Author Topic: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month (Read 20151 times)

seawhisper · « **Reply #50 on:** January 27, 2011, 16:38 »

Quote from: bobkeenan on January 27, 2011, 14:16

Quote from: seawhisper on January 25, 2011, 14:07

I don't know how I missed it but here is a great site on the net called Microstock Diaries. He publishes his monthly earnings so you can see the portfolio quantity vs sales.

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/tag/earnings-reports

That's an interesting website. Thanks!

As for the other subjects in this thread I think they're quite interesting too. It's nice to know others do share my own thoughts / fears etc.

I mean how many photos does the stock site need to not be in need of a new photos at all? I billion? 10? Maybe 100 and then you can tell most of their contributors bye, bye...
I wish stock sited did show some statistics on acceptance ratio / new submissions and so on, maybe the microstocks trend is about to go down, since many obviously cut the revenues.

stockastic · « **Reply #51 on:** January 27, 2011, 17:35 »

I started doing microstock thinking I'd learn more about photography, and for a while I did, but after that I was really just learning about IStock, and what I learned was that it's pretty much a waste of time in the end.

In my thinking it comes down to 2 main points:

1. To make serious money, you probably need connections on the buying side, to learn what buyers really want and will pay for. You're unlikely to really figure that out by looking at 'top seller' pages. Most of those pages don't show current sellers anyway.

2. Like many other businesses, stock photography is moving to parts of the world where the cost of living is much lower. IS and the rest can continue cutting commissions until they reach a point where even photographers in Eastern Europe, or China, start to give up.

Artemis · « **Reply #52 on:** January 27, 2011, 18:10 »

Hmm, all this doom and gloom about new peeps not being able to make it anymore, it might also depend on what your expectations are when joining MS. I registered end 2008 and started actively submitting halfway 2009 with the typical 'its there on my HD, might as well make a couple of bucks with it' attitude. But i was really surprised about how much money one actually can make with it, really exceeding my expectations. I'm a mediocre photographer with a small port, but my 204 pics on istock alone makes well over $300/month. All agencies together get me a very nice 2nd income. It's not enough to live from, but more than i ever dreamed when joining and well payed considered how i can shoot more or less what i want when i want, and definitely because the $$'s keep coming while doing nothing for a couple of weeks... in my humble point of view i made it, and more, in MS, but i started with low expectations and never expected to live from it. (i just cant live with the feeling of constantly getting screwed over).

Apart from the vested pro's with well established portfolio's the future of MS might lie in the neverending stream of hobbyists, i still think they might find the return a nice surprise.

stockastic · « **Reply #53 on:** January 27, 2011, 18:28 »

Sounds great, Artemis - of course we'd all love to know what's in those 204 pics :-)

I'm also pleased with what some of my photos make, my difficulty is in coming up with a much higher percentage of 'hits' in terms of subject matter.

My doom and gloom is based not so much on my experience of the last 2 years - which actually exceeded my expectations - but on the perception that the business is in free fall, with commissions to be cut further, giveaway collections to be expanded, subscriptions to be pushed harder, rejections to increase, and in general, my returns to decline even as the quality of my submissions improves.

Artemis · « **Reply #54 on:** January 27, 2011, 19:08 »

Quote from: stockastic on January 27, 2011, 18:28

My doom and gloom is based not so much on my experience of the last 2 years - which actually exceeded my expectations - but on the perception that the business is in free fall, with commissions to be cut further, giveaway collections to be expanded, subscriptions to be pushed harder, rejections to increase .......

That, i fully agree with... we're getting screwed, and screwed and screwed by the agencies because we're so powerless and i'm equally fed up with it (so i'm exploring macro options). I hope my post didnt come across as braggy, it really wasnt my intention; as said, i'm sure a lot of peeps do much, much better. But i still think for people with not too high expectations MS still can be a rewarding experience

(Sorry btw for not posting my links; i got a bit bitter about certain agencies and thought it was wiser to remove them; PM'ed ya)

stockastic · « **Reply #55 on:** January 27, 2011, 19:37 »

I could actually deal with being screwed, if I were being screwed in a stable, predictable way. The concept I can't handle is that I'm probably just going to get screwed worse, and in new and different ways, as time goes on.

I replied to your PM.

Artemis · « **Reply #56 on:** January 27, 2011, 20:01 »

Yep... thats the only part that's predictable: we're going to get screwed worse...

basti · « **Reply #57 on:** January 28, 2011, 07:16 »

Yuri in his last Interview (John Lund web or so) mentioned some changes are necessary in micro. I have my personal thing I call "microstock dilema":

First problem is micro demands higher and higher quality, second they cut commisions every year (at least one or two agencies - 2011 just started and FT and IS already did!) and third, they require more and more pro pictures requiring pricy locations, models or studio setups or very niche pictures.
The problem is, the tight niche pics do not sell like hotcakes and despite being cheap, they will never cover the costs. The "real stock photos" or simly great pictures refered by some in this thread often require so pricy setup, retouching etc. they will never make it either. Plus add the fact that guys from China or India do not give a * about copyright and can copy your superb pictures within days for 10% of your costs. This is going to dead end. Im also very curious how will microstock sites solve this but unless they do serious changes, this problem will be bigger every day! We are not in 2005-2006 - the market isnt the same nowadays and what worked in 2005 doesnt work anymore.

stockastic · « **Reply #58 on:** January 28, 2011, 16:01 »

Quote from: basti on January 28, 2011, 07:16

Yuri in his last Interview (John Lund web or so) mentioned some changes are necessary in micro. I have my personal thing I call "microstock dilema":

...

The problem is, the tight niche pics do not sell like hotcakes and despite being cheap, they will never cover the costs. The "real stock photos" or simly great pictures refered by some in this thread often require so pricy setup, retouching etc. they will never make it either.

That's exactly where I ended up, and I've quit producing those images. So basically the microstocks are losing a part of the market, and leaving money on the table, because of simplistic pricing.

If the big micros can't change, then you'd think that 'niche' images would start migrating to agencies with flexible pricing, like GL or CC. However I'm not seeing those agencies getting any traction yet.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month (Read 20151 times)

seawhisper

stockastic

Artemis

stockastic

Artemis

stockastic

Artemis

basti

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors