Mutate or DIE
Mutate or Die. These words of wisdom were spray painted in yellow across the big blue dumpster behind the biology building at my alma mater, the University of Connecticut. I'd pass it every day on my way to class from my dorm (aptly nicknamed The Jungle), but it wasn't until I graduated did I understand the meaning of these words in a business context.
Over the past 10 years, I've been constantly reminded of my frequent encounter with the large trash receptacle thanks to our friend the Internet as well as the people who continue to resist the change it brings, most recently in the field of commercial photography.
Resistance is natural, but there is a point when it becomes destructive. A recent article in the New York Times titled "When Are Photos Like Penny Stocks? When They Sell." draws attention to the potentially big bucks more and more photographers and digital artists make from microstock photography. We're talking in the 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars a year.
At this point, most of you are familiar with microstock photography. Contributors submit their work online to sell for usually under $10.00 per image. Money is obviously made on quantity as well as quality. The reason microstock sites such as Stockxpert have thrived in such a short time is because of the quality of the images.
Of course there are still many older critics and neysayers who hold microstock responsible for ruining their photography business, but the blame is misplaced. To blame microstock, you would have to blame the Internet and digital photography, and I'm sure many of these critics already embrace one or both of these technologies.
The critics claim that because of microstock many of their images will now only fetch 1/10 - 1/100 of what they should get for them.
This is partly true only because their images are now only worth 1/10 - 1/100 of what they think they should get for them.
It's all about supply and demand and competition. Technology has made it possible to streamline the photographic workflow to the point where it is feasible for competent hobbyists from around the world to produce, upload, and sell hundreds of high-quality images per week in their spare time or full time. The price of many photographic subjects and styles has dropped considerably because of this.
There will always be a high-end market for customs, exclusive stock, and masterpieces only a handful of experts can distinguish anyway, but now the legions of mom and pops and non profits of the world have access to high quality images that look just as good to their customers at first glance.
So, what choice does the mid-level commercial professional photographer who feels threatened by microstock photography have?
If microstock is a threat to his business, he needs to embrace microstock photography, try to penetrate that high-end market, shoot weddings, or, what the hell, do all three. He just needs to figure out what sells where. And who knows? One may lead to the other.
But what he can't do is resist. He must change. He he must adapt. He must mutate or die.
Right! Good points.
mm
It isn't the Pro Photographers that need to mutate. All image stock sites need to develop some quality control.
The problem with non-professional microstock is usually image quality. You can't tell until you download it if the image is actually going to be suitable for the use you need it for, no matter what the description says. It isn't just Microstocks. I've recently been burned by $100+-per-image "Royalty Free" images from the best of the top stock sites with images that have been Photoshopped to death. This would have been unheard of even 2 years ago. Pixellation, added noise and filter work do not make a 300dpi image out of a piece of crap. Any seasoned photographer would know better. So should any Graphic Designer worth his salt who is using these images. An influx of wannabees-with-software and stock sites that just don't care is contributing to the acceptance of low quality images in the name of accessibility.
I'd rather pay a higher cost for a stock photo from a quality-controlled site that I know is going to be a good, clean shot at the resolution and size it says it is rather than waste my time with crap from Mom & Pop. Too bad none exist (with possibly one high-end exception that hasn't burned me yet.)
PD,
I can tell you without a doubt that this has changed in the microstock industry, at least with Stockxpert. The problem is that when these sites first started, yes, they were accepting a lot of images that were technically suspect, and those image unfortunately still exist and probably should be re-evaluated and removed.
Stockxpert is known for having some of most stringent acceptance guidelines (even compared to traditional stock companies). All our images are examined (during the application process and review process) at 100% magnification, and one of our most common rejection reasons is noise. We rarely accept photos shot at an ISO level higher than 100. We also discourage the use of noise reduction software, and we can tell when someone has tried to fix the exposure on a dark image.
We also have a "Zoom in" feature, which allows you to examine a piece of the image at 100%.
I think this change in quality is one reason microstock is becoming a greater threat to traditional photographers.
I invite you to create an account on Stockxpert and try it out.
Thanks!
-Steve
You rarely accepted images shot higher than 100 ISO? With a dSLR such as a Canon 5D, how can you tell? The 400 ISO images from this camera don't look a whole lot different from the 100 ISO images, even at 100%.
I've licensed images from a 20D shot at 800 ISO through traditional stock houses. I'm routinely submitting 1600 ISO images from the 5D. One of the major reasons I use these cameras is the ability to shoot at higher ISOs and get remarkably clean results. The images produced are superior to what I used to get out of 100 ISO slide film. I'll shoot at 100 if I'm lugging a tripod, which is not common.
If you're talking about small digicam files, I completely understand.
The only reason any photographer can complain about inexpensive stock on the internet is because they're spoiled. Many professional photographers have for too long been used to making a nice profit for very little work. It is one of the easiest professions to get into, one of the few with relatively low overhead, and for what you have to put into it you can still turn over a nice profit in a relatively short amount of time if you apply yourself and think ahead.
Where many photographers go wrong is that they're simply not hardcore enough. Also, many of them have chosen not to develop other skills to fall back on -- they're simply photographers and nothing more.
Todd,
Yes. Those who shoot with the higher-end cameras can get away with submitting higher ISO images. Like I said, images are simply reviewed at 100% for noise. Feel free to try us out and let us know!
-Steve