Photographer James Nachtwey, one of the world's greatest journalists, has a story to tell and it will be revealed on October 3rd.   Over the past two years he has been documenting the story as part of winning the TED prize in 2007.  “I’m working on a story that the world needs to know about. I wish for you to help me break it, in a way that provides spectacular proof of the power of news photography in the digital age.”

The story breaks on October 3.  Nachtwey wished for help in breaking a news story in a way that demonstrates the power of news photography in the digital age.   Bloggers are requested to help spread the word.  Note the clickable badge above. 

I normally do quite well ignoring this type of viral targeting, but in a moment of weakness I watched his presentation to TED and I was blown away by his body of photographic work, so much so that I am eager to learn what he has to share with the world in 3 days. 



About the TED prize:

The TED Prize was created as a way of taking the inspiration, ideas and resources that are generated at TED and using them to make a difference. Although the winners receive a prize of $100,000 each, that's the least of what they get. The real prize is that they are granted a WISH. A wish to change the world.

For more details on the 2008 winners -- including blog entries and updates on their wishes -- visit TEDprize.org.

TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader, with one mission: Spreading ideas.

        

Ah, the dreaded digital workflow that drives me insane. 

Here's an interesting stat for you: digital photographers spend only 10% of their time taking photographs.  The rest of our time is split between meeting with clients, marketing, bookwork, lab pickups... and most of our precious time goes into that dreaded digital workflow. 

Sometimes at the end of a project when all the layers are blended together I will sit back and feel really satisfied.  Most of the time, it's a chore. 

Microstock photographers are not be dealing with the same day-to-day responsibilities, but they have the task of cloning out logos, erasing pimples, keywording, uploading and "disambiguating" (another one of those words that Istock contributors will relate to.)

Ever wonder about the workflow behind those polished photos in fashion magazines?

Here is a quick link to an interesting post on photo.net:  My Life as a Professional Photo Retoucher and Digi-Tech by Patrick Lavoie. 

        

This prairie wakeboarding girl actually sold last night.  The buyer used the keyword "ski" to find this forgotten (rarely downloaded) shot from last summer.   I like the photo; parallel lines pull attention to a pretty surfer girl in the middle of the prairie with no water in sight.  But of what use is a photo like this to a microstock buyer?  There is certainly no concept here other than "out of place" perhaps.  Youth?  Adventure?  Maybe all she needs is a suitcase by her side to signify the beginning of a journey. Looking back, this shot would have been a better fit with Alamay or the now-defunct PhotoShelter than with the micros.  It's just a little too "artsy" (if you can call it that) to be useful to designers.

Selling in the micros is all about volume.  You don't want your photos to sell a few times, you want them to sell hundreds of times.  You need strong themes that are relevant to today, isolated shots that are easy to drop into a layout, or photos with uncluttered backgrounds and plenty of copy space.

Selling in the micros is also a little bit about luck.  If your photo arrives at a time when it is favoured by the search engine gods and gets immediate sales it should have a pretty good life.  If it sticks on page 10 of new searches instead of page 1 it may simply die.

My prairie surfer girl has enjoyed views, but few sales.  She really has little to sell.  Although many other shots taken during this session have been fairly successful, she has become one of those photos that sells a few times a year and makes up a portion of my Long Tail earnings.

I haven't crunched my own numbers, but I appear to be "normal" (insert laughter here); about 20% of my portfolio earns about 80% of my income.   But what about those photos that rarely ever sell?   As a body of work grows to a  larger mass, these infrequent sales can become quite significant.  A company like Amazon, for example, sells millions of niche books just a few times each year. 

The collective group of small earners can become pretty significant to your sales each months, and we can't exclude the small agencies who at the bottom of your prioritized submission list.   Fotolia, Bigstock, 123rf and  StockXpert don't bring me a lot of money each month, and many times I wonder why I bother, but at the end of the year they do add up to almost 20% of my microstock earnings.

As important as my Long Tail is at the end of the month, I'll save future shots like the one above one for Alamay where it still won't sell very often, but when it does it will be for a higher value.  I want all my microstock photos to sell hundreds of times, not just a few.

        

Yesterday Sean asked,  You've mentioned 'subs' a lot -- what do you mean by that?

I mean Subscriptions. 

Ugh, I said it... it's one of those ugly little words that microstock photographers loath....

...but why?

The only one who benefits from subscriptions are the agencies.  Certainly, not photographers.  Buyers also benefit, although subscription plans are based on a 7 day week and seriously,  how many designers do you think go into the office on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays to download their quota?  Agencies depend on the fact that daily quotas will not be filled; and they pay very little to the artist.

The following table is a snapshot of the basic subs packages out there right now.  Please take a look at the tiny dollar amounts in the column down the right.  That is the amount that the agencies are paying photographers and illustrators right now for each download.

Shutterstock	1 month	$249	25 downloads per day	Pays .25-.36 per image sold
Dreamstime	30 days	$99	10 downloads per day	Pays .35 per image sold
Fotolia	1 month	$249	25 downloads per day	Pays .31 per image sold
StockXpert	1 month	$219.95	25 downloads per day	Pays .30 per image sold
123rf	1 month	$209	26 downloads per day	Pays .36 per image sold
Istock	3 months	$909	10 credits per day.	Calculation based on credits and % of daily limit used.

Doesn't that make you want to weep?

Subscription packages sound pretty generous to a purchaser at first glance, but they allow a restricted number of photo downloads per day and unused downloads do not roll over to the next day.  Agencies rely on the fact that buyers will abandon a high percentage of their daily limits.

Agencies claim that subscription purchasers are an entirely new client and that their regular client base is not purchasing subs plans.  Buyers of subs packages are normally heavy users; design firms and corporations with ongoing projects.   (Many of us speculate that they are not new buyers, just buyers lured away from Shutterstock.)

Subs buyers are not mom'n'pops, part-timers, or freelancers.  This type of buyer benefits the most when purchasing a bulk credits packages (that often never expire). 

Shutterstock is the granddaddy of subs content.  Until recently,  they have sold subs, lots of subs and only subs*.   Even with the poor commissions paid to the artist, this site is the #1 or #2 earner for most.  It is not unusual for photographers to sell 20, 100, or 200 photos in a day.  

StockXpert faced a contributor revolt when they first introduced their subs program, and they compromised by making artist participation optional.  They have since joined up with photos.com and jiunlimited.com and offer StockXpert content through the subscription channel of these affiliates.

Fotolia recently had to compromise with contributors to allow only large or smaller files for subscription download, a slightly higher commission than originally offered and to permit every fourth sub sale to count toward contributor status.

Dreamstime does not allow artists to opt-out of their program, however; each subs sale counts to raise the level of individual photo prices.

My sales are so insignificant at 123rf that mandatory participation in the subs program is hardly relevant.

Istock's subs package is based entirely on credits and is generally approved of by the artists. 


I can't say that I know of any photographers who are satisfied with subscription plans in their current form.

Yuri Arcurs, one of the world's leading microstock photographers, has coined the phrase "picture pooling": 

This phenomenon is normally used as a criticism against subscription agencies. It describes the fact that buyers that have a subscription will download more pictures then they use and will sometimes download pictures for future purposes. The result is pools of pictures that the designer can use instead of buying new pictures. Picture pooling is a real threat and it is confirmed by multiple users that if you opt out of subscription selling at Stockxpert for example you will actually earn more almost immediately, despite not getting any income from subscription sales. This can however be caused by more factors then just the result of picture pooling.

Another real threat is that buyers with less than honest intentions can download hundreds of photos for very little cost, place them on cd and mass distribute.  Even though this is a wild contradiction of rights, it is a crime that is difficult to prosecute, especially in many countries where copyright abuse is wildly rampant.

Disappointed with the strong arm tactics that boldly change the terms of the agreements between us, many contributers feel pushed to abandon the micros and to send new content to mid and macro agencies. 

Microstock is still a young, evolving industry.  Hopefully next year at this time, after the main sites have had 12-24 months to evaluate the effect that subscriptions have had the prices will begin to inch higher.   I do not agree with the subscription models as they now stand and especially hate the fact that they are offered at the expense of the artist.   Subs are a real threat to the future value and marketability of our work.


*Note:  Shutterstock also frequently sells enhanced licenses paying $25 to photographers.  They also tried to sell single photos through an external site, which failed.  Recently they have added a 5 images for $49 program directly on the Shutterstock site.

        

The death of yet another stock agency.  

Today Photoshelter announced that they are calling it quits as a stock agency, and will go back to focussing on their original product, The Personal Archive.

 

From their blog:  (Also see:  The Official Statement)



<< MORE >>

It's time to post an update about Zymmetrical who I first wrote about in March.   I am especially motivated by 3 sales last month at this mid-priced agency that have earned me a commission of $49.70.  (Only my top 3 sites earned more than that last month). 

Keith Tuomi sent me a nice note to let me know that each inspector hand picked a favourite submission for the homepage, and Keith picked this shot of a typical Canadian grain farmer.

I must note at this point that one of my 3 sales was for the shot on the screen capture below.  Did I receive a sale because a buyer liked it, or did Zym pay everyone who has a photo on their front page?  I expect the latter, but in March I didn't receive payment for a front page photo (perhaps they've changed this policy). 

(more after image)


Some quick updates since my last post.

• They are still in beta and are very responsive to suggestions to help grow their site.
• Yes, they're new, but no, they aren't desperate.  Zymmetrical is not trying to artificially plump up their collection by approving everything you've got.  Be selective with your submissions; you will get rejections.
• Put "Buy Stock Photos" in any search engine and Zymmetrical will appear on the first page.
• I was wrong about referrals in my last post.  You only receive a commission for new purchasers, not new photographers.  You can still use my referral link though, I just love to be popular.   but...
• Zymmetrical pays 70% commission.  WOW.
• Like Shutterstock, you are not privy to details about views or sales.   I would find these numbers useful to help determine future price updates. 
• Flash uploader is FAST, but...
• I'm finding the submissions area a pain in the butt when I try to edit out of order.  You apply descriptions and are taken back to the top of the page. 
• You don't have to apply categories.  If you can't find an appropriate category, leave it blank and they may create a new one. 
• If you are confused about setting your own prices, leave that field blank.  Zymmetrical will apply a price.
• Photographers hate describing photos, and Zymmetrical has omitted descriptions:  but I truly think the lack of a descriptive field will hurt them as a midstock supplier.  Sites with higher pricing, like Alamay or the macros, normally require a very detailed description.  At Zymmetrical my Hard Kerneled Red Spring Wheat is just another wheat photo.   If my Durum Wheat was to appear in ad for bread, any farmer who saw it would say right away that "That's Durum and (insert something about the amount of protein here) so you can't make bread with it." 
• Keith mentioned that they will accept editorial content in the future.

Yes, there seems to be room for a midstock agency in this market.  Out of all the new microstock sites that have appeared recently, it seems that Zymmetrical is getting a lot of things right.  Hopefully they don't deploy recent tactics of the microstock agencies by introducing subs or forging bad partnerships.

        

How true it is; model released photographs sell well through the microstock channel.   But, how do you get models, and how do you compensate them?  I am not alone in asking this two pronged question, it is a popular topic that comes up at least once a month on microstock forums.  For the purpose of this blog I will talk about compensation and will address finding models in a later post.

I think I've followed the same path as many.  I've convinced relatives and friends to sign model releases.   They don't expect much in return, but some form of compensation must be paid to the models to bind the agreement.    This can be done in one of a several ways.

1.  TFP or TFCD 

Your neighbor plays football and would like a portrait taken in his team jersey.  His mom is willing to sign a model release in trade for a professional photograph.  Many models will work like this on a "Trade for Print" or "Trade for CD" basis.  With the prints being the agreed upon compensation for the usage of their likeness.  While working with close relatives this can be pretty casual, but before starting a TFP shoot you should inform the model of the number of prints you will provide and the length of time they can expect to wait for delivery.  (Perhaps 3-5 retouched 8x10 prints of each setup or costume in 3-5 weeks time.) When working with teenagers, I sometimes offer to make something "cool" (if I can still remember what that is) that they can hang in their room.  My model Taylor loved this football poster. I've also used TFP upon occasion when I've grabbed a single shot or two at a event such as a hockey game.  The parents have been happy to get an action photo of Junior in exchange for a model release.

On a TFCD shoot you will normally give the model a full resolution version of the retouched photo on cd, along with a web-ready copy.  You should also have the model agree beforehand that the digital copies are for personal use and portfolio exposure.  Digital files or prints should be restricted from commercial sale and you should ensure that you be given credit whenever possible.

2.  Hourly Rate

If you can hire all your models through TFP, that's wonderful, but you may soon notice that your neighbors run  the moment they see you, and even your crazy Aunt Thelma won't come around since you had her stand on the edge of a chair and scream at the imaginary mouse you later added in PhotoShop.

Some microstock photographers swear you will never generate enough revenue from a paid shoot to recover your expenses, or that there's more than enough free models to go around.   On the other hand, a seasoned pro stated "If you can't afford to pay a model $10 an hour and turn a profit at the end of the month, you are doing something wrong."

Eventually, you should find that it is worth paying for talent.  Experienced photographers will tell you that a good model will save you money because (a) little or no training required,  (b) your session will result in many usable photographs and (c) you will likely get extra shots once you have exhausted your shooting list, as your experienced model will likely have a few useful ideas.

But how much do you pay?  I have concluded that you should test a new model with a one-hour tfp session to see how well you work together.  If you find your model is comfortable with you and the camera and their unretouched photos are pleasing, you can invite them back for a paid session.  What you pay by the hour depends largely on your own market.  Somewhere between $10 and $50 per hour seems appropriate, considering other factors such as experience.  Normally, you would hire a model for at least 3 hours and have several setups to maximize your investment.

3.  Day Rate 

I doubt you will find a child who can tolerate smiling for the camera for more than an hour at most, but an experienced model will be willing to work for extended periods of time.   In some cases, you may have complicated set or location changes that predict down-time.  You can easily estimate your shooting hours and negotiate a fair day rate or half-day rate with your model in advance.  If you are on the set for 10 hours, but estimate using the model for only three hours, you can't expect her to wait on set the whole day without being compensated.

4.  MPY!

You are so fabulous that Models Pay You.  Okay, I made MPY up, but there are a few stock shooters who come away from photo sessions with both a model release and a wad of cash in their hands.   These sensational photographers reduce their fees by 25%-50% for a signed release.  In most cases they also provide wardrobe and make-up artists, and the models hopefully walk away with a knock-out body of work for their portfolio.

5.  Costumed Models

I had a friend who worked for Air Canada.  She was invited to be a "costumed extra" in a movie shot in the Toronto Airport.  In her case, this meant that she wore her Air Canada uniform (that she provided) and appeared in the background of an airport scene.  She was paid $50 per hour to drive an airport buggy in the background, and naturally she thought that this "extra" work could be a good gig.  Boy, was she was disappointed to discover that real extras, the kind who show up in ordinary street clothes, are paid very poorly.  Something like $7 - $14 per hour at the time. 

I only mention her experience, because I think there is added value in costumed models.  This type of model could can be sourced from very diverse professions:  prima ballerinas, pilots, coal miners, priests, welders... the list goes on and on.  

I can't suggest what you should pay a model who comes with their professional uniform.  They may be reluctant models at first approach, but if you start with an attractive offer it may result in a series of photos that fill a niche.  Many of these models wouldn't even think to have a portrait taken in their work grubs - but I bet the prints they take home just may become family heirlooms.


My Conclusion: 

You may disagree with me, but I believe a good model is worth a good wage.  Like most things, you get what you pay for, and you may only be holding back your potential if you do not pay for talent.  If you find a model that looks great with little retouching who can make buyers click on your photos, their scale of pay should slide higher so they enjoy working with you for a long time.

        

I just hate that acronym; W.I.F.E.  But I read it somewhere months ago and haven't forgotten it, which is an unusual thing these days.

I run through a pre-shoot check list before I leave the house.  Most of it involves cleaning lenses, charging batteries, formatting memory cards.  Before I leave (and again when I get there) I always check the W.I.F.E. 

Now, I'll introduce you:

White balance.  If you screw this one up but shot in RAW you can likely save the shot.  If you shot in JPEG, just tell everyone you were working on an artistic experiment with colour.

ISO.  Cummon, you've done this before.  Shot a dark scene one night and left the camera set at 800 ISO.  The kind of mistake that makes you scream the blood curdling words I'm such an idiot!

Focus.  Is your camera in auto focus?  I often throw the manual focus switch on my body when I use the macro lens.  The next time you pick the camera up, it might take a couple frames, but you usually figure out pretty quickly if your lens isn't auto-focusing.  Hopefully though, it wasn't the world's first shot of the Brangelina twins that you missed.

Exposure.  Okay, I didn't come up with the acronym so I can't say specifically what the W.I.F.E. person thinks we should check, but exposure is usually a combination of f-stop and shutterspeed.   It might be a reminder that if you were shooting fireworks or using the bulb setting last night, to set your shutterspeed to about 1/125.   I like to have my camera "resting ready" at f8 as well.  That way if an opportunity quicky pops up, you won't be as far from your ideal exposure.

So, there you have it.  If you have any tips on the subject, I would love to hear them.

        

I love to see my photos in action. The photo I call "Naughty Little Boy" appears on the cover of a new book released by Ulysses Press this month. Okay, the subject matter might be a little troublesome (he's not allowed to see it until he's 21) but I'm pretty stoked to have a photo of my son on a book cover about serial killers. Lord, what kind of mother am I? I think my son was 4 when I took this shot.  It's a borderline photo because it is not brightly lit in true microstock fashion, but I like the intensity the uneven lighting creates.  This one was rejected by both Istock and Shutterstock, but it does get attention elsewhere, so their loss. Due to the subject matter, Ulysses contacted me directly to ask permission to use this photo.  (Agencies have a non-defamation clause in the purchaser agreements).  Who knows, perhaps I have more book covers out there with less controversial themes.  That's one thing about selling Royalty Free stock photos.  You just never know where your photos will turn up.

Here's what the thumb looks like on BigStockPhoto, where Ulysses purchased it.

        

If you own a television, I'm quite sure that you've watched at least one program describing how fat North Americans are becoming.  The stories are interlaced with shots of incredibly large people strolling down a city sidewalk, sitting on a park bench, and spilling over their outgrown pants.  The film is shot artistically.  From the neck down.  From behind.  A closeup of fingers digging into a bag of chips or resting a can of coke on their tummy ledge. 

The way that the footage is presented ala below the neck we feel we are witnessing a faceless part of an overwhelming epidemic. Yet, every time I see one of these programs the thought that rushes to my mind is: Couldn't get a model release, could ya? I lump this type of photo into a category that I call "grab shots".  Fast shots without premeditation and without permission.  People who are presumably unrecognizable because we cannot clearly identify their facial features.

Photo credit:  Don Bayley/Rapid Eye  Istockphoto

Microstock agencies have evolved to require a model release for virtually any photo with a person in it, regardless of whether you can recognize them or not.   It makes sense.  How would you feel if you recognized yourself from the neck down on such a television program?

StockXpert takes it to the extreme and demands a release for a shot from the back, for parts of a person, and in many cases, a property release must accompany interior photos that are merely the background of another subject.
                    

Editorial content has become an option on most agencies, and as long as a photo has not been manipulated, cloned or altered (other than levels, noise reduction, contrast) it qualifies for this category.  Recognizable faces are often accepted in this category without a model's permission - but the end user is restricted to use the photograph in news worthy stories and definitely not for commercial intent.

Does your portfolio have shots of people from the back?  Is their wardrobe/tattoo/hairstyle recognizable?  It's not harming anyone is it?

In the Province of Quebec, Canada, Article 6 of the Quebec Civil Code recognizes that the use of a person's name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public is an invasion of privacy.   Ms Aubrey, a 17 year old girl who was photographed without her permission sitting on the steps of a building in Montreal, Quebec and the photograph was featured in an art magazine.  The magazine was purchased by a friend of Ms Aubrey, the information was shared, and Ms Aubrey was subject to teasing by her classmates. 

Ms Aubrey brought an action against the photographer and the magazine (originating in Quebec Aubrey vs Editions Vice-Versa Inc., [1998]) and the Court found that the unauthorized publication of Ms Aubrey's photograph was an infringement of her anonymity.  Both the photographer and publisher were ordered to pay $2000 in damages, as well as court costs.

The Court cited an extract from a thesis by J. Ravanan; (translated)

"The camera lens captures a human moment at its most intense, and the snapshot 'defiles' that moment... A person surprised in his or her private life by a roving photographer is stripped of his or her transcendency and human dignity, since he or she is reduced to the status of a 'spectacle' for others...  This 'indecency of the image' deprives those photographed of their most secret substance."

Do you have any grab shots with people in your portfolio?

This past week I sent out a microstock photo of a foot kicking a soccer ball.  It happened to be a human's foot, and I do have a model release for the human attached to it, so I attached the release as well.  Dreamstime replied "Please remove release and resubmit".  This may have something to do with the fact that buyers on DT can search "people only".   The requirements are somewhat blurred between agencies, but I would rather play it safe than sorry.

        

Nice to see the number 1000 beside my recorded sales on Istock this morning! And the 1000'th sale belongs to..... School Lessons. As of today, this photo has sold 422 times on Istock.  That's pretty incredible stuff with one image making almost half of my sales.  It has slowed down considerably of late, but I think it will be a safe bet that it might be my first "red" flame sometime this year.  Other photos that have sat dormant have enjoyed sales recently.  It seems that to make sales you just have to get the first one sometimes and then image popularity grows from there.  Unfortunately, with exclusives jumping the review cue in front of non-exclusives place in line we all have an immediate disadvantage and some of our best stuff is just never seen. Now, if I could just improve my acceptance ratio with Istock and make a few more popular shots like this, I would be a very happy micro stocker!

        

Oh, I've been busy.  That's a good thing, it's GREAT in fact, but it isn't doing much for my microstock  career.  I even have about 100 model shots in the can that need to be sorted through and would produce at least 20 uploads (I'm not a fan of too many similars) - but my microstock hobby tends to get pushed to the bottom of my to-do list when I have paying clients. Not uploading to Shutterstock in particular has been absolutely devastating.  My sales have dropped by at least 50% because I haven't fed the beast.  May sales have actually been quite disappointing everywhere so far, except for steady Dreamstime and Istock, and a few $5 sales at StockXpert.  I wish I knew how much of the decline is due to my inactivity.

(My niece Carley who also models for me from time to time.  She's the happy lady in the wheatfield on my current header.)

So what have I been doing?  Apart from working from home and shuttling kids back and forth from school, and preschool, and lunch and soccer and friends....  At the end of April I shot a dance school and worked like a mad woman for days processing photos,  making magazine covers, uploading jobs, preparing receipts, sorting and packaging orders - all so I could have it completed a week early to leave for a my niece's graduation in Saskatchewan (an 8 hour drive away).  I was also there to take photos, of course!  Some graduates, a family, some headshots and a lady with her beloved little doggie.

Now I've been a crazy woman creating thank you cards for the graduates.  The new designs took a lot longer than I had estimated.  (Maybe because so many of them were created after midnight when I wasn't so fresh!)  I wanted each graduate 3 different samples to pick from, and the town that they live in has only 1000 people so I didn't want any of the cards to look too similar in any way.  They will only use 9 out of the 30 that I made, but the upside is now I have about 30 fresh templates for next time! Now that the graduation shoot is in a bit of a holding pattern until the orders come in, I start shooting a soccer league.  I shot 2 teams last week... just 51 more to go over the next three weeks.  I can't foresee feeding the Shutterstock beast in the immediate future.

Did I mention it's nice to be busy.

I'll leave you with some of my favourite thank you cards (just to prove that I haven't been slacking!)

        

If you long to use the keywords "isolated on white" but don't know how to begin: I came upon this great tutorial from Atlanta based Zack Arias that will help you master shooting on white seamless.   This tutorial is one of the most in-depth articles on the topic that you will find on the web.

Part 1 - Gear

Part 2 - Setting Lights

Part 2b - Full Length With One Light

Part 3 - From White to Black

Updated:
Part 4 - Simple Changes in Post Production

Arias promises more parts in this series within the next 10 days so be sure to check back for the final chapters.

        

Karin Lau, who you may also know as stock photographer Karimala made an interesting post on the talkmicro forum about a new way to find your images in use.  Go to Amazon.com and key your name in their search engine.  They have a unique search inside feature, and if your name has been indexed it will appear in their search results.

Too curious not to try.... on Amazon.com Lorraine Swanson returns 10 hits, 6 of which I can immediately disqualify. 

I can access the index page of this little book on wasps which indicates that Lorraine Swanson appears on page 17 within the chapter "Wasps Build Nests".   Well - I just happen to have a stock photo of a nest!

Would it be premature of me to presume that my nest might appear on page 17, or would the subject and the appearance of my name merely be coincidence?  I guess I could fork out the $15.95 and order a copy.  From what I can tell from the web, it looks like one of the early readers that my son brings home from his first grade reading program every day.

This search method only seems to work on amazon.com.  Not Amazon.ca.  Not Chapters.ca.  I have not made a purchase on the U.S. site, so they won't allow me to browse inside.

I have a cover coming out in May.  They asked permission to use the photo last fall, and I've seen the artwork.  I thought I would hold off blogging about it until the book is actually released - I have mixed feelings about the licensing so you can bet I'll blog soon when it hits the market!

        

Keywording is one of the evil necessities when it comes to shooting stock and my least favourite part of the job.  Bad keywords = no sales.  I found an interesting post by Rob Taggart over at his A Photo Editor blog; a look at keywords from a buyers point of view.

Stock Photo Keyword Zen 

Happy keywording!

        

So long Albumo, it's been.... forgettable.  I've left you, and you didn't even notice that I'm gone.   But then again, you didn't notice that I was there, either, did you?  

Albumo was a site that entered the market with a lot of momentum.  They paid artists to upload their work.  I'm not in the mood to look up the specifics, but I think it was upload 200 photos and receive 20 bucks or something along that line.  They had additional incentives for their 1000 club.  People were reaching payouts just by uploading.  They also had a nice referral plan to help spread the word. 

Encouraged by the star players they had attracted, I decided to give Albumo a whirl and ftp'd 100 odd photos.  I only managed to push about 30 or 40 through before I was distracted by something else... and well, forgot about them entirely until about 3 weeks later when I noticed friends on MSG discussing how things were going.  I logged onto my account to check for sales and not only did I not have sales, I didn't have a single view either.

3 weeks live and NOT A SINGLE VIEW!

And that is where I left things. 

Soon there were grumblings about poor commissions.  No marketing.  No sales.  No interest.  Artists who had received the bonus incentives were bound to keep their photos on the site for 400 days.  Those who did not receive a bonus were free to send a note to admin to delete their portfolio, and from what I have gleaned from other discussions, Albumo was deleting portfolios a'la contributor request as late as February, but more recently such requests have been ignored.  We are left to the "one per day" method of deleting our portfolios. 

Days before we lost LuckyOliver, I gave up on Albumo.  I've been visiting them once a day and picking a different little darling to kill.  If I go through a 24 hour period and have missed my opportunity to kill a photo, I feel somewhat the same as the day that I discovered the fish hadn't been fed (exact number of foodless days unknown, but regardless, the body was lifeless).  Note - I could delete the photos in the bullpen all at once.

How can these new microstock and midstock agencies get a foothold in today's market?   How many times will we log onto a site to see a variation of the following:

We are sorry to report that NaturalLifeStock is closing its doors today. April 1, 2008 was our one-year anniversary, and at the end of this period we have simply not had the returns we expected. The market is saturated with large and small stock agencies, and the competition is overwhelming.

We have found that image buyers are deluged with requests to "come see my stock site" and have little interest in startup stock companies. If we had millions to spend for marketing we might be able to make a dent, but as a Mom & Pop stock site our chances for success are very slim. Even the big guys, like Getty Images®, are having a rough time in this economy.  Text in italics from their website.

I've joined the new sites Zymmetrical and Mostphotos, but I await to see how they perform over the next year.  After the loss of LuckyOliver I am less than enthusiastic about the unproven sites.  Zymmetrical has recently become quiet and the guys haven't been flogging their site in the forums like they once did.  Hopefully they are too busy perfecting their site so they can soon transition out of beta and start marketing.

I have to let some of these lame ducks go so I can devote more time to the sites that actually pay me every month. 

So long Albumo.  Perhaps we'll meet again, once you get your groove back.


I'll leave you with a quote from user "ALBUMO" posted on MSG on March 5, 2008.

Still around... so, I guess it's a good news!  Anyways, I think many of you expect sky rocketing sales; well, let me disappoint you -- ain't gonna happen over night, BUT... we're working on it, and YES we are spending tons of money on promoting your art.  We will spend even more, but I can reassure you, you won't see numbers like at iStock or Shutter over couple of months.  Give us a little bit more time, and then judge us. 

The Good News -- Albumo is around for Good, and we are not planning on selling the company (not b/c we didn't get any sweet deal proposals, but simply b/c we believe in what we do).

Thanks for your hard work, we appreciate every bit of it!

Cheers, Co-founder, Maxim Basaraba

        

I'm afraid the day has come, and remarkably, it didn't happen with their site going offline and vanishing into cyberspace.   The story wasn't broke by the press or a disgruntled employee.  It was blogged, by the Chief Instigator himself.  This evening Bryan Zymjewski announced that Lucky Oliver will be shut down forever on May 15th.   You can read the entire announcment in his Blog Post.

"We spent the last year looking for the funds to grow LuckyOliver because, without the addition of significant capital, the return on investment for LuckyOliver and its contributors would not be satisfactory. After reviewing the options, the investment team decided that it was in the best interest of all stakeholders to shut the company down."

And I just received my first cash out of about Fifty Bucks.  (Whew!).  Bryan did state that those who reached the payout threshold ($25) could request their payments.  I guess I'm making a donation of my April earnings of $2.70.  I'm actually quite surprised they are so ethical and are not attempting to string us along for a few more days at the expense of uncollected earnings.  We don't normally get one month's notice with these agencies!

It's a pity.  I really loved the site, but I wonder if the things I loved about it are the things that pushed serious buyers away.  Lucky Oliver was trendy and fresh and hip.  But could a circus themed agency attract major buyers who are accustomed to the seriousness of Istock and Dreamstime?  To paying in credits and not tokens?

It was a love/hate affair for many of us.  The loyals fiercely defended LuckyOliver like crazed sports fans cheering their team through good seasons and bad.  For the most part, I was one of them, and I will be forever delighted that they chose this photo of my little Jazz Man the winner of one of their early contests.  It never earned any sales though. I guess that said a lot.    The naysayers loudly warned that they would pull their photos if sales didn't pick up.  Most of them did.  But a lot of the Ubersensational shooters stayed there.  Iofoto, Photoshow, Andresr, Yuri Arcurs to name a few. Oh, there will be a lot of "I told you so!"s when the news spreads in the morning.

LuckyOliver was special though.  They strove to keep it personal.  Rejections were helpful, and not just a push of a button.  Groupies hung out in the forum and in a motherly fashion steered conversations to a positive place.  Bryan was everywhere....  

...everywhere, that is - until recently.   He was notably absent.  No new blogs.  No updates.  When Logoboom asked in their forum (6 days ago) where Bryan has gone, he surfaced to respond:

"Hey gang- I've been spending a bit more time with the kiddies and refocusing. I needed to take some time away from the front lines to energize- two years of working through weekends has made me a little stale. Things are still happening, I just haven't been as vocal."

So where does this leave the industry?  I don't get the impression that there will be much of a void left by LuckyOliver's demise.  Can any new microstock agencies really make it in this market?  Will the other young entrants like Albumo, Snapvillage and Zymmetrical fold to the likes of Istock, Shutterstock and the other big players?

Perhaps there will be a last minute investor to save the carnival,  who knows, but it's still likely a good idea to spend your tokens before May 15th.

If you have a moment to leave a comment, please let me know what you plan to do with your LuckyOliver portfolio?  Will you keep it live, or will you immediately delete?

        

I acheived a couple milestones this week. 

- I broke $1000 in sales on Shutterstock yesterday, took 12.5 months, but I did it!

- I blogged twice in one day.  (Today)

- I received my third flame on Istock - Two Bull Elk.  (School Lessons has 92 to go until 500 sales!)

        

If I felt any nagging guilt about neglecting this blog (and oh, yes I have!), it has vanished after reading the following article in the New York Times by Matt Richtel.  It seems that blogging can be very, very bad for your waistline, your blood pressure and your health, and if you take it too seriously, it can even lead to your demise!

In Web World of 24 Hour Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop 

I hardly need to fear death by blogging myself.   My larger addiction is to RSS feeds.  The list is growing, and it takes more and more guilty time out of my day to scroll through them all.  Stock and photography in general is rarely discussed in newspapers and everyday reading materials, and I have no real peers to discuss the subject with, so I depend more and more on my RSS feeds to stay in touch with trends, equipment and techniques. 

Now, to bring this post back to the subject of stock photography, I will depart with a link that was in my RSS feeds this morning by Debra Wagner on Blackstar Rising.  At the moment, I am a Royalty-Free only contributor, but Debra gives 11 compelling reasons for buyers to go Rights Managed.

11 Reasons for Buyers to Choose Rights-Managed Photography Over Royalty-Free

        

Located on the sunny West coast of Canada, Vancouver's Zymmetrical is an exchange platform for artists and buyers at the forefront of creative design.

At the time of this writing, the site is in Beta.  They may be defined as more of a mid-stock agency than microstock as prices tend to begin at about $3.00 up to $100 depending on quality and size. 

I've handpicked this screenshot of their landing page because, aw, shucks, it is my first featured photo on a site's splash page (that I know of).

My virtual friend and fellow stock photographer, Flemish Dreams, posted a secret tip on one of my favourite forums recently:  Zymmetrical Appears to Deliver:  I know I should keep this secret, but I got 2 sales of 7$ and 11$+ at Zymmetrical with just a tiny portfolio. Somehow, these guys seem to deliver, quiet as they are amongst the big loud guns of SnapVillage, Albumo and even MostPhotos that will rock the world... next year.  I had already created an account (to reserve my user name) an Flemish's post intrigued me enough to look into them.

Zymmetrical is Canadian, from my home and native land, as the anthem goes.  It's my patriotic duty to become a contributor of this home grown agency, encouraged by the fact that Kieth Tuomi (Founder and CEO) readily makes himself available to answer questions (and - OMG, he actual listens to user suggestions and requests!)

I've only submitted 10 photos so far.  An interesting way they set their agency apart from others, is that the reviewer of each photo personally determes the selling price.  Wee baby Ezra from the screenshot above was set at a full-size price of $49.   To make Zymmetrical even more attractive to contributors, they offer a very generous 70% royalty: meaning if they find one buyer for this photo, I'll earn $34.30.  That sure beats the $3.57 it's earned on Istock in the past 3 weeks with their paltry 20% commission (3 various sales).

Zymmetrical also sells fonts, graphics and videos.   I'm surprized that more microstock agencies don't sell fonts. 

They also have an affiliate program of 10% which endures for 12 months from your first visit.  Please feel free to use my referral link if you like .    I'll definitely be sending more photos over, however, their uploader has been down for a couple days... (remember "beta").


The following information was pulled from the fact sheet on Zymmetrical's website:

Founded:  November 2006
Employees:  3
Target Market:  Designers, photographers, art directors, small business, hobbyists, students, etc.

Officers:
Keith Tuomi - Founder and CEO
Paul Melcher - CKO
Tatjana Farber - CFO

Zymmetrical is a global social marketplace in which photographers, designers, and video producers come together to form a marketplace free from traditional royalties and rights management. The web site allows photographers and designers of all levels to share and monetize their passion or profession while allowing graphic artists, web designers, arts directors, marketing professionals, and consumers to obtain high quality, legal digital stock art for as low as $3. Zymmetrical is the only major art agency that occupies the middle ground between the macrostock ($200 and up files) and microstock ($1 and lower files, low Artist payouts) market areas. Artists can adjust their own prices at any time, from $3 - $100, creating a truly flexible and democratic marketplace.