Microstocks : Blessing or Curse ?

[Perrush]

Update 24/12/06

I wasn't pleased with my previous layout so I redid it completely.

I also reworked the article in a big way (we went from 5 pages to 26 !)

Normally you will be redirected if you take the link below. But I'll give the new link anyway

http://www.perrush.be/SYF_micro_E_1.html

Greetz
Stefan
---------------


Hi,

I've wrote an article about microstocksites and my own experiences with them.

sites covered are shutterstock, Istock, dreamstime and fotolia.

If interested you can take a look at :

http://www.perrush.be/art_micro_1_E.htm

comments / suggestions are always welcome.
I hope my english wasn't too bad.

--

Greetz
Stefan

 

[Perrush]

update 24/12/06

 

[Alex_B]

lot of work you did there.

Still I strongly disagree with the following statement:

"Digital photography made it for almost everyone possible to take a decent picture. Therefore amount of photo's being offered for sale is much larger than in the past."

Yes, the amount of images on offer has risen by orders of magnitude, but the amount of decent images has risen by comparatively only a small factor, maybe a factor two or three.

Also demand for images has risen though, so things aren't all that bad, and in principle one can still sell decent images for decent money.

The internet has made it alot easier for customers to find good images and good photographers ... and good photographers have easier access to international customers.

"When demand rises, prices mostly come down. Not only are the prices of photo's come down, it is even much harder to sell one anyway."

Errm, actually I think when demand rises, so does the price, unless it is compensated by a rise in offer... at least that is how I remember it from school

Really good photography these days sometimes sells for exorbitant prices... and sometimes people (who just don't realise that they produced something special) waste an outstanding image on a microstock site where it sells for 20+80 ct.

 

[ksmattfish]

What is the average rate paid per photo at a microstock site?

EDIT: I just went to the link. If it's $0.20 each then I would have had to sell the usage rights to over 60,000 photos to earn what I did from stock this year (I sold usage for less than 100 photos). IMHO, it's easier to sell less photos for more money. I pretty much concentrate on promoting my portrait and wedding business, and I don't spend hardly any time (or money) trying to sell stock. The stock photography business I get is through word of mouth, and people who find my website. The problem with selling a photo for a buck is that once people think that's what your photography is worth, you'll never get them to spend $100 (which is still really cheap). You end up stuck at the bottom.

 

[darich]

There is a section about who loses in these sites. The logic (in my opinion is a bit twisted) states that since an amateur doesn't lose anything except his time which is free then he can only win.

But surely if you could sell an image for £100 but submit it to a micro stock site and sell it for £0.20 then that amatuer has lost £99.80?

Like KSMattfish, i think selling fewer higher priced images is easier and costs no more and no less than submitting to microsites. As a relative new comer to stock i'd have to sell over 400 images at a micro site to come close to my one sale at a "real" stock agency.

And since i'm an amatuer who doesn;t lose anything except my time (which is "free") I'd have lost quite a lot of money if i'd sold my image to a microsite.

I think the loser in micro sites are those who submit to them, underselling themselves by massive amount.

 

[Alex_B]

... states that since an amateur doesn't lose anything except his time which is free then he can only win.

Just to add some more comment, I don't know about your lives guys, but the most precious thing in my life is time. My job keeps me very busy, sometimes unpredictable, often on weekends, often nights. So if I lose time, this is very bad.

Maybe there are people on this forum who have too much time, lucky them ... if I could give them some money and then get their time in return, I would instantly do so ...

 

[darich]

Maybe there are people on this forum who have too much time, lucky them

I would never claim to have too much time but i know exactly what you're saying.

And that's even more reason or proof that submitting to these sites does nothing but cost you. I'd rather have £85 for a shot (as i have done) than a few downloads at $0.20 or £0.10p.

for that money i'd rather not sell it.