I have been 90% in stock since 1974 and license more than 4000 images a year for no less than $175 for one time use. I do not do web use for images. My highest sale was for $12,000. I do not sell $1. I am with over 20 major stock agencies and only sell rights managed images and do not waste my time selling photos for a dollar and think anyone that does really needs to study Business 101. You are being ripped off big-time... It's only 9:30 am todays intake on my end is already $3614.00 from sales on my site and 4 other agents that do provide online stats. I do a high 6 figure net income and am always looking for more outlets to sell. I have 2 full time employees and when not shooting stock I am shooting for corporations around the world. I have over 200,000(unique-not 1000 of the same shot :-) sellable images on file and adding more every day.
eyedo
So, Itsme, you must be hoping that Smugmug will offer rights-managed stock sales, instead of, OR in addition to, royalty-free stock sales.
Shooting mostly just landscapes and nature, I definitely don't see myself ever making as much money at stock as you do, even if I had 200,000 decent images online. BUT, I wonder if the world of rights-managed stock might be at least a little nicer to us landscape photographers than royalty-free stock? If so, and if smugmug is taking so long BECAUSE they are going to include rights management, then maybe I will be able to put some traffic back into my nature galleries. Haven't made a dime off any of it in years, it seems...
Keith, check out the previous postings by "Itsme" earlier in this thread. Apparently he is a professional stock photographer and is quite established; has been making a living at this for years...
I would love to see that guy's stock portfolio!
=Matt=
Same here. Would love to see Itsme's stock portfolio as well...
I don't think so
Well, maybe (itsme) just hasn't been back to this post to see the enthusiasm from some of his / her fellow Dgrin members to see his portfolio or, maybe he does not like the idea of other photographers around here seeing his work. Most likely, with the kind of income he's claiming his work generates... he's too busy! :-)
Anyway, it was nice of him to take the time to post in this forum and show other photographers that there are places for money to be made that does not necessarily involve micro stock agencies. Maybe seeing the kind of work Itsme is putting out will give the newer photographers inspiration to "keep going".
Markjay
Canon AE1 - it was my first "real camera"
Canon 20D - no more film!
Rights managed is the only way to go. You spend a lot of time and money on your photography there is no reason why you should not reap the financial benefits.
So, Itsme, you must be hoping that Smugmug will offer rights-managed stock sales, instead of, OR in addition to, royalty-free stock sales.
Shooting mostly just landscapes and nature, I definitely don't see myself ever making as much money at stock as you do, even if I had 200,000 decent images online. BUT, I wonder if the world of rights-managed stock might be at least a little nicer to us landscape photographers than royalty-free stock? If so, and if smugmug is taking so long BECAUSE they are going to include rights management, then maybe I will be able to put some traffic back into my nature galleries. Haven't made a dime off any of it in years, it seems...
Another good site to sell your work
Check out PhotographersDirect.com You get good money for your work and you deal directly with the buyer.
They also have good search options.
Photographers Direct is a good option for no cash outlay/commission plan, buyers come with specific requests. Or you can do their 400 bucks a year plan, where they take no commission and you can have an online port.
FWIW, I've responded to 2 requests, neither sold, but the images are rated/remain online. A catalog company browsed one of them and bought it through PD for $850, and PD got their 20%.
I'm a rights-managed girl on my specialities, but the more common/landscape stuff I think I'm going to sell through Gum Gum.
FWIW, I've responded to 2 requests, neither sold, but the images are rated/remain online. A catalog company browsed one of them and bought it through PD for $850, and PD got their 20%.
WTG! Nice!
I'm a rights-managed girl on my specialities, but the more common/landscape stuff I think I'm going to sell through Gum Gum.
You mean www.gumgum.com? Does it really make sense to get paid $0.2 per 1,000 clicks? It feels almost like nano-stock, pardon the pun..:-)
I am probably missing something here, can you elaborate on this one, please?
You mean www.gumgum.com? Does it really make sense to get paid $0.2 per 1,000 clicks? It feels almost like nano-stock, pardon the pun..:-)
I am probably missing something here, can you elaborate on this one, please?
It shows the image as a flash movie (no jpg's, can't steal it, etc..) and, you can set ANY CPM price you want. $100 CPM? No problem. 0.01? That's ok too.
Actually, looks almost cool..
One down side.. Can't opt-out of the ad-supported version (which doesn't guarantee CPM rates....)
It shows the image as a flash movie (no jpg's, can't steal it, etc..) and, you can set ANY CPM price you want. $100 CPM? No problem. 0.01? That's ok too.
Actually, looks almost cool..
One down side.. Can't opt-out of the ad-supported version (which doesn't guarantee CPM rates....)
David
David, I got the flash idea, and yes it is cool.
My question was purely ROI. If it's generally accepted for that site to charge around $.01 per 1K impressions, charging $100 hardly would give you any takers. So apparently, people use these super low prices, and I was just wondering if it is actually feasible to operate at those rates.
"What's interesting about the state of the photo industry today is that the Prisoner's Dilemma game is going to be put to the test once again with the emergence of user-specified pricing within the microstock arena. We are already seeing this take place in a few companies, such as Fotolia and Lucky Oliver. Traditionally, microstocks have had stable pricing structures of around $1/image (with higher rates for larger sizes). Some sites are beginning to experiment with user-specified pricing—Lucky Oliver and Fotolia let user's extend their prices from $1 up to $100.
While this will certainly present an interesting application of the PD game, there is an even more forceful player coming into the market, if not by sheer size and image base, but because they are are migrating from being a social-networking photo-sharing site, to be being a stock licensing site. Recently, smugmug has alerted their contributor-base that they are within "weeks" of turning on a new feature that will allow licensing of photos. While smugmug has been solely a photo-sharing site for years—and a profitable one at that—it was only in the last year that sufficient push from their membership convinced them to allow them to sell/license their photos. (They had always been able to sell their photos as prints to anyone that wants to buy them.)
In smugmug's new system, photographers will designate those galleries whose images are available for licensing. While the details are still unknown, one aspect of their pricing scheme is that photographers can set their own prices for their works entirely independently of what anyone else does. And, unlike microstock sites that sell everything at a default value, with some collars set on what the user can do, smugmug will have absolutely no bounds whatsoever.
At least, that's the plan for now. The question is, how long will this last before the PD phenomenon kicks in, and pricing is reduced to bare minimums once again, forcing the company to reign in their policies and impose some sort of structure. To illustrate how and why they may have to do this, understand that each player (photographer) has no idea what's really going on in the aggregate sales. That is, the "unknown" element here isn't what another photographer sets his prices at, it's whether he's actually making any sales at that price. It'll be very a difficult psychological challenge for a large set of photographers to price their images at $100 or more, when they see even a small set of photographers with comparatively similar images price theirs at $1, or even less. (Say, $.99 :-)"
So, Itsme, you must be hoping that Smugmug will offer rights-managed stock sales, instead of, OR in addition to, royalty-free stock sales.
Shooting mostly just landscapes and nature, I definitely don't see myself ever making as much money at stock as you do, even if I had 200,000 decent images online. BUT, I wonder if the world of rights-managed stock might be at least a little nicer to us landscape photographers than royalty-free stock? If so, and if smugmug is taking so long BECAUSE they are going to include rights management, then maybe I will be able to put some traffic back into my nature galleries. Haven't made a dime off any of it in years, it seems...
=Matt=
same here: The idea of cheapo stock just depresses me:cry
I hope SM works for value added stock not the other way i.e. value ... a few cents.. I can't enjoy photography with the idea that agood shot is worth so little.. I understand millions of those make good money, but I just am not a motordrive kinda guy..
I know I know - it works for some people but IMO those agencies already exist and do what tey do - please letsd not replicate -in fact some of them say certain subjects are saturated already..
FYI. I read on another photo site that a photo was purchased for Time Magazine and made the cover. Because it was purchased on a microsite the photographer (now remember the photo made the cover) made a whopping ....$28 bucks! A very good reason to not down sell your work on a mirco site. Sell your stock photos through Photoshelter, Digital Railroad or Alamay you'll make waaaay more well deserved money and have a choice of Rights Managed or Royalty Free. FYI, with RM you the photographer have a much bigger say in the pricing.
same here: The idea of cheapo stock just depresses me:cry
I hope SM works for value added stock not the other way i.e. value ... a few cents.. I can't enjoy photography with the idea that agood shot is worth so little.. I understand millions of those make good money, but I just am not a motordrive kinda guy..
I know I know - it works for some people but IMO those agencies already exist and do what tey do - please letsd not replicate -in fact some of them say certain subjects are saturated already..
Just been reading Alamy forums - whoa - no wonder it's taking SM time to figure this one out
Just on the point of QC for example.. a point was made that if the agency sells a pic that looks oK at the comp stage and a hurried buyer assmumes IQ must be OK because it was accepted by the agency then goes aherad does the whole project only to find out ttoo late that the IQ wasn't up to scratch they not only have to re do their project (e.g. reprpare a book) but they lose all confidence immediately in that agency, not just the photog
Well, maybe (itsme) just hasn't been back to this post to see the enthusiasm from some of his / her fellow Dgrin members to see his portfolio or, maybe he does not like the idea of other photographers around here seeing his work. Most likely, with the kind of income he's claiming his work generates... he's too busy! :-)
Anyway, it was nice of him to take the time to post in this forum and show other photographers that there are places for money to be made that does not necessarily involve micro stock agencies. Maybe seeing the kind of work Itsme is putting out will give the newer photographers inspiration to "keep going".
Not trying to start trouble, but go to itsme profile and look at his posts, he contradicts himself in many of the posts. FWIW.
another point to consider in the comments section on this article here:
"I am curious about the legal and trademark checks done at PhotoShelter—or is this issue left solely in the hands of photographers? In three quick searches I found dozens of images that should not be sold as stock as they infringe on legal trademarks.
iStock reviews each image submiited by hand, and our 90 worldwide inspectors are responsible for intimate knowledge of the rules of several countries."
Wow,
So I did a few searches on photoshelter, and watched their front page slide show.
They seem to also be offering editorial stock as well, however these are mixed in the searches with the rest of the images with a disclaimer of not having an MR. That however does not help the image with no disclaimer for the copyrighted logos that are present in many of the images. There are also images of nobodies (normal non-clebs) with out MR's what the heck is the point?
Also, sorry, one other point, somewhere the Photoshelter folks mention that they believe photography is art not a commodity (yet they are selling it?)and that it should be marketed as such. That they are providing a place for "fresh" images of a higher quality than that which you will find at iStock.
If that is the case then they either need a QC department or they need to fire the one they have. It seems as though they are offering implied better quality via higher prices.
This would be the same for any company offering no restrictions on who they allow to be a contributer and no restrictions on what those contributers can then try to sell at an inflated price.
I know the feeling here is that the micro-stock industry is an evil thing and I wont try to talk you out of that, but there is a market for it and people are making money with it.
I subscribe to a cool podcast from lenswork magazine, it's the editor of the magazine I believe with a brief observation or tid-bit each week. A while back he discussed "gallery pricing" the point of the thought was if the artist needed to put food on the table with the sale of the art as apposed to just selling it would it affect the cost?
Also heard an interview with another photographer that posed this question,
what do you want? to sell one image for a thousand dollars or a thousand images for one dollar? Obviously perfectly reasonable answers on both sides of that question.
anyway I contribute to iStock and am very happy with my experience there.
-Keith
I'm pretty optimistic that SM won't go the iStock route but there are a LOT of iStock type stuff on SM, so it must be a difficult one to decide, either way is there room in the market for another iStock?
I'm pretty optimistic that SM won't go the iStock route but there are a LOT of iStock type stuff on SM, so it must be a difficult one to decide, either way is there room in the market for another iStock?
Where to pitch it must be a real headache
iStock type stuff? meaning product or infrastructure?
Is there room? that's a tough one, I would say that in any given market there is always room for someone to do it better. there are between 6 or 10 out there that are of the same mold that seem to be making a good go of it.
As I mentioned before and was touched on in that quote, I would say the biggest area for a mistake would be the QC, I personally think that to allow a contributer to "dump" there portfolios into a search would not provide a quality product to a potential buyer. Not just in the IQ area but the relevance area and proper keywording area.
Where and how a headache no doubt.
Most stock agencies offer a choice of RF or RM. The reason being that if a buyer purchased a photographers photo on one site as RM and then sees that same photo for sale as RF on another site they will be upset for having paid more when it is selling less somewhere else. It doesn't do much for the photographers credibility nor the stock agency's.
I assume this will be for royalty free images, not rights managed quotes? For the future, it might be worth thinking about linking in with something like fotoquote to offer rights managed quotes. I know, one step at a time. Give them an inch ....
And since you've requested input ...
I'm not sure I see the value of the "popular" photos if its dependent only on the photographer's networking skills within smugmug. I could list several world class photographers who currently use Smugmug but never show up on the popular photos because they are too busy capturing great images. I assume the "popular photo ranking system" is a method to quickly put some quality images on the front page but I wonder if there might be a better method for ensuring a good showcase upfront on your stock portal. For instance, thinking off the top of my head, photographers could submit images anonymously to a stock ranking system through dgrin where members could vote. This would retain the community aspects of Smugmug while perhaps providing a more representative outcome of relative quality. Clear as mud? ;-)
Article says ..."Photographers receive 30 percent to 40 percent of the licensing fee if the customer's rights to use the image are limited in scope or time, or 20 percent if the image may be used with fewer restrictions."...
By my calculations that means the shooter gets just less than $6 for lowest-quoted scenario of $29!
Comments anyone?
(Where I come from the AGENT used to get 25 - 30 percent!)
Article says ..."Photographers receive 30 percent to 40 percent of the licensing fee if the customer's rights to use the image are limited in scope or time, or 20 percent if the image may be used with fewer restrictions."...
By my calculations that means the shooter gets just less than $6 for lowest-quoted scenario of $29!
Comments anyone?
(Where I come from the AGENT used to get 25 - 30 percent!)
Just curious - how well do you do over there at Photoshelter, Cate? It looks like they accept a wider variety of photos than some other stock sites I've seen.
I do well. You have to have patience but it is a fantastic place to get your feet wet in the stock photography business. The forum like this one is great and hosted by very experienced professional stocks photographers who will help you get started. It's free to join. Can't hurt to give a try.
Just curious - how well do you do over there at Photoshelter, Cate? It looks like they accept a wider variety of photos than some other stock sites I've seen.
Thanks. I'm already on istockphoto and I do "ok" there, given the time and effort I put into it (which is not much). Part of the reason I don't do a lot with istockphoto is because they tend to turn down submissions for way too many reasons. I see that photoshelter allows more unconventional photos that most stock sites would have turned down. Has that been your experience?
I don't think they turn down submissions for way too many reasons.
Cate you have been with photoshelter for 5 months, could you elaborate on "I do well."
I have been with iStock for @ 10 months I'm just over $1000 most DL's coming on less than 20 images (I have plenty that don't sell)
At 5 months I was closing my accounts at other sites to go exclusive with iStock, I'm guessing I was around $400 with most DL's coming on less than 10 images.
Just curious if hard numbers would help, you have great work (Cate) and if your numbers are cranking honestly I'd like to know. If you don't want to divulge that's fine too, but resist embellishing. Not that you would I'm just genuinely interested, so please don't be offended.
With Getty dealing with Flickr and some insulting remarks flying from the getty higher-ups towards one of their revenue machines (iStock). The industry is continually evolving and we (the cassual/semi-pro or whatever we title ourselves) need to be, and remain aware. It is our product that is generating the revenue, and no matter what any of them tout in their blogs, it's their wallet that they are concerned about.
Comments
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Shooting mostly just landscapes and nature, I definitely don't see myself ever making as much money at stock as you do, even if I had 200,000 decent images online. BUT, I wonder if the world of rights-managed stock might be at least a little nicer to us landscape photographers than royalty-free stock? If so, and if smugmug is taking so long BECAUSE they are going to include rights management, then maybe I will be able to put some traffic back into my nature galleries. Haven't made a dime off any of it in years, it seems...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Same here. Would love to see Itsme's stock portfolio as well...
www.marcoglasbergen.nl
Well, maybe (itsme) just hasn't been back to this post to see the enthusiasm from some of his / her fellow Dgrin members to see his portfolio or, maybe he does not like the idea of other photographers around here seeing his work. Most likely, with the kind of income he's claiming his work generates... he's too busy! :-)
Anyway, it was nice of him to take the time to post in this forum and show other photographers that there are places for money to be made that does not necessarily involve micro stock agencies. Maybe seeing the kind of work Itsme is putting out will give the newer photographers inspiration to "keep going".
Canon AE1 - it was my first "real camera"
Canon 20D - no more film!
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Check out PhotographersDirect.com You get good money for your work and you deal directly with the buyer.
They also have good search options.
My site m-astudio.com
FWIW, I've responded to 2 requests, neither sold, but the images are rated/remain online. A catalog company browsed one of them and bought it through PD for $850, and PD got their 20%.
I'm a rights-managed girl on my specialities, but the more common/landscape stuff I think I'm going to sell through Gum Gum.
Galleries here Upcoming Ranch/Horse Workshop
You mean www.gumgum.com? Does it really make sense to get paid $0.2 per 1,000 clicks? It feels almost like nano-stock, pardon the pun..:-)
I am probably missing something here, can you elaborate on this one, please?
It shows the image as a flash movie (no jpg's, can't steal it, etc..) and, you can set ANY CPM price you want. $100 CPM? No problem. 0.01? That's ok too.
Actually, looks almost cool..
One down side.. Can't opt-out of the ad-supported version (which doesn't guarantee CPM rates....)
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
David, I got the flash idea, and yes it is cool.
My question was purely ROI. If it's generally accepted for that site to charge around $.01 per 1K impressions, charging $100 hardly would give you any takers. So apparently, people use these super low prices, and I was just wondering if it is actually feasible to operate at those rates.
have you guys seen this already?
http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/photographers-dilemma-cooperate-or-not.html
Excerpt:
"What's interesting about the state of the photo industry today is that the Prisoner's Dilemma game is going to be put to the test once again with the emergence of user-specified pricing within the microstock arena. We are already seeing this take place in a few companies, such as Fotolia and Lucky Oliver. Traditionally, microstocks have had stable pricing structures of around $1/image (with higher rates for larger sizes). Some sites are beginning to experiment with user-specified pricing—Lucky Oliver and Fotolia let user's extend their prices from $1 up to $100.
While this will certainly present an interesting application of the PD game, there is an even more forceful player coming into the market, if not by sheer size and image base, but because they are are migrating from being a social-networking photo-sharing site, to be being a stock licensing site. Recently, smugmug has alerted their contributor-base that they are within "weeks" of turning on a new feature that will allow licensing of photos. While smugmug has been solely a photo-sharing site for years—and a profitable one at that—it was only in the last year that sufficient push from their membership convinced them to allow them to sell/license their photos. (They had always been able to sell their photos as prints to anyone that wants to buy them.)
In smugmug's new system, photographers will designate those galleries whose images are available for licensing. While the details are still unknown, one aspect of their pricing scheme is that photographers can set their own prices for their works entirely independently of what anyone else does. And, unlike microstock sites that sell everything at a default value, with some collars set on what the user can do, smugmug will have absolutely no bounds whatsoever.
At least, that's the plan for now. The question is, how long will this last before the PD phenomenon kicks in, and pricing is reduced to bare minimums once again, forcing the company to reign in their policies and impose some sort of structure. To illustrate how and why they may have to do this, understand that each player (photographer) has no idea what's really going on in the aggregate sales. That is, the "unknown" element here isn't what another photographer sets his prices at, it's whether he's actually making any sales at that price. It'll be very a difficult psychological challenge for a large set of photographers to price their images at $100 or more, when they see even a small set of photographers with comparatively similar images price theirs at $1, or even less. (Say, $.99 :-)"
...pics..
same here: The idea of cheapo stock just depresses me:cry
I hope SM works for value added stock not the other way i.e. value ... a few cents.. I can't enjoy photography with the idea that agood shot is worth so little.. I understand millions of those make good money, but I just am not a motordrive kinda guy..
I know I know - it works for some people but IMO those agencies already exist and do what tey do - please letsd not replicate -in fact some of them say certain subjects are saturated already..
...pics..
My 2 cents or 28 bucks.
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Cate,
Thanks for the tip a few days ago about photographer controlled pricing on Photoshelter. I signed up just to test the water and am happy so far.
I agree that microstock is not a good thing.
Justus Photography
www.lindasherrill.com
Regards,
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Just on the point of QC for example.. a point was made that if the agency sells a pic that looks oK at the comp stage and a hurried buyer assmumes IQ must be OK because it was accepted by the agency then goes aherad does the whole project only to find out ttoo late that the IQ wasn't up to scratch they not only have to re do their project (e.g. reprpare a book) but they lose all confidence immediately in that agency, not just the photog
...pics..
"I am curious about the legal and trademark checks done at PhotoShelter—or is this issue left solely in the hands of photographers? In three quick searches I found dozens of images that should not be sold as stock as they infringe on legal trademarks.
iStock reviews each image submiited by hand, and our 90 worldwide inspectors are responsible for intimate knowledge of the rules of several countries."
...pics..
So I did a few searches on photoshelter, and watched their front page slide show.
They seem to also be offering editorial stock as well, however these are mixed in the searches with the rest of the images with a disclaimer of not having an MR. That however does not help the image with no disclaimer for the copyrighted logos that are present in many of the images. There are also images of nobodies (normal non-clebs) with out MR's what the heck is the point?
Also, sorry, one other point, somewhere the Photoshelter folks mention that they believe photography is art not a commodity (yet they are selling it?)and that it should be marketed as such. That they are providing a place for "fresh" images of a higher quality than that which you will find at iStock.
If that is the case then they either need a QC department or they need to fire the one they have. It seems as though they are offering implied better quality via higher prices.
This would be the same for any company offering no restrictions on who they allow to be a contributer and no restrictions on what those contributers can then try to sell at an inflated price.
I know the feeling here is that the micro-stock industry is an evil thing and I wont try to talk you out of that, but there is a market for it and people are making money with it.
I subscribe to a cool podcast from lenswork magazine, it's the editor of the magazine I believe with a brief observation or tid-bit each week. A while back he discussed "gallery pricing" the point of the thought was if the artist needed to put food on the table with the sale of the art as apposed to just selling it would it affect the cost?
Also heard an interview with another photographer that posed this question,
what do you want? to sell one image for a thousand dollars or a thousand images for one dollar? Obviously perfectly reasonable answers on both sides of that question.
anyway I contribute to iStock and am very happy with my experience there.
-Keith
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Where to pitch it must be a real headache
...pics..
iStock type stuff? meaning product or infrastructure?
Is there room? that's a tough one, I would say that in any given market there is always room for someone to do it better. there are between 6 or 10 out there that are of the same mold that seem to be making a good go of it.
As I mentioned before and was touched on in that quote, I would say the biggest area for a mistake would be the QC, I personally think that to allow a contributer to "dump" there portfolios into a search would not provide a quality product to a potential buyer. Not just in the IQ area but the relevance area and proper keywording area.
Where and how a headache no doubt.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
...pics..
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Here's the article in the Seattle P-I.
initialphotography.smugmug.com
"The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera" - Dorothea Lange
Help out an old guy:
Article says ..."Photographers receive 30 percent to 40 percent of the licensing fee if the customer's rights to use the image are limited in scope or time, or 20 percent if the image may be used with fewer restrictions."...
By my calculations that means the shooter gets just less than $6 for lowest-quoted scenario of $29!
Comments anyone?
(Where I come from the AGENT used to get 25 - 30 percent!)
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Just curious - how well do you do over there at Photoshelter, Cate? It looks like they accept a wider variety of photos than some other stock sites I've seen.
Thanks
www.photobycate.com
http://photobycate.wordpress.com/
Cate you have been with photoshelter for 5 months, could you elaborate on "I do well."
I have been with iStock for @ 10 months I'm just over $1000 most DL's coming on less than 20 images (I have plenty that don't sell)
At 5 months I was closing my accounts at other sites to go exclusive with iStock, I'm guessing I was around $400 with most DL's coming on less than 10 images.
Just curious if hard numbers would help, you have great work (Cate) and if your numbers are cranking honestly I'd like to know. If you don't want to divulge that's fine too, but resist embellishing. Not that you would I'm just genuinely interested, so please don't be offended.
With Getty dealing with Flickr and some insulting remarks flying from the getty higher-ups towards one of their revenue machines (iStock). The industry is continually evolving and we (the cassual/semi-pro or whatever we title ourselves) need to be, and remain aware. It is our product that is generating the revenue, and no matter what any of them tout in their blogs, it's their wallet that they are concerned about.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo