Anyone interested in Stock.. READ THIS!!!

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/05/2006 01:45:36 AM · #26

What the micro stocks don't offer is exclusive rights.

If company A buys a photo from weeniestock for a quarter and runs an ad with that photo in half the papers in the US, nothing prevents company B from buying the same photo and using it in their ad campaign.

I know it's happened at least once to a couple of major direct competitors. I'd hate to be the AD at one of the ad agencies responsible for either one of those ads.

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

09/05/2006 01:49:24 AM · #27

The OP left this thread right after he copy/pasted it. Why do we continue to argue a topic that has been argued a zillion times?
Several of the previous similar threads are linked below... why not just have a read through them?

My two cents.

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

09/05/2006 01:51:20 AM · #28

Originally posted by Megatherian:

With the death of film and the rise of technology everyone can have a great camera and take great pictures for cheap.

Is that why you're a ribbon winning powerhouse? It's so easy, I'm sure you could just crack off a few ribbon winners 15 or 20 minutes before the deadline and own the front page of DPC for a week, every week.

If it's so easy, why are there so many crappy pics on Pbase? Yeah. there are a great number of really good ones, but they are outnumbered 100 to 1 (at least) by absolute crap.

JonPM

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/05/2006 01:58:48 AM · #29

People need to keep micro and macro in two seperate containers. I don't believe either of them greatly affects the other. Of course there is slight competition between one another, but in the long run both will continue to operate without being affected by the other. There will always be a need for "cheap" images, and a need for expensive ones.
For instance, McDonald's sells $1 cheeseburgers. Other fast food chains are affected because "OMG, McDonald's is selling burgers ridiculously cheap, those bastards!". However, who isn't affected by this? The big restaurants like Outback Steakhouse, Black Angus Steakhouse, Red Lobster, etc etc etc. Are they worried about McDonald's $1 burgers? Of course not. Macro sites shouldn't worry either, and instead should concentrate on quality control so that they have what micro sites don't.

DjFenzl

09/05/2006 01:59:06 AM · #30

sorry hbunch, I was trying to be funny and take it lighthearted, but I understand my sarcasm doesn't always come across so well.

...now where's that rock I've been under...

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 02:04:45.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

09/05/2006 02:00:46 AM · #31

knock it off. no personal attacks, you guys know better.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/05/2006 02:07:21 AM · #32

whatever.....

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 02:08:32.

fotomann_forever

09/05/2006 02:07:54 AM · #33

I think I'll follow Cindi out the door... nice convo guys but tis getting late.

Hey, Cindi wait up :-)

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

09/05/2006 02:08:10 AM · #34

Ugh

:) Leroy.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 02:08:52.

fstopopen

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/05/2006 02:11:37 AM · #35

I am glad we can have a good discussion about this. You have actually changed my mind a bit. Thanks for reasoning it out with me and not getting offended. I suppose there IS a place for cheap images.

drake

fotomann_forever

09/05/2006 02:21:26 AM · #36

Originally posted by fstopopen:

Yes, I don't mind reasonable discussions at all... :-)

FWIW, I've signed up for Alamy, but haven't done anything with them yet. So, I'm not strongly for or against either... they do both have their place now.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 02:21:45.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/05/2006 05:38:44 AM · #37

Originally posted by idnic:

Otherwise the discussion stagnates, people stop thinking, and society is worse for it. This is the reason:

Originally posted by fstopopen:

I am glad we can have a good discussion about this. You have actually changed my mind a bit. Thanks for reasoning it out with me and not getting offended. I suppose there IS a place for cheap images.

Kaveran

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/05/2006 09:31:44 AM · #38

As mentioned above I havent gotten involved with stock at all (yet) but hope to someday. Which route I go is still very much undecided and I think a lot of good points have been brought up but no answers have really been solidified.

We certainly cant argue that technology has allowed the amature (like myself)to afford a decent dSLR but I dont beleive a good camera alone makes a good pic....hehe, im living proof of that :).

However on that same note, the lower cost of good equipment means that you have more people getting involved which means more pictures in general and ill go out on a limb and even state that the percentage of good to great shots will increase as more people can become exposed. What does this mean for the market?

On the micro/macro, steakhouse/McDonnalds comparison, I, like most people eat at both, depends on if im in a hurry or looking for a good meal :)

Can the same actually be said for micro VS macro? Manty have noted that the overall quality on micro sites is inferior but will it actually remain that way? If so, for how long? As dSLR's get better, cheaper and more and more people get involved, where will it stop?

Im leaning toward the fact that a good camera does not an excellent image make. I have talked to people who think that cameras are so advanced that "anyone" can take great pics. While anyone can take great pics, just like anything, I try and tell these people there is a lot more to it. A couple minutes of explaining DOF, range of light a sensor can capture when compared to the human eye etc usually changes their outlook considerably.

And therin lies half the problem, with advances in equipment there is a common misconception that photography doesnt take skill or at least a lot of practice.

hmmm, interesting topic for sure.

modurn

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/05/2006 10:12:01 AM · #39

As a reply to the original post. I think the cat is pretty much out of the bag. The intent of the original post seems to want to try and motivate the "sellers" (us) to take back control of the pricing of thier product. But the thing is, in anything but a monopoly, its not the sellers who determine the price of a good, its the buyer. In other words, you could price a good at 1000 dollars, but does that mean its worth a 1000 dollars? Only if someone will buy it for that much.

The other point that the message tries to make is that the stock photo sites are the ones making all the money. But from my own impression there seems to be a great deal of compitition in the stock picture arena. Maybe more than a dozen large sellers? And since it seems that many people place the same set of pictures on all the sites they belong too, there is really not much to distinguish between them other than price. So they have to sell as close to margin as possible to beat the compitition.

These are all just guesses and opinion, I am by no means a stock photo expert.

angela_packard

Canon EOS-20D

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

09/05/2006 10:12:46 AM · #40

bumping it so i can save it!

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

09/05/2006 10:13:32 AM · #41

Isn't the OP a cut and paste from MyLoupe?

Nope sorry, not myLoupe but it is verbatum from one of the macro stock sites.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 10:44:13.

LtHousLady

Canon EOS-5D

Tamron SP AF 28-105mm f/2.8 LD Aspherical IF for Canon

09/05/2006 10:34:16 AM · #42

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

The net has changed a lot of things. Brick and mortar stores are losing customers to Amazon and B&H. I IM my friends for quick conversations instead of telephoning them.

Just want to note here that B&H started as & still is a brick & mortar store. It's basically a whole city block long in NYC & they just took advantage of the web to expand their business. If you go to the store you will still find it jam packed with people. Some of us still like hands on browsing before large purchases ;) They also did not become so large by offering the same wares at pennies on the dollar. Just not a good choice for your comparison.

Amazon on the other hand....I'll give ya that one. I am friends with a writer who can order his own book from amazon for a few cents more that he can order it from his own publisher. Amazon's free shipping actually makes it cheaper!

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 10:37:01.

vtruan

Nikon D5100

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Nikon

09/05/2006 10:37:47 AM · #43

Originally posted by beeski:

"Micropayment sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 3 dollars) take advantage of the naivety of amateur photographers.

I your first statement says it all "amateur photographers". Most of us on micro's are fully and dedicated amateurs and have other professions. We do not need the money, it just helps pay for some bonus materialistic things.

So, we may sell our our best, but do we really want to be professionals, probably not in most cases. I just like to have others enjoy my fun and a check once and a while make us even a bit happier. Just my thoughts. Van

thilom

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/05/2006 10:53:20 AM · #44

My 20c Worth...

I started uploading to 3 microstock sites and I was very happy after making $3.50. Yipeeeee! Then I started thinking about the time I spent uploading these images and I realized that it just isn't worth it. Upload image, find all necessary keywords and then have it rejected bacause of some obscure reason. And that for 20c! I will be willing to do that amount of work for about $150.00, but for 20c? You got to be kidding.

My Point: I'll wait till I can afford an 8MP camera(Canon 30D)and then sell on macro sites. In the mean time I'll enjoy photography and learn from others.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

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

09/05/2006 11:50:12 AM · #45

Originally posted by fstopopen:

I made that statement because most macro stock companies will not accept people who also have a profile on a micro stock.

I'm interested that you say "most" macto stock companies have this attitude.

To my knowledge, there is only one non-micro stock that has this aggressive position, and that's PhotographersDirect - from which the original post was copy-n-pasted.

Could you let me know which other macro stock companies are taking this position?

(as a side note, I guess Getty doesn't think it's all bad, considering they bought iStockPhoto...)

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

09/05/2006 01:52:24 PM · #46

Originally posted by ganders:

Originally posted by fstopopen:
I made that statement because most macro stock companies will not accept people who also have a profile on a micro stock.

I'm interested that you say "most" macto stock companies have this attitude.

To my knowledge, there is only one non-micro stock that has this aggressive position, and that's PhotographersDirect - from which the original post was copy-n-pasted.

Could you let me know which other macro stock companies are taking this position?

(as a side note, I guess Getty doesn't think it's all bad, considering they bought iStockPhoto...)

I would call Photographer's Direct a lower mid-level stock agency with the low-end being the microstocks and the high-end being Getty, Corbis et.al. There's going to be some overlap in the markets for agencies that are close.

The biggest diference is that most of the photographers on the high-end sites aren't going to touch microstocks with a 10ft pole, for all variety of reasons.

There's a market for both, you have to decide if you want to market your images as Prime Beef or as 4D Beef.

fotomann_forever

09/05/2006 02:35:07 PM · #47

This is my current highest selling microstock image. I have no reason to believe Getty or Corbis or even Alamy would touch this image. But, I make money from a 5 minute photo shoot with a 97 cent ducky. He's paid for himself several times now.

I think, as photographers, we can play both sides of the market. It's always safer to diversify your interests anyway.

Me, I'm a portrait, boudior and wedding photographer myself. Stock is just added income. I do microstock, because it's fun and makes me money. I plan on doing macrostock for the same reason, but with completely different images.

sunnyboy

09/20/2006 03:54:56 PM · #48

What many people don't understand is that microstock is not a business model concerned with photographers. It's about crowd-sourcing. Just like out-sourcing stripped away money from higher paid workers in richer nations, crowd-sourcing will strip away money from fulltime professionals by giving the jobs, per se, to the common person. Microstock accepts anyone's photos, whether it's from the fulltime photographer, or the housewife with little else to do with her time. With the advent of great cameras, anyone can take a photo acceptable by most microstock sites.*

Originally posted by Pixl Mastr WannaB:

Lise Gagne makes FAR more money on istock than anyone on this site makes from photography. That may sound like a bold statement, but I don't think I'll be proven wrong. First, she makes more than 20 cents per download. Second, she has had almost 360,000 downloads (not a misprint). Don't believe me? Check out her istock page here.
Ask McDonalds if you can't make money from $1.00 cheeseburgers. Ask Apple if you can't make money from 99 cent downloads. Ask Frito Lay if you can't make money from $1.99 bags of chips. Anyone who attacks microstock either has no clue what stock photography is, or they are doing stock photography the old way, and can't roll with the changes. Any new business shift (in any industry) has the potential to take out the old guard. Ask Canon or Nikon how much profit they are seeing these days from their film cameras v.s. their digital cameras, to use this industry as an example (let alone the film companies). Those who built horse-drawn wagons 100 years ago thought cars were killing their industry. Are you really worried about that today? I didn't think so. Okay, I'll get off my soapbox for now. :o)

-Don

There's a major fallacy with this analogy. The OP was stating it's not good for the worker, we all know the microstock business owners are making money. A better comparison would be piece-rated factory work. Moreover, it can be compared to an "agent" who runs an escort business. The number of clientele will likely remain the same. So whether the agent has 10 or 50 escorts working for him, he'll still make 80% of the clientele's money, with the remaining 20% divided among the escorts who work the most. Don, for your analogy to work, we would have to have an employee of McDonald's earn .20 per $1.00 burger s/he sells.
That's good that Lise Gagne made that much through microstock. The model, however, doesn't make this so special. If we choose another profession, and note that the top person makes about 35k each year, then we have a serious limit. This limit is a necessary part of how microstock works.
Let's do a logical exercise. Let's say photobuyers have $100 which they will spend on photos of smiling women against white backgrounds. Let's say you have 100 such photos, while someone like Lise has 100. $80 will go to the owner of the microstock site. Odds are both of you will make $10 (barring quality discrepancies, etc). Let's say only 10000 more photos have been added that fit this photobuyers criteria. You and Lise have 100 a piece, odds are that you'll have to add a lot more photos to earn that same $10.
You can't see this happening right now, but unless photobuyers dramatically increase their spending, this will be the case.

Originally posted by Megatherian:

Supply and demand, it's a buyers market right now. Quit now and see if anyone even notices.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but photos just aren't worth much anymore. With the death of film and the rise of technology everyone can have a great camera and take great pictures for cheap. Resolution and quality doesn't even really matter that much anymore because most advertising is done online - tiny images rule.

The market is now flooded with photos of virtually anything imaginable. If I want a picture of a dog next to a roll of toilet paper the question is no longer can I find one, it's how do I choose just one.

Unless digital cameras start making people sterile then people will still use them and photos will still flood the market.

Photos just aren't special anymore. Welcome to the real world. Wishing it were different won't make it so.

This is the truth. Anyone can take a photo for microstock nowadays. I put the * in my first statement to address this. Due to either ego or the aura of some microstock sites, many people there believe that what they do requires some major skill and/or experience. Even the ones with 1000s of photos in their portfolios usually have--in part due to sheer probability--more mediocre photos than anything. If the goal is to shoot volume, someone with lots of time and a decent camera can become a major contributor to microstock.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 15:56:57.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

09/20/2006 06:36:19 PM · #49

Originally posted by sunnyboy:

Microstock accepts anyone's photos, whether it's from the fulltime photographer, or the housewife with little else to do with her time. With the advent of great cameras, anyone can take a photo acceptable by most microstock sites.

I question the implication that macro sites will only deal with fulltime photographers - there's nothing to stop the "housewife with little else to do with her time" from working with macro sites; I didn't have to sign anything claiming to be a fulltime photographer to submit to Alamy.

I really don't see the point of going over the same old arguments again and again - we all know that some people here hate microstock (for, frankly, protectionist reasons) and we all know that others are happy to work with them (me for one, on the principle that multiple markets are better for me from a business perspective than a single one).

edit to add: "volume" is the key to ALL stock photography; it's nothing restricted to micro.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 18:37:07.