Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

My sales this month have been:

Magazine/editorial website use: $6.30 net

PU: $6.30 net

Presentation: £3.15 net

Australian newspaper: £5.01 net

 

I don't know what to say… If I were a buyer looking for a picture of "Carduelis spinus on a feeder" for example, would I pay more for one of your pictures on Alamy than the cost of 1 credit for one of your similar pictures on Eyeshock?

Edited by Olivier Parent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

I don't know what to say… If I were a buyer looking for a picture of "Carduelis spinus on a feeder" for example, would I pay more for one of your pictures on Alamy than the cost of 1 credit for one of your similar pictures on Eyeshock?

 

Actually, none of the files were wildlife, which for me doesn't sell well here; they were all standard Alamy-type editorials.

OTOH, my highest value sale last year was from G (via iS) of a standard photo of a common European bird.

 

You can never tell, one of my files in that four was surprising to me. It wasn't zoomed, so I don't know what it was searched on, but on what I suspect were the most likely two searches, I wouldn't have picked that photo, I think I myself have better for these searches, not to mention the hundreds in one case, thousands in the other from other people. It's hard to predict what will fill a buyer's needs.

 

It would depend if you only needed one photo or many. If you were making the decision for only one photo, it would cost more on many of the micros than it would here. If buying in bulk, it would depend on the collection as a whole which site/s any buyer would go for, plus having a lengthy period to pay might favour Alamy as opposed to the micros where buyers pay upfront.

 

My larger-value sales here have mostly (not all) been to the US or worldwide (probably US), and that almost all US content. So that certainly punches well above its weight in my portfolio.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Silly? You can think what you want…

Do I know what images you sold? Nope.

Do I have the time to look at your portfolios? Nope.

Do I really care? 🤔 Probably not as much as I should I'm afraid… 

All I say is that the buyer will always try to find the best deal.

With the internet, in a matter of seconds you can tell if there are similar pictures here and there.

You think buyers do not compare? That would be a bit silly…

As long as so many photographers will seem happy to sell their pictures for almost nothing, do not expect the prices to rise.

That's all I say…

Edited by Olivier Parent
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

You think buyers do not compare? That would be a bit silly…

 

That is the crucial question... do they compare or don't they? And I suspect you'll find that people are pretty much 50-50 split on their opinions as to the answer.

Yes, some people will compare. Other people/companies will have deals/subscriptions/loyalties with one agency or another. For some people, it just won't even occur to shop around. And other people will just be lazy (or have tight deadlines) and just buy the picture once they have found it.

 

Depending on what individuals think the answer to this question is probably dictates whether they put the same images on both Alamy and microstock or not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

That is the crucial question... do they compare or don't they? And I suspect you'll find that people are pretty much 50-50 split on their opinions as to the answer.

Yes, some people will compare. Other people/companies will have deals/subscriptions/loyalties with one agency or another. For some people, it just won't even occur to shop around. And other people will just be lazy (or have tight deadlines) and just buy the picture once they have found it.

 

Depending on what individuals think the answer to this question is probably dictates whether they put the same images on both Alamy and microstock or not.


Just had a low 3-figure sale pop in this morning on here despite the image being widely available on 14 other agencies....for as little as 2cents. Do Alamy buyers shop around...most don't and won't for many reasons and some have nothing to do with price points. I tried to answer this crucial question on a blog post.

English style dart board with wooden backdrop and faded lights Stock Photo

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slightly different though from me. 

I myself started to expand to other agencies as to me the downward pricing trend will not stop, and eventually Alamy will become one of many microstock agencies. Why do I think so? The main reason for this is that I really do not think that the prices some of us are hoping for are justified. Lets look at musicians or writers. To write and produce a music (a song), or to write a book takes (usually) much more effort than to take a good  photograph. I would say this is true for vast majority of images. However, the royalty a musician gets when his song is listened, or even purchased is not much different than an image  royalty on microstock agency. The same goes for a book - months spent writing, editing, publishing, marketing and an author gets just few $. In this light, why would images be going for $$$ or even $$? This is my reasoning, but I accept all sorts of opinions :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

That is the crucial question... do they compare or don't they? And I suspect you'll find that people are pretty much 50-50 split on their opinions as to the answer.

Yes, some people will compare. Other people/companies will have deals/subscriptions/loyalties with one agency or another. For some people, it just won't even occur to shop around. And other people will just be lazy (or have tight deadlines) and just buy the picture once they have found it.

 

Depending on what individuals think the answer to this question is probably dictates whether they put the same images on both Alamy and microstock or not.

 

Of course Matt! I do not assume every single buyer will take the time to compare every single time.
I purchased an image from Alamy yesterday and did not search elsewhere…
What amazes me is that I see many photographers complaining about lowering prices, which is actually worrisome, but without even taking into consideration that they could be part of the equation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pietrach said:

A slightly different though from me. 

I myself started to expand to other agencies as to me the downward pricing trend will not stop, and eventually Alamy will become one of many microstock agencies. Why do I think so? The main reason for this is that I really do not think that the prices some of us are hoping for are justified. Lets look at musicians or writers. To write and produce a music (a song), or to write a book takes (usually) much more effort than to take a good  photograph. I would say this is true for vast majority of images. However, the royalty a musician gets when his song is listened, or even purchased is not much different than an image  royalty on microstock agency. The same goes for a book - months spent writing, editing, publishing, marketing and an author gets just few $. In this light, why would images be going for $$$ or even $$? This is my reasoning, but I accept all sorts of opinions :) 

 

This might surprise you but there is not much correlation between effort and value.

You can earn millions with a single click, and work hard all your life in an ironfoundry for a very low income…

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

This might surprise you but there is not much correlation between effort and value.

You can earn millions with a single click, and work hard all your life in an ironfoundry for a very low income…

You are right, it would surprise me. There is always an effort, and so called "final click" is only the final stage of monetizing the extensive period of hard effort.  This is not to say that effore is always rewarded, as you pointed out, but there is no money without effort - unless you won Lotto or inherited money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR, I'm not actually complaining about Alamy prices, they are what they are.

Having uploaded exclusively here for 2.5 years until December, that wasn't working for me, so I've changed my strategy.

Clearly others must do what works for them.

I'm just encouraging people to look at the facts, as particularlised to their own situation, and not just accept what some people say.

What works better for me might not work for someone else.

 

BTW, I do notice often, online and in print, that many buyers use Alamy, macros and micros - sometimes all to illustrate one article: I imagine (but don't know) that they have subs at them all and want to use up their allocation at each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Pietrach said:

You are right, it would surprise me. There is always an effort, and so called "final click" is only the final stage of monetizing the extensive period of hard effort.  This is not to say that effore is always rewarded, as you pointed out, but there is no money without effort - unless you won Lotto or inherited money. 

 

Exactly! The "final click" on the shutter is only the final stage of an extensive period of hard effort and constant renewal of expensive gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

No wonder why so many of us opted out of personal use scheme when the first sales came in.

 

I will probably do that as soon as it's possible.....I was too new at that stage to understand much about stock photography and sales, but I'm getting more clued up as I go along and especially reading these forums, much wiser now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, george said:


I know it does not take much to confuse me, but this I am confused by. 
How can the image have been RF if it was a street scene with people unless the model releases were obtained for all people and releases for any property?  If not, if would surely have to be marked RF/Editorial, in which case how can it be sold as PU, surely PU is not editorial? 

no releases were obtained and it was marked clearly on the image plus I had noted that it was exclusive to Alamy and it was to be sold as editorial only....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

Well, its more than I have made here - 2 sales both 99cs net.  I have more images selling from a smaller port on one of the microstocks and they are getting $2 net.  That did motivate me to start submitting to said microstock again.  I really do not care what sort of stock each company is going to describe itself as I am more interested in what money it is going to make and as long as microstock sales are double the price of here I am keeping my stuff spread out.

yes I have recently started doing the same as you and it's definitely selling better for me over on MS....still early days though!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

Exactly! The "final click" on the shutter is only the final stage of an extensive period of hard effort and constant renewal of expensive gear.

Let's agree to disagree. My portfolio comprises mostly editorial, where effort is minimal, and I have the same camera since 2012. Let's not exaggerate the time and money spent on our images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, CRS said:

no releases were obtained and it was marked clearly on the image plus I had noted that it was exclusive to Alamy and it was to be sold as editorial only....


So my question (to Alamy I guess, unless someone else can answer) is, if an image is annotated as RF/editorial only, how can it be sold as PU? Personal use does surely not include using in an editorial article? I understood it to be for home print, use on gift cards (not for sale) that type of thing. 

Anyway, not your issue CRS as you stated all the info required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, george said:


So my question (to Alamy I guess, unless someone else can answer) is, if an image is annotated as RF/editorial only, how can it be sold as PU? Personal use does surely not include using in an editorial article? I understood it to be for home print, use on gift cards (not for sale) that type of thing. 

Anyway, not your issue CRS as you stated all the info required. 

I'm sure it was PU but I stand to be corrected as I was overseas at the time and briefly saw the sale and only looked at it again when I got back home two months later, but that stage I could not see all the details just the price it was sold for.....however no sales have come through since that one in 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olivier Parent said:

 

The point is not how the company describes itself but how you value your own work. One thing you can take for granted: you will never get more than what you are asking for! Happy to sell your images for $0.50? Just don't ask why nobody pays $50 for one of them and why it is becoming so hard to earn a living from photography.

If said one image on microstock sells 100 times I consider it to have earned $50, not $0.50.
I do not count value in wealth either.  The value of the photo to me is that I actually managed to get out and take it - and for someone with health issues that is worth a hell of a lot more than money.  The value of my photographs to me is the memories they evoke.    That I can look back through my images over time and see how I have improved and changed and explored new things.  Their financial worth is something separate.
I also accept the value I put on something is not the value someone else puts on the same thing.  Right now the customers at a microstock agency value my photographs more than customers at Alamy - they are buying them more often and paying more for them.  A parent will put an immense value on a scribble done by their toddler - said scribble generally has no value to me.
If some people wish to value their photographs for the money others are willing to pay for them that is fine - everyone is different.  I am more in the line of what is the total income my whole port can bring in.  My point was that if people value their photos by what people will pay for me at least people will pay more elsewhere.  Do I skip around the room when I sell an image for $2?  Nope.  If I come down one day and find an image on here has sold for $$$ will I skip around the room?  Well I might yell "Yippee" as skipping around the room does not end well but yes I will be pleased - but I am not going be refusing to accept lots of $2 sales in the meantime in the hope that $$$ arrives - because it might not.

People are different - we all have different priorities, values, and ways of assessing things.  What is right for one is not right for another.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pietrach said:

Let's agree to disagree. My portfolio comprises mostly editorial, where effort is minimal, and I have the same camera since 2012. Let's not exaggerate the time and money spent on our images.

 

We cannot (and should not) make much difference in our pricing scenarios between the images that cost us a lot and the ones that cost much less. As said before, there is no direct correlation between value and effort. Our average price should be somewhere in the middle… When you sell aerial photography, you will have a hard time justifying the cost of a helicopter flight in the price of your images… On two recent shootings, I had to bring almost 100kg of gear, including 2 pro FF cameras and a set of lenses, boom stands, C-stands, studio strobes, 150cm deep octaboxes, radio triggers, a Macbook pro and tethered shooting gear, a slate table, backgrounds, electric cables… and rent a car to bring all this on location ; still my prices had to remain somewhat rational, more or less on par with what my clients are used to pay. Selling "snapshots" allows to reach some sort of balance point. At least that is the way I see things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Alamy turning into a Microstock agency?

No silly - the real microstock agency has a contributor experience forum in a lighter blue.  This one is more of an ocean blue.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prices on Alamy are all over the map as they always have been, so I don't think it's turning into a micro.

 

I can't speak to 50 shades of forum blue, however. 😃

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know why, but I seem to always be defending Alamy on this forum....

 

RE: Micro, in my opinion Alamy is not turning into a Microstock agency at

least not from where I sit.

 

So far, 3/8/19 Alamy has licensed seven of my RM images for an average of

$76.00 per image, while that is an improvement over most months it is still in

my opinion low, but an improvement none the less.

 

Again it is my belief that it is up to the contributors to make and submit images

that are worth higher fees and then it is up to Alamy to get those fees.  I would

like to see it go back to the days when $250.00 was an average licensing fee.

 

Chuck

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brasilnut said:


Just had a low 3-figure sale pop in this morning on here despite the image being widely available on 14 other agencies....for as little as 2cents. Do Alamy buyers shop around...most don't and won't for many reasons and some have nothing to do with price points. I tried to answer this crucial question on a blog post.

English style dart board with wooden backdrop and faded lights Stock Photo

 

 

Informative and well-written blog post. Thanks.

 

Hope you don't see a refund on that $$$ sale. 😏

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing $2.19 counts as micro☹️ Estonia one month bulk discount flat rate, not really complaining as have had some much larger ones just didn't think they went that low. Image is P8JDM2 not worked out how to get on here yet.

 

Carol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

If said one image on microstock sells 100 times I consider it to have earned $50, not $0.50.
I do not count value in wealth either.  The value of the photo to me is that I actually managed to get out and take it - and for someone with health issues that is worth a hell of a lot more than money.  The value of my photographs to me is the memories they evoke.    That I can look back through my images over time and see how I have improved and changed and explored new things.  Their financial worth is something separate.
I also accept the value I put on something is not the value someone else puts on the same thing.  Right now the customers at a microstock agency value my photographs more than customers at Alamy - they are buying them more often and paying more for them.  A parent will put an immense value on a scribble done by their toddler - said scribble generally has no value to me.
If some people wish to value their photographs for the money others are willing to pay for them that is fine - everyone is different.  I am more in the line of what is the total income my whole port can bring in.  My point was that if people value their photos by what people will pay for me at least people will pay more elsewhere.  Do I skip around the room when I sell an image for $2?  Nope.  If I come down one day and find an image on here has sold for $$$ will I skip around the room?  Well I might yell "Yippee" as skipping around the room does not end well but yes I will be pleased - but I am not going be refusing to accept lots of $2 sales in the meantime in the hope that $$$ arrives - because it might not.

People are different - we all have different priorities, values, and ways of assessing things.  What is right for one is not right for another.  

 

 

Let's be clear, when you sell your images through an agency, it has nothing to do with your memories or the ability to see how you improved your skills over time… You do not need an agency for that.

 

And yes, some people wish to value their photographs for the money others are willing to pay for them, just as in any job. I'm glad you are OK with that. 

 

When so many photographers sell their images for almost nothing, not only it sets the value of their work, but it also affects the value of photography in general.

Honestly, what's the chance for a photographer to earn a decent living selling RF pictures for $0.50?

Between 2 pictures, one that is sold at a price that allows the photographer to pay the bills and one that is sold for 99% less, which one will the buyer choose? The one the buyer thinks is the best? Or the so much cheaper one that costs virtually nothing after all…

Competition is healthy. But there is no real competition here.

 

That said, you are right, we all have different priorities, values, and ways of assessing things.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.