Author Topic: Delight and Annoyance (Read 4463 times)

PigsInSpace · « **on:** October 14, 2017, 21:35 »

That exciting feeling when you discover one of your images in the wild... at your front door, in a local political campaign door stuffer that has probably made it into 10,000+ homes in the area, and then realize it's never sold for more than $2.48. I'm alternating between excited and annoyed. It's a bit strange.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2017, 05:46 »

Same with a book cover or any number of uses.
It's what we crazily signed up for.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2017, 06:13 »

Quote

I'm alternating between excited and annoyed. It's a bit strange.

With me it's 90% annoyance and 10% excited

angelawaye · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2017, 08:04 »

I know the feeling. When people see my photo on a scholastic book (back) they think I made bundles. I feel embarrassed to say I only made less than $1. These are the times we live in. We signed up for it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2017, 08:26 »

Quote from: angelawaye on October 15, 2017, 08:04

I know the feeling. When people see my photo on a scholastic book (back) they think I made bundles. I feel embarrassed to say I only made less than $1. These are the times we live in. We signed up for it.

Yes, it's interesting what people not in the business think we earn per sale.

But on the other hand, they and we are among those who like to keep a rein on expenditure.
Just last week, I found one of my pics on the cover of an ebook, a highly specialised academic treatise which was selling for over $50, but presumably it would only have a very limited number of buyers. Similarly with a biography I had my pic on the back of, which was published by a small indie publisher and would only have a very limited number of buyers.

A few years ago, I bought a photography book which is a history/exposition of photographic styles. It generally had one photo per chapter, and lots of web references to further images both by the lead photographer and others in that style. That helped to keep the price of the book down, both in terms of space and in terms of image licences.

Quasarphoto · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2017, 08:26 »

It's a huge discordance between my payouts and where the photos end up. A huge bragging list with empty bank account. Even big magazines like Vogue are publishing microstock photos. They're 'not stupid' to hire photographers anymore.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2017, 09:19 »

I am not only worried about the peanuts I am getting but how much it costs me to produce photos. And while being on an expensive tour holiday with my husband I took so many photos that I have no idea what the tour guide said.... I was too busy looking for photo opportunities to enjoy the holidays. And then, after paying for props, petrol, time, losing out on holiday experience etc I get paid peanuts. I wanted to buy Christmas decorations but didn't because I feared that I wouldn't earn back the money. The companies get richer and richer by making the photographers poorer and poorer. This must be the worst paid job in the world.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2017, 09:29 »

I have to say that I've very seldom spent money I wouldn't have been spending anyway on stock photos, and not at all in the past few years. Way back in 2011 (that's way back in stock terms, before most of the sh*t happened), I made a trip to a particular city specially to see if I could earn back the money. I absolutely did and more (I went on my own; it's far more difficult if trying also to accommodate a.n.other). I wouldn't make any sort of trip now expecting to earn back the money. I go where I want to go and buy what I want to buy, not thinking of stock value. That way, at least I know I'll enjoy what I spend my money on.
But no-one starves because of my stock shooting choices. Others are in different circumstances.

marthamarks · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2017, 09:32 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on October 15, 2017, 09:19

This must be the worst paid job in the world.

Problem is… it's not a "paid job."

The lack of adequate financial compensation means that microstock should be considered more a "free-lance avocation" than anything else, regardless of one's professional training, talent, and degree of seriousness.

That's the unfortunate reality these days.

marthamarks · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2017, 09:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 15, 2017, 09:29

I wouldn't make any sort of trip now expecting to earn back the money. I go where I want to go and buy what I want to buy, not thinking of stock value. That way, at least I know I'll enjoy what I spend my money on.
But no-one starves because of my stock shooting choices. Others are in different circumstances.

Exactly my situation. I love to travel and do it for the pleasure of it, while shooting everything I think might expand my portfolio. It's my choice, but then I don't have to make a living from this. Thank God.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2017, 10:21 »

Oh, I didn't go on holiday in the hope I would earn the money for the holiday back. That wasn't about the money I spent for the holiday. I have the feeling that my husband had a holiday and knows so many things I simply didn't hear because I was so busy to take photos for microstock. He had a holiday while I had microstock in my head. I spent a lot on props for food photography which I needed only for microstock and didn't have and for christmas things I wouldn't have bought for myself. But most money I spent for food photography and they are my worst selling images. I am not talking about money spent on food. That I am eating.

Just the props like knives, peelers.......Last year I bought Christmas decoration and I just about got the money back that I had paid for it but I didn't earn any money. Editing, keywording and uploading is far too time consuming to consider this a hobby.

rinderart · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2017, 19:26 »

heres a question for you guys and newbs and basically everyone. what would you be doing if digital never came along. I went from a Low of $400 per slide to 20 Cents.when $400.00 was worth a lot More than Now. And there was maybe 500 true stock shooters before. Now 100's of thousands who call themselves stock Photographers.And next Month 25,000 More and all the "STUFF" and upgrading cameras every few years........... And forget the time in Photoshop "FIXING" everything LOL. we took the shot and that was it. make dupes of the 35MM slide and mail it to the agency.....We couldn't fix it later....

increasingdifficulty · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2017, 01:41 »

...yes, and the price of the Apple Lisa was $21,600 (adjusted for inflation) and you couldn't even render out a simple realistic interior...

The point is, times change.

I'm quite convinced you will find A LOT more incredibly talented photographers today now that the technology is available.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2017, 02:31 »

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on October 16, 2017, 01:41

...yes, and the price of the Apple Lisa was $21,600 (adjusted for inflation) and you couldn't even render out a simple realistic interior...

The point is, times change.

I'm quite convinced you will find A LOT more incredibly talented photographers today now that the technology is available.

The skill set has changed so now much less technical knowledge needed but much better business/marketing ability required.

dirkr · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2017, 05:25 »

If "digital" never came along, I wouldn't be reading your post on a thing called " the internet".

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2017, 06:39 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on October 15, 2017, 10:21

Oh, I didn't go on holiday in the hope I would earn the money for the holiday back. That wasn't about the money I spent for the holiday. I have the feeling that my husband had a holiday and knows so many things I simply didn't hear because I was so busy to take photos for microstock. He had a holiday while I had microstock in my head. I spent a lot on props for food photography which I needed only for microstock and didn't have and for christmas things I wouldn't have bought for myself. But most money I spent for food photography and they are my worst selling images. I am not talking about money spent on food. That I am eating. Just the props like knives, peelers.......Last year I bought Christmas decoration and I just about got the money back that I had paid for it but I didn't earn any money. Editing, keywording and uploading is far too time consuming to consider this a hobby.

Sounds like the definition of insanity.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2017, 09:48 »

Quote from: rinderart on October 15, 2017, 19:26

heres a question for you guys and newbs and basically everyone. what would you be doing if digital never came along. I went from a Low of $400 per slide to 20 Cents.when $400.00 was worth a lot More than Now. And there was maybe 500 true stock shooters before. Now 100's of thousands who call themselves stock Photographers.And next Month 25,000 More and all the "STUFF" and upgrading cameras every few years........... And forget the time in Photoshop "FIXING" everything LOL. we took the shot and that was it. make dupes of the 35MM slide and mail it to the agency.....We couldn't fix it later....

"heres a question for you guys guys and newbs and basically everyone. what would you be doing if the film never came along...
You would go from a low of $40,000 per painting to $400 per slide... And there was maybe 10 true painters before...."

Side note:
"Domenico Ghirlandaio was paid 115 florins for the Innocenti Altarpiece in 1488 and Fra Angelico 190 florins or "however much less he think proper" for another altarpiece, that of the Linen-weaver's guild, in 1433. Fillipino Lippi, working at Rome in about the same period, was paid 2,000 ducats but with his materials paid for separately... Boticelli himself as it turns out was paid 75 florins for his Bardi Altarpiece in 1484, with 35 florins of that specifically for his labor...

Goldthwaithe's The Economy of Renaissance Florence gives 70 florins at about the maximum annual salary of a skilled craftsman".
2,000 ducats ~= $350k

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Delight and Annoyance (Read 4463 times)

PigsInSpace

ShadySue

Brasilnut

angelawaye

ShadySue

Quasarphoto

HappyBunny

ShadySue

marthamarks

marthamarks

HappyBunny

rinderart

increasingdifficulty

Pauws99

dirkr

Sean Locke Photography

Zero Talent

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors