pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Big portfolio, or small well saled ?  (Read 3649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 11, 2015, 15:31 »
0
I've noticed some of contributors in top tier agencies has only 500-1000 best pics in their portfolio, but they are selling lot.
Is it good big portfolio with lot of unsoldable pic, or smaller portfolio with the best soldable works ?? Will you find anybody easier with large amount of pic ??

Thank you


No Free Lunch

« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2015, 15:45 »
+10
I've noticed some of contributors in top tier agencies has only 500-1000 best pics in their portfolio, but they are selling lot.
Is it good big portfolio with lot of unsoldable pic, or smaller portfolio with the best soldable works ?? Will you find anybody easier with large amount of pic ??

Thank you

Size doesn't matter! It is the quality that matters- at least that is what my wife keeps telling me  ;D



Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2015, 17:23 »
0
Is it good big portfolio with lot of unsoldable pic, or smaller portfolio with the best soldable works ??

Yes.

« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2015, 19:06 »
0
Interesting. Could you explain?

« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2015, 19:38 »
+2
I don't think that there is an artist out there would would not want to produce low volume and make lots of money. If I had my choice why would I want to produce 5,000 "just okay" images and make $2,000 per month if I could produce 500 unique, marketable images and still make $2,000 a month? That is easier said than done. Many people make a living at this and produce a lot of good images because it's their only source of income.  Others think they are good artists a produce junk so their sales are low. What do they do in response? Shoot thousands of images just to make that $2,000 a month.  It's not about a strategy of "number of images" necessarily, rather are the images you shoot in demand, fill a niche, are good quality and somewhat unique (hard to copy). If you can do this you won't have to shoot thousands of images to make $2,000 a month. If you can produce 5,000 of these good, unique images then you can make a lot more money. Really about balancing your shooting and processing time with the rest of your day, week, month, year, etc. 

For example, I have a day job so I don't shoot full time. I put in about 25 hours a week because that's all I can afford with a wife and a life I like to enjoy outside of shooting in my make-shift studio. This means I add about 200-400 images a year that are average, so I don't make much. I don't have any formal education in graphic design or photography, I learn it all on my own. Others in here and not in here have broad backgrounds in this kind of thing and are very good at what they do.  Some of the work in stock blows my mind and I am often in awe at what people can do.  In the end it comes down to time & experience.

Tror

« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2015, 07:04 »
0
I think the high quality distributed on a low image count is best. However, I for myself, struggle to realize this concept in my work. I just want to include a broader range of creativity and not just reduce myself and my work to create pure commercial output. If this is good? I think it would be better if I`d just focus - on the other side: I created lots of bestsellers through "un-commercial" creativity which I never thought they would sell much.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3551 Views
Last post October 07, 2010, 17:28
by leaf
7 Replies
3129 Views
Last post December 04, 2013, 19:08
by adijr
2 Replies
2908 Views
Last post January 14, 2014, 20:58
by LesHoward
Just a small nit

Started by dbvirago iStockPhoto.com

9 Replies
3654 Views
Last post March 14, 2014, 23:52
by pixsol
20 Replies
7042 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 11:47
by FlowerPower

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle