I ran across this article and have posted it in a couple of forums. Would be interested in hearing what folks have to say. Would especially love to hear from the pros (like Laurin and Bobby) who have been doing this a long time. The article is a bit of a double edged sword.

http://www.stockasylum.com/text-page...006-pro-am.htm

Yeah, I've read some articles, micro stock really seems like it's very bad for the stock photography industry in general. I'm not so sure I want to do it so much anymore, as well as sell my photos for $1...it's sorta ridiculous. I'd value my better photos around $100.

With micro at least, shots that wouldn't normally sell for $50-100 actually do, over a year. Multiply that by 5 years, and you've got $250-500 where if you sold the rights to it once for a higher amount, you'd be kicking yourself.

I have some photos I've made well over $100 on, and that's just in my first 9 months of selling. I'm no pro, I'm actually not that great. I'm learning as I go along, and am amateurish at best when it comes to my photography - so compare that to the photos of a professional, and I can only imaging how much more a pro would make.

__________________
s e l l p h o t o s . t k

Top Sellers ? Shutterstock ? Fotolia ? Dreamstime ? BigStock ? StockXpert ? FeaturePics ? MostPhotos ?

Well, professionalism isn't about making money, or making it to the top, or being famous, but those things can be part of the icing on the cake.

Professionalism is a frame of mind; a presentation; a behaviour; and a skill.

I consider myself a professional.

When I shoot an event or am hired for work, I dress like a professional. Usually black (dress or suit, usually with a skirt, not pants, though they are acceptable). Before I ever leave the house I check all the equipment and make sure it's clean and ready. Make sure everything is charged. Double check the gear pack to make sure everything is in it - and extras of everything are in the second pack. Two tripods too.

I take a zippered portfolio with samples of work, tear sheets from magazines and newspapers, books, ads, flyers etc. where my work has been published, model releases for minors and adults, contracts, my flyers and business cards, notebook, address book, business card organizer, pens, tape...an office in a bag basically.

When I get there I introduce myself, ask if they have a preference where I set up, and then I do my job; as unobtrusively as possible. Stay polite no matter what, thank them at the end of the event, give them a date when I will have proofs, and then have the proofs ready when I say I will.

I do the same when I freelance; well, okay I don't wear my little black dress out into the marsh where the ground is covered with goose and duck poop, but I still maintain a professional attitude if there are people around.

I don't get rich doing it, I don't even make a full living at it (I pick and choose what I do, simply because I don't want to spend every minute working), I am not "at the top of any pile", not famous, not even as driven as some of the top notch guys, but I'll pit my professionalism against any of them. Stock or non-stock.

Oh yeah, there's one other component...a professional (in any career field) always remains a student, willing to learn from others. Those guys who think they know everything? Well, they know everything they are ever gonna know, but there's a lot more to know because technology changes almost daily.

__________________
Photography of Grace
Feature Pics
Photography Blography

Hmm....forgot about rights...I'm gonna look that up.

I agree Gracey. The thing that I don't understand is the article appears to contradict itself - it's OK to call yourself a pro if you submit to a traditional agency, it's OK to call yourself a pro if you are a starving artist, but it isn't OK to call yourself a pro if you submit to Micro? I don't understand the mentality. Honestly, I've gotten more respect and help from editorial shooters and from micro shooters than I have from "professionals".

The other thing I don't understand is the notion that Micros are hurting the agency. Take a look at the TOS for any micro and compare it to the TOS for licensing royalty free images from Alamy. Micros limit production runs, they limit usage, they limit a bunch of stuff. Alamy's TOS does not limit these things. Alamy licenses royalty free image for more money, but you're essentially doing the same thing as you would do when you "sell the rights" through a micro.

It's interesting - I wonder how the attitude will change with the opportunities Getty is giving to exclusives at iStock. Imagine - those "bad microstock photographers" getting the prestigious "Getty Photographer" name and image. If I met the requirements at iStock I'd do it in a heartbeat!

The bad thing about Microstock is that tons and tons of images get sold, at ridiculously cheap prices compared to Rights-managed. This is a huge benefit to graphic designers, but the it hurts photographers. Your selling your images, for $1, or whatever it costs. Is that really what your images, time, equipment, etc is worth? Is that how much $$$ you put into your photography? I doubt it.

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays...-payment.shtml

I think you're confusing Microstock and Rights Managed. Microstock agencies sell Royalty Free Images. Rights Managed images are sold under a rights managed license.

At a Microstock, I can sell one image for a run of 10,000 copies at $10 under a Royalty Free license. At Alamy, I can sell that same image for $250 at an unlimited use so that large buyers can stick it in their library and use it over, and over, and over again without a limitation of the number of copies - under a ROYALTY FREE license. A microstock image would not make a JC Penney catalog unless it is sold under an extended usage agreement (additional royalties to the photographer). An image from Alamy that was purchased under a Royalty Free license can appear in this year's JC Penney catalog as well as the next 5 years worth of catalogs with no additional compensation to the photographer. Who's the bad guy - the traditional agency or the microstock agency?

I think the attack and hatred toward Microstock should be directed towards the license schema and not at the individuals that do the work. If you don't like Royalty Free licensing, then say so, but to say Microstock is less beneficial than a Traditional Agency selling Royalty Free images under a more liberal license is better is not fair to those selling in Microstock. Whether you sell at a Microstock or a Traditional Agency, or under a Rights Managed or a Royalty Free license, it makes absolutely no difference if you are a professional or not.

I consider this a part time job. I sell under both Royalty Free and Rights Managed licenses. I sell through both traditional agencies and microstock agencies. I don't consider myself a pro based on my personal definition of what a pro is.

With relation to a return on investment - it's what you put into it. If I were to take 50 pictures and put them up at a traditional agency, I wouldn't make enough to cover my expenses - same thing with Microstock. You put up 50 images, you aren't going to break even. I am finally getting to a point after one year where I am starting to break even on my investment. Over the next year, I will supersede that and yes, my expenses will cover my equipment - professional or not, working under both licensing schemes.

I did read the article and I have to agree in part to it. Professional does not mean to make money out of something, there is a lot more behind that.

I did not feel an attack was made to the micros in the text. I did read the Lucky Oliver's "instigator" article, it was fair too. I think he made the mistake to make a too broad distinction between pro vs amateur, too vague and lax. But the article was good.

I concurr with Gracey, a pro has to behave like a pro.

__________________
www.microstockinfo.org (in Spanish)
http://stockmicro.blogspot.com (in Spanish)

I find this paragraph interesting...

I made the decision a long time ago to take my skills to the highest level, have followed through by going full-time, and am testing myself against some tremendously talented artists. Have I earned the right to call myself a pro? According to this article, no, because I'm not selling my work through agencies that pay higher prices. And yet I am on my way to making a comfortable living from my images.

I also made the decision to support microstock with my work, because the industry makes itself available to Mom and Pop businesses and businesses in small countries where $100 for an image could wipe out an entire year's advertising budget. I am all about supporting the little guy, so microstock fulfills my principles that support small family businesses, non-profits, and the economies of developing nations. If large corporations want to buy cheap images, that's fine, but as we're now seeing they risk paying the price of duplication.

__________________
Photography by Karin Lau | SmugMug Pro Account | Shutterstock | Mostphotos | StockXPert | Dreamstime | iStock | 123RF | BigStock