Well I disagree. My company routinely uses alamy and other non-exclusive “macro” agencies. When we find suitable images, it is just a click or two extra effort to search iStockphoto or Dreamstime. Frequently, the photographer is using exactly the same title, so one search is all that is needed. In many cases, the same image is found on the microstock sites, so we will take those. If not, we’ll stick with the alamy images.

We are not under budget pressure, however, for the sake of a couple of clicks we can make good savings.

I think it is not good practice for photographers when I think about the amount of money we would have paid but did not because the photographer chose to give us a cheap option. So long there are no switching barriers between “macro” and “micro” (ie no usage restrictions depending on which price), we will always take the micro image.

The next images on our shortlist (it is clear which one we will take):

http://tinyurl.com/bg4sst

http://tinyurl.com/d8cwjx

-Lee

The “credit” was generally a point of confusion, and mostly from microstockers who are sensitive about anything negative about microstock. As a group microstockers are very ready to defend their model of choice.

Non-microstockers are quick to quote very low per images sales of microstock: i.e. $.20 In reality, most (non subscription) sales are yielding the photographer a few dollars. Still nothing, when compared to traditional sales, but to microstockers suggesting that they are only earning $.20 per sale represents “fightiin words”.

In my opinion, in the end, what a photo will earn in it’s lifetime, is what matters; philosophical matters aside. Generally (good) microstockers are able to get more images from a shoot accepted into some microstock outlets than they would be able to get in the traditional stock market. For this reason they can accept a somewhat lower RPI. They are also often selling through multiple outlets and that helps the tiny returns add up as well. In the end, microstock images on average, won’t earn anywhere near what we traditional stock shooters are used to earning from an accepted image, RM or RF. But, it does work to a satisfaction level that keeps people happy to participate.

Most microstock photographers only think about their earnings as a portfolio return. I tend to think about the potential earnings form each new image that I produce, in that way I can judge how much I can invest in it’s production. In the world of traditional stock, I will invest hundreds to earn thousands, this is not the world of microstock. In microstock, photograhers will invest $10 to earn $30. It works if a photographer can keep the production costs very low, but that does limit what can be done. Sure there are exceptions. Many microstock photographers are pretty in the dark about how traditional RF and RM work, but to be fair, they have not had the opportunity to participate, and I think they are quick to criticize it because they have been excluded.

Thanks for adding the “S”

Don Farrall

One other thing bugging me. As someone who is not particularly fond of the micro-model, in my defense of trad RM I have often been shot down in flames by microstockers claiming that their images aren’t sold off at 20 cents a pop, but are in fact selling for a higher fee through a micro than a trad once you price in the uses so that the terms of the licence agreement are in accord. That is to say, the trad RF terms are quite liberal, and to get the same useage from a micro you’d have to pay a higher price. Were they talking a load of old tosh?