Author Topic: Upload Strategy? (Read 7117 times)

modellocate · « **on:** October 17, 2007, 08:47 »

I'm new to stock. I have about 150 images that I think can sell, making about another 25 each month... So far I have uploaded about 25 images to IS & SX that are of enough quality to sell.

I'm thinking of building 3 to 5 portfolios (IS, DT, IS, SX, FT) at once.

Or is is better to upload a few hundred images to one site, then start adding sites?

Any opinions or experiences? (of course if you have portfolio links that demonstrate what you've done that will help.) I'd really like to hear from someone who has been doing it only 2 or 3 years to know what the next stage is like for you.

epixx · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2007, 13:38 »

I've tried around 15 different sites, and will give up on half of them within the coming six months. Some are out already. It pays to be on at least five or six. Read the threads on this forum to find out which give the best results. There are few obvious winners here, except for the Big 6.

zorki · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2007, 19:44 »

I would go for the top five, but not much beyond that. It seems to be diminishing returns on some of the lesser microstock sites.

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2007, 20:13 »

I think many of us (me included) wants fo find the next big site. Being in it from the start can be a great advantage. As long as the site has something unique that can make it stand from the crowd and uploading is not a nightmare, I try.

Regards,
Adelaide

modellocate · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2007, 13:22 »

It seems to me that some sites are more profitable depending on the photographer/portfolio. For me IS has been the best, but not the true for others... Probably has to do with how many people are shooting the same stuff as you... too few and the site won't get many buyers of that type, and too many and you've got too much competition -- thus the strategy of spreading out over a few sites..

.shock · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2007, 04:56 »

Hi,

I have big portfolio on FL and for other I don't have time. Now around 4500 images and monthly near $700. All images are exclusive and I have 56% of profit. Not to bad... Probably ratio od revenue peer image will increse because I got much more bether equipment and images. In the future I will cancel exclusive to FL and try to make big portfolios on other stock sites. I wish to say that for me is not payable to cancel exclusive because I don't have much time to upload on all other sites.

Hope that I was help you, regards,
BA

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2007, 08:45 »

I would upload to the top 5 sites (check the ranking in the right hand tab) and see which ones you like a concentrate on those if you don't have much time. If you have a little extra uploading time, it might be worth it to stick images on the next 4 or so sites, but they will only give a couple payouts a year (on several thousand images)

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #7 on:** November 27, 2007, 09:29 »

The majority of the work is in shooting and preparing the photos. Once you have all your shots repaired and all the meta data in the file, uploading is a relatively small part of the process. Especially if you get your workflow sorted out from the start. This makes uploading to many sites only marginally more time consuming than uploading to one.

Use an FTP program or one of the commercial microstock upload management utilities, and uploading becomes a breeze. You can set the software to upload all your files to all your sites and walk away. Many of the sites that don't use categories make the submitting process only a couple of clicks once you've uploaded by FTP. However, not all sites are this easy.

If you have your processes refined and then calculate the extra time it takes to contribute to one more agency, you'll see they don't have to generate too much revenue to make it worth your time.

vphoto · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2007, 09:59 »

thanks, leaf!. that was the info i was looking for.

vphoto

vphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** November 27, 2007, 10:04 »

just using a timer disproves that. I can shoot two more photos a session, but not wasting time by uploading to FP, SN, and LO.

vphoto

Quote from: Lee Torrens on November 27, 2007, 09:29

The majority of the work is in shooting and preparing the photos. Once you have all your shots repaired and all the meta data in the file, uploading is a relatively small part of the process. Especially if you get your workflow sorted out from the start. This makes uploading to many sites only marginally more time consuming than uploading to one.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #10 on:** November 27, 2007, 10:59 »

Perhaps I didn't explain it well.

You shoot two more photos in a session, which both have to have the post-processing done (which for most people is substantial) and the meta data added.

Then uploading to those three extra agencies is three extra clicks in your uploading application and a few more on the websites.

vphoto · « **Reply #11 on:** November 27, 2007, 13:25 »

Yes, it is just there more clicks plus adding titles or/and descriptions, removing rejected keywords, waiting, checking for ftp to finish (and sometimes fail, or a site no responding). All that time is more or less equal to 2 more photos taken, post processed and send to the big 5 from which one can rightly expect a return for ones effort.

vphoto

Quote from: Lee Torrens on November 27, 2007, 10:59

Perhaps I didn't explain it well.

You shoot two more photos in a session, which both have to have the post-processing done (which for most people is substantial) and the meta data added.

Then uploading to those three extra agencies is three extra clicks in your uploading application and a few more on the websites.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Upload Strategy? (Read 7117 times)

modellocate

epixx

zorki

madelaide

modellocate

.shock

leaf

Lee Torrens

vphoto

vphoto

Lee Torrens

vphoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors