Comments on: Do One-Dollar Stock Photos Really Exist?

By: Scott Webb | Nuwomb

Scott Webb | Nuwomb — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:14:47 +0000

This is just like hosting websites saying it costs $4.95 per month for hosting your websites but in reality that's only the price if you pre-pay for 3 years of service up front. If not, the actual cost is $9.95 or something.

It's all about persuasion and copywriting to draw us in. Those prices are possible if you're willing to buy more or commit to longer periods.

I wish it was more upfront but they have to try and get your attention some how

By: Dollar valuta

Dollar valuta — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:59:56 +0000

For one US dollar you get approx 7.20 swedish krona. That's alot of swedish money. A couple of years ago you got 10.50 swedish kronors for 1 dollar. So swedes find it cheap to shop in the states.

By: mystockphoto

mystockphoto — Thu, 06 May 2010 12:09:43 +0000

Hi Jim,
to complete your price comparison I want to point out an exhaustive table price (credit based) published on January by Tyler Olson on Microstockgroup Blog; some prices probably are changed but the overview is useful.

http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-in-technicolor-a-comparison-of-image-prices-and-sizing/

Then, just to give readers an idea, my average microstock commission per photo this year is about 1$ considering both subscriptions and credits...
Cheers,
Roberto

By: Beth Winn

Beth Winn — Wed, 05 May 2010 17:43:32 +0000

You make a good point that so-called "stock" and so-called "microstock" are seeming more and more similar these days. Would you rather make $8 from iStock or $8 from Corbis -- does it really matter what you call it?

By: Tobin Rogers

Tobin Rogers — Wed, 05 May 2010 07:53:32 +0000

Really?! $1 or $7, if an image can be purchased for $1 or 1 credit then the numbers are right. When I say one could go to IStock and purchase for a buck, or go license a traditional RM image elsewhere, it is true that one can go to numerous places out there and do just that. I'm not for or against microstock, but I think the point is that $1 or $7, it's nearly giving away the images in comparison to traditional RM. When we want to sell something or prove a point, we generally go to the far end of the spectrum to do so. $1 may be the low end, but it isn't untrue.

By: Per Karlsson, BKWine

Per Karlsson, BKWine — Wed, 05 May 2010 07:34:27 +0000

Yes, $1 is not the same as $1.52 or $3.42.

But does that make any change, any change at all, to the arguments that various photographers have about microstock?

Or is it just hairsplitting to create a blog post?

Can't quite see the point of the post.