

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

How much do they allow you to upsample? Don't you have to submit something like 100 images to start?

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/13/2005 03:56:06 PM · #44

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

That be technically true, BUT offering the same image for a dollar on one site and on another for $200 is stupid. Offerring RF images on different sites that are close to the same price is one thing (and very smart to get more exposure), but I'm sure alamy wouldn't be too pleased if they found out. What happens when the art buyer finds out? Do you think they will even check alamy anymore? IT"S BAD BUSINESS!!

10/14/2005 05:02:40 AM · #45

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

How much do they allow you to upsample? Don't you have to submit something like 100 images to start?

Alamy have no minimum volume requirement.
They do not stipulate exactly how much you may upsize but expect you to apply your own common sense to it - don't upsize so much that you lose quality. This is one of the things they look for in QA, I believe. Rather than worrying about what size the original image was and how much it's been upsized they judge the submitted image on sharpness, clarity etc. Some images don't upsize well even by 50%, others can be upsized well over 100% and still pass.

10/14/2005 05:05:17 AM · #46

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

That be technically true, BUT offering the same image for a dollar on one site and on another for $200 is stupid. Offerring RF images on different sites that are close to the same price is one thing (and very smart to get more exposure), but I'm sure alamy wouldn't be too pleased if they found out. What happens when the art buyer finds out? Do you think they will even check alamy anymore? IT"S BAD BUSINESS!!

I agree.

Whilst the sites may allow it, the thought of a customer paying hundreds for an image only to find it later for $1 somewhere else just strikes me as a sure fire way of alienating that customer for good and it's a well known fact that a pissed off customer tells 10 times as many people as a happy one.

nico_blue

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/14/2005 04:28:25 PM · #47

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

That be technically true, BUT offering the same image for a dollar on one site and on another for $200 is stupid. Offerring RF images on different sites that are close to the same price is one thing (and very smart to get more exposure), but I'm sure alamy wouldn't be too pleased if they found out. What happens when the art buyer finds out? Do you think they will even check alamy anymore? IT"S BAD BUSINESS!!

I agree.

Whilst the sites may allow it, the thought of a customer paying hundreds for an image only to find it later for $1 somewhere else just strikes me as a sure fire way of alienating that customer for good and it's a well known fact that a pissed off customer tells 10 times as many people as a happy one.

I think the people who shop at alamy compared to microstock are a completely different class of people. Plus dont forget that images from alamy are 48MB tiffs while microstock are usually around 4-5mp jpegs. Yes someone could buy microstock and upsize them themselves, etc, etc, or they could use their 1 million dollar budget to pay for a $400 ready to print shot from alamy.

My opinion is that its a different market.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

10/14/2005 04:39:20 PM · #48

Originally posted by Kavey:

And this presents a dilemma, because the images most likely to withstand upsizing and pass muster at Alamy are already at Shutterstock -- although I could certainly pull them if accepted at Alamy.

Remember that under Shutterstock's system, if they JUST wanted to go get your one photo, it would cost them $139.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/14/2005 04:54:14 PM · #49

Originally posted by nico_blue:

Originally posted by Kavey:

Originally posted by MeThoS:

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
Alamy does not require any exclusivity wether it be micro or macro sites

That be technically true, BUT offering the same image for a dollar on one site and on another for $200 is stupid. Offerring RF images on different sites that are close to the same price is one thing (and very smart to get more exposure), but I'm sure alamy wouldn't be too pleased if they found out. What happens when the art buyer finds out? Do you think they will even check alamy anymore? IT"S BAD BUSINESS!!

I agree.

Whilst the sites may allow it, the thought of a customer paying hundreds for an image only to find it later for $1 somewhere else just strikes me as a sure fire way of alienating that customer for good and it's a well known fact that a pissed off customer tells 10 times as many people as a happy one.

I think the people who shop at alamy compared to microstock are a completely different class of people. Plus dont forget that images from alamy are 48MB tiffs while microstock are usually around 4-5mp jpegs. Yes someone could buy microstock and upsize them themselves, etc, etc, or they could use their 1 million dollar budget to pay for a $400 ready to print shot from alamy.

My opinion is that its a different market.

Just because it may be a different market doesn't make it exceptable. Both sites are easily viewed by anyone in the world. It's just poor customer relations.