Should all photos be free?
Discussion
The microstock photography model, roughly speaking, dictates that the TOP microstock sites:
1) Have a selection of circa 4 million images (per site, there are many sites!) to download at present, taken by 50k+ photographers.
2) Photo buyers still only pay a couple of dollars per image purchased, and
3) The sites enable users to order the images, from the "best most popular ones first" which makes it very easy for media buyers to find stunning images quicky.
Ive watched the market grow over the last few years, from the days when the top microstock sites had a few hundred thousand images to choose from, to several million. You can buy a picture of, well... anything. For a quid, maybe two.
We've debated this before on PH. Microstock wasnt well received here, for good reason.
But what is emerging (the point of this post) are sites which offer images for free.
Why would anyone do that? The only answer I can think of, and there is only one answer as far as I can see, is for the love of photography, and enjoyment of the process.
The benefit (or trouble) depending on how you look at it, is that the world is so large, there there are tens of thousands of photographers who are willing to give away images for free. Sometimes their best ones.
Its still very very early days. But I cant see any media agency (paper, web, print, etc) paying for images in the future, except perhaps the very biggest, who are willing to pay for exclusivity.
The only exception to this would be custom and product shoots, and events. Which probably doesnt threaten many people here, but it does raise a costing issue: Would company X be willing to use Photo Y (for free) because it's near enough to what they want, VS paying someone to do a custom shoot.
The situation can only get worse (or better) not depending on which end of the lens you are on, but whether you value your camera as a money making tool. All imho [/soapbox]
Disclaimer: I enjoyed doing stock photography commercially for a while, am in the "media" business myself and need stock images (that others have taken) on a daily basis for my own work, I have made money from photography, so have a leg on both sides of the fence - I posted as Ive been watching and pondering upon this matter for a long time.
But as an observer, I dont see microstock as being the bottom of the market falling out, that hasn't happened yet(!) despite some feeling that it has. It will happen (again imho) and that will be when the FREE libraries are big enough to be comprehensive. They grow daily! Photos arent exactly subject to entropy, it is simply a matter of time!
Or not?
1) Have a selection of circa 4 million images (per site, there are many sites!) to download at present, taken by 50k+ photographers.
2) Photo buyers still only pay a couple of dollars per image purchased, and
3) The sites enable users to order the images, from the "best most popular ones first" which makes it very easy for media buyers to find stunning images quicky.
Ive watched the market grow over the last few years, from the days when the top microstock sites had a few hundred thousand images to choose from, to several million. You can buy a picture of, well... anything. For a quid, maybe two.
We've debated this before on PH. Microstock wasnt well received here, for good reason.
But what is emerging (the point of this post) are sites which offer images for free.
Why would anyone do that? The only answer I can think of, and there is only one answer as far as I can see, is for the love of photography, and enjoyment of the process.
The benefit (or trouble) depending on how you look at it, is that the world is so large, there there are tens of thousands of photographers who are willing to give away images for free. Sometimes their best ones.
Its still very very early days. But I cant see any media agency (paper, web, print, etc) paying for images in the future, except perhaps the very biggest, who are willing to pay for exclusivity.
The only exception to this would be custom and product shoots, and events. Which probably doesnt threaten many people here, but it does raise a costing issue: Would company X be willing to use Photo Y (for free) because it's near enough to what they want, VS paying someone to do a custom shoot.
The situation can only get worse (or better) not depending on which end of the lens you are on, but whether you value your camera as a money making tool. All imho [/soapbox]
Disclaimer: I enjoyed doing stock photography commercially for a while, am in the "media" business myself and need stock images (that others have taken) on a daily basis for my own work, I have made money from photography, so have a leg on both sides of the fence - I posted as Ive been watching and pondering upon this matter for a long time.
But as an observer, I dont see microstock as being the bottom of the market falling out, that hasn't happened yet(!) despite some feeling that it has. It will happen (again imho) and that will be when the FREE libraries are big enough to be comprehensive. They grow daily! Photos arent exactly subject to entropy, it is simply a matter of time!
Or not?
Edited by Buster Bakdorzin on Friday 25th July 15:49
Microstock works if you put the effort in and produce loads of good images.
Macrostock works if you put the effort in and produce a few specific/spectacular images.
Either way, both are hard work. Someone producing work for free for websites will soon cease for two reasons:
1. They produce microstock type images and can't be arsed to constantly produce good new images.
2. They shoot a killer shot and give it away, then everyone who ever sees it afterwards says, "why didn't you sell that, you could have made loads you muppet!"
Good photos take time and skill, only idiots give those away for free.
Macrostock works if you put the effort in and produce a few specific/spectacular images.
Either way, both are hard work. Someone producing work for free for websites will soon cease for two reasons:
1. They produce microstock type images and can't be arsed to constantly produce good new images.
2. They shoot a killer shot and give it away, then everyone who ever sees it afterwards says, "why didn't you sell that, you could have made loads you muppet!"
Good photos take time and skill, only idiots give those away for free.
Bob_Defly said:
Microstock works if you put the effort in and produce loads of good images.
Macrostock works if you put the effort in and produce a few specific/spectacular images.
Either way, both are hard work. Someone producing work for free for websites will soon cease for two reasons:
1. They produce microstock type images and can't be arsed to constantly produce good new images.
2. They shoot a killer shot and give it away, then everyone who ever sees it afterwards says, "why didn't you sell that, you could have made loads you muppet!"
Good photos take time and skill, only idiots give those away for free.
Nicely put. I totally agree. Nothing given away for free will endure.Macrostock works if you put the effort in and produce a few specific/spectacular images.
Either way, both are hard work. Someone producing work for free for websites will soon cease for two reasons:
1. They produce microstock type images and can't be arsed to constantly produce good new images.
2. They shoot a killer shot and give it away, then everyone who ever sees it afterwards says, "why didn't you sell that, you could have made loads you muppet!"
Good photos take time and skill, only idiots give those away for free.
Buster Bakdorzin said:
Why would anyone do that? The only answer I can think of, and there is only one answer as far as I can see, is for the love of photography, and enjoyment of the process.
There are many keen amateurs with regular day jobs for whom getting a photo used from their hobby is a massive fillip. I can quite see why they hand it over for nothing gratefully to take the kudos of simply having their work chosen. Buster Bakdorzin said:
Would company X be willing to use Photo Y (for free) because it's near enough to what they want, VS paying someone to do a custom shoot.
Some of the people on Photographers Direct are offering more money for a compromised stock shot ('a whelk having sex in a red jacket with Blackpool Tower in the background - must be landscape format' - than it would cost to get it photographed specifically. I wanted to say 'Look, I can go out and shoot exactly what you want for less' - except you can't. They're so obsessed with not paying to have it taken that they can spend more finding it cheap.Buster Bakdorzin said:
I enjoyed doing stock photography commercially for a while, am in the "media" business myself and need stock images (that others have taken) on a daily basis for my own work, I have made money from photography, so have a leg on both sides of the fence - I posted as Ive been watching and pondering upon this matter for a long time.
But how much did you make on stock vs the time it took? What was the rate per hour and would you work for that in you chosen business? What happened to your main work and earnings in the meantime? Could you have lived on your photographic earnings? I think it was all a bit of interesting fun, a distraction from the tedium of your other work, and one which you already seem to have grown bored with. Perhaps because it didn't pay enough to meet the bills?Fortunately I'm exempt from the dilemma, and also largely market forces, as most of my work is wedding photography and I haven't (yet) found a couple who'd pay 50p for a photo of somebody else getting married!
Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 26th July 08:31
Consider the business model of the free microstock sites. Their revenue stream is advertising. The same revenue stream that fuels Google. However they also also provide free images as a hook to get you to look at paid-for images which may be superior for one's purpose.
Recently I needed pictures of businesspeople for our website. I got free images as I didn't need great art, would be resizing to a small distorted size etc. It was still HARD to get enough good pictures free.
The business of photography is changing without doubt. There will always be room, however, for the great fine art photographers and photographers taking a specific commission.
Recently I needed pictures of businesspeople for our website. I got free images as I didn't need great art, would be resizing to a small distorted size etc. It was still HARD to get enough good pictures free.
The business of photography is changing without doubt. There will always be room, however, for the great fine art photographers and photographers taking a specific commission.
fastfreddy said:
Bob_Defly said:
Good photos take time and skill, only idiots give those away for free.
Nicely put. I totally agree. Nothing given away for free will endure.Give it 20 years. We are still in the infancy and very first steps/stages of digital photography, but the way I see it, the "free collections" will be massive, and very good resources, eventually.
Simpo Two said:
But how much did you make on stock vs the time it took? What was the rate per hour and would you work for that in you chosen business?
About £7k, for a few months part time work (as in evenings, or weekends).It took 2.5 years for that money to come in, a slow trickle. I started and stopped very promptly, a) simply didn't have the time and b) got tired of keywording/uploading. Programs now exist which allow you to FTP images up to all the stock sites instead of site by site, which I was doing, but I digress.
The point wasnt "microstock is a danger" but "Free Photos are a danger"
Not a danger to "most photographers here" - most people here shoot when commissioned to.
Buster Bakdorzin said:
Simpo Two said:
But how much did you make on stock vs the time it took? What was the rate per hour and would you work for that in you chosen business?
About £7k, for a few months part time work (as in evenings, or weekends).It took 2.5 years for that money to come in, a slow trickle. I started and stopped very promptly, a) simply didn't have the time and b) got tired of keywording/uploading.
Buster Bakdorzin said:
fastfreddy said:
Bob_Defly said:
Good photos take time and skill, only idiots give those away for free.
Nicely put. I totally agree. Nothing given away for free will endure.Give it 20 years. We are still in the infancy and very first steps/stages of digital photography, but the way I see it, the "free collections" will be massive, and very good resources, eventually.
Simpo Two said:
But how much did you make on stock vs the time it took? What was the rate per hour and would you work for that in you chosen business?
About £7k, for a few months part time work (as in evenings, or weekends).It took 2.5 years for that money to come in, a slow trickle. I started and stopped very promptly, a) simply didn't have the time and b) got tired of keywording/uploading. Programs now exist which allow you to FTP images up to all the stock sites instead of site by site, which I was doing, but I digress.
The point wasnt "microstock is a danger" but "Free Photos are a danger"
Not a danger to "most photographers here" - most people here shoot when commissioned to.
Yeah so what if loads of photos are being added to the free sections everyday, it's not going to be from the people who are putting the time and expertise into it. People who don't value their own time are stupid. (or have lots of time)
What an odd question. The only pictures I give away for free are gifts. That's only the prints mind, not the rights. Anyone who gives their images away must be crazy. It takes time, skill and planning to produce good photographs. My time is precious. I'd rather be out enjoying myself of a night or weekend instead of being stuck in a studio producing freebies.
Bob_Defly said:
You seem to be missing the logical conclusion.
Well, the logical conclusion (and my point) is that in 10 years (maybe 50, Im not the timeline forecasting expert here) there WILL be more free images than you can shake a pointy thing at. That was my point
Bob_Defly said:
So you've worked all weekend getting...
No chance! 
I shot for fun matey, discovered Microstock the month I got my first DSLR, loved the competition aspect of ranking and downloads Far Far more than the desire to make my fun my job, although I enjoyed it so much at the time (before the uploading got boring) going full time did cross my mind.
Bob_Defly said:
what if loads of photos are being added to the free sections everyday, it's not going to be from the people who are putting the time and expertise into it.
Actually, it is It's from the Very People who earn a living from it who are now giving their images away. Top togs are doing it. So is everyone else, mostly. Just a few pics, here and there, but every single month.The microstock sites want more images, each to be biggest and best.
The photographers want more clicks through to their portfolio, so throw in freebies.
The "free images" sections of many sites are growing. Unless you can stop that growth entirely (yourself, personally... I jest, but I dont see any other possible outcome) it is simply a matter of time before buyers are spoiled for choice within the free libraries.
Of course "all images" wont be free (the title) - I was being pedantic. People will always try to sell their best works. But even a few of their finest are thrown into the free bin, to win their folios more traffic and download popularity.
As I have said, in decades to come, there will be more fantastic free images than you can shake a pointy thing at. Im not debating it, and I stand to be corrected... Just wait and see what happens.
Bob_Defly said:
People who don't value their own time are stupid. (or have lots of time)
Or take thousands of photos monthly, and they each throw a couple in the free bin.We'll have to agree to disagree on this one I reckon.
EmmaP said:
I'd rather be out enjoying myself of a night or weekend instead of being stuck in a studio producing freebies.
One aspect of the freebies, are stock images which are rejected for too much noise. ie anything shot at ISO 200 or above which doesnt have noise ninja applied.Tick the box, they go straight into the free bin if declined. And you know how difficult it is to get stock images accepted.
We are talking images which look absolutely perfect to photographers at any zoom level. Why have an absolutely brilliant image rejected when someone can use it for free, by visiting your portfolio.
That is just one way the libraries are growing.
There are nutters out there (and Id agree with you lot on this) who are nutters, because they are obsessed with getting nothing but the most downloads for ALL of their photos, and do nothing but shoot as an amateur (like I was) and upload for others to use for free. This includes CGI/PS stuff and MAX/3D, not just photographs.
Its the same as playing games online, chatting on a forum, reading up on your hobbies... floats some peoples boats. Not just a few hundred people, many thousands of them.
Edited by Buster Bakdorzin on Thursday 31st July 00:30
Yeah but in 10-20 years, are you really going to be looking through the old free photographs for your latest website or marketing plan. I understand what you're saying but people probably said the same about sampled music with the number of samples and loops available, but it still takes a creative mind to make something decent out of them, or to even produce decent samples in the first place.
There are millions of free images out there, some amazing hi-res one on flickr too, but there will always be room for people who are creative, people who can understand and work with a client, and people who strive for excellence. That's what people want from a good photographer.
Computers didn't take our jobs, we just learnt to use them better.
There are millions of free images out there, some amazing hi-res one on flickr too, but there will always be room for people who are creative, people who can understand and work with a client, and people who strive for excellence. That's what people want from a good photographer.
Computers didn't take our jobs, we just learnt to use them better.
EmmaP said:
Wise words Bob. That's Bob, not Bobby
I don't belive you 
But I'll let you call me anything you likeBob_Defly said:
Yeah but in 10-20 years, are you really going to be...
Im just pointing out something which I personally found very interesting, when it dawned on me that it was already happening. If I wanted to make money from photograph (here in NZ) I would think it best to do fine art prints of iconic kiwi landmarks/scenes and sell them in art galleries or try work with some of the calendar makers etc.
Its that or go 'pro' doing weddings etc.
Selling images on the internet seems like its just not going to work.
Its that or go 'pro' doing weddings etc.
Selling images on the internet seems like its just not going to work.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff