You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.
| Page: 1 | 2 of 2 - Previous | Next |
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 24 |
| Author |
Message |
Boughn
339 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/16/2007, 05:18:41 AM by Boughn - member is an admin |
 |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 0
|
|
Vacek37
1 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/20/2007, 06:35:09 AM by Vacek37 |
|
 |
Lovely bloog and very nice article. In my understanding the tiny boundary between pro and highly qualified amateur photographer laids exactly here: in models shooting. Shooting models means studio, backgrounds, lighting, long shooting sessions and expensive photographic equipment. Sometimes models even want to be paid for their time :-). All these means expensies both in terms of money and in terms of time that a typical amateur just can not afford. So, it is probably a good idea for your next article: How to shoot models on budget? A small tip for DT guys: can you please make comments text area wider and adda typical `blog-style/forum` stuff like preview before submit, HTML editing etc? |
|
Canon 40D
70-200 f2.8 IS
17-40 f4.0
50 f1.8
20 f2.8
Spe...
|
Uploaded files: 6 | Total Sales: 15
|
|
Songbird839
41 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/20/2007, 09:00:54 AM by Songbird839 |
|
|
Excellent article! Contrary to some of the other comments left here, I find it easy to get models as there are always people who are happy to get free pictures done. |
|
Canon 5D, Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM, Canon EF 24-105mm F4...
|
Uploaded files: 315 | Total Sales: 1023
|
|
Markstout
9 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/20/2007, 20:46:37 PM by Markstout |
|
|
I do appreciate the articles on how to shoot more salable stock photos. But I also agree with the first poster. Microstock entered the game as a place where amateur photographers could make a few bucks on their hobby. As it gained in popularity and client demands increased, microstock agencies now demand professional quality work without paying professional prices! A bit unfair to say the least. Models wanting work for theiir portfoliors are pretty easy to come by. They can even bring much of their own wardrobe. But sometimes a specialized piece of clothing is required.... and microstock doesn`t pay enough to justify the cost. Shoots with more than one model sell better... but when you start arranging something like that, the models want to be paid. One microstock agency wrote an article on locations and the author stated how he dropped a couple hundred bucks into the collection plate to get the church to let him shoot inside... and that he figured it would take 15 years to earn back his investment "but it was worth it". Huh? I quickly exhausted my list of friends for use of their locations. Now I find locations want 30 an hour to $1500 a day to use their location. Most range around $75 per hour. Microstock doesn`t pay enough to support this expense. Actually, microstock doesn`t pay enough to support the cost of photography without the props, locations, wardrobes, and models. My first digital SLR cost $5000.00. My next will be the same. My last lens cost $2000.00 and the next on the list is $1000.00. My studio strobes were cheap... I only have about $3000 invested in them. Add another $1200 for strobes that can be used on outdoor shoots, oh yeah, the soft boxex, umbrellas, barn doors.... thie list just goes on and on. Each week it seems some new item needs to be added to the collection, or something has to be repaired or replaced. Photographers have a huge investment in their equimpment, put in many hours scouting locations, setting up sets, editing photos... Through microstock our work sells for less than a buck. Models who only have to stand there and look pretty for the duration of the shoot expect to be paid, highly paid! Those who need only to give us permission to shoot on theri property demand hundreds of dollars.... The thing I have been completely unable to understand about microstock is why when images were selling for thousands of dollars in a rights managed world and hundreds of dollars in the royalty free world that they had to slash the price to selling the images for LESS THAN A DOLLAR! Honestly, the person who pays a buck for an image could just and easily pay $10.00. And even though that price is still way too low, at least I would feel I could justify spending some money on a few props, or a makeup artist, or a location to get the shots that truely stand above the crowd. Raising the price per photo seems to me the best way to get better quality images in the library. I know there is competition, but there are really only three microstock agencies with sales that amount to anything (Dreamstime one of them) and it would not be that difficult to raise them to professional standards across the boards... including the pricing and payments. Again, I do appreciate the articles on how to improve. I welcome you to Dreamstime. |
|
Nikon D100, Nikon D70, 4 SB800 flash units used with Nikon&#...
|
Uploaded files: 3135 | Total Sales: 6579
|
|
Joegough
237 posts
|
|
Message edited at 02/21/2007, 05:21:45 AM by Joegough |
|
|
Mark,
All your concerns above are true but only to a certain extent. Microstock, like anything else, is a competitive business and you have to work to your strengths. If you can't make microstock pay then you probably wouldn't be able to make 'trad' RM/RF pay either __ the unit price may be smaller in microstock but then the volume is hugely greater. There are plenty of pro photog's that have migrated some or all of their portfolios to microstock because they've found it pays better. Admittedly, the presence of microstock has undoubtedly had an effect on the trad market though.
Working to your strengths means identifying your own photographic style (i.e. what you are good at shooting), making the best advantage of whatever you have around you and only buying the equipment that you can justify economically in term of ROI. Many of the Top Contributors have never paid a model yet __ they are all friends, family or people happy to work for TFCD. There are a relatively few microstock photographers who regularly pay models but those are largely very successful full-time photographers who know that they can make it pay because of their track record __ you'll note that even then they tend to stick with a small number of regular models. The guy you quoted is indeed one of them and he was commenting somewhat ruefully on the cost of that particular church shoot as one occasion when it didn't work out. Paying upfront costs is always going to be risky and of course it won't always pay off.
If you examine the portfolios of many microstockers you can often get a pretty good idea at their main profession, their interests, their age, where they live, etc, etc. That's because they are working to their strengths and using what is around them. Microstock is full of niche markets and you just have to identify which of those markets you can provide for economically. Buying a load of gear and paying for models, locations and props won't automatically make anyone a successful stock photographer.
Opening the market to the masses, as the advent of digital technology, the internet and microstock has done, has meant things just got harder, not easier to make photography pay. It is much, much more competitive than it has ever been and to survive you need to adapt accordingly and work as efficiently as possible. |
|
Canon 1Ds MkIII (from Jan 2008), 5D, 20D & 10D.
...
|
Uploaded files: 2482 | Total Sales: 11116
|
|
Afagundes
380 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/21/2007, 05:40:56 AM by Afagundes |
|
|
Hi Ellen, Mark, everybody.
Mark, you are a little acid today, take it easy, man!
You have a great portfolio and the article of Ellen is specially suited to you.
For instance, your best selling picture is of a guys arm and hand using a suit and using a credit card.
The moto on the article is to give us an insight to get more sales and take better pictures.
So, I think one of the suggestions that Ellen showed us is that you can take alike pictures (of people paying with a credit card), but using summer clothes, or jeans, or whatever.
That means you can add variety without spending much more money, I mean, if you found a model, a location, lighting, everything, adding diferent wardrobe might help you with diferent looks that could sell in diferent seasons and add variety to your portfolio with little or no expenses.
Anyway, keep the good working and I suggest you to start a new thread with the subject about prices and how other photographers get the return of their investment, that is a good subject to discuss, but it is in the wrong place here in Ellen blogs, at least, that is my opinion.
Thanks a lot for the insight, very inspiring, Ellen. |
|
Canon EOS 40D
Canon EFS 17-85mm IS/USM
Canon 75-300mm IS/U...
|
Uploaded files: 1939 | Total Sales: 2377
|
|
Markstout
9 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/21/2007, 05:54:39 AM by Markstout |
|
|
Sorry, this is not an attempt to bash Ellens blogs. I appreciate what she is doing. I also appreciate what Afagundes and Joegough have to say. I constantly look for ways to improve my work. However it does not change the fact that microstock does not pay enough (or charge enough) for the work being produced. Prices need to be pushed back up to a more realistic range. |
|
Nikon D100, Nikon D70, 4 SB800 flash units used with Nikon&#...
|
Uploaded files: 3135 | Total Sales: 6579
|
|
Boughn
339 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/21/2007, 06:21:19 AM by Boughn - member is an admin |
|
|
I fully appreciate the cost of a full blown photo shoot. After all I signed the check requests for over 200 productions in the last three years, most being between $6000 and $15,000 a day. But guess what? The traditional agencies have cut way back on these expensive shoots. Reason? They are finding it increasingly difficult to earn back the investment in a timely manner. Why? They all use the same creative research sources to tell them what to shoot so the work across the markets has become very predictable and self-referencing. Many use the same models and commercial rental locations. Many, many images are predictable and indistinquishable. As the US market becomes more and more ethnically diverse and the ad/design business becomes more important and demanding in non-US and European markets, the images need to have models from many nationalities and locations. Finally "authenticity "has been the watch word we have heard from buyers for some time now. Read back over the last sentences and you will easily see why I believe that microstock will be successful. And not to worry. In later articles I will talk about how to street cast for inexpensive models and how to recreate locations without paying big fees. Just look at the initial image in this article. The photographer didn't need to rent a classroom or a conference room. All he needed was a white board to create the illusion of that space. But Mark also not to worry. I predict that with the growing success of microstock, the expensive and UNIQUE shoots will become even more valuable. And thanks to you all for these studied and professiona remarks that have given me a lot to write about this morning even before my coffee! |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 0
|
|
Achilles
3426 posts
|
|
Message edited at 02/21/2007, 07:37:00 AM by Admin |
|
|
Marc, your post is motivating and well educated. I don't see it as a bash, but just as sharing your concerns with us. That's the whole idea behind the articles, not just read them but to spark this kind of discussions.
The way I see it, is that you don't have to employ expensive models nor expensive locations. The better the equipment, the better the results, I do agree.
But the challenge is to create attractive and useful stock with limited resources. Anyone (or almost anyone with skills) can create a good image with a budget of $30K. There are very few that can do it with nothing.
Everyone is talking about our model these days, few know how hard it really is. And that applies to the agency too. I would love to advertise on all magazines with full double page spreads. It would be very easy. But I prefer to do it only with the ones that return good ROI, while directing the funding into good royalties and commisions.
You don't have to carry a portfolio of tens of models. There are lots of contributors making good money with 2-3 models, usually their parents, husband/wife or kids.
Then, there are people in remote places with beautiful scenery. It can cost me thousands to go where Fleyeing is already. So, I don't try to do it. I shoot in my own area, while in holiday or in my spare time and never forget to have fun.
The hard part comes if you want to make a living out of it. Many contributors do it and they do their best to improve. See where their portfolio was 2 years ago and you will notice how much they improved. They grow as our site grows.
The prices have to follow the same pace, you cannot expect to have a huge price increase, what sold for $1 to sell for $10 after one night...
The new prices will increase your royalties with 70-100% in the next months. Same thing happened last year. We grow, your revenue grows and so are your skills. |
|
Nikon D300 / Nikon N80 | Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fishey...
|
Uploaded files: 1979 | Total Sales: 10668
|
|
Joegough
237 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/21/2007, 09:44:46 AM by Joegough |
|
|
| Originally posted by Achilles: |
 |
| Quoted Message: But the challenge is to create attractive and useful stock with limited resources. Anyone (or almost anyone with skills) can create a good image with a budget of $30K. |
I nearly fell over when I read that figure Achilles __ did you mean $3k rather than 30K? It would need an awful lot of $1/50c downloads to pay for $30K's worth of gear. |
|
Canon 1Ds MkIII (from Jan 2008), 5D, 20D & 10D.
...
|
Uploaded files: 2482 | Total Sales: 11116
|
|
Achilles
3426 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/21/2007, 10:15:57 AM by Achilles - member is an admin |
|
|
Who said that $30k budget will be allocated for creating an image to be sold in microstock? |
|
Nikon D300 / Nikon N80 | Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fishey...
|
Uploaded files: 1979 | Total Sales: 10668
|
|
Boughn
339 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/21/2007, 12:31:05 PM by Boughn - member is an admin |
|
|
Just an aside to Mark: I just reread my post. I hope you didn't think that it was abrupt and somehow directed at you. Not so. I think what you wrote has lots of merit and sparked a really good discussion. thanks for your input! |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 0
|
|
Avion49
564 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/22/2007, 04:13:07 AM by Avion49 |
|
|
Interesting article and the discussion it has sparked. As a CGI artist, I come at a different angle from photographers. Upgrading my "equipment" isn't nearly as expensive, but I still have the need to cover my costs. After having spent hours setting up a scene, I'd like to see some return on my investment.
Sandy |
|
Bryce 6.1, Poser 5, Daz Studio, FinePix S5100 digital camer...
|
Uploaded files: 405 | Total Sales: 277
|
|
Pinkcandy
297 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/22/2007, 09:06:13 AM by Pinkcandy |
|
|
I'm a stylist on professionnal shooting sometimes....The production even if they pay alot for mannequin, photographer, stock agence etc....The buyer don't want to spend alot on clothes and props. So it means usualy, we have a microbudget or nothing and need to do with...
So I have now my contacts, some store rent me some props for cheap price, and for clothing, we have no budget, so we choose clothes from store which accepted to return the stock. We do it with their approbation or not. We take off price and do the shoot and put the price on and go to return....That's life!
For sure if we have a problem with make up, or need to do a reshoot in few month, they find money an buy the thing. But that's the only reason....Anyway, unfortunatly, this people think it's very easy to do (clothing) cause everybody do it by himself each day, but it's really a job, the color, material, model, etc do all the difference for the result.....So that's why we not receive a budget anymore....just for specific things.....
And I speak for professional one, we can easily do the same for amateur one..... |
|
Canon eos 30D 18-55 MM EFS, 28-105MM f/3.5-4.5, 50MM EF f/...
|
Uploaded files: 2874 | Total Sales: 6226
|
|
Frederickrm
14 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/23/2007, 18:06:25 PM by Frederickrm |
|
|
| Originally posted by Joegough: |
|
| Quoted Message: [quote] But the challenge is to create attractive and useful stock with limited resources. Anyone (or almost anyone with skills) can create a good image with a budget of $30K. |
I nearly fell over when I read that figure Achilles __ did you mean $3k rather than 30K? It would need an awful lot of $1/50c downloads to pay for $30K's worth of gear.[/quote]
To be honest I think anyone with skills can create a good image for under $30. Even FREE. I'm not sure where the "$30K" comes from but even in the REAL stock world you would have a hard time recouping your expenses with that budget. Now if you're doing a client shoot, that's a different story.
Grab your camera and handful of model releases and take a walk. Be brave but not obnoxious and you will get some great stuff. Besides, clients also need images of "stuff" too. Not every image sold in stock has a person in it. |
|
Nikon, Mamiya and Wista cameras
|
Uploaded files: 304 | Total Sales: 480
|
|
Wysiwygfoto
558 posts
|
|
Message posted at 02/23/2007, 18:39:29 PM by Wysiwygfoto |
|
|
| Originally posted by Frederickrm: |
|
Quoted Message: To be honest I think anyone with skills can create a good image for under $30. Even FREE. I'm not sure where the "$30K" comes from but even in the REAL stock world you would have a hard time recouping your expenses with that budget. Now if you're doing a client shoot, that's a different story.
Grab your camera and handful of model releases and take a walk. Be brave but not obnoxious and you will get some great stuff. Besides, clients also need images of "stuff" too. Not every image sold in stock has a person in it. |
Free? Are you kidding?
I think a lot of folks here lose sight of the fact that this is a business. How do you create a "free" image when you have to buy a camera, a memory card, a lens, pay for your expenses to travel to the location you are shooting - and we still aren't talking models. How about administrative expenses relating to your own accounting, copy costs for model releases, etc., etc. Then there's the processing time. Do you use Photoshop? Neat Image? iView for organizing your files? How about the computer? The monthly fee for internet access? We haven't gotten into compensating models, wardrobe, makeup, studio lights or even the intangible costs of depreciation, or entrance fees, utility bills and electricity, permits, etc. Who pays for the "stuff" that isn't related to models? How about the roll of white paper for the background?
I apologize Frederick if you feel I'm attacking you, and that isn't the intention. My frustration is similar to Mark's in that many take for granted what we do. We don't simply go out and press a button and create something that magically sells without any effort or overhead on our part.
This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I've turned down 3 weddings this year alone because my friends want me to work for them for free. They don't want to pay me because it's "free". One wedding is for the son of a friend that has a daughter that FLEW a photographer from New York to Banff to shoot the wedding - I saw the images, they were good and most were "stock" oriented for sale later. The difference in equipment between that photographer and me is nil. The difference is the perceived value.
With that being said...
I do appreciate Ellen's comments and blog and I will definitely keep the information in mind when shooting. Anyone that can help me recover some of those costs mentioned above by making an image more marketable, and maybe help compensate me for my time, is a godsend in my book. |
|
|
Uploaded files: 0 | Total Sales: 899
|
|
Dennist1
326 posts
|
|
Message posted at 03/06/2007, 22:31:12 PM by Dennist1 |
|
|
I think some of us may be missing the message our market is sending us by accepting 'microstock standards'. As we try to improve and make a profit at this, we of course toss money into our equipment. This in turn does help produce better images, but it also means we need to make more in sales. The real goal is to make more in profit,though ... not necessarily just increase sales.
Now, concider our market as it is today ... MANY of our images end up on a website. How much technical quality/resolution/sharpness is required for web use? Not near as much as print use. The web is in, print is declining.
Microstock, at least in the beginning, was considered lower quality than trad. agencies, but it was still serious overkill for low-res web use. Our modern day buyers aren't looking for images produced on multi-thousand dollar cameras ... they would only throw away the extra detail downsampling it for the web. They are looking for a great selection of decent quality images readily available at an affordable cost. Exactly what microstock offers, thus the sucess of the industry.
Check your stats .. what is your percentage of hi-res vs. low res sales? Work with a reasonable investment in equipment, look for the missing areas in the collection that match your capabilities, and make sure your image can speak a message for the designer. While I make no claim to having it mastered, I strongly believe that success in this business requires an investment in thought ... not equipment, sets, models,etc.
|
|
Canon Digital SLR, 30D, 300D. 17-85 F4; 70-200 2.8L, many ot...
|
Uploaded files: 343 | Total Sales: 600
|
|
Jakich
14 posts
|
|
Message posted at 04/05/2007, 12:05:46 PM by Jakich |
|
|
| Originally posted by Wysiwygfoto: |
|
| Quoted Message: Free? Are you kidding? |
Some poeple consider these as sunk costs. ie they would have spent them regardless so the photo is actually free.
eg. you take a picture of your family for your own personal use. Yod decide it is good so you upload it. The actual cost of that image in nominal.
Not saying this is the gight way to look at it (especially from a business perspective) but is one way. |
|
Canon 20D (and Canon Ixux 500
Canon Ixux 55)
|
Uploaded files: 322 | Total Sales: 1074
|
|
Pixel-pizzazz
182 posts
|
|
Message posted at 04/05/2007, 18:55:19 PM by Pixel-pizzazz |
|
|
Great article. Thanks.
There is something that always struck me as out of place and that is when there are images of children (not babies) from the shoulders up - shot indoors - and it's obvious the child has no shirt on (boys usually). Most have been great images - but I would think they would have to be cropped to 'head shots' to be useful. Probably the parent had a good candid moment. It just always struck me as odd - I'd be thinking 'why isn't that child dressed' (unless it was clearly an outdoor / swimmin or bathing shot). |
| |
