The price of stock photography has gone down quite a bit in the last 15 years or so, but it's still high enough to raise eyebrows at most small business and organizations. A single photo, such as this one from Getty Images, runs about $300. If that's in your budget, great. It means you're getting a guaranteed top-notch image from a professional photographer. But when $300 for one image is a little steep, microstock photography is a great alternative. This very similar photo from istockphoto.com, which I used for a package of conference registration materials, cost about $5.

What's the difference? In this case, and to my eye, not much. A professional photographer would probably tell you the first photo is better artistically, which might be important to you if you're creating a piece of artwork and not just a conference flyer. Also, the idea behind microstock photography is to let photographers make their money on volume, so if you're worried about seeing "your" photo somewhere else, it might be worth the extra money for a traditional stock photography image. Of course, even a $300 image isn't going to guarantee you exclusivity—it just means not as many people will use it, since they each have to cough up $300. If you're doing a high-end advertising campaign where you really need exclusivity, you should be hiring your own photographer anyway, or buying much more expensive rights-managed images.

For most of my clients, using microstock photography is really a no-brainer. And enough people feel that way that the traditional stock agencies are sitting up and taking notice. Last February, Getty Images bought istockphoto.com, the first microstock photo agency, for $50 million.