Appalled by online stock sales

[InLimbo87]

I know we've got some professional photographers in here, so I'm sure this directly relates to you.

I ran across Istockphoto the other day, and was shocked to see how much these people are selling stock photo images for. I don't see how anyone who respects their images as art could sell royalty-free access to companies on a high res image for $5 commission (or 30 cents for a small one).

I am by no means a professional (not even close) and I couldn't imagine selling any of my images for the prices that site commands. Anyone on here that sells stock photos through a legitimate agency? How bad have sites like this killed the stock photo industry?

I'm beginning to understand more and more how many believe that digital has "ruined" professional photography. Its just a shame that so many photographers contribute to a site that obviously doesn't have the best interests of the artists' in mind...

 

[BlueCorn]

I do "fine art prints" not stock for the most part and I'm only part time.

I do know folks that make money doing micro-stock. The real problem is that you need to have a huge portfolio to actually make a living. It does impact the stock market and if you go to any photographer event there will be plenty of folks irritated by it. That said, there are still folks making money in traditional stock markets. You just have to differentiate yourself. Digital didn't "ruin" anything it just raised the bar. The status quo is no longer good enough. As in the natural world, you either evolve or die off.

 

[Maxxumless]

Re: Appalled by online stock sales

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13290859#post13290859 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by InLimbo87
I know we've got some professional photographers in here, so I'm sure this directly relates to you.

I ran across Istockphoto the other day, and was shocked to see how much these people are selling stock photo images for. I don't see how anyone who respects their images as art could sell royalty-free access to companies on a high res image for $5 commission (or 30 cents for a small one).

I am by no means a professional (not even close) and I couldn't imagine selling any of my images for the prices that site commands. Anyone on here that sells stock photos through a legitimate agency? How bad have sites like this killed the stock photo industry?

I'm beginning to understand more and more how many believe that digital has "ruined" professional photography. Its just a shame that so many photographers contribute to a site that obviously doesn't have the best interests of the artists' in mind...

I think you are mistaken in your assumption - digital photography is not ruining anything and neither are these sites. They are, in fact, breathing new life into it. What you are talking about is what is called commercial photography/art and there has never really been a lot of money in it for the freelancer. Sure, some are in high demand, but most are not. Commercial photography has pretty much been a dime-a-dozen sorta business. The prices are still on par with inflation/depreciation.

Fine art, news, creative art and event photography is still alive and well. I also do video and sell DVD's and parents "ALWAYS" try to match the quality of three XH A1 Canon's, TriCaster and pro level audio solutions with their little camcorders... They all end up buying the DVDs. It's the same with pro photography. I use a Canon 40D and about six lenses at different indoor and outdoor events and I have never ever seen a parent match the quality of my photos yet. Even those with the exact same camera I have. Most think they can put a $300 zoom lens on and take great photos. My 70-200IS 2.8L and 85 1.2L trumps all in indoor sports

What you should be more worried about is video technology vs photography.

 

[Maxxumless]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13291297#post13291297 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
I do "fine art prints" not stock for the most part and I'm only part time.

I do know folks that make money doing micro-stock. The real problem is that you need to have a huge portfolio to actually make a living. It does impact the stock market and if you go to any photographer event there will be plenty of folks irritated by it. That said, there are still folks making money in traditional stock markets. You just have to differentiate yourself. Digital didn't "ruin" anything it just raised the bar. The status quo is no longer good enough. As in the natural world, you either evolve or die off.

Totally agree... save for one thing. As far as stock photography (only - not fine art) the bar is a moot point now. With millions of people taking photos and billions of images being placed on the net a month, statistically speaking, even a total amateur will get a few keepers per outing and be able to sell them. Spray and pray with 8GB memory cards make shooting a breeze these days. Stock photography has never been a great income maker. I would not recommend it for anyone. Events, news and fine art is where the money is.

 

[JHemdal]

It isn't much better for direct sales to publishers - I get $20 to $50 per image for books or magazine (usually $20) and they get the non-exlusive rights to the photo in perpituity. I never tried stock photos because I'm losing quite enough money this way (grin).

Jay

 

[kactusficus]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13300123#post13300123 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Maxxumless
Stock photography has never been a great income maker. I would not recommend it for anyone. Events, news and fine art is where the money is.

Though I know some guys billionnaires with stock shots... When digital was not existing yet, some "stock shot guys" were making fortunes that way.
Now with the multiplicity of sources (everyone is sending their images on the new "public" images banks like the ones selling $1 images), it's no longer possible, because the income is split within all the sources.

But it's true that the interesting point, in this new vision of business, it has become even more challenging and intense, you have to do better and better to follow living in it, forcing creativity and your technics to raise in standards, always. So, artistically speaking, in a way, it's good.
But it's scary at the same time, you're always stressed, always afraid it would stop any day, that you'll loose your clients for the next guy... and with 1000000000 "photographers" worldwide (thanks to digital), the challenge is very stressful.


I've been working for very big advertising productions as well, as I can tell you it's not the same kind of money that it used to be, the good days are over, and the budgets are lowering and lowering, always, because clients know that if you refuse their price, there'll be 10 guys on your back, ready to catch the opportunity for themselve, at any rate, just to make their name getting famous with a big client.

And I don't count anymore how many opportunities I get every month to work for free, this is a new concept, you do a shhoting, or you give photos for nothing but the "fame"... Don't know if "fame" ever put a steak in your plates, but not in my world, lol...

So globally, you can think the new digital generation as refreshing, or creative challenging, that is true, but there's a lack of money for artists and photographers, that is reality as well.

But I stay optimistic, and think that at the end, quality and art will do the difference.