I’m tired of looking at images of man,woman,girl,boy,family (and any combination of it)+notebook+green meadow+blue sky. Or whatever is ‘en-vogue’.

Do you think any image of e.g. a Joel Meyrowitz, Nadav Kander, Vitali, Watanabe, Shore (just to name a few) will ever pass the eyes of a microstock image editor ???

Even if they never would make any cent of a license sell it’s important to such an agency like Gallery Stock exists at all. Microstock is one of the most worst things that could have happened to photography,imho.

Cheers, Reini

1 – I didn’t mean to draw exact parallels between the music business and microstock (I’d love it if they were more alike, perhaps then I could go on tour doing photo shoots on stage in front of a paying audience!) but rather just wanted to say that both commercial photographers and professional musicians are both working in industries that have experienced radical changes thanks to the Internet. It’s imperative that we re-examine certain entrenched attitudes and try to see the possibilities in what might initially seem to be discouraging. Chris talks about licensing indie music; the fact that it’s become so common is exactly what I’m talking about — working musicians, by becoming much more open to licensing their music commercially, have already taken a hint from other art forms like photography, where licensing one’s work has always been a valid revenue stream. They may have come around to that perspective reluctantly, but come around many of them have, and I think we can learn something from that.

2 – As a photographer who generates “surplus” imagery almost out of habit, both in my spare time as well as on assignment, does it really serve me in any way to then bury it in my archives, never to see the light of day? I am experimenting with a very broad approach to stock (I also work with Masterfile, and it’s true, I make more through them than I expect to anywhere else); I’m trying to allocate certain types of images to certain agencies by way of attempting whenever possible to ensure that ALL of my licensable images are available somewhere searchable. I would never dream of dividing images from the same setup or shoot amongst all the agencies I work with; not only does that not make sense creatively, it’s also opens up breach of contract issues (it’s generally not acceptable for a photographer to license “similars” with other agencies). Keeping images out of circulation because I don’t want to dilute their worth may speak to their value in some abstract sense, but over the years I have become less interested in abstract value and more interested in getting my images working for me any way I can. We all aspire to create great pictures that we are proud of; even after years of shooting I know of nothing more satisfying than that moment, even before seeing the end result, that you KNOW you’ve shot something fantastic. However, those moments are part of a connect-the-dots game that by necessity results in a lot of other shots too. It’s taken me a while to be able to say this, but what’s wrong with commodifying that work?

3 – In terms of return on investment with Microstock, I really think that professionals who can integrate the submission requirements into their everyday workflow may well see some kind of a return. That’s the tricky part; the way things are structured, only the most disciplined among us will be able to make it happen. I’m skeptical that I’m going to be disciplined enough myself (it’s such a boring process) but I’m going to try. The other fly in the ointment is of course the time required to create images. I’m lucky in that I tend to work in a manner that generates a lot of pictures with very little setup anyway. I can see it being a different beast for someone who has another style of shooting. As Greg points out, spending a fortune going to medical school and then working for free doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. But working a day a week for charity? No problem. I suspect if I were to devote a day a week to microstock I would quickly build up enough images to start seeing some kind of return. Even setting aside two hours a week might be enough. And it wouldn’t even be for charity, although it might feel that way for a while. It sure does right now!

4 – Totally unrelated. Someone sent me this link to Mos Def performing a song from his new album on David Letterman earlier this month. Fantastic track:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k9uZ17Afc

I agree that the 5D MKII is amazing. I love the camera. I sold the Hasselblad H2 and stopped waiting for an affordable medium format camera back. I now have it in my 5D MKII.

Finally, Gallery Stock may sound cool, but the amount of sales from these images, I would guess, would not amount to much. Sure, once in a while there will be a big sale, but not enough to buy you lunch every day like 2000 images on Getty will do. Ask anyone who has worked in the sales department of a large stock photo compnay, and they will tell you that the “Weird, artistic images,” do not sell much. Very soon, all images on the web will be on Google Images and attributed to their owners. Searches across ALL images in existence will be possible and stock sales of images will not be dependent upon companies like Getty or Corbis or Gallery Stock. Check out licensestream and you will see the future. I haven’t bought their software or hosted images on their platform yet, but I do believe this is the future.

The Microstock business isn’t at all like the music business. Most Microstock images are used to support other commercial ventures. Music, for the most part, is downloaded for personal use. If someone wanted a piece of indie music for a commercial use they could still arrange to to license it. You can’t do that with a mircostock image if it has a history of even one download.

The debate on the merits of Rights managed vs. Microstock is over. At least it should be. Both are here to stay and will continue to morph into something we can’t even imagine. Derek’s decision to contribute to both, is the real story. It is an example of the kind of decisions we all have to make to adapt to a changing and challenging business.

I have decided not to pursue Microstock for a number of reasons. I can’t see a return on my investment at the current price points and fee splits. If the average price were $200, the fee split were 50/50 and the sales volume stayed the same, I might reconsider. I don’t see that happening in my lifetime, considering today’s average price is less than $5 at a 75/25 split in favour of the distributor. Still, I know peers who think they can make it work. It’s a very personal and creative decision for some. For me, it’s strictly a business one.

I have opinions on this and other photographic matter, that I can better articulate over a pint of dark ale. Unfortunately, I’m not a West Ender. Is there an East Ender night at the Intersteer? Mmmm…… cabbage rolls!

BTW, excellent 10+ choices. Thumbs up on Lynne Cohen, Sally Mann and American Photography and thanks for the intro to “Drive”. Radio One is mostly dead in that time slot.

That said, the quality of the images on such sites is so watered down – a let’s face it, just plain old bad – that I can only see them being used for any capacity in poor (or small market) ad campaigns, briefs in mags (a dying industry) and smaller circ pubs and brochures (which rarely if ever could afford value). Sure they have devalued photography in those areas, but maybe that was the area in which the take down had to happen and by that I mean is it possible that for so long people have been overpaying – or over charging – for a commodified product? You certainly are not going to find the quality of images that one finds in Gallerystock that you do in I-stock, nor should you. And that value attached to sites like Gallerystock or Trunk I will gladly pay for.

This uprising of microstock has finally brought into the debate the value of photography. Sure you could always argue that photography is an art but when I go through a site like I-stock I certainly see a lot of paint by numbers shooters. You can argue till you are blue in the face that a simple pile of beans on white is art of value but at the end of the day your still just left with a pile of beans on white.

I am curious to see how your experiment pays off Derek.

And doesn’t this all tie into the whole ‘free’ movement that is so hot right now? Ok, was hot, like a few months back? I was never able to see a photographic angle to it, though I am convinced there is one there. Could it have something to do with Heather’s post on Wednesday for Ask an Art buyer?