So, let’s wait and see (if waiting is something we can afford!)

Presently, it may be that companies looking for that sort of thing are saying to themselves “hey, we can get that from microstock and save a bundle” but in time, the fact that the microstock photographers cannot provide that level of quality for that kind of image, and that the macrostock photographers just won’t bother anymore because they lose money and will not post in microstock sites, will result in that kind of image, at that quality, only being available from macrostock sites. In time, the customers will realize this, that they have to pay more to get what they need.

That might take a couple or more years, though.

Even the demands of what people expect from wedding photogs has increased. Yeah, I love my digital gear, but its a double-edged sword. What was once a competitive profession is now hyper-competitive. Yes, you can specialize in stock, but the only thing you’re gonna make any money off of is a people-based shot, which requires some setup or releases. Its not that big a deal, and I’ve seen people who have sold thousands of the same image, but my images on these sites are trickling out and the money paid per image just leaves me downright angry. Why should an image that took 3-4 hours of setup or waiting result in a $2 payment? Why dont I get to know where the image is going? This is with istock. As far as I’m concerned, that agency needs a full-on boycott to send their masters Getty a clear message.
At the same time, they have the exposure, and the cred, so…..$50 even, OK. Its not an assignment….but $2? For an image that I took, got through a review, and came up with keywords, and did their job for them?
It really has me steaming.

Your right on many points. I am a traditional stock photographer represented by the major stock libraries and also very involved in the industry on other issues. I have written about this subject and have similar views but do have a few differing opinions. Probably the most important is to caution photographers into thinking micro stock is their way of breaking into the field as to making a living, not saying all is interested in this route, but simply saying those that don’t take stock photography seriously will eventually be weeded out of the micro stock libraries. I do think the photographers who do take the business seriously, micro stock will open some doors. I believe there is, as you mentioned, a place for both traditional stock as well as micro stock. If interested in reading more of my views, check out the following link: http://williammanning.com/photonews/stockphotographynews.html.

I don’t believe it undermines Macrostock’s hold on exclusive imagery as almost all images sold with an Exclusive Buyout have already sold with Royalty Free licenses (often hundreds of times), which cannot be retracted.

When I went “digital”, I was amazed at the improvement in my photography, and the quantity I was then able to produce. My photography improved simply from the sheer practice of shooting. I had never heard of “microstock” until fairly recently and now am supplying some of my images. Granted, now when I shoot, I also shoot thinking if it’s interesting enough for someone to use… maybe that in itself is something like “going commercial” or “giving into the ‘man’”. But, who cares… I will not submit something I don’t like for sale, just for the sake of selling.

I really see little difference between “artistic” and “commercial” work. The most memorable advertisements and commercial images I’ve seen have been some of the most artistic work I’ve seen. Short of the happy, smiley, businessmen and women, most stock seems to be quite artistic.

I think that the entire microstock industry is offering those of us who had little hope of earning anything from out art, a better chance at it… and in the process, maybe even make us better artists in the long run!