The BIG debate: Microstock vs. Macrostock vs. othe

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/25/2006 05:31:08 PM · #1

Just wanted to get this one started again. What are the benefits of Microstock versus regular Stock Photography? What are the detriments? Can we do both? Which will prevail? etc.

I have recently changed sides on this matter. I now belong to both micro and macro, being careful not to put the same images up on both.

My reasoning is thus: I don't sell enough on the macro sites and the quantity of my image library has quadrupled in the past half-year. I can take hundreds of images that were just sitting on my hard drive and make a few bucks each. For example; 200 images @ $.25 per download x 400 downloads = $100 a month (if all goes according to plan). On a macro site I am lucky to get the same $100 a month and they are much more restrictive.

It really has to be stated that not all photography is created equal. Fine art photographs are not stock images are not editorial shots are not snap shots. I wouldn't sell my commercial work for less, I am not going to reduce my fee, I will not sell my prints for less, but I will let go of my 'hobby' work for whatever the market will bear. And right now that seems to be $0.25 to $3.

Don't be mistaken, microstock agencies are making a lot of money with photographers. Point in fact is that the former owner of iStock recently sold the company for $50 million (to Getty images no less). I for one would like to make more per image, but in the end the micro stock guys are taking about the same percentage commission as the 'big' guys. Shutterstock charges a monthly subscription rate to image downloaders, who in turn have a maximum number of DL's per month - "Download up to 25 images per day (750 per month!) for just $139.00." If they max out, the microstocks actually foot $.07 per image. Of course, most don't max out. The microstockers win out by sheer numbers. They make millions of pennies each month.

And as far as lowering the bar and 'ruining it for the rest of us' argument, well, I don't know. I wanted to hold out. Before, I only sold my images through macro agencies. But, a) my stuff just wasn't good enough, or, b) the macro agencies are in their decline. Either way, I wasn't getting enough from them for the amount I put in.

If you are interested in trying out a microstock agency please check out ShutterStock.

I will let you all know my progress in microstock. So far, about 100 images, over 20 dl's, about 2 weeks.

If anyone has comments, rebuttals, rants, or whatever, I am sure that we would all love to hear what you have to say.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

05/25/2006 05:52:40 PM · #2

I think (jusy my opinion) in the end both will have their place and we are just in the transision right now. I have no doubt micro is making it tough for photg who were not high end/fine art macro and I can understand that [trust me, working in IT for 20 years gives me a little window into that world :-)].

IMO the bottom line is that cheap (relatively) good digital cameras/computers has comoditised the market and anybody's aunt can (and does) give it a go. I would expect the requirements to go up at the micro sites over time but have no proof.

Doing both for different types of images makes the most pragmatic sense IF you can get a decent return on the time taken to shoot, keyword, upload e.t.c. Everybody has a different threshold here and that's part of the disconnect. I would assume the client bases of the buyers are somewhat different anyway with an overlap in the small business area.

It's interesting - but then I ain't trying to make a living as a photog (at this point anyway) and don't have much skin in the game right now. Personally, I cannot justify the return given the time for micro. I was accepted at one of the macro sites but have not loaded anything yet due to time issues (i.e. a real life job), so micro is really not for me.

I give it 3 replies before rant time......

05/25/2006 06:25:26 PM · #3

Well said robs

robs:
[quote]I would expect the requirements to go up at the micro sites over time but have no proof.[/quote]

- Shutterstock is in the process of moving from a 2.5 MP minimum to a 4.0 MP minimum. They will also soon be accepting Tiffs. The review process is also becoming more restrictive. I believe that this will be the trend.

robs:
[quote]I give it 3 replies before rant time....[/quote]

- :holding my breath waiting for it:

(Why have I not figured out how to quote properly?)

05/26/2006 02:15:04 PM · #4

I said I would update with news, though it doesn't appear that as many people would be interested as I thought :?

Stats so far: 56 images (not quite 100, oops), 5 waiting for approval. 28 dl's. All since 5/19, so only one week (not 2, oops again).

As an example of one of my previous points: last night I shot some clothing for a client. After I finished the shoot I spent an extra 15 minutees taking shots of a few of the items I had around; cellphone, computer mouse, laptop. I spent another 15 minutes post processing. Not a lot of time and energy and about 10 images of just ordinary things. But if you look at the top selling stock images, it doesn't take much more than a sharp detail shot of a keyboard to make $$$.

05/30/2006 04:30:09 PM · #5

Last post (unless there is somme interest in this thread)

63 images. 49 downloads. 11 days.

It seems that I am doing well for a newbie, based on some of the posts in the SS forums. I plan on doing a project for a photography workshop this weekend and will shoot several self-portraits (easy to get a modle release ;) ) some for the workshop and others for stock. Again, shooting stock as supplemental to my 'valued' photography work.

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

05/30/2006 04:57:04 PM · #6

Originally posted by cwlawrence:

63 images. 49 downloads. 11 days.

4 DL/day for a gallery of only 63 images is pretty good!

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/30/2006 05:54:22 PM · #7

I've been caught in this debate myself for a couple of months. Fortunately for me I do not depend on photography for any income, so I can debate as long as necessary.

I have some images that I would like to put up for sale, but I guess I'm terrified of putting them up for $.25 each and then finding out I could have made more in the macro market. The entry into the macro stocks is more difficult, and I don't have 100 images set to go, so I wait in limbo.

I have noticed that the macro agencies are starting to push for more conceptual work since the market for more standard images is being sucked up by the micro agencies. As frustrating as this might be to some photographers, I'm hoping it also pushes others to produce far more interesting work in order to climb above the micros.

I'm still on the fence, but am interested in the debate.

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

05/30/2006 06:10:42 PM · #8

Really, I make the judgement based on file size. If you have a 2-4MP camera like I (currently) do, there is no choice -- macro-stock sites are simply not available to me, thus the market says those images are worth no more than 25-35 cents/download.

Images which are big enough and good enough should be submitted to macro sites, which is what I'll try (again) when I get a bigger camera (and more talent?).

Images which are "OK" but not great will probably still go to the micro sites ...

kteach

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6

05/30/2006 06:33:01 PM · #9

I pulled out 10 photos and submitted them to Shutterstock and all were accepted. I've since added one more. In 9 days I've had 13 downloads. They're not shots I planned to do anything with, just old photos, or pictures I took for my Photo-A-Day project. In fact, my best selling shot was one I took 2 years ago that has just been sitting on my hard drive. I figure I may as well make a little money off of them instead of just taking up space.

05/30/2006 08:04:09 PM · #10

More good points. As said before, I believe Microstock agencies are upping their megapixel minimums (from 2.5 to 4.0). But cameras of this level are already quite readily available to the amateur photogs.

As I see it, Microstock should only be a second (or third) income. If you can make a full time income from microstock, quit. Move to macrostock or go into business for yourself. You'll most likely increase your earnings.

From Nusbaum: [quote]I have noticed that the macro agencies are starting to push for more conceptual work since the market for more standard images is being sucked up by the micro agencies. As frustrating as this might be to some photographers, I'm hoping it also pushes others to produce far more interesting work in order to climb above the micros.[/quote]

I hope that this is the case. Its the conceptual and cutting edge stuff that deserves the 'big money'.

06/01/2006 07:55:47 PM · #11

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cwlawrence:
63 images. 49 downloads. 11 days.

4 DL/day for a gallery of only 63 images is pretty good!

Now at 67 images with 57 dl's. More like 5-6 dl's a day including weekends, which would mean $45 a month. As I plan to increase my image count though, I expect more than that.

I have to say that I am very surprised by the sheer lack of ranting and raving against microstocks. I followed several threads on this very same debate last year and a majority of the posters railed against micros. Makes me wonder if the general mentality has shifted...

06/12/2006 07:19:57 PM · #12

I suppose that there is one area that I find disconcerting; that image buyers can use microstock images anywhere they choose. That being the case, it would be a gross underayment if, lets say, People Magazine used one of my images. With their distribution and depending on the size of the image, I would be way underpaid. Now I dont really see that happening, usually the usage of these images end up in much smaller and lower budgeted projects. But who knows, it could happen.

Another issue that bothers me, though I can hardly blame it on microstock, is the usage of really poor quality images for internet and print advertising and editorials. I have noticed a lot more compression artifacts showing up all over in images. Microstock companies offer images in very large sizes, for not much more, so why such poor quality? Are folks just not caring about quality? (ahem walmart et. al.)

Anyhow, Its been about 22 days and I have about 100 downloads, thats not much but its more than I was making ($0).

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

06/12/2006 07:24:01 PM · #13

Originally posted by cwlawrence:

This is not quite the case -- there are terms and limitations on use in effect at all sites.

Register as a buyer at Shutterstock (free) and you should find links to the licensing terms/use restrictions.

Message edited by author 2006-06-12 19:24:43.

07/03/2006 11:57:05 AM · #14

I was putting more thought to this whole argument the other day when a friend of mine really got upset about how little microstock agencies pay out for images. I came up with this:

As a photographer, I rely on the existense of objects, in and out of context, as subjects. I don't pay a royalty to each and every (if any) of these objects, their owners, or creators. If I were to pay for the usage rights, I would only be able to pay a few cents for each. I equate this to how a graphic designer must feel; they use dozens if not hundreds of images each day (some in very inconsequential ways) - Should they pay top dollar for every image used? maybe, maybe not. I can't see that being economically feasable.

Next time you feel like you get paid too little for your photography think about this; How much did you pay your subjects? Look at your images: if there is a manufactured item - did you pay a royalty to the manufacturer? If the image is of a person - Did you pay your model (identifiable or not)? If it is of a natural scene - Did you pay the owner of the land? etc., etc., etc.

Not to rationalize the pay scale of microstock - I believe photographers should get paid a tad more - but more to throw another viewpoint into this debate.

215 DL's in one month and a week

fotomann_forever

07/03/2006 12:04:47 PM · #15

Originally posted by cwlawrence:

As I see it, Microstock should only be a second (or third) income. If you can make a full time income from microstock, quit. Move to macrostock or go into business for yourself. You'll most likely increase your earnings.

Why? Seems to me if it ain't broke don't fix it. Ofcourse, expansion and diversity is good, but to just quit something that is working seems a bit ridiculous.

Quite a few people make darn good incomes with microstock.