Very well said, Angie. This is exactly what I was told by a UK stock agency we visited while I was studying for my diploma. (I was a mature student at 52, but have been taking photos since I was about seven.) Microstock is a despicable rip-off and the people being ripped off the most are the people who create the work from which the microstock agencies make their very considerable profits.
You only have to think logically. People start businesses to make money. Real money, not itsy-bitsy pocket money. Look at the number of microstock agencies that have sprung up. They have discovered a business model that does a great job of making them rich - at the expense of gullible photographers, especially the hopeful amateurs who think they might have a go at selling some of their pictures.
Sadly, digital has brought us to this. It could never have happened when the agent selling a picture needed the one and only negative in order to reproduce it. Now, everybody is trying to sell their pictures online, and the hopeful amateurs have found takers in the scummy microstock agencies, who are all the while trying to sell photographers on the idea that "people just aren't willing to pay the price for photographs anymore." Oh, right, and why would that be, you job-destroying sh*ts?
The gullibility of the masses has led to those of us with a clue and some talent and skills being done out of our incomes. It's also worth mentioning, just by way of truth, not spite, that most of the pictures that sell for shirt buttons through the microstock agencies would never even have been accepted by any agency in the old days of film, when there was a specific requirement for technical quality.
If nobody accepted the derisory terms offered by the microstock agencies, they'd go out of business. So everybody please wise up and shun them. That includes the once reputable Getty, who are now mopping up all the dregs of photography and offering royalty free images for free downloading.
If we want businesses to take a fair and proper view of photography as a valuable skill and an artform once again, we photographers have to get businesslike and stand up for ourselves.
The right sort of people will still pay very good money for serious quality and unique ownership. That's why I'm building a darkroom (I currently hire one) and am concentrating on specialist darkroom skills and hand finishing. Every image completely unique and unrepeatable. Just like paintings.
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "angiephotographer" <angieknostphoto@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "few photographers get $500 or $1000 per photograph anymore. Those are bygone days."
>
> How do you know this? Have you tried RM for a consistent amount of time, or did you come to this conclusion by the influence of others? I sell through traditional RM, and I still sell a fair amount of images for $500-$1500. I recently had a very average type of image license for $1500 on Alamy. It still does happen.
>
> I have tried macro and micro. Tried it as an experiment, and didn't see the potential in micro for long term.
>
> I find it upsetting that Shutterstock provides usually a flat 25 cents where whey often sell an image for $10. Bigstockphoto sells some stock photos through sub agents that charge $70 per image, and what trickles down to the photographer is a dollar or two. Maybe I'm too emotional, but this stuff upsets my sense of justice. If you can follow the trail, microstock agencies do not always sell for such a micro price...there is a chain of subagents each taking a cut, and the photographer is getting the smallest piece of the pie. I've tried to rationalize the acceptance of microstock by photographers, but I just can't wrap my brain around it.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john@> wrote:
> >
> > Shaun,
> >
> > You don't look like you need much help, but here's my two cents worth.
> >
> > First, if you haven't already, check out the web sites of a couple of the top stock photographers in the world: Yuri Arcurs (http://www.arcurs.com/) and Lise Gagné (http://lisegagne.com/). I especially like Yuri's tour of his studio (in videos). These people really make money at stock photography.
> >
> > I don't make lots of money. I just make enough to cover expenses. But, that's OK with me. I do it for fun and for a "retirement" vocation.
> >
> > I contribute to several microstock agencies, the top producing being iStockphoto and Shutterstock. It took me 5 years of really uploading photographs to get to where I am. You can find stats of istockphoto photographers at http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ (how many files they have uploaded, how many sales they've had, etc.). Very interesting.
> >
> > Getting accepted is a matter of following an agency's submission rules and seeing what happens. I wouldn't give up if I were rejected once. Keep trying.
> >
> > And I wouldn't listen to anyone badmouthing microstock agencies. Unfortunately, few photographers get $500 or $1000 per photograph anymore. Those are bygone days. Know today's markets and what people want (web-based, brochures, online news, image messaging...you tell me as I'm past my prime). It still is supply and demand, after all.
> >
> > So, just go for it. Keep trying different things. See what works for you. And be sure to have fun.
> >
> > John
> >
> > John Sfondilias
> > http://sfondilias.com
> > john@
> >
> >
> > --- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "ramsayshaun115" <shaun.ramsay@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I've been in business for about a year and a half and am looking to take the plunge into stock selling, though I don't have experience with it.
> > >
> > > My website is www.shaunramsay.com. I'm also on flickr at www.flickr.com/photos/shaunramsay. If anyone has suggestions about stock companies that are accepting new photographers, I would be interested to know and appreciate any tips and advice.
> > >
> > > Thanks and Happy New Year!
> > > Shaun
> > >
> >
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment