Justin Foto wrote:
Huh! My rejections are usually for "high ISO noise" for shots taken in good light, ISO 200 on a 1Ds MKIII. I've never been able to fathom that one out.

I doubt those reviewers actually know what they're talking about. It's probably just a canned response.

Bodyshots Photography wrote:

Digital Czar wrote:
What about Usage + difficulty to do the shoot + raw costs + your worth(what you bring to the party = budget           Knowing that this is open to negotiation.

I don't think there is a lot of negotiating.   However, the things you mentioned will be reflected in who they hire.  Who they choose to hire will once again depend on the needs they have.  Sorry - I should add their usage includes non transferable rights.  They do not buy the copyright.  I'm sure this is reflected in the initial negotiations regarding photographer pay.

At other times, they pay for images and this again relates to the need/difficulty. 

Digital Czar wrote:
It's been that circulation has played a part in what fee is charged, as well as size etc. I don't see that in your thinking.

I'm afraid I don't know much about how their initial budget is established or how it relates to circulation.   Webpage, and other parts of the business are a part of the equation as well as just the print material. 


I think you mention many of the challenges the art director I know faces regularly.  Still he's responsible to the bottom line.  I think robbing peter to pay paul, is one reason they sometimes  turn to micro stock when they've gone over budget some where else.

Subjects/models not showing when he's paying big bucks for the photographer is another cost he runs into.  I guess some issues are universal.

What I was getting at was the process feels backwards. How do you set budgets when you don't know what may, or may not happen and then perhaps box yourself in a corner, all of which in this case would affect the look and appeal of the magazine and ultimately it's circulation and readership?

Most of my clients were either direct, ad agencies or designers. I bid jobs based on the factors I cited. Only then would budget come into things unless an AD stated out front in which case it would be my choice of if I wanted to work for that client. Sometimes I did, if I liked the photo, sometimes I didn't since I wouldn't work below a fair amount for doing the photo. Long ago I stopped working(other than for established clients I work for)doing photos for the client who would say, "do this and we'll give you that...." is often baloney. 
Then I've been a studio shooter and I did location for clients as needed, but little editorial.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
This T has gone really out of topic...

while reading all the comments about how the OP got "screwed" and how much Time pays for a cover...I keep thinking.... THIS particular cover is not about the picture it self, it's the IDEA behind the little manipulation they pulled on the pic.

The stock image fits the idea so they buy it, legally (Maybe they should have bought the extended rights one... but that's a problem between the OP and the stock company, not the OP and the mag) The stock image is enough for the concept and it wasn't worth it to pay a photog to do a jar filled with coins - maybe for $30 it wasn't even worth it to spend the time to do the shot.

I really don't get how this is bad for the OP - he got a Cover with a stock image

Regardless of the fact that it's TIME, he got paid squat for the image. If every image he sells through iStock is at that rate, how many does he have to sell to make any kind of money? He can't shoot more stuff either for at that price($30) he's wearing out his equipment and won't have the funds to repair, if repairable, or upgrade and purchase new stuff.

Digital Czar wrote:

Regardless of the fact that it's TIME, he got paid squat for the image. If every image he sells through iStock is at that rate, how many does he have to sell to make any kind of money? He can't shoot more stuff either for at that price($30) he's wearing out his equipment and won't have the funds to repair, if repairable, or upgrade and purchase new stuff.

While I don't rely on iStock for my living, it does bring in considerably more than you think it does, and they are always boosting fee. I purchased quite a bit of equipment on a lease that iStock pays for, and that takes pressure off of the studio income, so its all good... at least I think it is.

Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:

There was a time when I would just argue to argue with you, Bob. But I've grown since then and realize we often just have different opinions on things however I would agree with you 100% on this.

I'm fed up with reading people who are scribbling about how the sky is falling. You have to WORK to get what you want and I think most people on this site forget that missing piece. You have to really spend a lot of time defining who you are and what your voice is. Most peopel do not have a voice; I don't hear a voice emanating from that coin jar and I look at many people who argue that the jar killed their business to see they don't have strong voices either.

I agree that successful shooters have to spend a significant amount of time and energy paying their dues. I'm not a threat to top fashion photographers today but, so I can be, I am working every day on my art. I often find myself shooting twice or three times a day while trying to hussle a few pennies here and there to buy some mac 'n cheese. A $30 coin jar is not a threat to my business and it isn't a threat to anyone else's, except the people trying to sell an identical coin jar for $45 under similar conditions.

In the end, good business with good earnings isn't for everyone. You have to really work, think on your toes, take chances and adapt much more than the average person can handle. If business were easy then we would ALL be making 6, 7, or 8 figures each year. A $30 coin jar IS going to kill someone's business, but that person barely had a business in the first place.

PS: I apologize for being such a pain in the ass before... I am sure you will understand that I was just being "young and foolish."

--
MICHAEL DONOVAN
http://MichaelDonovanPhotography.com

Michael, while I largely agree with you, I think the caution is that if everything becomes the $30 stock photo, no one can make money, no one can shoot new stuff unless it's funded by other things if they're shooting at that rate.

I still would say though that the low rates affect everyone in some way, if in no other way than state of mind remembering that it seems business today is focused on "how can we do things the cheapest" rather than "how can we do things best".

Digital Czar wrote:

Regardless of the fact that it's TIME, he got paid squat for the image. If every image he sells through iStock is at that rate, how many does he have to sell to make any kind of money? He can't shoot more stuff either for at that price($30) he's wearing out his equipment and won't have the funds to repair, if repairable, or upgrade and purchase new stuff.

Who cares if he sells the image for 30 cents!
Some people pay CPA's hundreds to thousands a year to do their taxes.
Some people pay H&R 125.00 to do their taxes.
Some people do their own taxes and pay no one. *gasp*

Millions of people every day do things that they lose money on it is called a hobby, and they many times sell off the hobby to make a few dollars or to clear out space.

The entire buisness model has changed over the past 30+ years, but so has every other buisness model as well. This does not stop at photography, look at how many NEW jobs are out their as apposed to years ago.

Or are we going to continue to bitch that women have gone from 20% of the workforce to 50% since the 1920's.

It is all the womans fault blame us...we took the mans jobs away from him...we started the decline of the great working male.

Digital Czar wrote:

Michael, while I largely agree with you, I think the caution is that if everything becomes the $30 stock photo, no one can make money, no one can shoot new stuff unless it's funded by other things if they're shooting at that rate.

I still would say though that the low rates affect everyone in some way, if in no other way than state of mind remembering that it seems business today is focused on "how can we do things the cheapest" rather than "how can we do things best".

In that case...
I am certain you use the BEST equipment and not the cheapest right?
You never cut corners to save a dime on your production?
I'd love to come to your studio and borrow your p65+ some day.

"I have seen the enemy and he is us" POGO

Robert Randall wrote:

I do, and I'm going to start charging more so I can buy one of these. Wait til I tell the purists I was on full auto 30 fps.

http://www.b2pro.com/gallery/shot_on_red/index.php

You'll have to get really expensive strobes that recycle 30 times per second.

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:

In that case...
I am certain you use the BEST equipment and not the cheapest right?
You never cut corners to save a dime on your production?
I'd love to come to your studio and borrow your p65+ some day.

"I have seen the enemy and he is us" POGO

I have bought the best equipment I can afford and even some I can't. Good stuff doesn't break or need repairs if you take care of it.

I try not to cut corners, other than making suggestions that might save some dollars as in using a set I have, or a location I know of that might be cheaper than building a set for example.

What makes you think I have a P65? Just because they cost a lot?

Then again you're being sarcastic and it's obvious.

Sockpuppet Studios  wrote:

Who cares if he sells the image for 30 cents!
Some people pay CPA's hundreds to thousands a year to do their taxes.
Some people pay H&R 125.00 to do their taxes.
Some people do their own taxes and pay no one. *gasp*

Millions of people every day do things that they lose money on it is called a hobby, and they many times sell off the hobby to make a few dollars or to clear out space.

The entire buisness model has changed over the past 30+ years, but so has every other buisness model as well. This does not stop at photography, look at how many NEW jobs are out their as apposed to years ago.

Or are we going to continue to bitch that women have gone from 20% of the workforce to 50% since the 1920's.

It is all the womans fault blame us...we took the mans jobs away from him...we started the decline of the great working male.

Then you'd better sell every photo you do for $30 and be happy with it.

The difference is I care about the business I'm in and it's health as part of what goes on in that marketplace.

Digital Czar wrote:

What I was getting at was the process feels backwards. How do you set budgets when you don't know what may, or may not happen and then perhaps box yourself in a corner, all of which in this case would affect the look and appeal of the magazine and ultimately it's circulation and readership?...

Ever businesses I know has budgets which are usually based in part on past revenues and projected future earnings.  Obviously budget proposals influence the exact budget allocation.  I'm certainly not knowledgeable as to the budget negotiations in his area.   However, as an art director it's his job to know what costs are likely to be.  He needs to know what you might cost, what stock images cost, what printing costs, etc.  As I've mentioned, he's free to be adaptable with in that.  If he thinks a certain project requires your more expensive skills instead of mine, he's free to do that as long as he makes up the difference somewhere.   Magazines like most businesses don't have endless money.  They only have so much and that means budgets.    From what I hear those budgets are getting smaller and smaller all the time.

Bodyshots Photography wrote:

Ever businesses I know has budgets which are usually based in part on past revenues and projected future earnings.  Obviously budget proposals influence the exact budget allocation.  I'm certainly not knowledgeable as to the budget negotiations in his area.   However, as an art director it's his job to know what costs are likely to be.  He needs to know what you might cost, what stock images cost, what printing costs, etc.  As I've mentioned, he's free to be adaptable with in that.  If he thinks a certain project requires your more expensive skills instead of mine, he's free to do that as long as he makes up the difference somewhere.   Magazines like most businesses don't have endless money.  They only have so much and that means budgets.    From what I hear those budgets are getting smaller and smaller all the time.

When the budgets get smaller and smaller, what's going to give?

Digital Czar wrote:
Michael, while I largely agree with you, I think the caution is that if everything becomes the $30 stock photo, no one can make money,

The point is.... Not everything can be done with stock,
and not every client wants to use stock.

If I just need a picture of a bottle for an ad..... I might use a stock photo.
But if I need a picture of a bottle of my product.... I'm going to have to hire a photographer.

If I am hiring a photographer to shoot something specific it's never going to be a $30 photo.

Digital Czar wrote:
Regardless of the fact that it's TIME, he got paid squat for the image. If every image he sells through iStock is at that rate, how many does he have to sell to make any kind of money? He can't shoot more stuff either for at that price($30) he's wearing out his equipment and won't have the funds to repair, if repairable, or upgrade and purchase new stuff.

You're right.  No one can make money at iStock.  Good point.

Justin Foto wrote:
Huh! My rejections are usually for "high ISO noise" for shots taken in good light, ISO 200 on a 1Ds MKIII. I've never been able to fathom that one out.

You'd do well to post in the critique forum.  We find that most people that think their image is tack sharp, for example, couldn't be more wrong, despite their claims.

netmodel wrote:

I doubt those reviewers actually know what they're talking about. It's probably just a canned response.

Truly un-informed and ignorant statement.

Digital Planet Design wrote:
You'd do well to post in the critique forum.  We find that most people that think their image is tack sharp, for example, couldn't be more wrong, despite their claims.

Or I can re-post the image the image and it gets through with a different reviewer. I think I know what tack sharp does and doesn't look like thanks, although you seem to have trouble differentiating between sharpness with noise.

Justin Foto wrote:

Or I can re-post the image the image and it gets through with a different reviewer. I think I know what tack sharp does and doesn't look like thanks, although you seem to have trouble differentiating between sharpness with noise.

That was an example.   I was trying to separate the issue from your personal case so you wouldn't think I was calling you an idiot.  I'll try to be clearer next time so you don't have a problem understanding.

You'd do well to post in the critique forum.  We tend to find that most people who think their images are noise and artifact free and would bet their mother's cane on it, end up seeing the issues eventually.

Digital Planet Design wrote:
You'd do well to post in the critique forum.  We tend to find that most people who think their images are noise and artifact free and would bet their mother's cane on it, end up seeing the issues eventually.

"We"? Who is "We"? Are you "We"? Or is there a private MM club called "We"?

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

"We"? Who is "We"? Are you "We"? Or is there a private MM club called "We"?

"We" as in your iStock peer group that post in the critique forum in response to people seeking to understand their issues with their images and iStock inspection.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

"We" as in your iStock peer group that post in the critique forum in response to people seeking to understand their issues with their images and iStock inspection.

Thanks. I didn't know that MM had an iStock peer group. Is there a member list somewhere online?

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

Thanks. I didn't know that MM had an iStock peer group. Is there a member list somewhere online?

Sorry - I'll be clearer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_thread … =26&page=1

Digital Czar wrote:

Michael, while I largely agree with you, I think the caution is that if everything becomes the $30 stock photo, no one can make money, no one can shoot new stuff unless it's funded by other things if they're shooting at that rate.

I still would say though that the low rates affect everyone in some way, if in no other way than state of mind remembering that it seems business today is focused on "how can we do things the cheapest" rather than "how can we do things best".

OK. Keep thinking that way. But I prefer to think progressively and realistically.

Look- we all have sex but porn stars make a lot more money from it than you or me. And we all eat but hotdog-eating champs make more money from sponsors than you and I do. Every woman pops out eggs from her vagina once a month but some women will put in a little work so they can pop out a few dozen and collect $8,000 from a fertility clinic. And we all talk but Larry King seems to get more and more rich as he opens his mouth more and more. We all tell jokes but Conan O'Brian and Carson Daley get paid more for it. Most teenagers sing in the shower or in the car but Hannah Montana seems to make a little more than most kids her age. We all put on acts but I haven't seem Brad Pitt's net worth plummet because a 14 year old kid acted in a school play. EVERYONE has taken photos of their family but portrait and wedding photographers have been in business and are staying in business!

PEOPLE and their TALENTS are not commodities unless people sell them as commodities.

In the end, I shoot fashion. I see a TON of people who also shoot fashion photography and none of us are shaking in our boots because someone rolled out a $30 jar of coins. As much as some people will claim that "shooting fashion is easy," I'll tell you it is much harder than shooting a jar of coins and collecting 15 minutes of fame.

Seriously, man, get real and do something productive rather than freak out over one stupid sale to one client that you have never even worked with. This sale actually will STIMULATE the economy since no sale=no transaction whereas a $30 sale for one month is going to help a struggling company (Time) get through a month while they work on new/more customers (advertisers that DO pay the real money) while providing $30 to someone who will pass it on to some waiter at The Olive Garden who will invest it with some other savings to buy some rims for his Civic by some guy that will... you get the point.

And, if you STILL do not get it... well keep doing what you are doing so I can take your clients while you are pissing your shorts.

Digital Planet Design wrote:

That was an example.   I was trying to separate the issue from your personal case so you wouldn't think I was calling you an idiot.  I'll try to be clearer next time so you don't have a problem understanding.

You'd do well to post in the critique forum.  We tend to find that most people who think their images are noise and artifact free and would bet their mother's cane on it, end up seeing the issues eventually.

Artifacts, yeah. Lighting, though...I call bullshit on most of my "lighting" rejections

Digital Planet Design wrote:
That was an example.   I was trying to separate the issue from your personal case so you wouldn't think I was calling you an idiot.  I'll try to be clearer next time so you don't have a problem understanding.

You'd do well to post in the critique forum.  We tend to find that most people who think their images are noise and artifact free and would bet their mother's cane on it, end up seeing the issues eventually.

If I need a critique on MM or any other online forum, I'll ask for it. In the mean time, I just use the critiques I use all the time. Please stop with this horseshit for one minute and try to consider what you type before you type it.

For the record.

1) This forum is currently being used to discuss the pro's and con's of stock photography.
2) At no point did I ask for anyone's help in getting images submitted.
3) This forum is NOT about me or my images.
4) Please don't assume I need it help when I didn't ask for it. I don't.

Chris Macan wrote:

The point is.... Not everything can be done with stock,
and not every client wants to use stock.

If I just need a picture of a bottle for an ad..... I might use a stock photo.
But if I need a picture of a bottle of my product.... I'm going to have to hire a photographer.

If I am hiring a photographer to shoot something specific it's never going to be a $30 photo.

Some will try as they might to make it a $30 photo even if it's their product. They'll try if they think they can get away with it. Often folks do stuff thinking it's saving money, when it isn't, or things get compromised by the cheapness.

Michael Donovan Rulezz wrote:

OK. Keep thinking that way. But I prefer to think progressively and realistically.

Look- we all have sex but porn stars make a lot more money from it than you or me. And we all eat but hotdog-eating champs make more money from sponsors than you and I do. Every woman pops out eggs from her vagina once a month but some women will put in a little work so they can pop out a few dozen and collect $8,000 from a fertility clinic. And we all talk but Larry King seems to get more and more rich as he opens his mouth more and more. We all tell jokes but Conan O'Brian and Carson Daley get paid more for it. Most teenagers sing in the shower or in the car but Hannah Montana seems to make a little more than most kids her age. We all put on acts but I haven't seem Brad Pitt's net worth plummet because a 14 year old kid acted in a school play. EVERYONE has taken photos of their family but portrait and wedding photographers have been in business and are staying in business!

PEOPLE and their TALENTS are not commodities unless people sell them as commodities.

In the end, I shoot fashion. I see a TON of people who also shoot fashion photography and none of us are shaking in our boots because someone rolled out a $30 jar of coins. As much as some people will claim that "shooting fashion is easy," I'll tell you it is much harder than shooting a jar of coins and collecting 15 minutes of fame.

Seriously, man, get real and do something productive rather than freak out over one stupid sale to one client that you have never even worked with. This sale actually will STIMULATE the economy since no sale=no transaction whereas a $30 sale for one month is going to help a struggling company (Time) get through a month while they work on new/more customers (advertisers that DO pay the real money) while providing $30 to someone who will pass it on to some waiter at The Olive Garden who will invest it with some other savings to buy some rims for his Civic by some guy that will... you get the point.

And, if you STILL do not get it... well keep doing what you are doing so I can take your clients while you are pissing your shorts.

The one who isn't getting it is you Michael. As a fashion shooter, you're not affected since fashions are branded items and your clients won't find their products in the stock photo market.

For many though, the photographs they do will be found in stock in some very similar ways. Close enough for the "hand grenades and horseshoes" comparison. And often close enough to make going for the stock photo a real consideration rather than shooting a photo to the concept. Instead, we get the cheap stock photo and design to that.

Too bad you live in your own glass house and can't realize what some things like this mean for a whole business marketplace. Here's the clue since you don't get it. It's not what ONE $30 sale means, it is however about what they all mean for there isn't just ONE. There's many. And they drag down the business. For when one place gets a $30 stock photo and it gets out, others want the same deal when it's appropriate to the concept.

R Studios wrote:
My stock photo on Istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo- … ss-jar.php

is on Time magazine cover.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641 … 27,00.html

buy print at http://robertlamphoto.zenfolio.com/p644729573

OOPS we all seem to have missed something. iStock collected $30, our intrepid photographer was rewarded with either $6 or $12 for his effort (based on whether he is an "exclusive contributor" or not.

Well that should clear this all up. $6...$12 what a deal.

But WAIT there is more, if we look further into iStock we see that bulk credits can be had for 24 CENTS per credit so a "30 credit" use cost Time $7.68, our photographer made either $1.53 for his cover or maybe $3.07. Now I see the point.

There is a reason that Getty and Corbis are still paying royalties of 45% and 50%, why do their micro stock subsidies pay 20% BECAUSE EVERY GWC IS WILLING TO LET THEM.

Justin Foto wrote:
If I need a critique on MM or any other online forum, I'll ask for it. In the mean time, I just use the critiques I use all the time. Please stop with this horseshit for one minute and try to consider what you type before you type it.

For the record.

1) This forum is currently being used to discuss the pro's and con's of stock photography.
2) At no point did I ask for anyone's help in getting images submitted.
3) This forum is NOT about me or my images.
4) Please don't assume I need it help when I didn't ask for it. I don't.

Apparently, the critiques you use all the time aren't helping your stock photography sales at iStock.  Sorry, I'm not the one who was trying to subtly discredit the inspection process and contributing photographers by pointing out my rejection reasons:

Justin Foto wrote:
Huh! My rejections are usually for "high ISO noise" for shots taken in good light, ISO 200 on a 1Ds MKIII. I've never been able to fathom that one out.

Digital Czar wrote:
Some will try as they might to make it a $30 photo even if it's their product. They'll try if they think they can get away with it. Often folks do stuff thinking it's saving money, when it isn't, or things get compromised by the cheapness.

The thing about trying to force a stock photo to fit is that I can pretty quickly spend more on retouching than I would have spent hiring a photographer to shoot it fresh.

Clients and account teams do learn that.
And the job of art and production teams is to know when stock will work and when it will not and to make the client and account team aware of the issues.
.
Seriously.......
your doomsday scenario (while it does have a grain of truth) is ,at the big picture level, bullshit. Stock photography cannot replace original photography for many many jobs.

Chris Macan wrote:

The thing about trying to force a stock photo to fit is that I can pretty quickly spend more on retouching than I would have spent hiring a photographer to shoot it fresh.

Clients and account teams do learn that.
And the job of art and production teams is to know when stock will work and when it will not and to make the client and account team aware of the issues.
.
Seriously.......
your doomsday scenario (while it does have a grain of truth) is ,at the big picture level, bullshit. Stock photography cannot replace original photography for many many jobs.

While you can think retouching an image to work when it's not exactly right, well, unless it happens to be so close, you're going to spend a lot, a real lot. I'll bet you think you or someone in the office will do the work and what does it really cost? You know when you consider the time, salary, your benefits and so on? Did you really save very much? Then again how much retouching is necessary when you can take the cheap stock photo and design to that, rather then shoot to a particular concept, different from the stock photo? Think of it more as what's the cart and what's the horse. The concept should drive the photo not the reverse.

As to what you're calling my "doomsday scenario", that's your label. However, what we're seeing today is the result of that happening in the past for many years. That's the part you're missing. It's not bull, except for your opinion/mind whatever.

Robert Randall wrote:

While I don't rely on iStock for my living, it does bring in considerably more than you think it does, and they are always boosting fee. I purchased quite a bit of equipment on a lease that iStock pays for, and that takes pressure off of the studio income, so its all good... at least I think it is.

What does equipment you purchase at a decent price have to do with this, Bob?(beats me, shaking head...). So, with the photo business so healthy as you paint it, no one here in Chicago is selling stuff they're so busy? No stores have fair prices?

While you don't rely on iStock to make a living(some do make a living from stock...) you can't really shoot for stock at that kind of ROI that iStock is providing. Look at the image the OP sold. Maybe he had the jar and money, and background, camera(film or digital) so what did he spend to do the photo? (some would say his time is his time and doesn't count, but in reality it does). If he shot film and had to pay to digitize it as a good scan, what did he really make? Or might he have a negative earnings number?

Studio 144 wrote:
I wonder how badly it would upset people if they knew that I have traded magazine cover shots for bottles of Mescal? I don't think they even cost $30. ;-)

I suppose you can go to the grocery store and trade that for....

Digital Czar wrote:
While you can think retouching an image to work when it's not exactly right, well, unless it happens to be so close, you're going to spend a lot, a real lot. I'll bet you think you or someone in the office will do the work and what does it really cost? You know when you consider the time, salary, your benefits and so on? Did you really save very much?

DC..... I'm a production professional at an advertising agency.
I know what retouching costs.
As should any production pro, designer, art director, art buyer.........

Which is why the sky is not falling.

Lots of ads work great with stock photos.....and lots don't.
We still need and pay for good photographers for all the work that can't be done with stock.

Digital Czar wrote:
Look at the image the OP sold. Maybe he had the jar and money, and background, camera(film or digital) so what did he spend to do the photo? (some would say his time is his time and doesn't count, but in reality it does). If he shot film and had to pay to digitize it as a good scan, what did he really make? Or might he have a negative earnings number?

I'm going to guess he spent less than 15 minutes to set up and shoot that shot,
and maybe another 15 to prep and upload it.
So lets say one half hour.
If he bills his studio time at $150/hr he has spent $75 in Time/Studio costs

So you would think he is losing money on this transaction,
Except that he may sell this same image many many many times.
Lets say it's not that popular of an image and it only sells 6 times.
And lets say the average sale was $25
Well then his return on investment is double his cost...
which seems to be an OK return on investment.

(and lets be serious... it didn't take 1/2 hour and he doesn't bill his time at $150/hr)