Digital Planet Design wrote:

Tell me Scott... If you are so concerned about the industry as a (w)hole, shouldn't you be ecstatic that the number of buyers who can now afford images has hugely increased and that hugely increased buying budget is flowing into the hands of thousands of new photographers who had never dreamed of selling imagery?  I mean, you should be falling out of your seat with shear joy!  Even if that causes the casualty of the occasional for-hire photographer losing an assignment for Time?

Cool thought process.

Robert Randall wrote:

It is an evolutionary process... someone came up with the method, and the genie is out of the bottle. You can either learn to work within the system or be crushed by it. I personally don't give a crap about your participation in the industry... all of us aren't feeding me. The American tradition of root, hog or die is deeply instilled in me. I don't need anyone but me, to take care of me and mine.

There was no personal attack and you know it. If after 20 years of shooting, your business is impacted by a $30.00 stock sale, you simply are doing something wrong. If you can dish out the garbage you've been writing in this thread, you should at least be able to man up and take a little criticism about your theories with out crying about personal attacks. I find the people that use a deflection ruse in an argument, usually don't have a good basis for their argument.

You (lest you think I'm beating on you specifically, I'm referring to the collective you) can either shoot smarter or better, or you can be overwhelmed, its that simple. The APA is not going to help a crappy photographer get business.

Yes adapt, improvise and overcome. Been doing that for 20 years.

And as I have said it is not effecting me, but the more it becomes the norm, the more it effects everyone.

I assume looking through your bio - and not the one on MM, that your stock, as mine, is license either by a non mirco agency or yourself.

I too am happy with my stock sales. Personally they are up this year.

Bottom line is this: would you sell and image for the cover of a internationally circulated magazine with the circ size of TIME a cover image for $30?

I highly doubt it and neither would I and neither should anyone. And no one should be happy that it was done.

For this simple fact, we both know the value of the work. Which is some how being lost on people, including you (and I do mean you) and that is my biggest issue. So if that is garbage, sir you need to get over it.

People who should and people who don't know the value of their work and continue to sell it at a highly discounted price will effect us all, no matter how you (not you) twist it.

Curious though, whose the crappy photographer you are referring to? Or is that a collective thing again?

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I read an article some years ago about the great new medium 'the internet' and how it was going to make everyone rich, mag to photographers to advertisers.

And now ? you can go on some sites and get stock pictures for free.
Even a priest does'nt pray for free he sends around a collection box.

Amen
(pun intended)

Digital Planet Design wrote:

Tell me Scott... If you are so concerned about the industry as a (w)hole, shouldn't you be ecstatic that the number of buyers who can now afford images has hugely increased and that hugely increased buying budget is flowing into the hands of thousands of new photographers who had never dreamed of selling imagery?  I mean, you should be falling out of your seat with shear joy!  Even if that causes the casualty of the occasional for-hire photographer losing an assignment for Time?

Short answer no.

I will give you internet before everyone jumps.

Publications are closing all over. So that market is shrinking.

However as more and more established pubs (such as Time) continue to use mirco sites like iStock more and more devaluing the work photographers do. And some photographers see no problem with this.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:
Short answer no.

So, then you are not concerned with the well being of everyone who wishes to call themselves a photographer, ie., the industry as a whole.  Gotcha.

John Malloch-Caldwell wrote:
The general payment to the photographer is in the region of 20% to 40%. These figures are based on the number of images a photographer sells. In 2007 only 5 photographers hit the top range.

You would be incorrect.  There are (and were) many diamond level contributors.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:
Short answer no.

I will give you internet before everyone jumps.

Publications are closing all over. So that market is shrinking.

However as more and more established pubs (such as Time) continue to use mirco sites like iStock more and more devaluing the work photographers do. And some photographers see no problem with this.

This is an argument I have never understood. Perhaps the percieved value of said work has always been infalated if it can be so easily toppled.



Let's imagine a world of prudish women who refuse to agree to have sex with their husbands. The husbands in turn seek out professionals, women who charge a premium for said service. Now, imagine a global sexual awakening. Suddenly, wives everywhere enjoy sex and require little but a kind word, a bunch of flowers or the occasional bauble to entice them.


Well, sadly the professional sex provider whose services were in such high demand before now attracts a much smaller and often more discerning clientele. She can no longer rely on a glut of admirers, but she can focus the premium service she provides and do it better than the amatuers. Likely, she will charge more.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:

Yes adapt, improvise and overcome. Been doing that for 20 years.

And as I have said it is not effecting me, but the more it becomes the norm, the more it effects everyone.

I assume looking through your bio - and not the one on MM, that your stock, as mine, is license either by a non mirco agency or yourself.

I too am happy with my stock sales. Personally they are up this year.

Bottom line is this: would you sell and image for the cover of a internationally circulated magazine with the circ size of TIME a cover image for $30?

I highly doubt it and neither would I and neither should anyone. And no one should be happy that it was done.

For this simple fact, we both know the value of the work. Which is some how being lost on people, including you (and I do mean you) and that is my biggest issue. So if that is garbage, sir you need to get over it.

People who should and people who don't know the value of their work and continue to sell it at a highly discounted price will effect us all, no matter how you (not you) twist it.

Curious though, whose the crappy photographer you are referring to? Or is that a collective thing again?

First off, while I have an account at Getty, the bulk of my sales come from iStock, so your assumption is wrong. The files I put on iStock are so old and dated looking that I never considered putting them on Getty. Getty is what I use for new shots specifically directed at stock.

Secondly, I would sell an image to Time for $30.00 in a heart beat without thinking twice about it. Its already there for them the next time they decide to cruise iStock for an image. And I already know the value of that work, so id someone decides to up it by $30.00, who am I to argue.

Your argument is garbage, at least to me. You come from an elitist point of view that stipulates all should behave as you to insure you (specifically) stay in business. I will do whatever I deem necessary to stay in business, and if that includes taking advantage of a stock site that will successfully sell images I think should never have seen the light of day after their initial use, then I will do that, and I could care less how it impacts you.

You are a very good photographer, the crappy one is a collective you.

While the APA used to throw great parties, and their estimate form is killer for a newbie, and I like attending the Apple Store functions they put on, they have never been a direct help to me. They won't stop larger rep firms from providing payola to art buyers, they won't stop internationally known photographers from under cutting my bids, they won't insure companies won't disregard my usage outlines because I have no one to monitor what they really are doing with the images when it comes to design firm/corporate direct accounts. I need to take care of myself, and this ethic is so firmly ingrained in me, that any call for a collective fix screams of self indulgence.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Send your pic' into the BBC and you loose copyright and not get a $ for them. They do as they please with them even publish a book of images $$$.

Makes $30 sound good.

I had an image I shot of a forest fire picked up by BBC, through my agency, which I get 60% (not 20%), and made $1500. I know that at least a dozen wire photographers and other news photographers were shooting the same fire. Some were standing next to me and chatted about the fire.

A magazine in the UK (I am in Las Vegas) contracted with me to do a couple of head shots of a pair of sisters in Reno (a one hour plane flight from Vegas). Three images used in a nothing, routine, quickly forgotten story, that was buried half way into the magazine, $900.

The cost of images is trivial to the magazines compared to their revenue and other expenses.

John Malloch-Caldwell wrote:
The general payment to the photographer is in the region of 20% to 40%.

Overall, John's right.  He's not just talking about istockphoto; that's just one agency.  I myself have my portfolio spread out to 20+ agencies, because non-exclusivity is the way to go if you actually want to make money in the microstock business.  Some places pay you a bit more than that though, 50%-60% depending where.

Has microstock devalued the industry? Sure. But in general, the internet has devalued the industry.  There are even sites being set up where people are posting links to our images, to download for free.  One guy buys them, and then shares them with the rest.  There's really no stopping it.  There are people that can live comfortably off 1-2 grand a month, in many countries around the world.  That's not too hard to make off of microstock alone.  Do you think these ones give a crap about devaluing the stock industry? 

We can all sit around and whine about how much it sucks, or we can adapt to market trends.  Or, stay out of stock altogether.  Sure there's still a market for macro stock, midstock, and rights managed.  I personally dabble in a little of each.  Yes it's nice when I make a photo sale for $400, but honestly if I relied just on those types of sales I'd be flat out broke all the time.  Those are few and far in between, while microstock sales are steady and pretty reliable. 

Overall, the numbers for the rights managed and macro stocks are on the decline.  Getty was smart to acquire istockphoto (and they even recently bought stockxpert from Jupiter) so obviously they are trying to gain back their market share whatever ways possible.

This is a great thread, and it's nice to hear everyone's opinions on this topic.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Gutenberg went bankrupt.

Perhaps so.  But he changed Western Civilization forever.

Studio 144 wrote:
I agree that micro stock (and digital in general) is devaluating the value in general. The problem is the genie is out of the bottle and the bottle has been broken. In all the posts on this subject I have seen no one offer a solution to the issue! If any has a solution to the problem I would love to read the answer.

My simple answer is to change the way you do business to reflect the realities of today. Sell what you can’t sell any other way as stock and get what you can. Change your procedures to increase your value to your customers. Market yourself more than you market your images. Be proactive and not reactive.

The old school ways will simply become less and less valid. We have raise a generation who do not value digital assets or copyrights.

I have offered a solution, a number of times. Quit crying and either join in the fun or go hang yourself.

And what exactly does this mean... "is devaluating the value in general"

Digital Planet Design wrote:
You would be incorrect.  There are (and were) many diamond level contributors.

Robert Randall wrote:
I have offered a solution, a number of times. Quit crying and either join in the fun or go hang yourself.

And what exactly does this mean... "is devaluating the value in general"

I meant that digital is devaluating (lowering the value of)  photography in general.

Sorry I guess I missed your solution. But I don't think suicide is a good solution.

Scott Doctor wrote:

I had an image I shot of a forest fire picked up by BBC, through my agency, which I get 60% (not 20%), and made $1500. I know that at least a dozen wire photographers and other news photographers were shooting the same fire. Some were standing next to me and chatted about the fire.

A magazine in the UK (I am in Las Vegas) contracted with me to do a couple of head shots of a pair of sisters in Reno (a one hour plane flight from Vegas). Three images used in a nothing, routine, quickly forgotten story, that was buried half way into the magazine, $900.

The cost of images is trivial to the magazines compared to their revenue and other expenses.

Trems and conditions.

Contributions to the BBC

6. By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with the BBC you agree to grant to the BBC, free of charge, permission to use the material in any way it wants (including modifying and adapting it for operational and editorial reasons) for BBC services in any media worldwide (including on the BBC's site accessed by international users). In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*.


You were one of the luck ones.

Scott A Miller photo wrote:
Short answer no.

I will give you internet before everyone jumps.

Publications are closing all over. So that market is shrinking.

However as more and more established pubs (such as Time) continue to use mirco sites like iStock more and more devaluing the work photographers do. And some photographers see no problem with this.

slave to the lens wrote:
This is an argument I have never understood. Perhaps the percieved value of said work has always been infalated if it can be so easily toppled.



Let's imagine a world of prudish women who refuse to agree to have sex with their husbands. The husbands in turn seek out professionals, women who charge a premium for said service. Now, imagine a global sexual awakening. Suddenly, wives everywhere enjoy sex and require little but a kind word, a bunch of flowers or the occasional bauble to entice them.


Well, sadly the professional sex provider whose services were in such high demand before now attracts a much smaller and often more discerning clientele. She can no longer rely on a glut of admirers, but she can focus the premium service she provides and do it better than the amateurs. Likely, she will charge more.

I'll add that I'm the sexually revolutionized wife in this analogy and though the flowers are nice, I often enjoy sex for the sake of sex and do it for free. If this devalues me or anyone else they should reexamine their value. As any relationship is based on whatever form of reciprocity is agreeable to both parties, I'm quite happy.

Studio 144 wrote:
In all the posts on this subject I have seen no one offer a solution to the issue! If any has a solution to the problem I would love to read the answer.

I think certainly the market place is changing, but the fact one photographer received $30 for an image purchased by a major magazine, does not mean all images are now valued at only $30.   As an amateur selling on the side, I just sold four images to a small time magazine for for a bit over $1,000.  If you as a full time photographers feel your images can only be sold as stock for $30, please act on that.  It only helps me out!

So, one solution is to sell images worth more, for more.   It's your loss if you choose not to.  An other solution is to sell a lot of lesser value images for $30 each.  Some do quite well with this.   Of course these are not mutually exclusive solutions.  As Robert R. mentioned, he does both.  There are other areas of photography that have little or nothing to do with stock image prices.  I can't imagine many people will buy micro stock for their wedding album, senior portrait or as fine art.

Bodyshots Photography wrote:

I think certainly the market place is changing, but the fact one photographer received $30 for an image purchased by a major magazine, does not mean all images are now valued at only $30.   As an amateur, selling on the side, I just sold four images to a small time magazine for for a bit over $1,000.    If you as a full time photographers feel your images can only be sold as stock for $30, please act on that.  It only helps me out!

So, one solution is to sell images worth more, for more.   It's your loss if you choose not to.  The other solution is to sell a lot of lesser value images for $30 each.  Some do quite well with this.   Of course these are not mutually exclusive solutions.  As Robert R. mentioned, he does both.  There are other areas of photography that have little or nothing to do with stock image prices.  I can't imagine many people will buy micro stock for their wedding album, senior portrait or as fine art.

I do think digital is have a impact on wedding and senior photography! I personally do not agree but there are plenty of people who will simply shoot a wedding or senior session and give the client a CD with the images for little or nothing. Fine art is another a market that I know nothing about.

Studio 144 wrote:
I do think digital is have a impact on wedding and senior photography! I personally do not agree but there are plenty of people who will simply shoot a wedding or senior session and give the client a CD with the images for little or nothing. Fine art is another a market that I know nothing about.

The post I answered to was in regards to your questions about micro stock devaluing all images.  I never argued there are not other forces affecting the industry.

However that still doesn't change the basics of the options I presented:  Compared to amateurs, sell better quality for more and/or more quantity for a higher cumulative value.  Also be more cost effective.  A full time professional should be able to do this.

I'm not being insensitive to the changing market place professional photographers face, just addressing your question about how to adapt to it.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Trems and conditions.

Contributions to the BBC

6. By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with the BBC you agree to grant to the BBC, free of charge, permission to use the material in any way it wants (including modifying and adapting it for operational and editorial reasons) for BBC services in any media worldwide (including on the BBC's site accessed by international users). In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*.


You were one of the luck ones.

My point was that I did not submit it through their "Send us your photos" link. The photos were sold through the proper channels with a sales agent managing the negotiations. Probably hundreds of photos were submitted through their "we will give you credit" web link that they could use for free. Yet they still decided to use a professional image. Maybe it had to do with my ability to capture a single image that showed the small firefighters next to a 30 foot wall of flames, shot with a 400mm lense with a 2x teleconverter (thats 800mm) from a hill top several miles from the scene.

The point is, if you provide something exceptional, not just a P&S shot, that captures the moment, news and magazines will pay well for the image. Those terms and conditions do not apply to rights managed sales through agencies.

Also, you are referencing something that mentions sharing photos with the BBC. I NEVER share photos with any organization. I will sell them a license to use a photo for a specific purpose for a specific amount of time.

Bodyshots Photography wrote:

The post I answered to was in regards to your questions about micro stock devaluing all images.  I never argued there are not other forces affecting the industry.

Sorry my posting was not clear. I don't think micro stock is devaluating all images. I think digital and glut of photographers are lowering the value of all photography including stock.

I do think I see a interesting issue coming up with stock photography. The numbers of images is starting to make finding any one image very difficult. A simple search on iStock returned "36,931" hits. I know that the number could be limited with advanced search but...

Scott Doctor wrote:
Maybe it had to do with my ability to capture a single image that showed the small firefighters next to a 30 foot wall of flames, shot with a 400mm lense with a 2x teleconverter (thats 800mm) from a hill top several miles from the scene.

Sounds like chicken little's recipe for disaster... really, a 2X teleconverter?

Robert Randall wrote:

Sounds like chicken little's recipe for disaster... really, a 2X teleconverter?

800mm from several miles away?  Hmmm....