Assuming we aren't grabbing our pitchforks yet. Rimglow nailed it I think, at work if we can't find an image to fit, we take one, make one, mesh two images together or just scream in frustration that the advertisement is stupid and ragequit for a while.

   Having worked with ad agencies for 25 years, I see how they use microstock. Initially, they buy cheap versions to use in comps to present their projects. Then they would contract me to shoot something very similar. As cost cuts became more important, they would just start using hi-res microstock images and eliminate the photoshoot. Many times I would end up using microstock photos for my project because I couldn't find the subject matter to shoot myself. (especially food or plants that were out of season, or not available in the US)
  I shoot isolations, in full focus, that can easily be stripped into projects. I try to imagine how an art director would use my isolated image in their project. That's how I made a good living for years, taking various images, and assembling them in Photoshop, to match an art director's comp.

I'm a vegetarian and was briefly assigned to the KFC account. Everyone was required to eat KFC in client meetings, so I ate the mashed potatoes and corn. Got off the account as quickly as I could. Refuse cigarette accounts and try my very best to avoid working on pharma. It restricts my freelancing income a bit, but I feel better about it.

Nothing you can do about image usage, unfortunately. I've found some of my illustrations being used for political causes I'm opposed to. All you can do is grin and bear it.

I figure there's a buyer for every image and it's your job to find them.

Exactly.  Customers come from all walks of life.

Quote

For me, it is very important to know more about people I am working with. I choose that work to have a possibility to communicate with interesting people from all over the world. And I enjoy it (mostly). And the process of creation and motivation is very interesting for me. I ask customers as well about their vision of photographers and vector designers. And the hole picture is very surprising.

Yeah, some hole pictures can be surprising.
Of course, it depends on what kind of hole, and also whether it is a close-up or shot with a wide-angle lens.

Far too technical and complicated.
Best to stick with pinhole.

No wonder people have been drifting away from this forum. Someone comes on with a well meaning topic of discussion and they mostly get unhelpful snide comments. Kind of sad.

Where's your helpful reply?

Quote from: Will on April 25, 2015, 11:17

No wonder people have been drifting away from this forum. Someone comes on with a well meaning topic of discussion and they mostly get unhelpful snide comments. Kind of sad.

Very sad indeed, I couldn't agree more with you. Some people come here only to complain.

Like we should waste time on companies selling images for 80c - $1?

Quote from: PressFoto on April 24, 2015, 08:19

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 24, 2015, 08:10

Quote from: PressFoto on April 24, 2015, 07:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on April 24, 2015, 07:12

I would think stock agencies would have a much clearer picture of our customers since you/they have access to data we don't. Maybe we should ask you?

The idea is we have a clear picture, but it is very curious to know what contributors think about their customers. I have data, but can't read your mind and predict your personal view.

Well, based on your OP, "customers in the microstock and photographers have very different views on provided and purchased content." Why don't you tell us what those different views are? Then perhaps we can tell you what we think.

Ok, I will give you an example from yesterday. One of our clients found a photo with, which shows a picture of a famous artist in the museum. It is the high-quality photo, but with a special light, which was in the museum. He is a painter and he wanted to find a reproduction to explore the manner of drawing. He was very disappointed. I think the reason of such situations is misunderstanding and "different view" on purposes of photos.

Your client could have paid about a dollar for a photo of a famous artist in a gallery and complained about the lighting not being suited to his specialist and possibly suspect requirements? And he bothered to contact you to complain?

You can't imagine, it is not the end of story. We always trying to do our best and even more for our customers, so I called to The Russian Museum, where this picture is, and they gave us a highest-quality image of this picture. Unfortunately, the client chose to continue to insult our staff and we were forced to deny him in our service.

I'm a vegetarian and was briefly assigned to the KFC account. Everyone was required to eat KFC in client meetings, so I ate the mashed potatoes and corn. Got off the account as quickly as I could. Refuse cigarette accounts and try my very best to avoid working on pharma. It restricts my freelancing income a bit, but I feel better about it.

Nothing you can do about image usage, unfortunately. I've found some of my illustrations being used for political causes I'm opposed to. All you can do is grin and bear it.

It is nice when you can choose with whom to work. It was my first rule in all my PR projects. It is so hard to do something good when you can't share the company values and mission.

Regarding the shot of the painting in the museum...it must have been taken on the sly, because every museum I have been to forbids photography, without special permissions.

I haven't submitted images in a long time, but I do still have about 900 images up online. I also buy images for client work. My workflow is pretty much as rimglow described. I look for images to illustrate the article, but a lot of times the "perfect" image can't be found. I use a watermarked image to place FPO, or do a minimal amt of compositing to give the client the idea. When everything is approved, I purchase the hi rez versions and finalize the image. I sometimes do a lot of compositing to get the result I want.

Some people here make fun of the photographers shooting isolated objects, but I find them to be very useful. A technically bad photo can't be much use, but sometimes I would be baffled by the "no commercial value" rejection of photos. As Sean said, there's a buyer for every image.