|
Search this group's discussions
|
OT: Thoughts on the new Photoshelter stock service and the move away from microstock
|
Note: I'll be comparing with istock, but the comparison would apply to any microstock..
A few days ago Photoshelter announced a new stock photography model which pays 70% commission to the photographer. It's not microstock. In fact, from what they've said, they want to turn the stock photography business around. And I think it's possible. Imagine once photographers are selling there and making 70%. The microstockers (of which I am once I must shamefully admit) will take notice. Already I see most microstockers selling on multiple sites, so it's sure they will try out Photoshelter. And then the other microstockers will follow. If I manage to sell on photoshelter I for one would stop selling on istock, and I imagine others will do the same. Why would anyone take 20-33% commission when they could have 70%?
So the question is why would buyers go to Photoshelter? This is a tough one, because if they can images for $1 then they're not going to pay more. So in order for buyers to go to Photoshelter, they'd have to not find the images they're looking for at istock. This could only happen if the photographers flee istock for photoshelter. So it's going to take time, and some risk taking on the part of photographers to make this happen.
Finally, another point: istock has millions of images. I've searched and if a buyer isn't too picky they can find whatever they want there. So even if photographers leave istock, istock would still rule the competition for a while. Unless of course photographers pulled their images from istock, but I admit that isn't going to happen, at least not for a long time.
And this points out the damage to the stock industry that istock has done. Their collection will be damaging to the industry for years to come, EVEN IF photographers stop selling there!
It's all interesting I must admit. I stopped submitting to microstock over a year ago. I'm going to place some of my images from the past year with photoshelter and see what happens. What do you plan to do?
mp.photoshelter.com/
Originally posted at 11:59PM, 15 September 2007 PDT
(permalink)
strobist (a group admin) edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
So how does it differ from microstock? To me it looks like microstock which pays a higher percentage...
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The minimum price for photos is $50. The photographer sets the price, so you can pick any price greater than $50 that you like. This is far from macrostock. 70% of $50 = $35 per sale. They'll be marketing the site on their own.
Really if you think about it, a business which makes money by keeping 80% of the sales and passing along 20% just doesn't make sense. Before photography I was into art (paintings). Galleries & artists split the money 50/50. That seems far. And galleries have a lot more invested than these microstock websites. And again, not only is the 80/20 split a very bad thing, the price point is so low that the 20% becomes next to nothing. Yes there are some pro's on istock making thousands, but just imagine how much they'd be making if istock didn't exist? A heck of a lot more.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I contribute to several stock agencies, none micro, and have had some very nice sales. Not everyone is a bottom-feeder. The industry would be much healthier if people would take a bit of time and learn about the business. They'd be less inclined to give away their work and be taken advantage of.
I'm very excited about this new development from PhotoShelter.
Differences from micros? You set your prices. You're not being played for a sucker. You get 80%, not 25%. And rights-managed licensing as well as royalty-free.
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
Mark Scheuern edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
Not everyone is a bottom-feeder is right!
People who sell their 'work' via microstock are simply stupid (and worse).
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, I of course think it's a bad idea but I think it's in good part a matter of education. It's often human nature to take the path of least resistance. I'm hoping the tide is turning. I definitely detect more anti-micro sentiment out there.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So the question is why would buyers go to Photoshelter? This is a tough one, because if they can images for $1 then they're not going to pay more.
Good question.
Let's think about that question for a minute in a wider business context... Imagine that you are a new player in any industry. As a new player you want to compete with the dominant player in that industry. I think that most businesses would plan to come in under the price of their competition. So, would you find it a bit odd to see a new business come in to a saturated market at a price point 5,000% higher?
So in order for buyers to go to Photoshelter, they'd have to not find the images they're looking for at istock.
Again, a good point.
Let's do the math... There are over 2.1 million images at istock... And, there are how many at the new service...? So, the odds of finding an image would be in the favor of which service?
This could only happen if the photographers flee istock for photoshelter.
Well, istock, and every other stock agency with lower pricing... :)
BTW - This thread should be flagged as "OT" since it is not directly Strobist related.
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
tpuerzer edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
People who sell their 'work' via microstock are simply stupid (and worse).
I'm trying to figure out how this is worse than using Getty now, given their new pricing model. It seems to me, albeit I know very little of this business, that it'll drive the best photographers to the place where they'll make the most money. That should drive the quality way up in those places as well. Am I missing something? I've been trying to figure all this out in my own head since Getty announced their $49 licensing deal.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Interesting topic. I am new to this... I'd like to know what are the major alternatives? I'm hearing Istock which sounds like a bad deal for the photographer... Photoshelter which doesn't sound like a great deal for the buyer (at least until it's quality exceeds Istock)... I think that Getty has more images than anyone else in the world and has some many world-class images...
So what is Getty all about and who else is there that's a major player in the stock industry?
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
zpowderhound edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
 |
Pickles' Photos [deleted] says:
There is a pro Flikr group. Maybe drag this topic over there?
www.flickr.com/groups/procorner/
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
For a company doing a big ad campaign: billboards, print ads, web... the cost of an image is only a small part of it. They're not going to object to paying more than $1 for an image. Sure, if someone sells it to them for that they'll take it and no doubt laugh about it but they're prepared to pay much, much more. I'm a bit amazed that people are acting as if micro prices are the norm. It's not that unusual to license an image for four figures. I do mostly editorial photography where the licensing rates are typically lower but I've had four-figure sales and I have friends who have licensed a single image for tens of thousands of dollars. The buyer paid it because it was worth it to them.
I think PhotoShelter is going to take off very quickly. There already are a large number of very good photographers using their archive service. It's a great chance to take control of pricing and not have terms dictated by Getty, etc. (Well, there almost is no "etc." any more). I'm with Alamy Images, also, and I'm very happy with them. So there's two suggestions!
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think PhotoShelter is going to take off very quickly.
I hope so. Its a trend I'd really like to see. But.... It will be up to the photographers, individually and collectively, to stop the current trend that is building and shifting the industry.
As a business person, I want to spend as little as possible to get as much as I can. I get that. I think photographers today are getting railroaded into selling their high end work at low end prices. That's not Capitalism but it is the reality. I think business models like PhotoShelter may end up grabbing the best photographers and correcting the vacuum.
Art Directors, etc will go to the cheapest sites first (as they should) to find what they need. If they find it, good for them. If they don't, and PhotoShelter does what it's set out to do, they have a very good chance at becoming a viable player and even grab a good piece of the market share from the big boys.
I, for one, am routing for them.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
tpuerzer says: BTW - This thread should be flagged as "OT" since it is not directly Strobist related.
I think it is strobist related. I never heard of photoshelter until I saw the ads on the strobist blog. And I heard of the photoshelter collection through the blog entry just a few days ago. I think discussing subjects and companies supported by strobist are on topic, but if an admin disagrees then I have no problem with them adding "OT" in the subject.
There have been some interesting comments. I particularly like the "people who do microstock are stupid". I guess that makes me stupid then. If we change the word from stupid to ignorant then I wouldn't feel so bad. Seriously though, I looked at Getty, Corbis, etc. and it's not even possible to apply to them. I looked at Alamy and one had (at the time) send them a CD full of images (now that has changed). So at the time, about a year and a half ago, there weren't many alternatives for someone who just recently got his DSLR.
Fast forward 1.5 years and now we have choices: Alamy is modern now, photoshelter has arrived on the scene, and snapvillage (still is debatable). Also Photoshelter & DigitalRailroad allow photographers to market their stock images themselves. I like this idea, no censoring I can offer whatever I want even if it's not noise free or "commercial material".
Also, an aside, I was looking through a magazine tonight paying attention to the photo credits and I saw Alamy. Pretty cool considering I'm in France and it was a French magazine.
Mark - good points and another one: Many ad agencies bill the client for all images purchased and they tack on 10%. So 10% of a $1000 image is a lot more interesting than 10% of a $1 image. These companies go to the big sites first. On the other hand, some ad campaigns are on a fixed price and then the agencies go for the $1 photos.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
PhotoShelter's new model will quickly start to siphon off quality content from iStockPhoto, IMO.
Rationally, the only reason to offer a photo to iStockPhoto would be if it had been previously rejected from a place like PhotoShelter. Assuming you know about both agencies, of course.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I went through the PhotoShelter contract and it's non-exclusive. I see more photographers joining yet-another micro-stock site rather than moving. Why a established istocker would 'move'? I guess they will just drop some of the stock on the other site as well, and take it from there.
The iStock strategy to make "exclusives" is actually a good one, creating a content differentiator from the other microstock sites.
Several photographers I know just put their eggs in several micronests at the same time. That would be potentially more profitable than going exclusive with one (nx20% vs 2x20%)
Regarding the "to microstock or not to microstock" discussion, I didn't know what to do neither, so early this year I started an experiment. I submitted (relatively) the same set of images to Alamy and iStock.
Result year-to-date: iStock: 374 downloads, Alamy: 0.
I guess that with 3 Alamy sales, the balance would be even, but they still have to happen.
From the market perspective, microstock is just the result of technological evolution and an innovative -call it fresh- view on the image stock business. A lot of costs related to search, cataloging, brokering and delivery are just near to zero on the internet era, but 'legacy' agencies kept charging customers the same price for a digital image retrieved and delivered in 10' than they used to do for a slide in a huge archive that took 1/2 a day to find to fulfill a customer order, retrieve, place in an envelope and post. Link that to the fact that many amateurs armed with a good SLR *eventually* will produce a good picture (certainly more with the help of the Strobist, for example) and just placing a good filter in place between the 'crowd' and the repository will create a decent amount of high quality images.
The 20%-80% cut is clearly the impact of such a heavy filter and certainly offensive for a professional photographer that produces quality.
Looking at the market, I also find that the microstock options is broadening the potential customer base. The discussions always turns toward the 3 or 4-figure publicity campaign, but I see now "normal people" that before would never think of resorting to a $300 image for a presentation to paying $10-$20 for the illustrations they need, and while the number of marketing agencies in the world remains constant, the microstock option has created new customers expanding the potential market.
I'm just trying to look at both sides of the coin.
I'll be certainly looking at how PhotoShelter further evolves.
kr, Gerard.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kinda OT but cool: In the sign-up process you can indicate where you first heard about the Collection, and it lists 'Strobist'.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
david: i'm not so sure about it. people who are offering good quality files on istock usually earn good money from it. i'm a relatively little fish in that pond, but even i have had shootings for istock last year that earned me more than 1000$ each till now, in less than a year. and they do not stop selling. Deleting all those files from istock and moving to a small, relatively unknown new service is a big financial risk...
in the end, i don't really care whether i get a really good dayrate from selling the files once for a big amount of money, or hundreds/thousands of times for some dollars each time.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you are making over $1000 in a year off of one picture on a microstock site, you have the potential to be making many times that by placing you work in a rights managed stock site. I don't know about everyone else, but even if I were making $1000 on a microstock site or $1000 on a rights managed site selling it for example two times. I would much rather see that people are actually placing value on my work and seeing it as more than $1 picture.
I just signed up for the photoshelter service too and listed Strobist as my referring site.
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
Joshua Meador edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether it's really that simple.
and even if it were that simple a calculation: if you can decide between 500 sales at 2$ each and 2 sales at 500$ each, then the microstock choice might be the safer way, because you are not as dependent on a single sale.
i mean, i can understand that it feels great to see that someone is paying a large sum for one single picture, but if both ways get me the same amount, and the microstock way might even be the safer way, then i don't really see the negative side of it.
the only thing i really don't like about microstock is the percentage you get out of each sale.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@dgishcabibble: Comments like "People who sell their 'work' via microstock are simply stupid (and worse)" are really not helpful in discussions like this. Please take a look at the work of Lauren Rinder and notice where he sells his stock and then you might realize that some "old school" pros don't feel the same way you and some others do about microstock. www.rinderart.com/-/rinderart/
Peace!
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you Solodogs... I wasn't really thrilled with that comment either. I know this has become a heated debate, but their is no reason for name calling. Everyone should feel free to state their opinion, but I am certain we can all do so with calling people stupid.
People like to point the finger at MS sites as causing a problem for the stock industry, this is not accurate. MS sites may be part of a problem that also includes digital photography and the Internet, to name a few. Not only has it become easier to make good images, but it has become easier to share them. Along with that, information about photography is much more readily available then it used to be. All these things and more have caused changes in the way images are baught and sold.
The fact of the matter is the industry is changing, get used to it. If you don't like MS sites, fine, don't use them. There plenty of people like myself however who do use them and I for one and very happy about it.
iStock makes me money, and there is a value to what the site offers. It is not free to market, host and advertise such a site just because it is on the Intenet. Would I like to make a greater percentage? Sure. Would I switch sites to make 70%? Depends on traffic and how many images I will sell--I'm not giving up on something that is working for me as there is a good chance I could loose money overall.
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
mortonphotographic edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
I will suggest that often it is the first in that do the best.
While obviously istock make enough money to stay in business I will suggest that an individual photos share of their revenue would be small how you do stand out on a pool of 1,800,000 images?
There may be people who make a few thousand per year doing this but to make a good living I would suggest that you should be aiming to make more like a few thousand per week because it is an essential lesson in business that turnover is very different to profit.
I will suggest that people who buy images via stock agencies do because of price so if they can get an acceptable photo for $5.00 they are not going to spend any more.
How cheap you are prepared to work is a personal thing.
Maybe if you images are still earning money in 50 years it starts to make sense but with technology the images probably only have a life in the order of 5 years before they will not be up to the standard of the new photos.
The economists suggest with discounting that a dollar now is worth a lot more than a dollar in 50 years time. Especially if you are over 60 years old now :-(
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Getty and others missed the "Technology Inflection Point".
They shut out the "little guys with talent" and they "priced out of range" of 90% of the market (smaller firms and independents)
HELLO!?! How can microstocks make millions upon millions of dollars and be wrong? (And bring in thousands of photographers into an otherwise EXCLUSIVE market?)
I think I'm happy that there is something in the middle, where RM is much easier to handle, and relatively inexpensive. (and EVERYONE can participate)
I'm sure they are just the first of many to open up membership...
(PS, I think I'm biased against Getty just because of Bill Gates's involvement)
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
tvphoto edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
I thought it was Corbis that was Microsoft owned?
Anyhow. I've had a bunch of images accepted by Photoshelter and will be rapidly going through my collection of images to get more submissions in.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
tvphoto - you should be against corbis, not getty. I agree with what you said though, Getty is too exclusive and if the microstocks succeed then one could make the point that Getty is getting what they deserve. The probelm is the innocent photographers that are getting hurt. Including those that sell their work to microstock. I don't think it can continue. How many times can you take a photo of a doctor with a patient, of a building, a taxi in the street, etc. At some point the collection of x million will become x*2 million and then *3, *4, etc.. Then the image selling 10x/month now will sell only 1-2. The microstocks have promised money due to volume but when the volume dries up the photographers will be making pennies.
Sean - I plan to do submit to PS too, I've just been too busy. Please let us know if you get any sales. I imagine it's going to take a while for them to get buyers on the site.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry, Corbis, You're right. It was interesting that Getty came up so much, as they have exclusive contracts with NBA and NIKE, etc...
It's going to be hard to balance "tons of crap" and "really good images" in any non-exclusive" site. It is always a battle to "be seen".
The one good point from the tour, is the speaker talking about how they find images and photographers. Sources they use, what types of marketing they want, etc. Portfolios, websites, which services they use, etc.
And comments like "We don't really like Conservative clients. We only want companies that do cutting-edge", etc.
The speakers really had little if anything to say about the stock industry, they don't DO stock, etc. I like stock, it works for me, and the fact that they claim they are willing to look at Photoshelter Stock photos is pretty far out there, so I wonder how that works. Reputation of the Photoshelter creators? (Not Everyone can belong to 'Magnum')
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Tvphoto- If your biased against Corbis because of Bill Gates, are you also bias against Getty because of Mark Getty, grandson of J.Paul Getty, the oil tycoon? Mark used the oil money to buy up the top stock houses and created quite a monopoly for himself. As for technology Getty was way ahead of the game developing the electronic image storage and online searching, pricing and delivery system they use today.
As for open membership. The problem with no gatekeeping, and no editing for quality or content, is that a lot of bad images will be uploaded. Buyers will not waste time pouring over hundreds of lousy images to find the few gems that match their search. You have just given them reason to go elsewhere. Once that perception is in the buyers mind there is little chance of changing it. What’s wrong with having your work edited by someone who knows the market? Do you want to make money or do you want an ego boost from seeing your images online.
Personally, I will not participate in microstock. What is the logic behind pricing based on file size? What was wrong with basing it on how the image was to be used, and by whom and for how long? Small client + small use+ short time = small fee, conversely big client + big use + long time = big fee. I don’t think this pricing model excludes 90% of the market as you suggest. Pretty much amounts to corporate welfare.
Yes, microstock makes millions upon millions of dollars but who gets to keep the lion’s share, the people who produce the content or the distrubitor? An anecdote from a conversation I had with a microstock site rep: When I questioned him as to why my minuscule percentage would go down even further after x number of downloads, his reply was “why should you make excessive profit, from excessive sales?” I could have asked him the same question but decided there was no need to pursue the issue any further.
As for istockphoto, no one has done more damage to the industry than Getty. Just look at their new $49 web image deal for rights managed images. Images, that they themselves use to license for $900. Getty may (or may not make it up on volume) but what about the individual photographers? You feed istockphoto, you feed Getty. Dissatisfaction with Getty is the reason we’re seeing companies like digital Railroad Photoshelter, and others emerge and grow.
I may be beating a dead horse but if it’s dead it won’t feel anything anyway.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
>>>" HELLO!?! How can microstocks make millions upon millions of dollars and be wrong?"
I would submit that a crack dealer can make a boatload of money and be wrong.
Not equating. Just making a point.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, the argument was that microstock made income from photography available for the non-photographer, and the biggest winners in the microstock game are highest on the food chain on the agency side. Getting into the subjectivity of drug dealers and the wrongness of their trade isn't a terribly strong counter-argument, sorry Dave.
I was at the PhotoShelter in Chicago, and Allen said that in 2008 PS will be putting $1M into advertising. There was also some discussion on the exclusivity of Corbis/Jupiter/Getty, especially the latter and their price drop for web use-only images.
There was also discussion with the buyer end of photography, agencies and such, where they're now looking for photographers to create and be spontaneous, and they're looking for that more than a lengthily discussion on conceptualization, set-up, and execution. Moreover, if a photographer needs to be hired for consultation on conceptualization to final product, they will look for someone who can think on their feet, and has a body of work that shows that.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Here is the differences in my mind between Photoshelter and Micro Stock:
1. Photoshelter CHARGES a monthly fee for having your images there.
2. They do NOT market your work. (How is ANYONE going to hear about your images).
3. The price is set by the photographer (which SOUNDS nice), BUT at the end of the day the financial responsability of running this site is set upon EVERYONE else (not PhotoShelter). the seller buys content, the photographer PAYS to have the content there and Photoshelter DOESN'T even pay to have them marketed... they are simply put: an archive site with benefits.
I think I will stay in MicroStock for now.
(it sounded too good to be true...)
Leviathor: You make an EXCELLENT point. I would not be doing this if I thought it was for PROFESSIONALS only. I am thrilled with every download (even though I don't make enough to support myself.) it is making more than if I just took the pictures and LOOKED at them.
However, I would be making $0 in a traditional site. I make it up in the volume (like Wal*mart!).
Dave: Crack dealers have a PERFECT business model. (one for which EVERY company would kill for.)
. They are the ONLY sales people I know whose product TRULY sells itself. You don't see Crack dealers advertising, they have hardly ANY overhead and at the end of the day... patrons are killing themselves to get more.
Just like EVERYTHING in this country: Its good for some. (not equating, just making a point). =D
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
stockimages:
1)They charge members a fee to cover overhead so you can have 70% of the sale!
2)They also give you the option to be a member for as low as $9.99 a month. You would rather give up 80 or 90% of the sale price? I don't get it.
3) Can't understand your objection to setting prices yourself either. It's not that hard.
4) Where did you get the idea that you, not Photoshelter were responsible for marketing costs?
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Yet another equine analogy!
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
kardonme edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
@ stockimages & kardonme
You guys have obviously not heard about the new venture they are doing.
1. No membership fee
2. The are getting ready to launch a $1 million advertising campaign
3. They have editors that are going through all the submissions and are being very selective in what they are accepting.
go read the site and then let us know what you think
mp.photoshelter.com/
Originally posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
Ryan McG edited this topic 57 months ago.
|
|
|
What Ryan Mc said.
I've had a mix of images go through. Unfortunatley, while it's obvious why some didn't get through (er I didn't read the bit about sepia toning!) there's no note to say why an image was rejected. Which would help!
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Me too, Sean. I had one soft rejected because I had toned it. I went back and sent them the straight ahead, color version.
Eric
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
stockimages,
As a point of clarification the PhotoShelter Collection is a new stock image marketplace that is free to join and use. It is a discrete offering from the subscription-based Personal Archive.
PhotoShelter is spending $1 million in 2008 marketing the PhotoShelter Collection to professional image buyers.
If you're content with the sales you're making with microstock, that's fine. The notion isn't that PhotoShelter will replace microstock. It's our belief that different images have different values, and the issue with microstock is that it forces all images to have the same value.
There are some very average images in the MS sites that are probably worth what they are selling for. But I've also seen some amazing work that could be making a lot more money.
If 70% of the sale isn't enough to convince people to try it, then nothing will.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
All I know is, while I do have some stuff selling in micro-stock. I am definatly going to check this out and work towards using this new stock service.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
any thing of mine that was rejected Photo shelter or soft rejected had a note on it, its a little icon on the bottom right of the photo that you just roll over and it tells you whats up. it took me a few days to find it.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Debating microstock's impact on pro stock photography is futile. It's here, and it's not going away. And companies like iStock are definitely not going anywhere until:
a) cheap buyers stop buying cheap photos
or
b) hungry contributors stop contributing for peanuts.
Neither of these is going to happen any time soon. If you really are a pro, why do you care if amateurs are selling their souls? Be a pro, and make better pro photos. If you're losing money because everyone is churning out stock photos that are as good as yours, you better make your product that much better.
Clients with real money go to agencies with high-end photos.
Contributors who demand big bucks contribute only to high-end agencies.
It's not like microstock contributors don't want big money. If they aren't good enough for the big boys, and can actually make a pittance with the micros, guess where they're going to go? Little or none? It's no contest.
My current hope is that more companies like PS start poaching the microstock photographers who rise to the top and reward them accordingly. There will always be a self-adjusting market out there.
The democratization of photography (digtal capture / manipulation) and internet distribution has given us all some major new challenges that we either embrace or ignore at our professional peril.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Well, let's not forget option c) iStock collapses under it's own weight, what's the uptime for istock been over the past week?
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm totally enamored of photoshelter right now.
I joined a microstock about a month ago as an experiment. Only 9 photos out of 39 uploaded were accepted. I'm pretty sure they have a robot review the images before a person sees them.
This image was rejected for "Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure."
To be fair, I *only* uploaded images that had taken me less than 5 minutes to shoot. Random shots of my cat, p&s stuff from the zoo, shots from when i was testing battery life around the house etc.
Then I joined photoshelter. I'm at 31/51. Some of the rejected images don't have a reason but the ones that do make me think 'fair enough' as opposed to the microstock 'wtf?' Of the 22 images that I uploaded to both sites only 3 were accepted on both.
Photoshelter is clearly looking for more unique and interesting images, and has a real team of editors filtering the content. Hopefully buyers will take note.
They also make you stack multiple images from a single shoot so search results aren't cluttered with a bunch of similar looking shots. This is a huge plus for buyers.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"Getty and others missed the "Technology Inflection Point".
They shut out the "little guys with talent" and they "priced out of range" of 90% of the market (smaller firms and independents)"
If I remember correctly, istock is owned by getty. I remember recieving an email from them saying that if you are an exclusive member and you have reached a certain level of sales, your photos will go on Getty instead. So for some it seems like a way to get to the professional level of getty while they use istock to test the viability of your photos.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
gregbrophy: I read this as Getty dangling a carrot, in hopes of insuring continued submissions in their microstock. " Many will enter few will win" clause comes to mind. Maybe they're threaten by PhotoShelter, Digital Railroad and other sites that are more photographer friendly. Chances are they will not move your current collection to the "Getty side as they're low value has already been established and widely distributed as royalty free. Speculation on my part, I confess but I'm cynical when it comes to Getty. Even if you do get moved "Uptown" I'd be surprised if the split wasn't 60/ 40 their favor.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh I am cynical too. As for someone who is trying to learn and enter the field it was a good way to make the expenses a little less painfull. Now with photoshelter though I am liking their plan more and more as an alternative to istock. Before it was either microstock or Getty and getty wasn't really an option for most people yet. Now their is a resonable choice rather than two extremes.
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If it makes anyone feel better, istockpro (the bit of ground between istock and Getty) just folded up shop.
Also, if you want to set your prices and not pay a monthly fee there's always Snap Village the Corbis alternative to other microstock.
istockpro.com/
snapvillage.com/
Posted 57 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
RIP Photoshelter
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
PhotoShelter as a company is very much alive and functional.
The PhotoShelter collection of stock images has shut down, but the company is going along with it's primary business model just fine.
I haven't seen this thread in a while, so I ought to mention that iStockPhoto.com (the microstock part) is still around as well.
It seems that there is a limited market for images priced between 'close to nothing' and 'really expensive.' That is surprising, but given the number of companies that have tried to fill that niche market (and failed) it appears to be true.
Posted 41 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Strobist.com /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Strobist.com discussion threads