DT seems to have died over the last few days.  Anyone else getting the same impression?  Or is it just me?

Looking at some of the most popular contributors to iStock (where I can see statistics) it seems to me that the expected 'value' of a good quality commercial photo is about $40 over a three year period.

The top supplier has about 5,000 images for 450,000 downloads.  This suggests a value of about $90.  But if we take the average portfolio size over the three years, the number comes out at nearer $180.  An exceptional case probably.

Looking at lesser mortals I see others with 7,000 pics for 250,000 downloads, and 3,000 pics for 100,000 downloads.  These work out at $35, $33 and $70, $66.

Of course there is a difference between what a picture CAN generate and the actual day to day cash flow.  Therein lies the rub.

But it seems to me that if I can spend a few days producing say 20 good quality commercial photos, I can assume that, on average, that work will earn me between $700 and $1400 over three years.  Or between $233 and $466 per annum.  In other words, a project to produce at that rate consistently each week should produce an annual income of between $12116 and $24232.

On the face of it, that clearly isn't enough to survive.

However, the calculation has to be compounded, of course.  $12116 and $24232 apply in year one.  The numbers are double in year two.  And triple in year three.  So by the end of year three the annual income is between $36348 and $72696.

Those are better numbers.

What do people here believe is the average 'value' of the shots they produce, over say a three year period?  And does anyone have specific numbers they can share?

Anyone else having great difficulties with the IS web site today?

Or is it just me...?

Well I'm pleased to see I got a sale at Dreamstime.  First Microstock sale ever.  Still, I only joined on 6th Feb.....

I now have a massive account balance of US 50c!  Hmmm..... difficult to decide what to spend that on......

Same series of 'Yellow Umbrella' images were uploaded to the top five so I'll be interested to monitor what happens.

All very exciting.....

As a newbie to stock photography (but not to photography or to business growth models) and having spent a lot of time over the last month researching the market and reading/listening to views such as those expressed in these forums, this is my view of the future:

Each new agency wants to get as many images on file as quickly as possible.  Yes, they would like the best quality, but in the early years may have to sacrifice quality for quantity.  That makes it easy for 'new' photographers to 'sign up'.

But as their libraries grow, I believe the market will change from 'quantity' to 'quality'; the successful stock agencies will be able to become more and more selective, and the best of them will start to reject many more photos.

Gaining membership as a contributing photographer will become more difficult at these successful agencies, and the 'new' or lower quality photographer will find himself/herself being restricted to the 'lesser' agencies'.

Because of this, higher quality photographers will gravitate towards the successful agencies, and be gradually paid more for doing so, through exclusivity deals etc etc.  A price gap will emerge between the 'best' and the 'not so best'.

I believe IS is already nearing this development stage, which is why many are finding acceptance of images more 'difficult' than elsewhere.  SS may also be nearing this stage.

As with all business models, eventually the market will become dominated by just a few players, with most of the 'new' start-ups and lesser quality agencies falling by the wayside.  At the moment everything is new and exciting, and new agencies are popping up everywhere.

My own view is that in the longer term it will be important eventually to align oneself with one of the big agencies, probably on an exclusive arrangement.