Author Topic: Defending the Microstock Business? (Read 23533 times)

tab62 · « **on:** November 18, 2012, 20:53 »

Recently, I was blasted by another for photographer when I told him that my income is from the microstock companies. He told me that I am nothing more than a 'Penny Stocker' and have ruin the real world of photographers. And than ask if I was 'Polish' by origin because I work for nothing willing to take a nickel for my work! Rather than try to defend myself I walked away...

oxman · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2012, 21:48 »

That is a pretty normal response from traditional photographers. They just don't realize that there are alot of nickels to be made from this if done right.

tab62 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2012, 21:50 »

I figure we are commercial photographers thus nothing wrong with our business. I would love for them to submit to iStock or Shutter and see if they pass the test...

velocicarpo · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2012, 22:10 »

Typical response. In some sense they are right, in some they are wrong. Evolution destroyed their business and it is understandable that those who were not willing to move on are very bitter (I used to be one of those 8 years ago). Nevertheless even evolution sweeps away some good things too. Nowadays I live off Micro but although see its downsides...mainly I critisize (ATM lol) that it killed originality and art.

tab62 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2012, 22:16 »

like having no shadows in my pics lol

Floating objects on white- love it...

ouchie · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2012, 01:25 »

Dont think u have any defence.
this applys here:
if microatock sites were farmers.....

Mr. microstock~~~~hey Bill would you like to help me harvest my 20.000 acre potato field, i will give u a 1lb sack of potatoes for every acre u pick?

dumb ass us~~~~~~~~~Geeeee whiiz yes id love to!!! (thinks to himself whiz ima gona b a farmer, Yiihaaaa!)

Mr. microstoc~~~~~thanks Bill for breaking your back bending over picking the potatoes out of the ground all day long. even though I'm taking all the risk operating the farm and your just getting potatoes for free basically. Id like to do you a little favor cause your sooo valuable to me. I'm gona give you these FREE 250 moomoo-cards but u gota pay the shipping! Think of all the ppl you can impress telling them you are now an official farmer. lucky you having a nice boss like me!

dumb ass us~~~~~~~~~~oh wow, thank you, thank you sooooo much! I'm not worthy.

us~~~~~~~~~~(thingking) what a nice guy that Mr microstock man is! you know what ima gona do, ima gona go out and buy me one of them thar new fangled machines (by Nikon that costs 6k) that u drive around in and it picks up the potatoes for you. now that i got a few sacks of potatoes, i can use some as a deposit! then next year i can make MORE $$$$$$$$$$!

Mr. microstock~~~~at home relaxing with a drink (thinking): man i shure did find a huge bunch of suckers out there in this world, theres one born every min. cant believe i got them to harvest my fields and only payed them a few potato sacks each. man life is good

dumb ass us a t home~~~~~~hunny give me some paper and a pensssiel, ima gona do some maths and figure out my RPR (return per potato) ima made operating this here new biznes. and how much more i can make once i buy that new shinny Nikon potato picker contraption. din i tellya baby stick with me ima goin places. I think ima ready to quit my job at the coal mine!!!!!!

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2012, 02:15 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on November 18, 2012, 22:10

Typical response. In some sense they are right, in some they are wrong. Evolution destroyed their business and it is understandable that those who were not willing to move on are very bitter (I used to be one of those 8 years ago). Nevertheless even evolution sweeps away some good things too. Nowadays I live off Micro but although see its downsides...mainly I critisize (ATM lol) that it killed originality and art.

Good reply! ofcourse they are right, ofcourse micro has killed of the monopoly we once had. I just hope the Getty plan of slowly killing off micro will work out, good for us bad for the happy-snapper. When its done, the agencies I want to see left are DT and IS and possibly SS if they skip the subs.
Micro is a perfect plan for the hobby guy but terrible for the full time photographer and I dont think anybody can deny that, the money side is a differant story.
Micro is responsible for putting quantity before quality, resulting in bad photography which is attracting non-quality concious and bad buyers with a " give it to me free" flee-market attitude.

nicku · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2012, 02:20 »

Quote from: tab62 on November 18, 2012, 20:53

Recently, I was blasted by another for photographer when I told him that my income is from the microstock companies. He told me that I am nothing more than a 'Penny Stocker' and have ruin the real world of photographers. And than ask if I was 'Polish' by origin because I work for nothing willing to take a nickel for my work! Rather than try to defend myself I walked away...

Yes , stock photography as a job kill the art photography. As a former Art/artistic photographer I feel that myself . But in majority of cases art photography don't pay my bills... so i adapted. For some photographers the personal pride is above the white envelopes that came with the mail ( bills).

nicku · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2012, 02:23 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 02:15

Quote from: velocicarpo on November 18, 2012, 22:10
Typical response. In some sense they are right, in some they are wrong. Evolution destroyed their business and it is understandable that those who were not willing to move on are very bitter (I used to be one of those 8 years ago). Nevertheless even evolution sweeps away some good things too. Nowadays I live off Micro but although see its downsides...mainly I critisize (ATM lol) that it killed originality and art.

Good reply! ofcourse they are right, ofcourse micro has killed of the monopoly we once had. I just hope the Getty plan of slowly killing off micro will work out, good for us bad for the happy-snapper. When its done, the agencies I want to see left are DT and IS and possibly SS if they skip the subs.
Micro is a perfect plan for the hobby guy but terrible for the full time photographer and I dont think anybody can deny that, the money side is a differant story.
Micro is responsible for putting quantity before quality, resulting in bad photography which is attracting non-quality concious and bad buyers with a " give it to me free" flee-market attitude.

+1

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2012, 03:27 »

Quote from: tab62 on November 18, 2012, 21:50

I figure we are commercial photographers thus nothing wrong with our business. I would love for them to submit to iStock or Shutter and see if they pass the test...

And when they pass (evein if it takes a couple of goes, as not all pro work is pixel-picky), they are your new rivals. Be careful what you wish for!

They are right, to some degree, but you can't turn back time. It was their eliteness and Old Boy's Clubbiness that spawned Micro, so they brought it on themselves.

oxman · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2012, 03:34 »

With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.

Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2012, 03:51 »

Quote from: oxman on November 19, 2012, 03:34

With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.

Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.

Well you didnt live through it the right way then, did you? last month, out of 14, RM sales, 4, sales alone netted me close to a five figured amount. Good or bad?

Mind, having said that, thats after 20 years of RM photography.

Most people here havent really got the slightest idea of how to treat RM photography. Its like you plan a specific commercial shoot and you know beforehand that it will sell big-time, it might take you 2 or 3, days to get it right and all you have is one single shot BUT! it will sell, for sure.

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2012, 04:39 »

If there wasn't microstock, there would just be the traditional sites that most of us couldn't get in to and free sites. I think the free sites would be killing off the traditional sites.

So microstock isn't all that bad, except that contributors have put up with commission cuts and they don't seem to sell many extended licenses at decent prices.

We're all to blame. The traditional sites were too much of a closed shop and didn't react fast enough to the digital camera and internet era. Microstock sites have in general been too greedy and contributors have stopped making a stand when their commissions have been cut.

oxman · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2012, 10:26 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 03:51

Quote from: oxman on November 19, 2012, 03:34
With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.

Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.

Well you didnt live through it the right way then, did you? last month, out of 14, RM sales, 4, sales alone netted me close to a five figured amount. Good or bad?

Mind, having said that, thats after 20 years of RM photography.

Most people here havent really got the slightest idea of how to treat RM photography. Its like you plan a specific commercial shoot and you know beforehand that it will sell big-time, it might take you 2 or 3, days to get it right and all you have is one single shot BUT! it will sell, for sure.

My point is from the buyers/art director's perspective as it relates to client budgets. The price point and annual licensing arrangement of RM was beyond the budgets for MANY small business's marketing programs. Then came the Getty and Corbis lawyers if an image ever got used for something outside of the original license. That would always send a shock through a company.

Then microstock emerged and ALL of my clients would tell me not to use the RM photos.

And that is after 27 years of buying stock photography.

cthoman · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2012, 10:41 »

Quote from: oxman on November 19, 2012, 10:26

My point is from the buyers/art director's perspective as it relates to client budgets. The price point and annual licensing arrangement of RM was beyond the budgets for MANY small business's marketing programs. Then came the Getty and Corbis lawyers if an image ever got used for something outside of the original license. That would always send a shock through a company.

Then microstock emerged and ALL of my clients would tell me not to use the RM photos.

And that is after 27 years of buying stock photography.

I agree. Microstock didn't just include more contributors. It included more buyers too. That said, I think prices have and will continue to reach a more happy medium. Or at least, they should.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2012, 10:57 »

Quote from: oxman on November 19, 2012, 10:26

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 03:51
Quote from: oxman on November 19, 2012, 03:34
With the development of cheaper digital cameras, the internet and jpeg formats it was inevitable that microstock would emerge and be successful. The RM model was impractical for most marketing needs. Trust me. I lived through it.

Quality still prevails. Those that shoot better work will prosper. My mentor pulls in about a million a year. Nuff said. Don't ask.

Well you didnt live through it the right way then, did you? last month, out of 14, RM sales, 4, sales alone netted me close to a five figured amount. Good or bad?

Mind, having said that, thats after 20 years of RM photography.

Most people here havent really got the slightest idea of how to treat RM photography. Its like you plan a specific commercial shoot and you know beforehand that it will sell big-time, it might take you 2 or 3, days to get it right and all you have is one single shot BUT! it will sell, for sure.

My point is from the buyers/art director's perspective as it relates to client budgets. The price point and annual licensing arrangement of RM was beyond the budgets for MANY small business's marketing programs. Then came the Getty and Corbis lawyers if an image ever got used for something outside of the original license. That would always send a shock through a company.

Then microstock emerged and ALL of my clients would tell me not to use the RM photos.

And that is after 27 years of buying stock photography.
[/quotte)

Sure! but I dont see anything of that having anything to do with if a client wants to buy RM, with rights even worldrights for a specific reason?
I have never met an Art-director so far that have complained about an RM price for an image he needed exclusive and why should they.

Lots of people here keep mentioning "closed shop" etc, ofcourse and why not? show me any profession that isnt closed for the ones not educated for it? joke isnt it?
Micro shooters has got to be among the very few "professions" where you can get the tools for it but dont need to know how to use them properly, hence you have 100 million images out there, with approx 80% of total irrelevant garbage.

Good isnt it?

cthoman · « **Reply #16 on:** November 19, 2012, 11:05 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 10:57

Lots of people here keep mentioning "closed shop" etc, ofcourse and why not? show me any profession that isnt closed for the ones not educated for it? joke isnt it?...

I thought this was why there were bad mechanics, chefs, artists, musicians, businessmen, politicians, etc.

Microbius · « **Reply #17 on:** November 19, 2012, 11:11 »

A few months back my wife was seriously ill, we had to phone an ambulance for her.

I make more than one of those paramedics makes that came out to save my wife's life.

How much exactly do people think their work is really worth if you can still make that much by dedicating yourself to this job?

People who think micros have ruined the industry need to step back and get some perspective.
Then of course there's those who just suck at what they do and can't compete, so blame the business model instead of their laziness or lack of talent, but then that's always been the way, no?

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #18 on:** November 19, 2012, 11:12 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 19, 2012, 11:05

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 10:57

Lots of people here keep mentioning "closed shop" etc, ofcourse and why not? show me any profession that isnt closed for the ones not educated for it? joke isnt it?...

I thought this was why there were bad mechanics, chefs, artists, musicians, businessmen, politicians, etc.

weak argument and not the same. You know exactly what I am talking about.

gostwyck · « **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2012, 11:51 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 10:57

Lots of people here keep mentioning "closed shop" etc, ofcourse and why not? show me any profession that isnt closed for the ones not educated for it? joke isnt it?
Micro shooters has got to be among the very few "professions" where you can get the tools for it but dont need to know how to use them properly, hence you have 100 million images out there, with approx 80% of total irrelevant garbage.

Photography isn't a 'profession' but a form of art. Proper 'professions' have technical qualifications because they can significantly affect people's lives like doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Nobody ever died because they employed a poor photographer. Ask Leibovitz what bits of paper she has that qualifies her to take people's portraits?

No point in you being so up yourself. Microstock is a great leveler. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing photography, which agencies you once belonged to or how many art directors you know. You're only as good as your sales record __ which in your case isn't anything to write home about.

cthoman · « **Reply #20 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:00 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 19, 2012, 11:51

No point in you being so up yourself. Microstock is a great leveler. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing photography, which agencies you once belonged to or how many art directors you know. You're only as good as your sales record __ which in your case isn't anything to write home about.

It's not even necessarily about talent or skill. It's about creating images that sell. Most creative fields are like this though. It's 50% skill and 50% marketing.

Besides, everyone knows that the invention of the camera ruined the illustration business, so way to mess it all up guys.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #21 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:06 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 19, 2012, 12:00

Quote from: gostwyck on November 19, 2012, 11:51
No point in you being so up yourself. Microstock is a great leveler. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing photography, which agencies you once belonged to or how many art directors you know. You're only as good as your sales record __ which in your case isn't anything to write home about.

It's not even necessarily about talent or skill. It's about creating images that sell. Most creative fields are like this though. It's 50% skill and 50% marketing.

Besides, everyone knows that the invention of the camera ruined the illustration business, so way to mess it all up guys.

or, 10% inspiration; 90% perspiration

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #22 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:25 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 19, 2012, 11:51

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on November 19, 2012, 10:57
Lots of people here keep mentioning "closed shop" etc, ofcourse and why not? show me any profession that isnt closed for the ones not educated for it? joke isnt it?
Micro shooters has got to be among the very few "professions" where you can get the tools for it but dont need to know how to use them properly, hence you have 100 million images out there, with approx 80% of total irrelevant garbage.

Photography isn't a 'profession' but a form of art. Proper 'professions' have technical qualifications because they can significantly affect people's lives like doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. Nobody ever died because they employed a poor photographer. Ask Leibovitz what bits of paper she has that qualifies her to take people's portraits?

No point in you being so up yourself. Microstock is a great leveler. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing photography, which agencies you once belonged to or how many art directors you know. You're only as good as your sales record __ which in your case isn't anything to write home about.

Getting personal are we? couldnt restrain yourself could you? youver been a few years in micro and think you know it all dont you?
For starters, you havent got a clue of my sales record exept in micro, where Im a diamond at IS, same as you, which is nothing at all to be proud over and if you think I supply the entire industry under my personal name, youre badly wrong.

As usual you are all mouth, nothing else, same glib in every post, same hate towards IS in every post, been 6 years in micro and fling around with names like Leibowitz, etc.

who do you think youre kidding, go play in another playpenn will ya. or even better why dont you hit the ignore button! youre very good at that, arent you.

BTW, I know youre port, cant hide behind pseudos, stuff you see on an everyday basis.

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #23 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:28 »

And airplanes spoiled the train bussness

Smiling Jack

tab62 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 19, 2012, 12:34 »

I was looking for ways to defend myself when put in the situation that I was in but now I will just run like hell

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Defending the Microstock Business? (Read 23533 times)

tab62

oxman

tab62

velocicarpo

tab62

ouchie

ClaridgeJ

nicku

nicku

ShadySue

oxman

ClaridgeJ

sharpshot

oxman

cthoman

ClaridgeJ

cthoman

Microbius

ClaridgeJ

gostwyck

cthoman

WarrenPrice

ClaridgeJ

Smiling Jack

tab62

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors