Two more images from the Oregon workshop I attended. These were both taken at the surreal Haceta Beach near Florence, Oregon. As it turns out, almost every beach we went to in Oregon was surreal. It's that good! If you have any interest in going, check out the workshop here.
One of the nice things about not doing photography professionally (of course there are lots of not nice things about this as well...such as never having enough time to do all the photographic things that one wants to) is that one can take all the diversions they want without worrying about getting certain projects done. One of my recent diversions has been to submit images to Alamy and PhotoShelter, both of which I was recently accepted to. This has entailed processing some of my older images that I have not yet gotten around to doing.
At any rate, one of the images I ran across and processed is one that I had started working on many moons ago and put down. I took the opportunity to complete and submit it.
One of the nice things about going back to older images is that they truly do bring back memories of having been at different locations. This particular shot was taken on a workshop with Nancy Rotenberg on the Oregon Coast.
Bandon Beach is truly a surreal place with amazing sea stack formations. The memory of the location is great, but remembering the great folks who I spent time with on that one week trip is even sweeter!
Shoot Canon?? So do I. Have you followed the complaints that inevitably occur with releases of new Canon cameras and, not infrequently, lenses? So have I.
Luckily, I personally have not had too much in the way of issues with my equipment....but many have. I ran across a blog that has had some interesting things to say about Canon's quality control. Read about it here, here, and here.
I have previously written two posts on making rock images and they can be read here and here.
As I mentioned in one of the prior posts, if the rock sample is not polished (and they generally are not when bought through e-Bay... plus they are also less expensive when not bought polished) then it is best photographed wet, as the coating of water really brings out the color and contrast in the stone. I first had to try to figure out what exactly wet means. I discovered that it does not mean a pool of water on the rock surface. Yes, this will make the rock stay wet longer, but you will also get very small air bubbles as well as dust particles floating in the water that will be visible in the image. So wet really only means moist. Just a very light covering of moisture to make the surface of the rock wet without having a three dimensional pool of water is what you are aiming for.
The downside of such a thin coating of moisture is that it dries out very quickly. So here is what I do. I keep a moist washcloth next to the tripod and use it to wipe the surface of the rock and then compose. By the time I find something interesting the rock has dried out, so I wipe it down again to fine tune the composition and manually focus. If it is still moist (look at the edges of the viewfinder and see if the drying out is 'creeping in') I shoot. If the edges are starting to dry out, as they usually are, I hold the rock sample in place with one hand, wipe the area of the rock I am photographing with the washcloth using the other hand, and quickly make any fine adjustments needed to the position of the rock while looking through the viewfinder. Usually I don't have to refocus, but if there is time I might do that as well.
I have tried putting the rock in a bucket of water for a few minutes before shooting to see if it would 'saturate' and stay wet longer, but this didn't really seem to help.
What about lighting a wet rock...ah, the reflections and highlights coming off the wet surface....but there is a way around this and that is to use cross-polarization. I was thinking of writing a whole post about this technique but, frankly, I don't think I could do a better job than this....so have a read of it!
I was away with my son for the last week, at the national fencing competition which, this year, was held in San Jose, California. Since he was competing, we didn't get to see much of San Jose, but we did get to go out on the night of July 4th.
We went to a large park near our hotel, where they had a music festival followed by fireworks. It was during the fireworks that I noticed something interesting. Needless to say, I was spending my time looking upwards. But when I averted my gaze to the crowd I saw something I hadn't expected. I saw a sea of cell phone LED panels pointed upwards. I don't mean one or two. I mean thousands upon thousands of people using their cellphones to take pictures of the fireworks. It was really quite odd to see.
I am not sure what it means in regards to photography in this day and age, but I thought it quite interesting that the people watching the fireworks were somehow not satisfied until they had documented the event with their cellphone cameras.
Though I certainly wasn’t planning to do more than a single post about my decision to slowly leave microstock sites, I thought I might write just one more to address some comments and e-mails I have received. Once again, I would stress that these are simply my personal opinions and I don’t necessarily mean them to be appropriate for others who may have different needs and/or goals.
1) I do not believe that the microstock industry is going to go bust nor do I believe that the failure of Lucky Oliver (a microstock site) is the harbinger of a larger industry-wide demise. On the contrary, I suspect that just the opposite is true. From what I have read, revenues at the major microstock sites continue to climb while they are on the decline at the macros. Surely, other micros will go under, but this just reflects the difficulty in new players competing with the established giants in the industry......the same holds true for every industry. I suspect that the Shutterstocks and iStocks of the world will continue to grow.
2) Moreover, as I mentioned in my prior post, I believe the ‘horse is out of the barn’. I suspect a critical mass of photographers and images are available on the micros such that it would be difficult for any group of people to stop the trend by deciding not to participate. That is one of the main reasons that persuaded me to give it a try. In the end, participating in it just didn’t ‘feel right’ to me.
I fully recognize that slowly pulling my 100 images isn’t going to make one bit of difference to the agencies that have them. In fact, even if the largest individual microstock contributors pulled their many thousands of images, I suspect it wouldn’t have much effect. If the majority of the major contributors pulled their images it might make the sites have a brief second thought, but then they would likely quell the revolt by reimbursing a few more cents per image (along the lines of the recent mini-uprising on Fotolia).
I do find myself wondering how this pricing model ever started. Who decided that an image should be sold for 5 or 10 dollars. Well, perhaps 5 or 10 might, in some instances, be reasonable, but for the photographer to get $1 or less from the sale? I am not familiar with the history of microstock, but why did people flock to the subscription model where they get 25 cents an image…..was it the promise of selling it 1000 times over?
3) I find that I don’t believe, as some have said, that the micros can be a place to develop a name or reputation that will allow one to move to the macros. In fact, I suspect just the opposite is true. My guess is that you probably do more harm than good to a photographic career if you get known as someone that sells their images for peanuts. Again, I have no proof of this, but my guess is that one would ultimately get further by working hard to make great images and offering them at appropriate price points (even if they get less sales and income) than by selling them at micro sites.
I personally do not find particularly believable the claim made by Corbis at their SnapVillage micro-site that ultimately their most successful micro shooters might be culled to become regular Corbis photographers.
By the way, why do the majority of micro shooters submit under a pseudonym? I don’t know, but I have always felt that if I am not proud enough of something to attach my name to it than I probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Someone commented to me that one reason for using a pseudonym is to sell the same royalty free images on micro and macro sites since that would make it harder for a macro buyer to find that the image he just paid top dollar for was available for a few bucks by searching for the photographers name on micro sites.
Whether the same royalty free image should be able to be sold on the macros and micros (after all, royalty free is royalty free) is another whole question (and I have decided not to do so). But, if you think it is right you shouldn’t have to hide the fact that you are doing so. That fails my ‘if it’s right you shouldn’t be ashamed of it’ test.
4) I do believe that the quality of the images that are currently being accepted on the micros are excellent. In fact, based on what I have experienced, I suspect the technical quality of the images are at least as good as on the macro sites. Which is why the buyers keep coming back. I just can’t understand (yes, I know, I was doing it myself) why the contributors are willing to accept the extremely low fee per image that they get. If I were a buyer for anything other than a large corporation the micros are probably the first place I would look as well.
5) I should mention that there are some images that, to me, do seem appropriate to sell on micro sites, but that is because I believe their value may well be what the micro reimbursement is. Colored backgrounds, quick shots of a location I might be walking by, images I am not interested in developing or working on etc., but not your best work.
I think there is ‘lots of stuff’ to think about here and certainly the answers I have come up with are purely personal ones. Maybe, as someone who is not a photographer by profession, I shouldn’t be offering my opinion, but, then again, this is a personal blog........
I have, in general, always found myself trying new things instead of taking the word of others. Maybe that is unwise (if you jump off a building, do you really need to experience the impact to know that it is going to hurt?), but, on the other hand, I have always been one to want to prove things to myself and not simply take another's word and surely there is some wisdom to that. And so it was when I decided to see if my images (as opposed to my prints) might sell in the open market.
This question launched my experiment with the microstock agencies that I wrote about a few months ago. And the results of this experiment?
Well, my images do sell. And there is a certain 'kick' that one gets when a download is registered (which, by the way, is, I believe, the drive for many, if not most, micro contributors.....like a hit of a drug, you want more). But is it worthwhile? Is it reasonable? Is it respectful to your work? Having, to some degree, immersed myself in it for 4 or 5 months, I have my own personal answers to those questions. Like my original posting, my answers are certainly not the answers for everyone, they are just my opininon.
First off, the sales. I have been earning about $75-85 per month. Some might think this is a lot and others might think it is very little. Certainly, it is not enough to represent a meaningful amount of income to most people. The gain or loss of this much will not effect my (our most peoples) life style at all. But it has taken a reasonable amount of work to prepare images, spot them, keyword them, upload them etc. In and of itself, that is not necessarily a negative as artists can work for a long time on images to hang in a gallery or show and not necessarily make a sale. They have, however, for their efforts, had people enjoy their work and attribute it to them. They have shared their artwork with those wanting to see art. But for my efforts, does anyone know me better as an artist (yes, I know that microstock is not art, but people don't know me any better as a photographer either)? Have I had any bylines or copyright notices next to my images? Do people know the images are mine? One word answer. NO. In fact, the venture has, if anything, detracted me from my more artistic endeavors.
Who has been making the most money? Without question it is the microstock companies. I believe they are laughing all the way to the bank. For the photographer to get $0.25 to $3.00 for an image (with 99% of my sales being $0.25-$1.00), despite the fact that the image can be sold many times over is, I have come to believe, an insult. At least it seems an insult if the photographer is submitting their 'good' work to the agency. And it seems a bit absurd to try to sell your bad work.
Should I have realized this before giving the micros a try? Perhaps. There is certainly enough information out there to have let me come to these conclusions without giving it a try. I guess I had to prove to myself that the micros were not going to give me what I was looking for. As I mentioned above, I do think a big part of their appeal is the 'hit' one gets from getting a download that keeps people coming back for more. But I do think that when one steps back they find that the laugh is on them.
For whom do I personally think the micros are a reasonable option. I think for those that are trying to make a substantial portion of their income from micro shooting and who are shooting topics specifically for micro (ie business people shaking hands, smiling families) and who are spending their work hours, not their private time hours, doing it the micros might be reasonable. But I don't personally want to spend my private time making these types of images. I would rather work on my more serious artistic images. And I don't mind selling them, but I would like the price to reflect the passion, time, and effort that I put into making them.
So what are my plans from here. I have decided to slowly leave the micros. I have either deleted or requested account closure from most of them (some require 90 days notice). I have left my Shutterstock, iStock, and Dreamstime accounts open for the moment and have just started to submit many of these images to Alamy after having been accepted there. As images hopefully slowly start to get accepted at Alamy and other macro-stock agencies I will delete them from these remaining accounts. Of course, the images that were sold in the micros will need to be sold in the macro stock agencies as royalty free and new images can be submitted as rights managed. Theoretically, one can, by the letter of the law, continue to sell Alamy royalty free images on micro sites as well (though PhotoShelter, which I also plan to apply to, forbids this). However, I plan to just remove them from the micros nonetheless, for all the reasons I noted above.
Though I did it as well, I find myself wondering what had come over me and why anyone would sell their images for such low prices? Well, at least I was smart enough to figure it out and do something about it.
One thing I do have to say, though. And that is that the quality of the images at the leading micros are very high with every image being carefully inspected...which does make me wonder why many buyers would stick with macro agencies unless it is for images that are rights managed, so they know where the images have been. Though I no longer want to participate, with, literally millions of images available on the micros, the horse is, as they say, out of the barn. And it doesn't look like it is going back any time soon. I can see why it is a difficult time to be a professional stock photographer.
So, for me, the microstock experiment has come to an end.
