www.Snapvillage.com has just opened up in Beta. Backed by Corbis and Bill Gates, it is lined up in the competing camp to the heavyweight, Getty Images.
Snapvillage aims to offer the new photog a good place to sell stock pics. You price them $1 to $50. I have not read all the fine print and details.
Does Snapvillage seem a good choice to you for the new stock shooter to make a few bucks? Are there better sites to do the same thing?
Stephen
Snapvillage aims to offer the new photog a good place to sell stock pics. You price them $1 to $50. I have not read all the fine print and details.
Does Snapvillage seem a good choice to you for the new stock shooter to make a few bucks? Are there better sites to do the same thing?
Stephen
kbg32
neo-romanticist
These penny stock sites are akin to what You Tube is doing for amateur video of newsworthy events. Any place that allows a photographer to upload images for sale is a good thing. Whether they will sell or not is still determined by the same general rules that make a good image a good image, and a commercial stock one at that. A photographer that wants to get involved in stock image sales should do some market research as what subjects sell well. Not just any image can have commercial value in this particular arena.
There were some interesting articles in the NYT and PDN about penny stock companies and those that do well in them.
There were some interesting articles in the NYT and PDN about penny stock companies and those that do well in them.
Last edited:
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
For every image that’s sold on a standard or product license, you will receive a royalty of 30%.
Pinphot
Established
The contrary view
The contrary view
As a photographer who makes his sole living from photography, and is watching my industry die around me, I would like to direct you to an article on the Register written by a friend and colleague Sion Touhig who has written a cogent and interesting article about what 'penny stock' is doing to photojournalism and the ramifications that this has on democratic discourse. The article is not specifically about the kind of agency that Stephen is promoting but about the effects that cheap or free intellectual property is having.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
Quote "It's a volume and service business now to such an extent that you could argue that the individual image has been rendered almost worthless. People either won't pay for images, or will only pay a small fee - as little as 50 pence a time for images offered by iStockphoto, an image library owned by Getty Images. All this commodified 'off the peg' stock imagery has infected the attitudes of editors commissioning 'live' photography. These commissioning editors now see photographers as widget makers, and the cheaper the widget, the better.
With mass rip-offs on the Web and the unit value of images crashing, photographers can no longer make a living independently from their work, and so are driven towards working for these corporations to earn a living. As digital content becomes more commodified, the more certain it is that only big business can profit from it, thanks to their economies of scale."
I understand entirely that the whole market for photography is suffering seismic shifts, especially in the age of the internet. I will support the right of any non professional to try and sell their work, but not at prices which are undercutting and destroying our industry and pushing very talented photographers onto the scrapheap. I don't want to be accused of supporting an elitist or self interested position, (and can support my position robustly), but how would those of you in other profeesions react if I came along and said to your boss, I don't really need that man's job, but I quite fancy a go, and i'll do it for 20% of what you;re paying that guy? You wouldn't like it and I wouldn't blame you. I don't personally make a substantial part of my living from stock sales, but many of my colleagues do, and those sales often make the difference between what they can get in commissions and not being able to pay the rent or survive in their chosen profession.
Mark
http://www.thebppa.com/Mark-Pinder
http://www.unp.co.uk/photographers/photographer.php?title=mark_pinder
The contrary view
As a photographer who makes his sole living from photography, and is watching my industry die around me, I would like to direct you to an article on the Register written by a friend and colleague Sion Touhig who has written a cogent and interesting article about what 'penny stock' is doing to photojournalism and the ramifications that this has on democratic discourse. The article is not specifically about the kind of agency that Stephen is promoting but about the effects that cheap or free intellectual property is having.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/photojournalism_and_copyright/
Quote "It's a volume and service business now to such an extent that you could argue that the individual image has been rendered almost worthless. People either won't pay for images, or will only pay a small fee - as little as 50 pence a time for images offered by iStockphoto, an image library owned by Getty Images. All this commodified 'off the peg' stock imagery has infected the attitudes of editors commissioning 'live' photography. These commissioning editors now see photographers as widget makers, and the cheaper the widget, the better.
With mass rip-offs on the Web and the unit value of images crashing, photographers can no longer make a living independently from their work, and so are driven towards working for these corporations to earn a living. As digital content becomes more commodified, the more certain it is that only big business can profit from it, thanks to their economies of scale."
I understand entirely that the whole market for photography is suffering seismic shifts, especially in the age of the internet. I will support the right of any non professional to try and sell their work, but not at prices which are undercutting and destroying our industry and pushing very talented photographers onto the scrapheap. I don't want to be accused of supporting an elitist or self interested position, (and can support my position robustly), but how would those of you in other profeesions react if I came along and said to your boss, I don't really need that man's job, but I quite fancy a go, and i'll do it for 20% of what you;re paying that guy? You wouldn't like it and I wouldn't blame you. I don't personally make a substantial part of my living from stock sales, but many of my colleagues do, and those sales often make the difference between what they can get in commissions and not being able to pay the rent or survive in their chosen profession.
Mark
http://www.thebppa.com/Mark-Pinder
http://www.unp.co.uk/photographers/photographer.php?title=mark_pinder
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
Pinphot said:
Well said Mark!
Pinphot
Established
Best of luck
Best of luck
Best of luck. Report back and let us know if you're making enough to support the wife and kids and give up the day job :bang:
Mark
Best of luck
shutterflower said:
Best of luck. Report back and let us know if you're making enough to support the wife and kids and give up the day job :bang:
Mark
Last edited:
lilin menyala
more vinyl!
i understand your resentments mark. but it's the same in so many industries: fast changing technology is undercutting old values and undermining skill. i work in the music industry. tape recording, which requires considerable expertise, is a thing of the past. anyone can cheaply buy and operate a high quality recording set up at home. many many recording studios are closing down as a result of this, there are few stable positions for engineers (me! 
) around. but it's also got an upside. some amazingly talented people who woulld have never been able to afford pro studio time can now make and release their own music. is this not also the case for photographer? some of whom might not be able to get onto established agency rosters, but are incredibly talented nonetheless? i kind of like the DIY spirit that comes with some of these new technologies...
) around. but it's also got an upside. some amazingly talented people who woulld have never been able to afford pro studio time can now make and release their own music. is this not also the case for photographer? some of whom might not be able to get onto established agency rosters, but are incredibly talented nonetheless? i kind of like the DIY spirit that comes with some of these new technologies...Pinphot
Established
shutterflower said:
Believe it or not, I have managed to make a comfortable, (but not extravagant), living from my craft and don't live in my car, and funnily enough would like to keep it that way.
Snapvillage is not a 'harmless' way to showcase your marketable work, but a harmfull way of giving away your intellectual property at a price many times below the commercial value of that imagery to the potential user. If you have any respect at all for your work, you wouldn't collude in this mass rip off.
But hey, it's a free country, and if you want to get ripped off that's your prerogative, but I'm not going to sit back and get ripped off by proxy.
If you want to showcase your work, put it on flick'r.
Mark
BillBingham2
Registered User
Mark,
I know where you are coming from and I’ve seen my industry go through a lot of the same. I am in computers, have been for 27 years, not counting college. I was going to be a photographer, but my father would not pay for me to go to school for it, so I did computers.
I watched over the past 17 years while the photography industry ripped the rug from under a wonderful dear old friend of mine, Milton Mann, god rest his sole. He and his wife made a good living for years and then it dried up. I’ve seen other photographers have to start by closing their studios, then go bankrupt as the industry has changed. It’s sucks no doubt about it.
In computers, the last ten years has been a race to find the lowest cost programming you can find. Ireland, Russia, India, now Brazil, cheaper must be better is the executive mantra. There are lots of good programmers in the US who now run lawn service companies, are poor project managers or are working elsewhere. It’s stupid, wrong and hurts everyone. On the other side, great programmers, here (USA) or in the UK or anywhere are in demand. These are the folks who can make the programs sing, hit the nail on the head dead square every time and add something extra. They add something that makes them worth five times as much. This is what you have to do, find that look, that something that is you.
The compression of the photographic industry requires you to take the time to develop a personal style and market it, drive it and your point of view. No more will good photographs bring in reasonable money. Now they have to be great. You need to find new ways to market yourself, people to tell your story to, new outlets. You need to find a way to get to the folks buying photographs and present what makes you great. There is a new crew of people buying pictures these days. Price is more of an issue than it ever was before. But if you have THE photo that they need, you can find a middle ground.
It sucks, but it’s part of life as we push forward in some areas, other parts get left behind in really nasty ways. Having a wife and kids makes it even harder, but you have to adapt. Those that don’t adapt in some way are not around for the long haul. Please find a way to work in the new rules. Your family needs it, mine did several years back.
B2 (;->
I know where you are coming from and I’ve seen my industry go through a lot of the same. I am in computers, have been for 27 years, not counting college. I was going to be a photographer, but my father would not pay for me to go to school for it, so I did computers.
I watched over the past 17 years while the photography industry ripped the rug from under a wonderful dear old friend of mine, Milton Mann, god rest his sole. He and his wife made a good living for years and then it dried up. I’ve seen other photographers have to start by closing their studios, then go bankrupt as the industry has changed. It’s sucks no doubt about it.
In computers, the last ten years has been a race to find the lowest cost programming you can find. Ireland, Russia, India, now Brazil, cheaper must be better is the executive mantra. There are lots of good programmers in the US who now run lawn service companies, are poor project managers or are working elsewhere. It’s stupid, wrong and hurts everyone. On the other side, great programmers, here (USA) or in the UK or anywhere are in demand. These are the folks who can make the programs sing, hit the nail on the head dead square every time and add something extra. They add something that makes them worth five times as much. This is what you have to do, find that look, that something that is you.
The compression of the photographic industry requires you to take the time to develop a personal style and market it, drive it and your point of view. No more will good photographs bring in reasonable money. Now they have to be great. You need to find new ways to market yourself, people to tell your story to, new outlets. You need to find a way to get to the folks buying photographs and present what makes you great. There is a new crew of people buying pictures these days. Price is more of an issue than it ever was before. But if you have THE photo that they need, you can find a middle ground.
It sucks, but it’s part of life as we push forward in some areas, other parts get left behind in really nasty ways. Having a wife and kids makes it even harder, but you have to adapt. Those that don’t adapt in some way are not around for the long haul. Please find a way to work in the new rules. Your family needs it, mine did several years back.
B2 (;->
Bryce
Well-known
George-
Agreed. If you want to get paid, sell it the old fashioned way- as prints.
I feel for older photographers watching their old livelihood dry up, but what is there to do? You can refuse to sell stock images at the new prices, but you just end up removing yourself from having your work seen.
There are down and up sides for sure, as pointed out by Lilin Menyala, but changing the state of stock imaging is not realistically in our hands.
So for individuals, there is no right answer- to enter into stock or not. I choose not to, but don't see how others should be kept from doing as they see fit.
Agreed. If you want to get paid, sell it the old fashioned way- as prints.
I feel for older photographers watching their old livelihood dry up, but what is there to do? You can refuse to sell stock images at the new prices, but you just end up removing yourself from having your work seen.
There are down and up sides for sure, as pointed out by Lilin Menyala, but changing the state of stock imaging is not realistically in our hands.
So for individuals, there is no right answer- to enter into stock or not. I choose not to, but don't see how others should be kept from doing as they see fit.
Pinphot
Established
lilin menyala said:i understand your resentments mark. but it's the same in so many industries: fast changing technology is undercutting old values and undermining skill. i work in the music industry. tape recording, which requires considerable expertise, is a thing of the past. anyone can cheaply buy and operate a high quality recording set up at home. many many recording studios are closing down as a result of this, there are few stable positions for engineers (me!
I agree. And am all for pluralism and democratisation of the creative process. Where my issue lies is with corporations, (who aren't short of a bob or two), not paying properly for the produced intellectual property. I can't go into my local record record store and dictate how much I want to pay for a CD. Digital technology has simplified many of the technical aspects of creative endeavour, but at the end of the day, there will only ever be one Phill Spector or Joe Meek, and if we are sold on the idea that that creative endeavour is purely a commodity and (by extension), is all of equal value in the eyes of the corporate behemoth, then we may as well give up now and just let them shaft us, because they'll do it to us sooner or later.
If you've got a talent, then you should be paid properly for it, and I don't mean a bit of beer money at the expense of someone else's livelihood. The race to the bottom is ultimately self defeating and nobody really benefits from it other than the corporate shareholders in Getty, Corbis, Jupiter etc
I'm all for pluralism, but not on their terms.
"Why shouldn't a serious amateur have a shot at selling if their work is primo?"
he/she should. but at which price?
corbis/gates & getty etc are in the position to set the price, rendering your prices really really low... so an image you sell, has very little financial value to you, and possibly quite hight or even very high commercial value to the buyer...
he/she should. but at which price?
corbis/gates & getty etc are in the position to set the price, rendering your prices really really low... so an image you sell, has very little financial value to you, and possibly quite hight or even very high commercial value to the buyer...
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I sell through three stock agencies. They range from penney a stock site to mid-market — maybe $250 for an image. I have been running a "contest" among the three for about a year and a half to see which one will prevail and make the most money. Interestingly, so far it's a dead heat between the cheap site and the expensive site!
I go way back to when transparencies were sent to agencies and they split revenues 50/50 with the photographer (and also sent tear sheets). Ah, those were the days. But that is no more. I need to make a little money in my retirement, if for no other reason than to support my habit. No apologies, but I certainly understand the imapct of technology on all the media and arts.
What's an artistic creation worth?
How does the artist make a living?
These have always been the questions, but when the technology is changing then they become more critical and immediate.
Rather than nailing the exposure in today's world, maybe we should be perfecting our mid-range jumper!
I go way back to when transparencies were sent to agencies and they split revenues 50/50 with the photographer (and also sent tear sheets). Ah, those were the days. But that is no more. I need to make a little money in my retirement, if for no other reason than to support my habit. No apologies, but I certainly understand the imapct of technology on all the media and arts.
What's an artistic creation worth?
How does the artist make a living?
These have always been the questions, but when the technology is changing then they become more critical and immediate.
Rather than nailing the exposure in today's world, maybe we should be perfecting our mid-range jumper!
BillBingham2
Registered User
Pinphot said:
The middle class is feeling the pain of globalism as the race to the bottom continues. People have to find a way to adapt, to develop their own niche and become the ruler of it. Photographers, but creative types are in the same space as many types of artists, the work as the will of “The Man”, for the wages “The Man” is willing to pay.
I have to agree with a post earlier, there was a lot of stock out there that was a waste of silver. There were some professionals out there (two come to mind at Kodak years back) that were so bad an 8th grader could get better pictures than they could at events.
Be a Stephen Gandy, business changes, find a niche, a look, something you love, develop it, become it and own it!
B2 (;->
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
It very much sounds like a way for amateurs to get some recognition and make some pin money. OTH it is wrecking the living of pros. Almost every industry has seen this happen. Just take a look at what is left in the manufacturing sector as far as well paying jobs are concerned. Like wise the computer industry as has been mentioned. It is called globalization and it has as it's sole purpose the creation of more profit. Consumers love cheaper anything and make it all possible. I guess we all have to adapt to it in some way but as long as I make a good living at my day job I really don't want to ruin someone else's livlihood for pin money even if I had the talent to do so.
Bob
Bob
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Pluralism is fantastic. Except when the only people to realistically benefit are the corporations who have the resources to amass hundreds of thousands of these images, so they can make a profit. While the individual shooter gets $.30 on the dollar for a $2 sale.
I don't know what a better solution is. But this can't be it. I won't even tell you the headache that was my last phone call with a client asking why my rights managed policy was more expensive than a penny-stock site. I made him understand, finally, but I have no doubt that images like mine will be a very small fraction of his purchases from now on. Not when he can 400 images that are "sortof close" to what he needs for the same price.
Will he notice that his marketing marterials are less effective? Maybe. But he will have saved money upfront - those hard numbers, are hard to fight against.
I know this has all been said before.
I know that it sounds like sour grapes.
But there is a reason I've moved from mostly photography to mostly design. And I'm not happy about it. It's harder to sell yourself as a solution, rather than a commodity in photography. I do think if anyone can figure out how to turn that around, they'll do well. I'm not that smart, it seems.
I don't know what a better solution is. But this can't be it. I won't even tell you the headache that was my last phone call with a client asking why my rights managed policy was more expensive than a penny-stock site. I made him understand, finally, but I have no doubt that images like mine will be a very small fraction of his purchases from now on. Not when he can 400 images that are "sortof close" to what he needs for the same price.
Will he notice that his marketing marterials are less effective? Maybe. But he will have saved money upfront - those hard numbers, are hard to fight against.
I know this has all been said before.
I know that it sounds like sour grapes.
But there is a reason I've moved from mostly photography to mostly design. And I'm not happy about it. It's harder to sell yourself as a solution, rather than a commodity in photography. I do think if anyone can figure out how to turn that around, they'll do well. I'm not that smart, it seems.
Last edited:
Pinphot
Established
shutterflower said:
Thanks for a more considered response. Please don't get me wrong. I don't believe in a closed shop, and have no problem with competition. Competition is what goes on to improve standards.
What my substantive issue is that microstock distorts markets for everyone, amateurs and professionals alike. And as has been said elsewhere, a good image is a good image. However, if the market is distorted in such a way that those with a natural penchant for their craft are forced out of the industry, then we are all the poorer for it. Who will have the resources and commitment to produce the great works of photojournalism that have informed and occasionally changed opinion and by extension the role that this independent endeavour has played in the democratic process. Do we really want to live in a world where our window on that world is mediated by the interests and agendas of big business? I for one don't. Amateurs and professionals stand side by side together for the true commercial value of our work!! And let's do our bit for cultural diversity and democracy too!
Mark
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
On a lighter note. I had one microstock agency turn down a 120 6x7 velvia scan...due to the "pixels" the tech suggested, I use a professional digital like the Canon 10D.
I giggled a bit.
My old regular stock agency took the image no problem. And it's sold pretty well. But that was two years ago or so...
I giggled a bit.
My old regular stock agency took the image no problem. And it's sold pretty well. But that was two years ago or so...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
greyhoundman said:
I had read that a few weeks ago while taking a trip on Amtrak. It is intersteing. I'm currently on out of work Systems Admin in the IT field, and while some of my former co-workers think my photos are "great" and ask why I don't consider photography for a profession, they haven't seen the quality of images here on RFF, where I'd likely be below average. (I'm here more for the gear talk. At some point I may put a few RF shots in a gallery, but not quite yet.)
I may just take a few of my recent digital shots and put them somewhere just to test the waters, but at even $50 per image, one needs to sell a boatload to replace an IT salary.
Tuolumne
Veteran
"Do we really want to live in a world where our window on that world is mediated by the interests and agendas of big business?"
Isn't just the opposite happening? Doesn't the commoditization of photography mean that everyone has a camera, so that no wrong goes unphotographed or unrecorded? Think of the Rodney King video or the countless other videos/photos of police malfeasance that have resulted in better justice for the little guy. Sure, us little guys will never go to Iraq but that's where the traditional photojournalist can still shine.
Tektonic shifts in technology and markets will always unseat established players, some cruelly. But the end result is usually a better allocation of resources for all. If everyone is a photographer and everyone has a camera, maybe a few dollars is all a stock photograph is worth. The previous system was based on a shortage of supply and artifical constraints on distribution. Those are all gone now. Does anyone seriously think we are all worse off for that?
/T
Isn't just the opposite happening? Doesn't the commoditization of photography mean that everyone has a camera, so that no wrong goes unphotographed or unrecorded? Think of the Rodney King video or the countless other videos/photos of police malfeasance that have resulted in better justice for the little guy. Sure, us little guys will never go to Iraq but that's where the traditional photojournalist can still shine.
Tektonic shifts in technology and markets will always unseat established players, some cruelly. But the end result is usually a better allocation of resources for all. If everyone is a photographer and everyone has a camera, maybe a few dollars is all a stock photograph is worth. The previous system was based on a shortage of supply and artifical constraints on distribution. Those are all gone now. Does anyone seriously think we are all worse off for that?
/T