Christopher Hartman wrote:

I didn't ask about buyout rights.  Do they have ANY form of exclusive use?  Such as, you can't license the image to anyone else until AFTER they have published it?  Do they have ANYTHING like that?  And if they do not, do you market those images to anyone else at the same time or do you wait as some sort of courtesy?

You know, $500?  Maybe YOU'RE part of the problem to.  I'm sure there are people that won't do your work for less than $5,000.  Maybe they should join this thread and talk about how you're ruining their careers.

no man, and your just looking for anything to attack me on. hang it up.

Intensity Studios wrote:

no man, and your just looking for anything to attack me on. hang it up.

So in a nutshell, you don't give a shit about the people you're undercutting, just those that are undercutting you.  Got it!

Christopher Hartman wrote:

So in a nutshell, you don't give a shit about the people you're undercutting, just those that are undercutting you.  Got it!

What is that old saying, What goes around Comes around, or something like that

Leo Howard wrote:

What is that old saying, What goes around Comes around, or something like that

Circle of Life.

David Pollack wrote:
Gee, i guess you can't click far enough to see the tear sheets, national ad, paid jobs.

Having shot professionally for 20++ years, I have the time and freedom to shoot whatever I want for my personal work. Fortunately, as I said, I run a business, I  don't need to make money selling my personal shots, my clients pay me for my commercial work and I am therefore able to shoot other things which may not sell.  Funny, your profile states "I want to create a large body of fine art images that will allow me to seek gallery representation for my work." You might spend your time shooting to accomplish that goal rather than wasting your time here whining. To bad you seem to have some sort of art envy. By the way, nice commercial work on your business web site.

National ads, Where? You've got a few regional retail outlet ads at best, and there were only 3 or 4 of those. You've spent 20 years shooting local community stuff and small catalogs, quit trying to puff up, it ain't gonna fly.

Intensity Studios wrote:

hell no, i never sell "buyout rights"

Probably because you've never been asked to.

Hugh Alison wrote:
It's kinda amusing to look at the stock photography being produced by some of the people bitching the loudest about iStockphoto, and compare it to the quality available on iStockphoto.

Any chance we could move this thread to the critique forum?

Now, that would be fun!

Intensity Studios wrote:
I don't care what "a lot of you" think. "A lot of you" that post on these message boards have no clue about what you're talking about because you spend lots of time on message boards and not out in the field working.

Thank goodness you've managed to take the time out from your busy schedule to stop in and help everyone out!

The percentage of people who actually earn a livable income just on microstock compared to the amount of people who submit is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

What's your point?  It is what you decide to make of it.  The percentage of people who actually earn a livable income just on photography compared to the amount of people who have a camera and want to, is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

Hugh Alison wrote:
It's kinda amusing to look at the stock photography being produced by some of the people bitching the loudest about iStockphoto, and compare it to the quality available on iStockphoto.

It would be hard to compare, since most of us on iStockphoto don't hang about in hotel rooms and bathrooms with naked (sorry, nude) women. 

Hugh Alison wrote:
It's kinda amusing to look at the stock photography being produced by some of the people bitching the loudest about iStockphoto, and compare it to the quality available on iStockphoto.

Any chance we could move this thread to the critique forum?

Now that sounds like a plan!

On another note, regarding value of photography. I was out walking the dog the other day, past a building site. The thought occurred to me that as building sites are rare in this economy so I'd snap a shot and sell it for stock. I uploaded the picture while I had my dinner. I just got a $30 credit. That's $30 for doing almost nothing. The only real work I did was plug my camera into the PC and upload the shot via FTP. Maybe 45 seconds max.

Digital Czar wrote:

Why did photography become a commodity? The history of the stock business may provide that answer. Lets go back to say the 70's-early 80's before the advent of "auto" cameras for a moment. Stock was then photos that folks perhaps couldn't afford to do, often far-away images like the pyramids, or the Amazon, etc. along with other stuff here and there.

Along the way we had amateurs in cameral clubs, hobbiests and so on. Be there no mistake, amateur's can do as good a photo as a pro, but the pro does it for a living and does it "on demand, on time and under pressure".

In the 80's we saw the rise of the photo schools, churning out hundreds of folks who, with a hot shingle in their hands, thought they were now "photographers" as in any other degree for the most part. Those folks put together portfolios, often never worked as apprentices and "learned the business" so-to-speak.

And along came the rise of the BIG stock agencies, Corbus and Getty and there was also the Image Bank. They bought up the smaller stock agencies who had bought collections of photos from the advanced amateurs, hobbiest's who sold lots of images and thought they'd struck GOLD, of course not knowing what they really had if they had good images.

The accountants got into the mix, demanding ever cheaper costs from any manner of vendor be driven down and which brought new, young talent to the mix, who didn't know what quality was, but they did have cheap salaries at the agencies, designers and clients.

Little by little the prices of what was paid for photography eroded and as they eroded some, be it stock or assignment have perhaps felt the need to lessen their fees to get work. And so goes the downward spiral sort of like a snowball, the small one rolled down the hill becomes bigger, and bigger.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the "everyone thinks they're a photographer" which translates to the issue that the supply of folks creating images is so large, it makes things so much a buyers market, prices can't be upheld for there will always be someone who will work cheaper.

I have a buddy who is a photographer who won't ask for some price on an assignment. He always asks "What do you have" since he feels that if he quotes some price, they'll alway go to someone else if his price is equal so therefore he figures he got the job and they didn't. Then he has to figure out how to do the job within the dollars he just got. Did the client know they were getting him cheaper than cheap? Maybe, and he probably left money on the table for he didn't look at what it really took, cost wise, to do the job, just the dollars they wanted to pay. Things like this also contribute.

IOW, the commoditization of photography is partly the fault of the oversupply of folks willing to work cheap, rather than charge what they're worth. Often those folks who "bring something to the party" have a higher view of self-worth and charge for it. If you don't ask, you won't get.

Perhaps too, it's better to ask for higher prices, maybe negotiate lower, but not have the cheap jobs and make little or no profit. You can only live on cash flow so long and you go out of business when your equipment starts dying for you can't afford to replace it.

Bob, you got your temper up again....It's not assumption, but information from knowing some stock agency owners. That and being in the APA when you weren't in the early 80's.

You can name Dan Coha, Ted Tambura and a few others, but they're the FEW who might be good shooters anyway if they hadn't gone to a photo school. As for Jeff Schewe, I've always loved Jeff's images and although he went to RIT, he's one who came out with a heart, and not a technical education and who put that heart into his photos.

As to your ranting on hobbiests and camera clubbers, you are ranting and they did have impact on the stock business. In the early 80s had you been in the APA you might have heard some of this stuff, but you weren't a joiner. The hobbiest's didn't affect me much since I didn't do significant stock work, some, but not much. But stock, in general, had an impact on assignment work. Clients and agencies would compare the cost of a stock image with assigning a job and that difference would make the difference as it were, unless they needed a unique image with their product, or location and so on. The impact of stock can't be denied.

Mine is a tale of history, not one of woe. But you so often pontificate. If this place, that being MM is one where the photographers don't care of pro's as you just stated, then why are you even here, pontificating?

You're acting like your business hasn't changed much other than perhaps fees being a bit lower. If you hold to that, I'd say you're doing better than 98% of the shooters and defying gravity at the same time, that is from the folks I talk to about the state of the assignment photography business. The industry has been hit hard.

Justin Foto wrote:
Now that sounds like a plan!

On another note, regarding value of photography. I was out walking the dog the other day, past a building site. The thought occurred to me that as building sites are rare in this economy so I'd snap a shot and sell it for stock. I uploaded the picture while I had my dinner. I just got a $30 credit. That's $30 for doing almost nothing. The only real work I did was plug my camera into the PC and upload the shot via FTP. Maybe 45 seconds max.

Ha! That's like saying.. "My mom gave me her old diamond ring and I sold it at a pawn shop for $30. It was like free money!" :-) No matter that the ring was worth thousands.

Not that I give a rip about micro-stock... I'm with Bob Randall on this issue.

Brooks Ayola wrote:

Ha! That's like saying.. "My mom gave me her old diamond ring and I sold it at a pawn shop for $30. It was like free money!" :-) No matter that the ring was worth thousands.

Not that I give a rip about micro-stock... I'm with Bob on this issue.

No it isn't because it wasn't. Not even close, not even a little bit.

Justin Foto wrote:

No it isn't because it wasn't. Not even close, not even a little bit.

I forgot that an analogy is supposed to be exactly the same.

Brooks Ayola wrote:

I forgot that an analogy is supposed to be exactly the same.

Close would be good

Justin Foto wrote:

Close would be good

I'm not sure what you're saying.. That your photo could never be worth thousands?

Robert Randall wrote:

Probably because you've never been asked to.

How many buyout of rights do you sell Bob? In state vs. out of state?

Brooks Ayola wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying.. That your photo could never be worth thousands?

I'm not even sure it was worth $30.

Justin Foto wrote:

I'm not even sure it was worth $30.

Ahhh.. I see. That explains a lot. :-)

Intensity Studios wrote:

Actually I hardly ever read these forums because it's way too many people talking about things they are misinformed about. If you are spending all day on message boards, then you're probably not spending too much time shooting, no???

Also every single topic on model mayhem seems to dissolve into pointless flame wars.

I'm stacked up with retouching, which keeps me on the computer, which makes it easy to be on the other computer on MM

Christopher Hartman wrote:

So in a nutshell, you don't give a shit about the people you're undercutting, just those that are undercutting you.  Got it!

He just wants to think he's right and is happy to make silly, illogical arguments which have nothing to do with the actual topic.

Digital Czar wrote:

How many buyout of rights do you sell Bob? In state vs. out of state?

I am asked frequently, however, when they learn how much its going to cost, they almost always back down from their request. Pharma's at AT ask the most often. Its almost a joke with the art buyers. Bayer AG asks every single time I shoot for them, and every time they say the cost is unreasonable. The last time anyone asked was last month on a project for Frito from an agency in Dallas. I'm bidding a project at JWT Atalanta right now, and I heard mention of a buyout. What does in state vs. out of state have to do with anything.

Why Dangle wrote:
........... right then.

So the OP got $30 for the use of his photo in the creation of the front cover. I wonder how much the actual creator got ?............ and I also wonder if he is getting as much shite about his fee , or is he happy, as is the OP.

My mate is a graphic artist and people think photogs are hard done by.
Just saying.

The graphic artist's title is Art Director of Time Magazine. Maybe he gets a bonus for bringing in the cover under budget. Or maybe he manages his budget and spends it on unique, exciting photographs when that is appropriate and makes illustrations when that is appropriate.

I do like that the amount of money in the jar increased from the stock photo to the cover. It's a magic jar.

Intensity Studios wrote:
The percentage of people who actually earn a livable income just on microstock compared to the amount of people who submit is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

Digital Planet Design wrote:
What's your point?  It is what you decide to make of it.  The percentage of people who actually earn a livable income just on photography compared to the amount of people who have a camera and want to, is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

Who needs to live on microstock alone? How many people lived on macro stock back in the day?

Someone can do retail portraits and weddings or commercial work or even have another career and sell microstock on the side, you know. And I took a trip to northern Michigan two weeks ago to shoot lighthouses. Some of those pictures are up on iStock and have already sold.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

It would be hard to compare, since most of us on iStockphoto don't hang about in hotel rooms and bathrooms with naked (sorry, nude) women. 

What I was getting at was that the days when a waist level shot taken on a Hasselblad on transparency film was a cutting edge stock shot are rather long gone.

Intensity Studios wrote:
I don't care what "a lot of you" think. "A lot of you" that post on these message boards have no clue about what you're talking about because you spend lots of time on message boards and not out in the field working.

And it's not just about the OP and letting himself get f*cked by getting paid $30 to shoot a magazine cover for Time. It's about the standards of pay being dragged down across the board by sh*t like istockphoto, fake internships, etc.

The percentage of people who actually earn a livable income just on microstock compared to the amount of people who submit is a tiny tiny tiny fraction.

I work for a magazine (that is much smaller than Time) that uses both contract photographers and istockphoto. When I shoot for them, I get around $500 give/take depending on assignment. When they pull images from istock, they spend like $40 and the photographer sees only a fraction of that.

The difference is you are creating something specific for them,
And they can only get from Istock what is already there.

Your image is done to design and ready to go,
The Istock image may be perfect or may need substantial retouching to make it work.
Sometimes it costs more to use stock because of the money spent on the back end.

They are paying you to get exactly what they want.

You are "custom work"
Istock is "commodity work"

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

It would be hard to compare, since most of us on iStockphoto don't hang about in hotel rooms and bathrooms with naked (sorry, nude) women. 

Speak for yourself Sean!

I need to upload a few art nudes and some glamour to see if it sells

Chris Macan wrote:

The difference is you are creating something specific for them,
And they can only get from Istock what is already there.

Your image is done to design and ready to go,
The Istock image may be perfect or may need substantial retouching to make it work.
Sometimes it costs more to use stock because of the money spent on the back end.

They are paying you more to get exactly what they want.

You are "custom work"
Istock is "commodity work"

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

It really isn't is it!

Lumigraphics wrote:

Speak for yourself Sean!

I need to upload a few art nudes and some glamour to see if it sells

From my experience I can sell a picture of dried mud about 100 times more frequently than I can sell a picture of a naked chick. I live in hope however.

Digital Czar wrote:

Bob, you got your temper up again....It's not assumption, but information from knowing some stock agency owners. That and being in the APA when you weren't in the early 80's.

You can name Dan Coha, Ted Tambura and a few others, but they're the FEW who might be good shooters anyway if they hadn't gone to a photo school. As for Jeff Schewe, I've always loved Jeff's images and although he went to RIT, he's one who came out with a heart, and not a technical education and who put that heart into his photos.

As to your ranting on hobbiests and camera clubbers, you are ranting and they did have impact on the stock business. In the early 80s had you been in the APA you might have heard some of this stuff, but you weren't a joiner. The hobbiest's didn't affect me much since I didn't do significant stock work, some, but not much. But stock, in general, had an impact on assignment work. Clients and agencies would compare the cost of a stock image with assigning a job and that difference would make the difference as it were, unless they needed a unique image with their product, or location and so on. The impact of stock can't be denied.

Mine is a tale of history, not one of woe. But you so often pontificate. If this place, that being MM is one where the photographers don't care of pro's as you just stated, then why are you even here, pontificating?

You're acting like your business hasn't changed much other than perhaps fees being a bit lower. If you hold to that, I'd say you're doing better than 98% of the shooters and defying gravity at the same time, that is from the folks I talk to about the state of the assignment photography business. The industry has been hit hard.

My temper isn't up, and you aren't reading very well. I am not ranting about hobbyists, I like them. Many of them have become friends and I dare say they are wonderful photographers.

Knock off the APA bullshit, I was a member for a number of years. It wasn't worth the effort.

I don't pontificate, I call bullshit. Which is all I've read in this thread. The thread is filled with hysterical children that haven't a clue what they're talking about, and most of them are making crap up on the fly, including you. In the entire volume of crap you've written you haven't produced one salient fact, its all hearsay and opinion. "98% of the shooters" stuff is just bunk... show me the hard survey facts and I'll lighten up.

If the industry has been hit hard, it didn't come from microstock, it came from old age. Guys like Lars Topelman, Ryan Robinson, Saverio Truglia, Taylor Castle... they are all working all the time... just like we did when we were kids. I work all the time because I never grew up.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Who needs to live on microstock alone? How many people lived on macro stock back in the day?

Oh yeah, that was something else I meant to point out.  Who said it has to support X number of people full time?

Justin Foto wrote:

Now that sounds like a plan!

On another note, regarding value of photography. I was out walking the dog the other day, past a building site. The thought occurred to me that as building sites are rare in this economy so I'd snap a shot and sell it for stock. I uploaded the picture while I had my dinner. I just got a $30 credit. That's $30 for doing almost nothing. The only real work I did was plug my camera into the PC and upload the shot via FTP. Maybe 45 seconds max.

Better than me, I only have one photo uploaded and I've made over $3 from about 3 or 4 downloads.  I was just walking around in the Bevery Hills area and saw a nice shiny chromy firehose sprinkler thingy. Took a picture and kept walking.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

Oh yeah, that was something else I meant to point out.  Who said it has to support X number of people full time?

There's quite a few photographers in Eastern Europe, the Far East, and South America making a full time living out of microstock. It's just that they don't need as much to live on.