MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: seawhisper on January 25, 2011, 14:07

Title: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: seawhisper on January 25, 2011, 14:07
I was wondering how many photos (statistically) one needs to have $300 a month.
Now mind you (before you start lecturing me that the numbers are not important, but the subject is ;)) I do understand that some photos sell better some sell worse and there is also good time for a specific photos and bad time for them.

It's just a statistical wondering - maybe you already got this moment when you have $300 a month, maybe more.
(I picked the number $300 because it's more or less how much I did already earn on stocks, and because I spent this very money on a compact camera for a friend).

So, what do you thing - how much photos one need to have in the portfolio in for example shutterstock to earn $300 a month?
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 25, 2011, 14:10
1 really, really good one.  Or 1,000 really poor ones.  Or something in between. ;)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: seawhisper on January 25, 2011, 14:13
1 really, really good one.  Or 1,000 really poor ones.  Or something in between. ;)

hehe yeah this is exactly how statistic works :D so how about a bit more 'standard' or medium ones? ;)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: melastmohican on January 25, 2011, 14:28
Total or per site?

Standard ones do not work any more. I got over 2K on some sites which generates maybe 15-20$ per month. Obviously they are not good enough.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: cthoman on January 25, 2011, 14:30
1 really, really good one.  Or 1,000 really poor ones.  Or something in between. ;)


I've seen the "1000 poor ones" strategy, but is anyone working on the "selling just 1 amazing image" strategy.  ;D

I'd say 300 or $1 per image is a fair goal to shoot for, but I going with this...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw[/youtube]
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: tundraphoto on January 25, 2011, 16:57
That's a tough one to answer. I think on average my IS portfolio generates around 40 cents per image per month.  Maybe more, maybe less, depending on the month.  Of course, most of that income is generated by just a handful of images.  So again, it really depends.  However, using just that number would dictate an exclusive portfolio of 750 images - but then, you won't be at the same royalty rate as me, so you'll likely need more images.  How about a 1,000 images, no maybe 1,200,...
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: aeonf on January 25, 2011, 17:37
That's a tough one to answer. I think on average my IS portfolio generates around 40 cents per image per month.  Maybe more, maybe less, depending on the month.  Of course, most of that income is generated by just a handful of images.  So again, it really depends.  However, using just that number would dictate an exclusive portfolio of 750 images - but then, you won't be at the same royalty rate as me, so you'll likely need more images.  How about a 1,000 images, no maybe 1,200,...

Odly enough, I have the same numbers +- (40c an image).
So yeah, your numbers do seem to be in order, but as said this varies greatly from port to port.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 25, 2011, 18:01
I was wondering how many photos (statistically) one needs to have $300 a month.
Now mind you (before you start lecturing me that the numbers are not important, but the subject is ;)) I do understand that some photos sell better some sell worse and there is also good time for a specific photos and bad time for them.

It's just a statistical wondering - maybe you already got this moment when you have $300 a month, maybe more.
(I picked the number $300 because it's more or less how much I did already earn on stocks, and because I spent this very money on a compact camera for a friend).

So, what do you thing - how much photos one need to have in the portfolio in for example shutterstock to earn $300 a month?

I'm not there yet so it is more than 500.   :P
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: louoates on January 25, 2011, 18:12
I've got 500 to 700 images on the 3 top sites.

IS is yielding a .28 per image per month
DT .... .22
SS .... .11

The downside to doing this type of calculation is realizing that the overall trend, at least with my images, is decidedly, unquestionably, inexorably, despondently, and suicidally DOWN. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 25, 2011, 18:34
From what I've seen posted here over the years I'd say the average person is at about .25 so around 1,200 images to get $300 per month.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: leaf on January 25, 2011, 18:36
If you look at the average of people's average I would say you should plan around $10.00/picture/year

In the 2009 poll results (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-survey-2009-results/) (the 2010 results are coming soon) the average images online was 1156, while the average income was $10,654 pretty close to $10/image.

That is the average though.  If you can compete with the best you should expect $50/image/year, if your images are hobby snaps then expect $1.00/image/year

So that would mean you need 400 good images.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: seawhisper on January 25, 2011, 18:38
The downside to doing this type of calculation is realizing that the overall trend, at least with my images, is decidedly, unquestionably, inexorably, despondently, and suicidally DOWN. Have a nice day.

Well the calculations are just for something to talk about when the photos are uploading. ;) The trend is something to cry aloud. ;/
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: louoates on January 25, 2011, 19:52
What I should have added is that most of us have lots of crap from the early years that we probably would never upload today. Plus stuff that wouldn't pass the quality test today. I cringe when look at some of them. I'm just too lazy to remove them and too greedy to miss out on a (maybe) once-a-year sale.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: visceralimage on January 25, 2011, 21:57
If you look at the average of people's average I would say you should plan around $10.00/picture/year

In the 2009 poll results ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-survey-2009-results/[/url]) (the 2010 results are coming soon) the average images online was 1156, while the average income was $10,654 pretty close to $10/image.

That is the average though.  If you can compete with the best you should expect $50/image/year, if your images are hobby snaps then expect $1.00/image/year

So that would mean you need 400 good images.


Thanks for the link to this survey.  I have been on DT for just shy of a year, now have 800 images online and total income of about $1.00/image/year.  As my portfolio has grown and as my image sales have increased, also my monthly income has increased.  This month will be first month over $100.  In a couple days, my exclusive agreement contract end with DT and be uploading to the other sites.  I would be satisfied with $10/image/year from microstock and a bit additional from POD, Zazzle, Business Cards, etc.

According to the survey, DT represents about 4.6% of persons average sales whereas SS is 36% and IS is 22%.  Getting your images on these two sites appears to account for over 50% of revenue or 10X the revenue of DT.  I understand there is problems with IS and the compensation lowering but it still seems to be outperforming the lower rated microstock sites.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on January 26, 2011, 02:07
If you look at the average of people's average I would say you should plan around $10.00/picture/year

In the 2009 poll results ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-survey-2009-results/[/url]) (the 2010 results are coming soon) the average images online was 1156, while the average income was $10,654 pretty close to $10/image.

That is the average though.  If you can compete with the best you should expect $50/image/year, if your images are hobby snaps then expect $1.00/image/year

So that would mean you need 400 good images.


That is the average for the people who replied to your survey, every one of whom is probably in the top 1% of the contributors. In the bottom 50% you probably wouldn't get 5c per image per year. The top 1% is not easy to get into. Sean's idea of the earnings potential of good and bad images is severely warped by the perspective he gets form being in the top 0.00001%..
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: RacePhoto on January 26, 2011, 03:09
Not to be picky and I don't disagree with the concept or conclusion but from observing the forum, which is a very good representation of the same people who answer the survey, it's roughly the top 5% of Mircostock Artists.

Yes, it's easy to paint a positive outlook if the majority of the people who answer the survey are the ones who are a success. But I also would defend the survey as a pulse of the successful people, and not the Microstock market in general.

Last I took the time to do some calculations, 67% of the people who are contributors on IS have made 100 sales or less. There's a nice number from the site that's hardest to get in as a contributor, so the image quality should be higher than anywhere else Micro. Honestly I got paid the first time with around 90 downloads, but picked 100 downloads as a nice arbitrary number, nothing else. There's no way to know if these people have or haven't ever gotten paid.

That being said, from the bottom of the barrel. 2010 I got 58c per image annually from IS and 37c per image from SS.


If you look at the average of people's average I would say you should plan around $10.00/picture/year

In the 2009 poll results ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-survey-2009-results/[/url]) (the 2010 results are coming soon) the average images online was 1156, while the average income was $10,654 pretty close to $10/image.

That is the average though.  If you can compete with the best you should expect $50/image/year, if your images are hobby snaps then expect $1.00/image/year

So that would mean you need 400 good images.


That is the average for the people who replied to your survey, every one of whom is probably in the top 1% of the contributors. In the bottom 50% you probably wouldn't get 5c per image per year. The top 1% is not easy to get into. Sean's idea of the earnings potential of good and bad images is severely warped by the perspective he gets form being in the top 0.00001%..
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: fotografer on January 26, 2011, 03:25

 Sean's idea of the earnings potential of good and bad images is severely warped by the perspective he gets form being in the top 0.00001%..
I don't agree with you here. You don't need to be at the top to have one or two good images that sell all the time.   I guess that I am near the top 1% but at the moment just one of my images is accounting for about 30% of my sales at the moment at IS.  If I had uploaded that image in the early days I'm sure it would have done just as well.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: cardmaverick on January 26, 2011, 03:39
At least 1,000 really good photos featuring people in their 30's, very low on the duplicate/similar images side of things, high on subject matter variety. If you can do that, and you are decent with keywords, $300 a month off shutterstock alone is pretty "easily" accomplished.....
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Megastock on January 26, 2011, 04:27
According to the survey, DT represents about 4.6% of persons average sales whereas SS is 36% and IS is 22%.  Getting your images on these two sites appears to account for over 50% of revenue or 10X the revenue of DT.  I understand there is problems with IS and the compensation lowering but it still seems to be outperforming the lower rated microstock sites.

Careful how you read the results - the part of the survey that pegs Dreamstime at 4.6% is the number of people reporting that site as their top earner, not a percentage of total sales.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: basti on January 26, 2011, 04:41
Im about 500 pictures and earnings are somewhere around $80/month. Its fact that the return gets better and better for larger ports, however some insane results like $1-2/picture/month ARE NOT average! It could be for old-timers and large portfolios which are online since 2005 or so.

With normal pictures (NOT vacation snaps - you will not get accepted those nowadays!) and being "just" average photographer like many others, you could expect real income about $1-3 PER YEAR. To cover $300/month you need 1200 pictures with yearly RPI $3 and up to 3600 (!!!!) with yearly RPI just $1. My opinion is something between 1200-1700 should work. I do count myself as being "normal" photographer and my yearly RPI is aprox $2 with 500 pictures - larger portfolios perform little better so yearly RPI between $2-3 is realistic.

To those  reposting huge RPI etc. - it very strongly depends on WHEN you started! Numbers are very different for those who did in 2005 and those in 2008. Just check istockcharts how many sales do have small portfolios from 2005 and same sized after 2008 - you will be very surprised.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: iclick on January 26, 2011, 04:48
Try and aim for around 500 to 700 high quality original stock oriantated Files and that should do it 

You will find that regrdless of the all of the above merits that most proberly around 25% or less will bring in the bacon ;)  
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on January 26, 2011, 05:17

 Sean's idea of the earnings potential of good and bad images is severely warped by the perspective he gets form being in the top 0.00001%..
I don't agree with you here. You don't need to be at the top to have one or two good images that sell all the time.   I guess that I am near the top 1% but at the moment just one of my images is accounting for about 30% of my sales at the moment at IS.  If I had uploaded that image in the early days I'm sure it would have done just as well.

What I meant was that when Sean says good or bad he is judging by higher standards than almost anyone else.
I have a number of high-selling (by my standards) images from the early days. Some of them are not great but still sell very well. In several cases I have shot much better versions of the same thing since and they have hardly ever taken off. They vanish into the sea of similars from everyone else, while the poorer, older image carries on selling.
I'm sure you are in the top 1% and almost certainly in the top 0.1%. There are probably a million people who have signed up at one micro or another (Shutterstock has had about 700,000 applications) so if you are in the top 1,000 you are in the top 0.1%. If only one application in 10 is approved, the top 1,000 are still in the top 1% of submitting photographers and that 1,000 account for the overwhelming bulk of the earnings.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: leaf on January 26, 2011, 05:26
If you look at the average of people's average I would say you should plan around $10.00/picture/year

In the 2009 poll results ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-survey-2009-results/[/url]) (the 2010 results are coming soon) the average images online was 1156, while the average income was $10,654 pretty close to $10/image.

That is the average though.  If you can compete with the best you should expect $50/image/year, if your images are hobby snaps then expect $1.00/image/year

So that would mean you need 400 good images.


That is the average for the people who replied to your survey, every one of whom is probably in the top 1% of the contributors. In the bottom 50% you probably wouldn't get 5c per image per year. The top 1% is not easy to get into. Sean's idea of the earnings potential of good and bad images is severely warped by the perspective he gets form being in the top 0.00001%..


The survey is a pretty even spread of people who are 'active' in microstock.  By active I mean people who are online in forums and actively uploading anywhere from a few images a year to several thousand.  The median portfolio size was 600, meaning 200 people had less than 600 images in their portfolio and 200 had more than 600 images in their port. 
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 26, 2011, 11:20
I'm trying to follow this but getting more and more confused.  It seems the answer is somewhere between 500 and 1000, but, are the responders talking about over one site, four sites, or many sites?
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockastic on January 26, 2011, 13:18
You'll need 1,000 this year, 10,000 next year and 100,000 the year after that.  And then it will end because the archives of 'free' images will be large enough to satisfy the needs of 80% of buyers, and stock sites will be making it from ad income off of their search results pages.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: joingated on January 26, 2011, 14:02
Jeeeezzz... I find reading this thread unbelieveable in that some people are saying you need up to 1000 photos to make $300 a month, why on why would you bother to do all that work for $300 a month!!! Unless people are saying they are shooting isolations shot at a million different angles or something! For me as an independent Id say 150 to 300 images spread across the top 4 will easily achieve that.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Pixart on January 26, 2011, 14:10
What joingated said.  There is a huge difference between photos and stock photos.  1000 photos may not earn $300 per month, but 50 stock photos that get a fair crack in the search and don't sink first day can absolutely earn $300 per month.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Graffoto on January 26, 2011, 14:27
You'll need 1,000 this year, 10,000 next year and 100,000 the year after that.  And then it will end because the archives of 'free' images will be large enough to satisfy the needs of 80% of buyers, and stock sites will be making it from ad income off of their search results pages.

Plus 1
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: tundraphoto on January 26, 2011, 17:15
Jeeeezzz... I find reading this thread unbelieveable in that some people are saying you need up to 1000 photos to make $300 a month, why on why would you bother to do all that work for $300 a month!!! Unless people are saying they are shooting isolations shot at a million different angles or something! For me as an independent Id say 150 to 300 images spread across the top 4 will easily achieve that.

Jeeezzzz... The top selling image at iStock had almost 1,300 downloads last month.  Assuming a $1 credit, $3 per download (Small) and a 20% royalty rate, that's at least $780 in just one month.  So, it sounds to me like you are doing more work than necessary.  Why not just upload one really good image and not mess with the other 149 to 299 images?  What will you do with the extra $480?
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: joingated on January 26, 2011, 17:37
Haha nice advice with hindsight! I wish I knew when my top sellers where going to be so popular. As it stands I'm still surprised by files that sell hundreds or thousands as opposed to tens. It's rarely those I predict.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: OM on January 26, 2011, 20:15
Starting today, you may need thousands of images to get to $300/month within 1 or 2 years.........or you could do it with 10 good sellers.

I started late (2008) and by end 2009 I had 120 images at FT (exclusive). In 2010 I added around 80 images. My return per image in 2010 was around $5+/image (assuming an average of 150 images in portfolio over 2010).........but the 80 uploads in 2010 account for almost nothing. I have a few best/better sellers that were all uploaded in 2008 from which doth come the majority of my stock income.

My recent stats (last 6 months) show that there is an increasing % of subscriptions to downloads and that the downloads are reducing in size (fewer XL's and L's). I know that this year will be (much)worse (FT reductions in %'s) than last unless I can come up with a couple of new 'killer' sellers. If most newly uploaded images die a fast death which they seem to do if not 'EXCEPTIONAL' then I consider that there must be easier ways of making the $60/month from FT.
Dunno what that is but I'm working on it.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: ShadySue on January 26, 2011, 20:34
The only real, documented way to do it nowadays is being apprenticed to one of the Big Sellers.
I understand Sean's hiring.  ;) :P
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: bobkeenan on January 26, 2011, 20:48
After reading all of these comments I am made humble how inferior my images must be.   I am not a pro.  I am just selling stuff cause its fun and it, eventually, will pay the camera equipment habit that I have.

But after 2 years and anywhere from 300-1100 images across each of 7 sites,  I am up to about $150/month.

So I can see that I have a looooong way to go before I do pro quality images.

Its still fun though.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockastic on January 26, 2011, 21:03
So I can see that I have a looooong way to go before I do pro quality images.
Its still fun though.

Bob, what some of these guys aren't quite making clear is that when talking about the big bucks, it's not just about 'quality' -it's about subject, model and pose - i.e. knowing what the big buyers really want in terms of people shots, and having access to the right models.  Oh and sure, good technical quality is important too.  But most of us small fry can only guess at what buyers really want, because we have no access to them.   It's a funny market, where the middleman is able to keep producers and consumers from ever talking to each other.  People that are big-time successes in stock do have contacts on the buying side, and a much better idea of what to shoot.  Subtle differences in shots probably make big differences in sales.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: adijr on January 26, 2011, 23:02
I'm so confused... so 1000 images or 1??? :)

My port is around 15 images and 5 vids (+- something). So around 20 files, and only at IS. Really, it's more like 15 files, cuz some are similar. This is a (fun) side project.
I made $300 only in November of 2010 (I  usually average way below that). My return per image was lowest In March ($1.7) and highest in Novemeber ($17.5).

I don't make anywhere near what the people in this thread make, obviously, but maybe then I'm just another example to add to your statistic.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: CCK on January 27, 2011, 02:57
I also shoot inferior photos: My average at SS is $1 per year (but rising), and my best sellers make $50 per year. Unfortunately I have only about 4 best sellers.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockmarketer on January 27, 2011, 09:38
To those  reposting huge RPI etc. - it very strongly depends on WHEN you started! Numbers are very different for those who did in 2005 and those in 2008. Just check istockcharts how many sales do have small portfolios from 2005 and same sized after 2008 - you will be very surprised.

Right, but also wrong.

If you are of average quality, you could get in and establish yourself in 2005 or prior, and still be coasting somewhat on a seasoned portfolio that comes up highly in search results just because you've been around so long and seen a lot of downloads.

So if you're average today, you really don't have much of a prayer.

But it IS possible to jump in today and get a decent RPI, though you'll be one of a very tiny minority.  To join this exclusive club, you have to stop downloading the same old stuff everyone else is and carve out your own niche.  Think about what buyers actually want.  They don't need your latest rainbow or puppy dog pics, or snapshots from your recent trip to Yosemite.  There are tens of thousands of those already... you don't have a prayer of competing with the well-downloaded pics.  Go beyond the no-brainer subject matter, put on a business person's hat, and ask yourself, "what business do I have doing this if I'm not offering anything new?  What need is not being met today?"

And it's not enough to say "I'll just try to do it better than everyone else."  Quality is no longer a selling point, because just about everyone has it, or they wouldn't have gotten in the door.  You have to say "I'll just do different things than everyone else."  This is what separates the men/women from the boys/girls.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 27, 2011, 10:07
Hmmmm... is there a boondoggle going on here;  everyone flaunting their revenue while avoiding the deducts?  
$3K a month isn't a lot when it costs you $3.5K to produce it.   ???
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: joingated on January 27, 2011, 10:09
Agree with the above. I started in 2009. Rpi per month was $1 end of year. End of last year it was up to $1.78. So newbies can grow and get a good return even in these crazy commission times.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: joingated on January 27, 2011, 10:14
Whoops. Meant I agree with stickmarketer. Warrens post slipped in before I could post. Also I agree with warren re overheads. I don't know how you pros do it with overheads. I use what I use in my day job as a graphic designer. Investment has been in lighting and lenses which certainly racks up but is well worth it. I don't shoot models or anything that costs more than a few pounds. But it's all about the idea and usefulness of the image for me. I would never try and shoot people as so many others do it so well!
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 27, 2011, 10:27
Whoops. Meant I agree with stickmarketer. Warrens post slipped in before I could post. Also I agree with warren re overheads. I don't know how you pros do it with overheads.

I've kept my investment in vice-presidents down. ;)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: cthoman on January 27, 2011, 10:31
Sometimes I have to invest in a cup of coffee.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 27, 2011, 11:51
Sometimes I have to invest in a cup of coffee.

I make my own and take a picture before drinking it.   ;D
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: adijr on January 27, 2011, 11:52
Hmmmm... is there a boondoggle going on here;  everyone flaunting their revenue while avoiding the deducts?  
$3K a month isn't a lot when it costs you $3.5K to produce it.   ???

I find it quite hard to separate hobby from 'production cost'. if I want to buy a random little camera accessory that I don't really plan to use for stock photos but rather for fun/family, and then later I decide to sell a picture that I did using that accessory, is that part of my production cost? Maybe this doesn't apply to all you pros, but for me it's a difficult computation.

I find that in reality my production cost is pretty much just my time, as most other things I bought I would have bought regardless of whether I was microstocking or not.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockmarketer on January 27, 2011, 12:06
Seems to me that the photos that have flooded the market in microstock also seem to be the costliest to produce: young-ish models, business settings, handshakes, etc.  And all the "isolated on white" stuff that needs to be lighted just right with good lighting equipment.  I can't see how anyone starting in microstock shooting this kind of subject matter is going to cover his/her costs.  Maybe this is a good thing... perhaps this type of photography will become so cost prohibitive and the returns will not justify the cost and effort, and we'll stop seeing so much of it (or at least the copycat stuff by people who think they'll ride the coattails of Yuri and others).    If you are new to microstock, and this is your plan, you might as well stop now.

So what's a newcomer to shoot?  That's where you have to get creative... how do you eliminate costs and end up with shots that stand out and are marketable?  (Hey, at least I solved half the puzzle for you... telling you what NOT to do.)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on January 27, 2011, 13:12
I think you are right. We are fast approaching the point where the returns for anything other than stunning professionalism are probably not worth the effort for a newbie. The standards are so demanding and and the sales are becoming so infrequent that I really can't imagine anybody today getting the sense of satisfaction that used to inspire people to go from complete amateurs to competent pros a few years ago.
Can you imagine submitting 100 shots to iStock at five or ten a week, whatever the limit is, getting 70 rejections and then piling up a dozen 15c sales over three of four months from the 30 that get through? Why anyone would bother doing that is beyond me.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: adijr on January 27, 2011, 13:30
Can you imagine submitting 100 shots to iStock at five or ten a week, whatever the limit is, getting 70 rejections and then piling up a dozen 15c sales over three of four months from the 30 that get through? Why anyone would bother doing that is beyond me.


It's more like 'who' than 'why'. Young folk with lots of time. Depending of your definition of a developed world, there's 1billion+ people in that world, with DSLRs becoming incredibly accessible, and with smaller devices becoming incredibly more powerful (Total sales are at around 100M/year!, with 10M being DSLRs - http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10012606cipa2009.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10012606cipa2009.asp)). And more people will learn about stock. So in the end I'm seeing this as there being a huge influx of images for people who are not expecting huge income, but are maybe content with a few extra bucks - and the problem is filtering those images, not why to shoot them. That's at least my view, I could be wrong.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockmarketer on January 27, 2011, 13:38


It's more like 'who' than 'why'. Young folk with lots of time. Depending of your definition of a developed world, there's 1billion+ people in that world, with DSLRs becoming incredibly accessible, and with smaller devices becoming incredibly more powerful

I used to think this as well.  But for the most part, buyers want images of people who look like their customers... and in general those won't be people in India, China, etc.  OK, maybe the "images on white" types of shots?  Sure, some items are common around the world, but many are not, and anything with a style that hints at where it's from will face the same kind of geographic biases.  OK, maybe locations and landscape.  Sure, but the marketability of such shots is extremely limited, unless  you're one of the world's top travel photographers. 

Then there's the whole other issue of processing and uploading.  These young people who can afford extremely cheap cameras... can they also afford good computers with Photoshop or other processing software, and will they possess the skills to use them appropriately.  And then there's access to the Internet... in much of the developing world, people get onto the Net in cafes where they pay by the minute, hour, day, etc.  Will these people make enough at selling these shots of limited marketability to offset the cost of uploading them?  Maybe in the future the answer will be yes, but for now, I don't think so.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 27, 2011, 13:46


It's more like 'who' than 'why'. Young folk with lots of time. Depending of your definition of a developed world, there's 1billion+ people in that world, with DSLRs becoming incredibly accessible, and with smaller devices becoming incredibly more powerful

I used to think this as well.  But for the most part, buyers want images of people who look like their customers... and in general those won't be people in India, China, etc.  OK, maybe the "images on white" types of shots?  Sure, some items are common around the world, but many are not, and anything with a style that hints at where it's from will face the same kind of geographic biases.  OK, maybe locations and landscape.  Sure, but the marketability of such shots is extremely limited, unless  you're one of the world's top travel photographers. 

Then there's the whole other issue of processing and uploading.  These young people who can afford extremely cheap cameras... can they also afford good computers with Photoshop or other processing software, and will they possess the skills to use them appropriately.  And then there's access to the Internet... in much of the developing world, people get onto the Net in cafes where they pay by the minute, hour, day, etc.  Will these people make enough at selling these shots of limited marketability to offset the cost of uploading them?  Maybe in the future the answer will be yes, but for now, I don't think so.

This seems off the topic of "How Many" but would make an interesting separate thread.   8)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: bobkeenan on January 27, 2011, 14:16
I was wondering how many photos (statistically) one needs to have $300 a month.
Now mind you (before you start lecturing me that the numbers are not important, but the subject is ;)) I do understand that some photos sell better some sell worse and there is also good time for a specific photos and bad time for them.

It's just a statistical wondering - maybe you already got this moment when you have $300 a month, maybe more.
(I picked the number $300 because it's more or less how much I did already earn on stocks, and because I spent this very money on a compact camera for a friend).

So, what do you thing - how much photos one need to have in the portfolio in for example shutterstock to earn $300 a month?


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 (http://www.microstockdiaries.com/tag/earnings-reports)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: seawhisper on January 27, 2011, 16:38


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.

[url]http://www.microstockdiaries.com/tag/earnings-reports[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockdiaries.com/tag/earnings-reports[/url])


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.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockastic 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.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Artemis 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.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockastic 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.  
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Artemis on January 27, 2011, 19:08
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)
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockastic 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.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: Artemis on January 27, 2011, 20:01
Yep... thats the only part that's predictable: we're going to get screwed worse...
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: 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":

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.
Title: Re: How many photos you need to to have $300 a month
Post by: stockastic on January 28, 2011, 16:01
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.