I’m not refuting your facts about supply and demand. There’s no doubt that supply is up and price is down. We agree on that, so I didn’t miss your point at all. Your point is that photographers need to give up their opportunity to sell their photos so that you can continue earning a living by selling yours. That’s what I’m saying is arrogant.

You also say that photographers are “selling out”. That’s not correct. If photos are in oversupply – which you agree they are – then the value and price of photos is low. Selling photos at those prices is not selling out. Additionally, until recently, microstock was the only opportunity that many people had to sell their photos. You sell your still life photos directly to your clients because it’s a relatively closed market. Your geographical location makes you a suitable supplier to your clients, so not everyone can compete. However, stock doesn’t rely on geography, so the market is open and everyone can compete. The result is that quality determines success, not geography.

What I’m fighting for is understanding. I love microstock because it’s an open market where success goes to those who can create the most appealing photos with minimal cost of production. Obviously this is not positive news for people used to making their living by creating photos with very high production costs, which I imagine is your situation. However, it’s great news for the vast majority of photographers and the customers. I wonder what your customers would say if you asked them to continue paying your expensive prices despite the fact that others could produce the same result for much less? Maybe tell them about your two kids and see if that changes their mind. The simple truth is that you can only compete if you have access to a closed market (geographically) or your quality demands a premium. If neither of those are true, then you’ll be forced to step aside for more efficient producers of your product simply due to supply and demand.

What you’re fighting for is higher prices for photography, despite the fact that costs of production have gone way down and that more efficient producers now have access to your market. I totally respect your skills and what you’ve achieved, and I wouldn’t want to see your kids go hungry or see you default on your mortgage. Your product is no longer scarce.

You say that I’m not convincing you, but I don’t pretend to be able to do so, nor is it my intention with this debate. We see different sides of the same picture and that’s totally fine. My intention is to respond to your comments so that other people reading this can get an even view.

There are many people living from their microstock income. I can introduce you to them. One earns more than a million dollars US per year, and I know others who aren’t far behind. I know another who constantly travels the world shooting photos and living off the income the photos generate through microstock. There are also production houses who produce photos for the microstock market on a large scale. Saying that you cannot making a living from microstock is completely factually inaccurate.

You also made a point about models, locations, backgrounds, etc having the same cost. That’s another fallacy. Microstock is distributed over the Internet so people in much cheaper parts of the world (think South America, Eastern Europe, South East Asia) have costs many times lower than what you pay in Florida. That’s one of the reasons why traditional stock photography is shrinking. They are now competing on a global scale rather than just with each other.

If you think I’m promoting something that’s not to the advantage of the photographer, I’d be delighted if you’d say what you thought it was. I provide information to photographers via this blog for free. This content enables many photographers to make a living doing something they love. I cannot tell you how many emails I get from photographers thanking me for helping them get started with a career in photography. Browse through the comments on my blog posts and you’ll see what I’m talking about. However, I see how providing this information is disastrous for you – it empowers your competitors. And these competitors produce your product much more efficiently than you.

I’m not sure what I said which makes you think I took things personally. I realize it’s not about me as an individual, or you as an individual. I appreciate the constructive debate.

-Lee

I am sorry to say, but you missed completely the point. It is not about my emotions or my arrogance its about facts.
Your first sentense actually confirms my facts.
I just don’t understand what you are fighting for. It seems to me you want to wotk for free at the end, or really give away your work for charity. This is really foolish. Carrying this argument that poor people in poor contries can now also make a penny with their photo and their digital equipment does not convince me at all.

You say it yourself, you can only support your families with microstock, but you cannot really live off it.
You know, the Model you shoot has the same price and distanse to get to your location, the shoes you wear cost the same, the time you took has been the same, the background you build took the same or even more effort etc. The fuel one just put into ones car did not get cheaper. Its not about pressing the button, its a much a more complex view than what you try to promote. There are all kind of factors involved in making a photo.

I have the strong feeling you are promoting something not really for the advantage of the photographer.

And don’t take the things personal, its not about you.

Thanks, Cheers,

Lisa

Microstock is the result, not the cause. The cause is digital photography and Internet distribution lowering the barriers of entry for photographers to sell stock photos. Obviously this increases the supply, lowering the price.

Judging other photographers for selling their photos just because you have “two kids and a mortgage” is both naive and selfish. Why would they stop just so you can continue payments on your big house? Many of us support our families from our microstock income too. Many in poorer countries dream of having the opportunities that you have and work much harder than you for less income. Microstock is a totally open market where anyone can compete. If you need to complain about it then you clearly can’t complete.

I’d suggest you stop wasting your time blaming other people and start looking at yourself. Technology has changed your business and you need to adapt or get out.

Also, I generally have empathy for photographers whose market has been undermined by the technology changes. It must be difficult to do a job all your life and then have that job change so fundamentally that you can no longer do it the same way and make a profit. I usually respond to comments from these people with my perspective and a gentle reality check. However, in your case I’m not inclined to be gentle at all. Your comment strikes me as extremely arrogant, ignorant and judgmental.

-Lee

This is just charity, poor photographers supporting website companies to get rich. I do stillife, I make one photo and get sometimes threethousend dollars for it. Ok, most of the time its in the 1500 dollar range, but still you guys shoot for years, upload for years spend you life and than don’t even make 1k a month.

Its like this, first get a whole lot of amateurs to submit their fotos, pay them a little, and make the site popular. Hey lets partner with flickr, and as the competition goes up, the price goes down and now everybody works for charity. What a sceme.

Shure, you just have to work harder and produce more, submit more and you will see you will sell more, and one day you make over 1 k a month. Fact is, as more you submit, as less worth is your work.

If you ask me, I would say professionals bann all those stocksites. Submitting to them is suicide.
Microstock should be a amateur portal. It has amateur level returns. Its the professionals, that destroy their own income by competing on amateur levels and pricing with each other. Its a trap guys and girls, just think aboout it. Is your photo really just worth pennies per publication?

They say, just sell it 1000 times and you make up to 150 dollars! Is anybody actually thinking what this means? Guys, you are giving away your work for free, so other can profit from it unproportionally.

Photographers, its you who decide how much your work is worth. You are selling out you work for some bakschich, the result is, that all others have to sell out as well, to stay afloat.
If you sell you beautyfull photos only weekends on the fleemarket, i believe you will make more money than though this Microstock sceme.

But who am I to judge, I have only two children to feed and my morgage to pay.

Another thing is this Licensing sceme.

Keeping a picture on the market reduces the need for new pictures proportionally. And lowers the value of the picture.
It is much more profitable to sell a photo and get it off the market. Supply goes down demand goes up. So someone has to pay more to get a new picture available.

All prices of all products are regulated by supply and demand.

Sometimes we can read of countries eliminating big amounts of a yearly harvest of f.e. oranges, just to keep the prices high so everybody is making money and can make their living. If the weather was just to good for growing oranges, they harvest to many. They destroy some to regulate the prices, through supply and demand.

The opec does exactly the same, the reduce their output when the oilprice is down. Just beginning of this year they did this, maybe someone can remeber.

The microstock sites are artificially creating “overstock” of photos, supply is fantastically high, demand is relatively low, prices or better value of photos are nill, in such a situation.

Thanks for reading,

cheers, lisa

Microstock does value photography and photographers, but based on the current market where supply is plentiful. Your product is no longer scarce, so you need to update your perception of it’s value. You must reach the upper tiers of quality if you want to continue charging a premium on that market value (traditional stock photo market prices). Otherwise you’ll struggle to be competitive in the new market.

There’s too much competition among microstock agencies for anyone to implement the sweeping license changes you describe. The market has changed and it’s not going to change back. Some people won, some people lost. Designers won. You lost. Deal with it and move on. If you can’t, at least do something in the real world. Create an union or association or something. Your ranting in forums and blogs hasn’t achieved anything beyond creating a name for yourself. Perhaps that’s something you can leverage to initiate a movement. If you succeed in changing the market, good for you. If not, perhaps you’ll start to see some of the reasons why, which countless online discussions haven’t managed to achieve.

Thanks for your comment.

-Lee

If there were usage restrictions to limit micro images to micro ‘community’ uses then there wouldn’t be a problem. The reality is that designers benefit from cheap prices – ‘the designers’ dirty little secret’ – and continue to charge the end user whatever they can get away with.

Instead of ‘macro bashing’ – ‘those old trad photographers are going to be blown away woo-hoo’ it is surely time that micros started to move towards a more unified stock industry.

A more restricted micro licence and more realistic pricing for non micro uses is essential and would benefit all photographers ( if not all designers).

It’s time that micros started to value photography and photographers rather than just design and designers.

Ian Murray

I wrote more about the “Price Barrier” on my blog.

Nick

I have frequently felt like I need to let go of some of my attachment to my work, and look at it more like a product than a piece of art. There is a lot more misuse, theft, license violation, etc., in microstock, and if someone can’t handle being the victim of a little of that, microstock can leave them feeling very bitter about their decision to enter the microstock market.