# Stock photo no micropayment sites



## ilghila (Dec 4, 2006)

Thanks to this forum I discovered that micropayment stock and royalty free photo sites such as istockphoto or bigstockphoto are unfair to photographers. I discovered that because a very good site came up in a thread: photographersdirect.com. You can read the reasons they list to support this theory:http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/micropayment.asp
Do you know any other site like this good one? I'd like to compare a few. Thanks.


----------



## darich (Dec 4, 2006)

I'm sure others will talk about other sites but I'm registered with Photographers direct and can vouch for them. I've had a sale through them and received money as promised - just over £85.

I'm against micro payment sites and agree they do nothing but undermine decent photographs and photographers for the gain of the site owner.


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 5, 2006)

ive been doing a bit of research on this myself.  im just an amatuer, with no real desire of going pro, but if i can sell some pictures on the side then im all for that.  at first the stock sites got my interest because it seemed quick and easy.  after researching a bit more though, i agree with a lot of the arguments of it cheapening the art a bit.

my concern though is this.  the better sites like photographers direct are cool, but why would anyone pay anything more than a few bucks if they can get similar pictures off of istockphoto?


----------



## markc (Dec 5, 2006)

Hopefully they can't. Since so many people are submitting to the micro sites and they aren't so picky as to what they accept, it makes for a lot of low-quality snapshots to sort through. That won't always be the case, but time = money, and for a lot of companies, it can be worth it to go someplace they know they can get good images. As long as high-quality photographers stay away from the micro sites, there will be business for the better paying ones.


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 5, 2006)

good point which then brings another question to mind.  for those of us who arent professionals, is maybe a stock site a good place to start to test the waters?  I have a few pictures Im proud and would like to see if they generate any interest.  Perhaps a stock site is ok to start, and if one does well there, they can step up to the better sites?


----------



## markc (Dec 5, 2006)

My take is to not bother with stock until you have a collection of good images. A good place to gauge reactions to your work is local club competitions and shows. If you aren't getting a positive response there, it's unlikely you will from stock. One thing to keep in mind is that many of those micro sites have horrid licensing, and once you have an image there, you probably can't use it at one of the better sites.


----------



## darich (Dec 6, 2006)

Rv5 said:
			
		

> my concern though is this.  the better sites like photographers direct are cool, but why would anyone pay anything more than a few bucks if they can get similar pictures off of istockphoto?



i've checked a few of the micor sites and noticed that while some of the photos might look quite good there's often a detail which shows why it's on a microsite for sale for 20p or 20c. Often the resolution is low eg 3-4mp. No use for a really good advert or calendar. There are often some flaws in the composition eg a silhouette of a country sceen but on closer inspection you notice pylons or a building somewhere.

That doesn't apply to all shots but reputable companies will always use reputable stock agencies and pay the appropriate rates - they don't want to be seen to have sub standard images.


----------



## txshutterbug (Dec 6, 2006)

Photographer's Direct has been a good thing for me. I just licensed my first image for $80.  I'd recommend it!


----------



## Rv5 (Dec 7, 2006)

would you be willing to post a low rez version of the image you sold?  id be curious to see it


----------



## darich (Dec 8, 2006)

Rv5 said:
			
		

> would you be willing to post a low rez version of the image you sold?  id be curious to see it



I sold San Francisco at Night for 125 Euros (just over £85) several months ago.
I've also had an enquiry from someone for California Street but that never went any further.

That's my only activity through Photographers Direct but considering it doesn't cost anything to submit if you go for the commission method i'm perfectly happy to continue to submit images.


----------



## kkart (Dec 9, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> Hopefully they can't. Since so many people are submitting to the micro sites and they aren't so picky as to what they accept, it makes for a lot of low-quality snapshots to sort through. That won't always be the case, but time = money, and for a lot of companies, it can be worth it to go someplace they know they can get good images. As long as high-quality photographers stay away from the micro sites, there will be business for the better paying ones.



Well I hate to tell ya Mark, but making the presumption that they are not picky is just wrong. They are utterly insane when accepting photos. I submit to micros and Shutterstock is just plain stringent on what they accept, the same can be said for Istock (which is owned by Getty, btw) There are MANY damn good photogs that sell thru Micro. I would like to think I am one of them. The issue that I have with Photographers Direct is this---they won't accept you IF you sell thru Micros. I also question the legality of this practice. 
  Also, there have been some new sites lately that have been popping up, like Featurepics.com which is neither a Micro or a Macro. It is a mixture of both where you set the license and prices yourself. RF or RM. They are truely innovative. You may wish to check them out. 
  I really think the mindset is changing with Micros & Macro stock. Most RM places like Getty and Corbis are REALLY hurting bad because of the chunk that Shutterstock has taken outta their business. It has actually hurt Getty so bad that they went ahead and bough IStockphoto, and now all diamond users on IStock will be integrated into Getty. http://stock-photo.blogspot.com/2006/12/getty-welcomes-istock-diamond-members.html That is a BIG thing. Once Alamy starts their FTP transfers I will also start selling on there, the more the merrier.


----------



## kkart (Dec 9, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> i've checked a few of the micor sites and noticed that while some of the photos might look quite good there's often a detail which shows why it's on a microsite for sale for 20p or 20c. Often the resolution is low eg 3-4mp. No use for a really good advert or calendar. There are often some flaws in the composition eg a silhouette of a country sceen but on closer inspection you notice pylons or a building somewhere.
> 
> That doesn't apply to all shots but reputable companies will always use reputable stock agencies and pay the appropriate rates - they don't want to be seen to have sub standard images.



I think that's a pretty bad assumption. It was that way I think a few years ago, but these days, they are VERY stringent on what they accept. Examples---
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1876805.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2075819.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1753227.html

So far I have made close to 50- this month alone on Shutterstock, and this one http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=2093403 has been my #1 seller taken with my old P&S Minolta, netting me 35- alone. Think of it this way, we all take 1000s of shots, why just have them sitting around clogging up your HD?!?? Do something with them! That shot is 2 years old that is my best seller and I honestly can't see it being used for anything else other than stock. ANd it is also 4mp, something the RM sites wouldn't accept with that resolution. 
  Another thing to remember, Micros are geared to the designer. RM is geared to editors. Big difference. Usually it seems like Micros are for online stuff--websites, blogs, etc. RM seems more along the lines for print.


----------



## markc (Dec 9, 2006)

kkart said:
			
		

> Well I hate to tell ya Mark, but making the presumption that they are not picky is just wrong. They are utterly insane when accepting photos. I submit to micros and Shutterstock is just plain stringent on what they accept, the same can be said for Istock (which is owned by Getty, btw) There are MANY damn good photogs that sell thru Micro.



I didn't say that all the images were bad. In fact, quite a few are excellent, maybe even the majority. I was saying that they would accept lesser images. I found this one as an example. No offense to the photographer, but that's not an image I would expect to see in a traditional stock catalog. To me, it's a snapshot; a decent one, but still a snapshot.

Micros obviously have a place in this world, otherwise they wouldn't exist, but I do understand why places like Photographers Direct want to exclude them. I also don't see why it should be illegal. Exclusive rights are a common thing on the media world.


----------



## kkart (Dec 10, 2006)

markc said:
			
		

> I didn't say that all the images were bad. In fact, quite a few are excellent, maybe even the majority. I was saying that they would accept lesser images. I found this one as an example. No offense to the photographer, but that's not an image I would expect to see in a traditional stock catalog. To me, it's a snapshot; a decent one, but still a snapshot.
> 
> Micros obviously have a place in this world, otherwise they wouldn't exist, but I do understand why places like Photographers Direct want to exclude them. I also don't see why it should be illegal. Exclusive rights are a common thing on the media world.




Exclusive rights, sure. But why exclude anyone who has images being sold on a Micro? I read it as anyone who sells on micros, they won't take. Regardless if the images are different or not. For example---they wouldn't take me cuz I sell on microstock sites, though I could submit 100 pics that I don't have for sale on those sites. If I am wrong in that, then feel free to correct me. I would love to sell some of my other images on their site, like maybe the RM I have up at Featurepics. Speaking of shots  http://photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=924524 I spose even the RM sites those that can be seen as point and click. 
  There is also a GREAT article on microstocks that Popular Photography published just a few months back, called 25 Cent Fortunes. http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/2837/25-cent-fortunes.html
If ya get a few, check it out, it's a dang good read!


----------



## darich (Dec 10, 2006)

kkart said:
			
		

> I think that's a pretty bad assumption. It was that way I think a few years ago, but these days, they are VERY stringent on what they accept. Examples---
> http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1876805.html
> http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-2075819.html
> http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-1753227.html
> ...



KK  I based my assumption on what i saw - you based yours on what you saw. You've said you have 1000's of images lying around and so do others. Out of all the thousands of images on these micro payment websites you've shown me 3 good ones. I know there are more. i don't doubt it for a minute but i could show you an equal number of poor ones. You said that your best seller was from a 4mp camera. That also backs up my arguement that shots aren't of high enough quality for the real big payers. It's a good shot but 4mp limits its use pretty dramatically.

I always think the sellers on micro sites know their shots aren;t good enough for the big jobs so go for the smaller ones instead. Again maybe not true in all cases but if you have 1000's of shots lying around and submit them to a micro site that's almost an admission that they aren't good enough for the "real" agencies.

I think that using micro sites undervalues photographers work but if things continue to go the way they are then it maybe that the only way to get a sale is to settle for 20p from a micro site.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 10, 2006)

Maybe my comment can help here.

I know many people who are serious about photography and they submit their images to the micros. Some of them are outstanding and stunning. However, overall , on the micro payment sites such people, who produce outstanding photography, are a minority.

That is why i don't submit anything to a micro site, since I don't care if I get 5 bucks for an image used on a third class webpage or not. However, if I would ever sell an image for print or for a high traffic website, then this would sort of raise my self esteem  (and hopefully get more money off it  ).

So far my images are only used on some non-profit organizations' websites (meaning also non-profit for myself) and once in a glossy paper magazine to illustrate an article.
 So that is pretty poor so far, but selling images on micropayment sites does not really help me personally. Maybe I could make some regular income from it , if i submitted thousands of images, but I'm not such a mass producer (or better say the mass I produce only contains a few images worth showing ).

As for the website discussed here, they don't want you to submit to microsites since then high quailty images might appear on both sites , reducing their value on the more expensive site. I totally understand that.
So if you want both, why not sell your mass production via your girlfriend on a micropayment site and your selected best work on the more expensive site? 

In any case you should not waste your best images for a couple of bucks IMHO.


Please, noone take this personal if heor she is of a different opinion


----------

