Photographing the Earth, one millimeter at a time…

There has been much debate about sites such as Shutterstock and IStockPhoto and whether they threaten the traditional stock photography business.  The issue is of extreme concern to many photographers, who fear that traditional licenses fees of fifty to several thousand dollars per image are threatened by fees as cheap as a few cents.  Many of those who make a living from traditional stock photography fear that their livelihoods will be replaced by amateur photographers who don’t know the value of their own photography.  Many of those who have debated on this subject have focused on the price difference - people are more likely to buy an image for a dollar than an only slightly better one for five dollars.  However, from my experience I don’t believe the issue is that simple.

What got me started on this thinking was a recent post on Myrmecos blog.  The blog questions whether IStockPhoto and other microstock sites are threatening the insect photography business.  The conclusion is they are not - mainly because clients in the insect photography business require species identification on all shots and the shots should be of top quality, often showing specific behaviors of the species.  I agree that IStockPhoto, or other microstock sites, do not compete here and do not really threaten this specialized industry.  I also suspect that they are unlikely to threaten it in the future.  However, as I will explain below, there exists the possibility that they can.

Getting straight to the point, I think the reason professional photographers are being threatened boils down to a fundamental difference in philosophy between the microstock sites and the traditional stock sites.

Traditional sites deal with photographers, microstocks deal with images.

What do I mean by this?  Anyone can sell images on the microstock sites, but only a select few photographers may sell them on the traditional sites.  Even further, the barrier to entry into the traditional stock sites is very high, often requiring image submissions that are too high for those who are not full time professional photographers.  However, the barrier to the microstock sites is very low.

I have seen a number of pros dismiss the microstock sites as “amateurs”, but the reality is far from that.  It is true that, on average, the quality of microstock pictures is inferior to those at the traditional stock houses.  However, there are a number of very good photographers on these sites with images that easily rival the top sites such as Getty, Corbis, and Alamy.  Many of these photographers live outside the United States, where access to these agencies is even more difficult.  The reason that these people are selling pictures on the microstock sites instead of the higher paying traditional sites is not about economies of scale (sell one picture for 25 cents thousands of times and it mounts up), it is the perception that they cannot sell their images on the higher paying sites.

Another example is myself.  I am not a full time photographer and I am still learning the craft.  When you look at the nature photography of places such as Minden, the shots are clearly a level above my average shot.  However, I do have a handful of shots that could probably compete and sell on there.  I also have a handful of travel shots that would sell at sites such as Getty and Corbis.  I would absolutely love to earn higher commissions on these shots, especially my nature photos.  However, because I would only be able to submit a handful of high quality shots and I would not be able to submit images often, the vast majority of these sites would not give me the time of day.  Therefore, I sell my images on the microstock sites and take what I can get.

The easiest way I see for traditional stock houses to remain relevant in the future is to lower the barrier of entry for photographers.  Note that I do not mean they should lower the quality of images.  If a photographer comes with only one image that is truly saleable in their opinion, and a hundred shots that are not saleable, they should accept the one image and sell it.  If the barrier of entry for photographers is lowered, you will see more of the better photographers selling their top images at the traditional fees while the rejects are sold on the microstock sites.  In fact, this is what many professional photographers do today.  The key, though, is to accept the fact that amateur photographers do have the capability to create an occasional image that can compete with the images of the top pros, and that image deserves to be sold at a higher price than the portfolio of the photographer would suggest.

Another argument that I have seen, advocated by pros such as Dan Heller, is that photographers should instead look to sell their own images.  This can be accomplished through building your own web site and their are a number of people who have succeeded here.  I think for some photographers this is a valid choice and personally I find the information on his site to be among the most useful resources of information out there on building a photography business.  His books are very useful to someone starting out selling pictures.  However, creating your own site to sell pictures is itself a sizeable barrier.  As I work long hours I find it unlikely that I would have the time to build such as site, even though as a software developer I know how.  For those living abroad, the barrier is probably even higher. 

The other reality is, at least now, I probably would make more money selling my photos on the microstock sites than on my own site, as then I would have to drive traffic.  On the sites where I currently sell my pictures, the site makes the effort to bring buyers in - I just need to worry about creating images they would buy.

However, the main issue I see with creating my own web site is the following.  As an amateur I do not have a subjective opinion on my own photos.  Photographs that may seem perfect to me may cause a potential buyer to barf.  If I want to sell an image for several hundred dollars, it has to be worth several hundred dollars to the buyer.  Yet as an amateur how will I know this?  That’s why microstock sites, and traditional stock sites, have reviewers that weed out the unsaleable images.  Amateurs (and I would argue even professionals) need that feedback not only to improve, but to also make sure they present only those images buyers would potentially be interested in.  If a buyer comes to my web site and sees poor images, he will not spend time searching through the site for better ones but will instead assume that all shots are poor.

As I mentioned above, it is true that IStockPhoto and other microstocks do not currently threaten specialized industries such as insect photography.  However, imagine that a company was started that employed a few trained entomologists.  The entomologists would take part in selecting which submitted photos to accept and would also verify and add species definitions and behaviors.  For amateurs such as myself, I would glady submit to that site as long as I felt my images would sell better there - which they likely would if the agency specialized in nature photography.  While it is certainly questionable whether such a company will be created or even if it would be economically viable, the possibility is out there.

Here’s wishing that at least one traditional stock house lowers its barriers for photographers, because I will be waiting in line to sign up.