This is a good time to go MFD to separate your work from everyone else’s. Do so at your own risk because work is going to slow down. Basically your going to have to go up market to maintain volume of work. How much is up there I don’t know…

I wonder what the results would be (shadow detail, resolution, sharpness) if, rather than upsampling the 5D image, several photos were taken with the 5D so that the resulting file was the same size as a Hasselblad file (a bit like stitching a panorama). A different lens would have to be used, or subject-to-camera distance adjusted, but wouldn’t this would be a truer comparison of Canon pixels versus Hasselblad pixels?

Thanks for pointing out the spammers. I have removed those comments.

To answer your first question, the cost of cameras and the quality has absolutely nothing to do with the fee you should be paid for usage of the image you create. You can buy a pinhole camera kit for around $20 bucks and take a decent photograph on 35mm film. A scan costs about $5 bucks and you have a digital sellable image for way less than any DSLR. Does that mean you should sell it for $.25? No, what gives that image it’s value is the partly the subject matter and partly the perceived value. The quality of the image (or what camera it was shot with) has very little to do with it.

For example, Terry Richardson (http://www.terryrichardson.com/). He shoots mainly with film point & shoot cameras with on camera flash. Yet, he’s an incredibly famous and sought after photographer. If Terry started selling his images on a Microstock site, that would devalue his credibility and thus devalue the fee he commands.

My point is, as a photographer (of any level), you have to be mindful of the company you keep. Placing your images on a microstock site will never get you credibility with any serious art buyers or photo editors. You sell your images cheap, then you’ll always be cheap.

Also, why would you want to let a Microstock profit off your learning experience? Your spending time and money to build a library of images and all they do is collect money off it. That’s just a terrible disrespect to your self. Do you not value yourself at all as a person?

Besides, the microstock business model probably won’t be able to sustain itself in a few years. Read more about it on John Harrington’s blog http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2008/04/not-so-luckyoliver-shuttering.html

Thanks for commenting!

Lincoln

I liked your article particularly as you acknowledge it’s your opinion. I personally am new to the stock photo industry and while I often struggle to see things from the perspective of people such as yourself, I realise that it’s important to understand both sides of any debate and to at least try to see how things look when standing in the shoes of people with a different background to your own. For this reason, I’d like to offer some friendly but challenging questions. I’m interested in broadening my understand more than I am in changing your mind or proving you wrong, so please take my questions in that context.

Don’t you think that digital photography, having put high-res and high “auto everything” quality images within reach of anyone with just $1000 to spend on a DSLR camera and lens (ok, maybe a little more than that), don’t you think that’s lowered what is “fair value” for a stock photo, at least at the lower quality levels? Naturally hobbyists will never compete with established professional stock photographers with top quality equipment and professional well-staffed shoots. But at least at the microstock level of quality, it seems the value of an image came down before the price did. What are your thoughts on that?

And microstock has obviously brought in a massive quantity of new buyers who previously couldn’t afford stock photos at macrostock prices. Small businesses, charities and bloggers are the most often cited examples. It’s a fair assumption that some organisations who previously did buy macrostock are now buying microstock, but it seems like a separate sub-market where low-budget stock photo producers (hobbyists and pro-microstockers) are supplying low-budget buyers. And the buyers who’ve migrated from macrostock to microstock obviously didn’t need either the quality or Rights Managed / exclusivity options offered by macrostock anyway. At risk of grossly over-simplifying this otherwise long question, there’s obviously buyers for microstock, who without the supply of microstock contributors would be without a market.

…just in case it didn’t come through, I’m aware that there will always be large clients willing to pay high prices for top quality stock with Rights Managed licenses, and indeed top quality stock photographers to supply them.

In response to Steve’s comment above, I’m seeing lots of people using microstock as their starting place and/or learning ground. Indeed many macrostock agencies actively campaign microstock contributors wanting them to contribute. Many microstock contributors are often inundated with requests for contract work and other offers. And many are taking them up on their offers. Most of the top photographers in the microstock market now also have photos in Getty, Corbis and Jupiter. Let me know if you’d like me to show you examples.

Finally Lincoln, the comments above from Daniel and Egor are spam. Placing the article title in the comment is easily automated and if you check their links you’ll see they’re not ‘on topic’. Hope that helps.

Again, I hope I haven’t upset you with my questions, but I’m interested in your opinions and I’ll be happy if you can show me some holes in my argument or show me a view I haven’t seen.

Respectfully,
Lee.

But when it comes to quality we all know that beside the obvious personal talent as a photographer is a must as no great gear makes a great photographer, but in deed great gear makes a great photographer, well … greater!

I’m familiar only with Canon, and have owned and used extensively the 5D, 1D IIn and the new 1D III, I only have “L” series lenses, and use mostly Primes.

Now in the market for a new camera, to be the 1Ds III or the H3D II.

I believe that each camera should work better with the lenses which were created for it, but there are obviously exceptions, they always are.

I think that for me there will be no other alternative before I make this next Photo gear purchase, but to rent out both the Canon 1Ds III and the Hassie H3D II with comparable lenses, shoot away on the same subjects and exact lighting, and see the results at full res on each camera, and each file processed first on the same application, and secondly process the Hasselblad image on the proprietary Fhocus, which claims wonders.

Thanks again for the post.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI

A new blog with some useful advice for Professional Photographers both young and old. Great resource for newbies in the commercial photography world….

You know, I totally agree with you. Pixel to pixel, the two cameras compete. But with the H3Dii, you get 27 more MP of info. That’s what I was trying to ge across originally. When I have the time, I’ll post upsampled 5D crops of the comparrisons.

Thanks for your feedback!

-lincoln

Why would people shoot the HD3ii? Most likely because they need 39.1 megapixels for unmatched detail in large prints, not because they want to make a nice image and size it down to 12.6 megapixels.

HD3ii looks great obviously. 5D is great too. Side by side… apples and oranges.