Lohkee wrote:
I disagree. Much of the content needed today is for the web. Historically, site operators would just scour the net and take what they wanted; after all, most were not in a position to pay the kind of money that traditional agencies demanded for imagery. Basically, the traditional agencies completely ignored a huge market and are now paying the price for their shortsightedness (kind of like the chairman of IBM saying that the PC was a fad that would never last – IBM invented the fucking PC, and now look where they are in terms of market share – BIG LOOSERS).

Under the traditional model, the general rule of thumb is $5.00 per year per image in your portfolio (some sell well, other never sell at all). It is true that Microstock pays very little per image, however, the agency is incurring all of the costs to operate and advertise (it is completely free to the photographer). That being said, if you create sellable images it is very possible to exceed the traditional rule of thumb in terms of income. Stock is basically a numbers game. The more images you have, and the more diversified your portfolio; the more you will make.

The argument about devaluing your work is foolish, per se. The majority of people buying “cheap” images are not the kind of people who are going to pay for images in the first place unless they are extremely affordable. The very nature of the web has made sure of this. Getty obviously agrees and sees a viable place for both models – RM and cheap RF. They recently purchased Istock for around 50 Mil. Obviously, they do not have the same mindset as some of the previous posters.

Would I like to get 500+ per sale? Of course I would, but the world is changing whether we like it or not. Someone thought of microstock; a lot of people duplicated the idea; and it is not going to go away simply because we do not like it. One can either figure out how to deal with it (and profit from it) or simply sit around and whine about the “good ol days.” The simple fact is that there are thousands of hobbyists that are quite happy to do the Microstock gig – and these people are producing some extremely high quality work and making money at it. If all of the “pros making it the right way” disappeared tomorrow it wouldn’t change a damned thing –the amateurs would then simply be making that much more.

Lohkee! AKA A lazy untalented mediocre photographer who can't make it the right way!

Daaaamn!

Rich Meade wrote:
Stay away from stock!!

shooting stock and selling it is killing the commercial market!

I've spoken with 4 ad agencies here in atlanta and in the past year their use of stock imagery has gone from 20% to 60%!!  which means that they are using less and less photographers for their ads....which means less work for the future.

sure...you can make money doing stock...but to make the big bucks...you need to be with an agency like Corbis or Getty.  and to get in with them you have to produce an insane ammount of exceptional work...which if you were hired by an ad agency woul require less shots (of high quality of course) and you get paid much more!

stock is the whore of the advertising world...don't support it!
by shooting for stock agency...you are cheapening our craft...and destroying the commercial market!

stock is for lazy untalented mediocre photographers who can't make it the right way!

STAY AWAY!!!!

Digital photography has effectively killed the old (traditional) ''rip off'' prices and marketing methods. For better or for worse depends on your interpretation.  I embrace the new business model and micro-stock as a whole, because it allows photographers who normally wouldn't make a penny from their images, to actually make hundreds of dollars (or more) per month.  Such income on microstock isn't a rarity as some believe.

How is microstock destroying the ''commercial market''?  Just like deregulation destroyed the airlines? Shipping, UPS/FedEx routes?  In the United States of America, we call it fair competition.  Furthermore, if it was only the so-called ''lazy untalented mediocre photographers'' who were generating the bulk of microstock... then major agencies wouldn't be flocking to microstock now would they?  Getty Images sure is impressed with microstock's quality aren't they.. what corporation isn't?  There are good and bad photographs to be had whether traditional stock (Corbis/Getty) or microstock.  You know that.

By stating that non-traditional stock/microstock has led several agencies (that you talked to) to purchase 40% more stock photos due to the current stock photography business model, then you're reinforcing and implying that the fact that many ad agents/mkt depts are finding non traditional stock photos a *better* deal.

Face it, microstock has finally killed the price inflation that had been common to photography for decades.  Digital SLRs have brought a plain and simple truth to the table... *That many (obviously not all) professional stock photographs sold to ad agents for thousands of dollars and several times over (limited use rights), can often (I reiterate the word ''often'') easily be taken by a 24yr old college student and or stay-at-home mom, wielding a D2x or 1DS.  Currently, such is a large demographic of microstock.  The fact that microstock has excellent quality in its selection isn't debatable.. its already been proven by those who matter most.. Corporate Ad and Marketing Departments.

Speaking of Getty Images...  (rhetorically) Didn't Getty spend over $50,000,000 to purchase istockphoto this year???   I suppose Getty started smelling the coffee and readily understands that microstock isn't just a bunch of wanna be photographers uploading below-par photos in hopes of wooing ad departments.  Any businessperson would be crazy not to consider microstock in their corporate marketing and or ad purchase scheme.

Digital backs, digital Hassy's, etc., etc.. are dropping in price like a brick in water.  Medium format film and general (medium & large format) stock photographers are about to get a loud wake up call, as the only thing that keeps the masses from medium format digital is price...  The writing is on the wall, you can engrave that in granite.



Cordially

Teila

See article:  Popular Photography, August 2006, pg. 73 ''25 Cent fortunes"

Rich Meade wrote:
Stay away from stock!!

shooting stock and selling it is killing the commercial market!

I've spoken with 4 ad agencies here in atlanta and in the past year their use of stock imagery has gone from 20% to 60%!!  which means that they are using less and less photographers for their ads....which means less work for the future.

sure...you can make money doing stock...but to make the big bucks...you need to be with an agency like Corbis or Getty.  and to get in with them you have to produce an insane ammount of exceptional work...which if you were hired by an ad agency woul require less shots (of high quality of course) and you get paid much more!

stock is the whore of the advertising world...don't support it!
by shooting for stock agency...you are cheapening our craft...and destroying the commercial market!

stock is for lazy untalented mediocre photographers who can't make it the right way!

STAY AWAY!!!!

where have you been?  it isn't killing, it killed the market a while ago, frankly I think the shift was occurring in the early 90's when I was still in school.  The trick is learning how to keep viable in a world that changes moment to moment, not by waging a quixotic protest.

I know a bunch of getty shooters and one guy who works for corbis~ none of them are complaining too much, and all still shoot independant assignment work as well.  I'm actually trying to get assignment work from getty right now.  Never put all your eggs in one basket.