Micro-stock. That’s the dirty word. At least it has seemed like a dirty word to me for quite some time. It has certainly been something I would never, in a million years, have considered.
But lately I have been re-examining this whole issue. I have been giving it a considerable amount of thought and self assessment. Of course, this consideration and my thoughts can’t possibly be fully applicable to everyone. In fact, it is quite possible that they may only be applicable to very few people who might read this. However, since this is, after all, a blog…..I thought that over the next several posts it might be of interest to explore the issues, and, of course, to hear comments and thoughts that anyone might want to make. Just remember that I didn’t invent micro-stock nor did I have anything to do with getting it to where it is today.
With that said, I would like to list some of the questions that I have been thinking about over the last few weeks, in no particular order.
Are nature images likely to sell on micro-stock sites?
Does participation in micro-stock degrade one as an artist?
How much work is involved if one chooses to get involved with the industry?
Is the micro-stock industry itself changing for the better?
Can one participate in both royalty free (micro-stock) and rights managed stock photography?
Are some images more appropriate than others for micro-stock?
How are images sold at a micro-stock site likely to be used?
Which of the many micro-stock sites are the biggest players?
How might offering images on micro-stock (or rights managed stock) sites affect one’s ability to sell prints?
I had lots of questions and thought it might be worthwhile to post some of my musings and to hear what others think. But, please, this topic can strike a very emotional chord in many people and, while I am very interested in people’s thoughts on this, I want to keep it quite civil.
Mar 20, 2008
A Dirty Word, Part 1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It is quite funny, and perhaps a little unnerving, that you post this Howard. I was actually thinking about the boundaries and intersections between artwork and commodities when out running an errand today. Being a physician, perhaps you can elaborate on how brainwaves get transmitted through the air? :-)
All good things to think about. I haven't really collected my own thoughts on the whole microstock industry. I am sure there are fitting places for it for nature photography, field guides is one example I am thinking about. If I am a publisher looking for a simple picture of a flower, would I want to buy from an agency that offers such a picture as a commodity, or from a photographer that considers it a work of art? Certainly there are cost differences between the two scenarios, as well as perception differences of the image itself.
I know we as photographers all want to consider all the effort, thought, and vision that went into any particular image. But there are many consumers of imagery that view pictures as no different than pork bellies. :-)
With the build up of my portfolio and the interest of commercial and private images, I will really be interested in your take on this. I will stay tuned :)
Mark, I am amazed at how frequently people get the same ideas and at the same times! It has happened on more than one occasion to me as well. I remember someone, I think it was billie mercer (http://billiemercer.blogspot.com/) that once had a post about this very issue on her blog.
Bernie, I have done a lot of thinking about this and I think it might take more than a few posts to get out all my thoughts....I would be interested in your thoughts along the way.
Sincerely, I believe it takes alot of thinking to get a good photo or picture. The many factors involved have to be catered for before having the pictures. It is a great activity for any person desiring to improve himself also. Cheers!
Hi Howard,
I'm a newbie in microstock so my answers to your questions are based on a 8 months experience with this kind of agencies.
Let's start from question n.1: Are nature images likely to sell?
I've had several landscape images downloads, so I think yes they sell. There are many nature sites out there that may be interested, and also travel agencies that need images for their brochures, for example.
Does participation in micro-stock degrade one as an artist?
I think definitely not. I, as an artist, know I'm capable of producing both artistic works and more commercial ones. I've seen wonderful artistic images for sale on microstock sites I would not put out for sale but it all comes down to a personal choice, then. Personally, I keep the shots I consider 'art' for other purposes, like for prints or contests. Uploading to microstock sites doesn't make me a less capable photographer at all. It's like saying that those who sell at rights managed agencies are smarter then their dumber counterparts who sell in microstock...
How much work is involved if one chooses to get involved with the industry?
I've come to this conclusion: If you want to keep your portfolio visible and increase your chance of selling you must upload new files constantly. This means you must not run out of photos and keep adding fresh content on a regular basis.
When I first decided to get into microstock I simply went through all my old files and sorted out those I thought might be sellable, but soon I realized I should produce also more stock oriented images like the classical 'isolated on white' shots. I had to learn how to do this, organize myself with a light tent and two tungsten lights and practice A LOT just to get a decent shot.
I must say this has proven to be a great way of learning and improving my technique.
If you intend to take up microstock seriously you do have to work a lot and, most importantly, constantly.
Can one participate in both royalty free (micro-stock) and rights managed stock photography?
One thing doesn't exclude the other. I've heard of many pro photographers that sell in both markets. I have a few artistic shots up for sale at Arcangel Images, a rights managed picture library but sales have been almost nonexistent mostly due to the high competition in this field.
I chose microstock not because I'm so fool to think I'll get my living out of it (although several people have succeeded at it) but because I liked the idea of the little extra bucks I could get from my photos and I find it rewarding when someone buys my images.
Are some images more appropriate than others for micro-stock?
I'm still trying to find out :) From what I've learned and read images that represent a concept or images with people in different situations are the ones designers request the most. Personally, I have some difficulty photographing people so I mainly take photos of objects, food or city and nature subjects. You can never tell what may sell - I had images I found lacked technique and interest that got a few sales too...
How are images sold at a micro-stock site likely to be used?
In a great variety of ways. Brochures, web sites, printed materials such as calendars or post cards, magazines and newspapers, students' research papers, blogs...
Which of the many micro-stock sites are the biggest players?
I think Fotolia, Dreamstime, iStockphoto and Shutterstock are the leading ones in the market.
This is about all I can say on microstock from my short experience so far. Hope I didn't mess up too much with my English :) . I deliberately skipped two of your questions I can't give an answer to. Hope someone else will answer to them and share their opinions on the topic as well.
Sil..thanks very much for your comments. Ultimatley, I, too, decided to participate (as of recently) so am slowly getting my impressions. I think they are similar to yours. I will be expanding on them for several posts....please continue to chime in how your experiences compare! Your English is just fine, by the way...don't worry about it at all
Post a Comment