Why Dangle wrote:

The value is $30 but a lot of people don't seem to be able to get their heads round it.

WOW, yet another photographer who doesn't understand the business?

I don't know if you are, but ever done a COB - cost of business -- for photography?

What you should make off of stock sales, day rates etc.. TFP is bad enough, but wholy shit.. $30... wow...

Taking into account just about everything --- insurance, health insurance, camera up up keep -- to make about $60K a year, you need to bill out roughly twice that.

So at $30 a pop that mean selling 4,000 images.

UNDERVALUE....

Again, learn the value of your photography.

Here's a good start -- not the end all, but a start:

http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources … imator.asp

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

WOW, yet another photographer who doesn't understand the business?

I don't know if you are, but ever done a COB - cost of business -- for photography?

What you should make off of stock sales, day rates etc.. TFP is bad enough, but wholy shit.. $30... wow...

Taking into account just about everything --- insurance, health insurance, camera up up keep -- to make about $60K a year, you need to bill out roughly twice that.

So at $30 a pop that mean selling 4,000 images.

UNDERVALUE....

Again, learn the value of your photography.

Here's a good start -- not the end all, but a start:

http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources … imator.asp

So, if I post a photo of a jar of pennies to a stock photo site, I should expect to get $4,000.00 for each use of it?

Creative Works LLC wrote:

So, if I post a photo of a jar of pennies to a stock photo site, I should expect to get $4,000.00 for each use of it?

Did you read what I wrote?

NO

You need to sell 4,000 images at $30 a pop to make a living..

Again. learn the value of your work.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

Did you read what I wrote?

NO

You need to sell 4,000 images at $30 a pop to make a living..

Again. learn the value of your work.

A photo of a jar of coins is not worth thousands of dollars, no matter how loudly you claim it is.

And you need to fix your business model. I'd love to put you out of business because it means *I* get the money instead of you.

Somebody in Podunk wouldn't get to publish a shot in Time under the old system. So really, the only people hurt by this are commercial guys in LA and NYC. The rest of us have access to a market that was closed before.

I see this as a good thing.

Legacys 7 wrote:

No,

the reason why newspapers are failing is because of the internet.

So by that logic, if you try to put a profitable web site together with shitty content then you're going to make money?

Some of it is due to the medium, but shitty content is shitty content.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

WOW, yet another photographer who doesn't understand the business?

I don't know if you are, but ever done a COB - cost of business -- for photography?

What you should make off of stock sales, day rates etc.. TFP is bad enough, but wholy shit.. $30... wow...

Taking into account just about everything --- insurance, health insurance, camera up up keep -- to make about $60K a year, you need to bill out roughly twice that.

So at $30 a pop that mean selling 4,000 images.

UNDERVALUE....

Again, learn the value of your photography.

Here's a good start -- not the end all, but a start:

http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources … imator.asp

That's the whole point! You sell images for microstock that people actually want, but you sell it many many times for small dollars. It's actually way easier to make money doing that then trying to get a couple of grand for a one off deal.

Once it's posted what are you doing to make that shot sell? Absolutely nothing! It takes none of your time or resources, it just sits there and does it's own thing while you go do something else.

Justin Foto wrote:

That's the whole point! You sell images for microstock that people actually want, but you sell it many many times for small dollars. It's actually way easier to make money doing that then trying to get a couple of grand for a one off deal.

Once it's posted what are you doing to make that shot sell? Absolutely nothing! It takes none of your time or resources, it just sits there and does it's own thing while you go do something else.

I sat through a presentation at the local photography club. This person was all proud of how well they did on the stock sites. They worked all the sites...took tons of pictures...knew which ones would sell...put in like 30 hours a week on it...the person got to the end and told us how all this generated a whopping $20,000 per year! Game over....

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

Did you read what I wrote?

NO

You need to sell 4,000 images at $30 a pop to make a living..

Again. learn the value of your work.

So, the OP sold one for $30.00.  3,999 more to go.  Or maybe he's already sold that many, but to lesser-known rags.  We don't know.  And, you're assuming his only income is from selling stock photos?  Maybe he makes millions shooting celebrity weddings and puts his outtakes on stock photo sites to bring in a few extra bucks from photos he otherwise has no use for.

You're all over a guy who's off-the-wall photo of a jar of coins lands on a Time magazine cover.  And the fact that Time acquired the image for 30 bucks is totally in keeping with the theme of the article.

And maybe, just maybe, Time's use of a stock image for their cover is a warning shot across your bow.

BlackWatch wrote:
I sat through a presentation at the local photography club. This person was all proud of how well they did on the stock sites. They worked all the sites...took tons of pictures...knew which ones would sell...put in like 30 hours a week on it...the person got to the end and told us how all this generated a whopping $20,000 per year! Game over....

Wow! One example proves a whole industry is a waste of time! Who would have thought?

BlackWatch wrote:
I sat through a presentation at the local photography club. This person was all proud of how well they did on the stock sites. They worked all the sites...took tons of pictures...knew which ones would sell...put in like 30 hours a week on it...the person got to the end and told us how all this generated a whopping $20,000 per year! Game over....

IDK, working for yourself 30 hours a week, no boss, to make $20K a year...depends on where you live, but remember, the next year that will be a lot more because he will have a much larger stock library.

Lots of businesses lose money for their first few years. True fact.

Justin Foto wrote:

Wow! One example proves a whole industry is a waste of time! Who would have thought?

Doesn't disprove....

Lumigraphics wrote:
IDK, working for yourself 30 hours a week, no boss, to make $20K a year...depends on where you live, but remember, the next year that will be a lot more because he will have a much larger stock library.

Lots of businesses lose money for their first few years. True fact.

And even if the guy making $20K a year just stopped and did something else, that $20K keeps rolling in...at zero cost.

BlackWatch wrote:

Doesn't disprove....

I have images on istock it doesn't mean that is my only income I also shoot alot of other stuff those extra 20 grand that you speak off is a good bonus  to be added on to your regular income. And the images are being marketed by themselves.

BlackWatch wrote:
So let's hear some stock photo success stories...who's making $80K a year or more at it?

Most stock photographers don't shoot just for stock they shoot other stuff as well. That is just extra money for their pockets.

I'm a portrait photographer and that is how I make a living but I also sell stock on the side all I have to do is upload photos that are gathering dust in my hardrive and they sell on their own that is extra money coming in on top of my regular income.

KillerShotz Photography wrote:

I have images on istock it doesn't mean that is my only income I also shoot alot of other stuff those extra 20 grand that you speak off is a good bonus  to be added on to your regular income. And the images are being marketed by themselves.

Do you make $20k off them? this person didn't do it as a bonus...she did it long hours every week for a couple dollars an hour more than minimum wage...

BlackWatch wrote:
Do you make $20k off them? this person didn't do it as a bonus...she did it long hours every week for a couple dollars an hour more than minimum wage...

I rather make 20k then 0 money at all because I'm waiting for someone to pay big bucks for 1 photo.

KillerShotz Photography wrote:

I rather make 20k then 0 money at all because I'm waiting for someone to pay big bucks for 1 photo.

That's too bad...

I really like your work by-the-way...

KillerShotz Photography wrote:
I rather make 20k then 0 money at all because I'm waiting for someone to pay big bucks for 1 photo.

But the thinking seems to be "set a high price and who cares if no one ever buys or uses it as long as you have the personal satisfaction that you made the other high-priced stock photographers happy".

Justin Foto wrote:

So by that logic, if you try to put a profitable web site together with shitty content then you're going to make money?

Some of it is due to the medium, but shitty content is shitty content.

No, but if you want to put together a shitty site, then by all means knock yourself the fuck out. I didn't say anything beyond the post that you replied to because I didn't think that I needed to do that. 

By logic, if you didn't keep up with the times and still practice the old school ways, you fell behind because the internet is giving us more access to media/news everyday that even the newspaper couldn't keep up to date unless you turn on your local news. The other internet factor which I had explained in my 2nd reply is, free news.

I can go to Yahoo, MSN and like and get free news with up to date information. My point is, some businesses have fell behind; myopic marketing. And the other is free media that has the visual live appeal that the newspapers can't touch.

Some newspapers have managed to adapt, but a lot of them charge a subscription to read their media. And a lot of them don't have shitty content, it's just that a lot of people aren't going to pay for it if they can get it for free. Similar to this topic about Time and Istock.

Lumigraphics wrote:

A photo of a jar of coins is not worth thousands of dollars, no matter how loudly you claim it is.

And you need to fix your business model. I'd love to put you out of business because it means *I* get the money instead of you.

Somebody in Podunk wouldn't get to publish a shot in Time under the old system. So really, the only people hurt by this are commercial guys in LA and NYC. The rest of us have access to a market that was closed before.

I see this as a good thing.

You may not have seen the value of that jar of coins, but the license for that image should have been (at the very least) in the ballpark of $2000.  This is just for the license.

Unfortunately, when you post your images on a microstock site, anyone can come along and pillage and plunder images at a fraction of their value.  In my opinion, a stock image should hold its value much more than a commissioned piece because you can see exactly what you are buying and you instantly know everything about it.  There is no guesswork.  So that photo of the jar of coins is worth more than $2k.

While I think it's a smart business decision for people to buy images from microstock sites, I think that those who sell their images there don't know the value of photography (and the term, "Like taking candy from a baby," comes to mind).  The reason I say that is because when someone buys a microstock image, they are going to take that image and use it to make money.  That image is an investment into their business.  Whether it's for an ad or a magazine cover or a logo (like the Twitter bird that sold for $6).  These images are expected to provide a return on peoples' investment.  So should you.  How much revenue will Time bring in?  And where will you be taking your family to dinner to celebrate? (Don't forget to tip).

And just so you know, someone in "Podunk" can get their work seen by people at Time — or wherever.  Have you ever thought of marketing to them? 

The problem with taking the low-ball price is that eventually the low-ball price becomes the price.  Congratulations.  You've weakened the market.

MO Rotica wrote:
Congratulations.  You get to brag forever on this one! 

Hopefully using the tear sheet will get you more exposure and future income.  That's the line photographers have been using on models for years...."No pay, but great exposure"

Bylines don't buy beer.

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

Congrads.!!!, true stock agencies don't pay a lot per images used, but the credit and exposure is great, as long as they give you credit for the image(s) !.........damn sorry those cheap SOB, but it's a cut throat business.

I don't think it's right to refer to Time as a "cheap SOB."  The price was the price. If Bill Gates walked into a candy store and saw something for a quarter, should he pay $20? 

If people are going to GIVE their art away they need to be content with their decision.

Tony Blei Photography wrote:

I don't think it's right to refer to Time as a "cheap SOB."  The price was the price. If Bill Gates walked into a candy store and saw something for a quarter, should he pay $20? 

If people are going to GIVE their art away they need to be content with their decision.

He is content.  Everybody else here are the ones that are complaining.

KillerShotz Photography wrote:

He is content.  Everybody else here are the ones that are complaining.

I don't think we're complaining, I think we are just trying to argue that there are problems when it comes to microstock. 

Do you realize there are stock agencies that would pay an appropriate price for a stock image?

Tony Blei Photography wrote:

I don't think we're complaining, I think we are just trying to argue that there are problems when it comes to microstock. 

Do you realize there are stock agencies that would pay an appropriate price for a stock image?

Cool.  I've got thousands of photos, slides and digital images going back maybe 40 years.  Can I just digitized them and upload them to these high-end stock agencies or do they have special requirements, skills tests, sample reviews and other hoops to jump through before they let you submit work?

Scott A Miller photo wrote:
No I didn't read all the pages of this post.

But a few highlights :

1. Time pays $10,000 for a cover ? Since when? Maybe based on a software program saying so, but not in reality.

2. and most important, who give fuck about a tear on TIME.... THIRTY FUCKING DOLLARS FOR A COVER OF TIME ?

Holy shit dude, that is the reason those of us that do this professionally are dying trying to get what we should be paid. Asshats that don't know the business selling their work for pennies or giving it away.

All that tear does is harm, yes HARM the photography industry and you. Now you are the guy who had a cover of TIME for $30 dollars.. great go to fucking McDonalds and buy a Happy Meal. Because you just set your price for life.

You are now the guy who will work for free or VERY CHEAP.

Oh, and TIME is selling reprints of the cover for $15 and change.. so after two sales they made their money back. And under their contract, you may get a penny...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

How would a dentist like it if I did cleanings for a penny, or a lawyer if I did pro-bono work, or did free lawns service, or any job for pennies on the dollar.

LEARN THE BUSINESS.
Learn the value of your work.
It does no one any good if you don't. Including you.

Creative Works LLC wrote:

Cool.  I've got thousands of photos, slides and digital images going back maybe 40 years.  Can I just digitized them and upload them to these high-end stock agencies or do they have special requirements, skills tests, sample reviews and other hoops to jump through before they let you submit work?

I just checked in my old, 2003, "Photographer's Market" book and there are dozens of stock houses there for you to check with.  Thousands of dollars can be made.  But you should probably check with them to discover their requirements.

Bodyshots Photography wrote:
Hey - maybe not big bucks, but still a a nice accomplishment.  Congrats!

Only getting $30 is a nice accomplishment?

Lumigraphics wrote:
A photo of a jar of coins is not worth thousands of dollars, no matter how loudly you claim it is.

And you need to fix your business model. I'd love to put you out of business because it means *I* get the money instead of you.

Somebody in Podunk wouldn't get to publish a shot in Time under the old system. So really, the only people hurt by this are commercial guys in LA and NYC. The rest of us have access to a market that was closed before.

I see this as a good thing.

Tony Blei Photography wrote:
You may not have seen the value of that jar of coins, but the license for that image should have been (at the very least) in the ballpark of $2000.  This is just for the license.

Unfortunately, when you post your images on a microstock site, anyone can come along and pillage and plunder images at a fraction of their value.  In my opinion, a stock image should hold its value much more than a commissioned piece because you can see exactly what you are buying and you instantly know everything about it.  There is no guesswork.  So that photo of the jar of coins is worth more than $2k.

While I think it's a smart business decision for people to buy images from microstock sites, I think that those who sell their images there don't know the value of photography (and the term, "Like taking candy from a baby," comes to mind).  The reason I say that is because when someone buys a microstock image, they are going to take that image and use it to make money.  That image is an investment into their business.  Whether it's for an ad or a magazine cover or a logo (like the Twitter bird that sold for $6).  These images are expected to provide a return on peoples' investment.  So should you.  How much revenue will Time bring in?  And where will you be taking your family to dinner to celebrate? (Don't forget to tip).

And just so you know, someone in "Podunk" can get their work seen by people at Time — or wherever.  Have you ever thought of marketing to them? 

The problem with taking the low-ball price is that eventually the low-ball price becomes the price.  Congratulations.  You've weakened the market.

Too fucking bad.

I didn't weaken MY market where I was making nothing. I weakened YOUR market and took some of your money away.

So you can whine at me or you can adapt.

As for the license, why "should" it have been thousands of dollars? is there any logical reason? That image didn't take thousands of dollars to produce, did it?

Tony Blei Photography wrote:

I don't think we're complaining, I think we are just trying to argue that there are problems when it comes to microstock. 

Do you realize there are stock agencies that would pay an appropriate price for a stock image?

Newsflash, dude- you don't get to decide! The market decided for you. Too fucking bad if you don't like those prices.

The department stores cried when Walmart came along and ate their lunch. Guess what? Walmart is huge and the dept stores are on life support. That's capitalism for you.

Studio Velvet wrote:
Thank you Scott,you said it all!
Magazines now bank on you being "happy" with a cover and a little pocket change. It is worriesome that the industry is going this way and that people uneducated in this industry continue to help in erroding it. For the person,speaking the value of Microstock to keep people from stealing their images, I rather them steal them than pay me a buck, because when I take them to court that image will cost them much more. I am in process of negoations with a painter who stole an image of mine,I gave her choice to buy the image exclusively or go to court. So,see microstock is not glorious,it is not the saving grace,she still chose to steal my image versus paying a buck! Before I ever sold my images for that,I would just shoot for the joy of it,not so I could continue to hang "Photgrapher" sign over my head. Hell I get more than a buck for my greeting cards I sell..

I really wish people would wake up and be a part of the solution and  not part of the problem,until then I will just continue to raise the bar on myself and work towards being unique and original. Wake up! Quit,giving your work away,value it,value your talents,hone your skills,RAISE the bar!

Heather

Well said.

Unfortunately, there are some here that don't understand the point and it's clear that trying to talk to them about the value of a photograph is a lot like teaching a dog to appreciate music.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Newsflash, dude- you don't get to decide! The market decided for you. Too fucking bad if you don't like those prices.

The department stores cried when Walmart came along and ate their lunch. Guess what? Walmart is huge and the dept stores are on life support. That's capitalism for you.

When you were a kid, did you always want to grow up to be an ass, or did it just work out that way?