Micro-Stock VS Conventional Stock Photography

For working photographers this has become a hot topic. Here, I will give my honest opinion. To do this I’ve done a good deal of real world research and a fair amount of soul searching. After all, this is art and business.

 First I’ll explain stock photography. Stock photography is the business of selling images. Images that we take and then catalog for future use. These images are often used for both commercial and editorial uses.

 When a photographer sells a stock photo he/she still holds the copyright to the image. Stock photo sales are more like renting or leasing the image.

 The two most common types of stock photo agencies are Royalty free and Rights Managed. Royalty free images are typically sold for low dollar amounts but have unlimited sales. Rights managed images are typically sold for higher amounts, but have more limited sales.

 My look…

 I have been investigating several micro stock agencies, my findings are interesting. As it turns out the better ones have very high standards, close to the traditional stock companies in many aspects. The images found within these sites are often top notch; as good as anything I'd search for on Getty.

While searching for new stock representation I've noticed a handful of things. Getting into traditional stock agencies as a new (to them) artist is practically impossible. Traditional stock agencies will most likely never be the go-to resource for all stock needs ever again. The industry is not changing, it HAS changed. Traditional stock will always have the niche market of extremely high end advertising and maybe even some book editors. But for most other stock needs, micro stock will be the new resource. This may not be what photographers want to hear, but it’s true.

The advent of affordable digital photography has changed the industry forever. The game is still somewhat the same, shoot better material with higher standards. The sales game is just different now.

I have registered with a few agencies to see first hand how the income potential differs. I won't give them my top end material of endangered or difficult to photograph material, I save that for the traditional companies, for now. Not so much because of how much or how little it will earn, but more because I want some degree of control of where those images show up.

When setting up the accounts I have to admit, it felt like "selling out". But at the same time, one has to play the game in order to win. It's a new game, either play or sit out.

If the argument is still how low will you go, then I'll have to test the formula. A great image may on average sell 1-2 times a year at $250-$500 a sale. If the image is still great and has unlimited potential for sales, perhaps the income will be similar. It's a numbers game either way when it comes to yearly income.

My opinion is still the same. I prefer the traditional agency. But I'm keeping an open mind, and testing both institutions fairly. We'll see what I come up with.