Author Topic: Anyone still making a living with microstock? (Read 33462 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #50 on:** July 22, 2011, 06:24 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 21, 2011, 11:49

http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2011/07/05/drei-jahre-microstock-meine-umsaetze-und-erfahrungen/

You can post this link from Robert Kneschke, it´s in German and they have to run it through google, but after 3 years he now earns around 3600 euros a month with roughly 5000 images in microstock.

Very interesting that his iStock income is decreasing while at the other sites they're constantly increasing. I don't read German, and though the iStock link on that page leads to his iStock port, it doesn't on SS or Fotolia. Do you happen to know if it's the independent upload limit that's holding him back on iStock, i.e. does he have much larger ports on the other sites?

Pheby · « **Reply #51 on:** July 22, 2011, 06:53 »

He has 5K images on Fotolia:

http://us.fotolia.com/p/200576396

RT · « **Reply #52 on:** July 22, 2011, 07:20 »

Quote from: Microbius on July 22, 2011, 06:18

Good point, maybe I should have said:
"It's hard to bite your tongue when people are talking BS but there's a lot to be said for perpetuating the dribble these guys are spouting.
I can see no downside to a lot of people with cameras thinking micro is a waste of time, and quite a lot wrong with convincing them otherwise."

What a lot of these folks don't realise is that they should be grateful that their work can still sell on RM at a quite decent price when in all fairness it should be that kind of work that is sold at micro prices, the majority of the people who take the anti microstock approach are those who's portfolios are full of "travel" (*) type images, the sort my 87yr old mother could take given an slr on fully automatic, they seem to think they are entitled to demand a higher price because they've had to go somewhere to take the shot. Generally speaking there's no photographic skill involved other than being somewhere with a camera and pressing a button, what they don't understand is that the internet has created a worldwide selling platform and the guy who leans out of his bedroom window to take a shot of the Great wall of China can now license his image in the same place that they can, the fact it's cost them $3000 dollars to get there is irrelevant, it's cost him nothing and his shot is as good as theirs. They should also be grateful that they can license their images on the same price platform as the guy that's made a creative conceptual image spending a lot of time and money and taking great skills to complete. The people I feel sorry for are the highly talented photographers that can spend two weeks creating one image at great expense, because their work being sold on RM is being sold at the same price as the GWC who took 100 shots in a 10 minute walk down a street market whilst on holiday with his wife and kids.
Of course I could try and argue this point with them, but I don't - they're too stupid to understand and I don't care what they think of RF and microstock.

* - There are some very talented travel photographers and I mean no disrespect to them but just like wedding and portrait photographers there are many that call themselves travel photographers when in fact they are just people that travel with a camera.

ShadySue · « **Reply #53 on:** July 22, 2011, 07:42 »

Quote from: Pheby on July 22, 2011, 06:53

He has 5K images on Fotolia:

http://us.fotolia.com/p/200576396

Thanks. That's very relevant.

Microbius · « **Reply #54 on:** July 22, 2011, 07:51 »

Quote from: RT on July 22, 2011, 07:20

......think they are entitled to demand a higher price because they've had to go somewhere to take the shot.

Very true. I heard a journalist make a similar point to do with citizen journalism and how it's no threat to traditional papers because it costs a lot of money to fly to a place and knock on someones door for a quote. No one on that panel show pointed out to him that there's someone living next door to the story that has Twitter. But then again I think it might have been that A-hole Paul McMullen saying it so no wonder no one was paying attention.

SNP · « **Reply #55 on:** July 22, 2011, 08:36 »

I wonder how many of the 'old pros' secretly supply microstock....lol. when I work events, I'm sometimes chided for contributing to any RF model by colleagues who have been working for 30 years supplying trad RM, in the same breath they're complaining about everything they have to shoot and deriding efforts by just about any photographer younger in the industry than them...then I watch the same guys doing literally NOTHING except for pressing the shutter (set up, lens choice, camera placement, editing all done by their assistants)...and it makes me chuckle. I couldn't care less about a pat on the head from 'old pros' and I'm quite happy for them to stay out of microstock. the less competition the better. there's a new generation of shooters. we contribute work via all sorts of models. we're adapted to shooting for all sorts of media. microstock has forced an evolution of my photography overall, including my editorial work, and my work outside microstock. it has improved what I sell as RM too. I'm glad I ignored all the colleagues who told me not to contribute to microstock.

lagereek · « **Reply #56 on:** July 22, 2011, 09:07 »

pros are businessmen, even more so then photographers and most collegues of mine and old pros are supplying to micro, RF, etc. I cant see many turn their nose at money.

Exeption being perhaps the worlds, two or three most successful and famous RM, stock-photographers.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #57 on:** July 22, 2011, 09:08 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 22, 2011, 05:46

"Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the royalty free business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided

Those who believe that there are anything like thousands earning their living from micro-stock are misguided."

Lol, I'd say, "those who think they know it all are misguided"...

Well said!

louoates · « **Reply #58 on:** July 22, 2011, 09:27 »

I didn't start this topic to kick anybody's hornet's nest. Well, maybe a little. But after closely reading your comments and the comments over at Luminous Landscape I have learned much, even changing some of my views. So for my own clarity and to provide a summery service for those too busy to read all the strings on this topic I'll summarize things about microstock that everybody (mostly) will agree with:

Top Ten Facts About Microstock Photography:

1. Stock images used to pay better.
2. Microstock sites will continue to reduce the cost of images.
3. The number of microstock contributors will rise.
4. The number of microstock sites will rise.
5. The demand for microstock images will generally rise with the growth of the economy.
6. The cost of shooting microstock is higher than one would think.
7. Thieves steal images at a surprisingly high rate.
8. Folks are opinionated about this topic.
9. To make a living at microstock you have to work your ass off, be very talented, and somewhat lucky.
10. Shooting microstock is not involuntary servitude.

Perry · « **Reply #59 on:** July 22, 2011, 09:37 »

I'll put it this way: A Couple of years ago I had dreams of being a full time stock shooter, not anymore.

SNP · « **Reply #60 on:** July 22, 2011, 09:58 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 22, 2011, 09:07

pros are businessmen, even more so then photographers and most collegues of mine and old pros are supplying to micro, RF, etc. I cant see many turn their nose at money.

Exeption being perhaps the worlds, two or three most successful and famous RM, stock-photographers.

I agree with this. I would add there's also a group of 'self-proclaimed pros' who turn their nose up at anything other than what they currently shoot. they've probably sold a few good RM files or shot a couple of big weddings and think they're are above shooting stock...whatever, there are twits in every industry. not my or your problem, right....

cthoman · « **Reply #61 on:** July 22, 2011, 10:43 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 22, 2011, 09:07

pros are businessmen, even more so then photographers and most collegues of mine and old pros are supplying to micro, RF, etc. I cant see many turn their nose at money.

I don't see anything wrong with having principles or objecting to selling your work in certain ways. I'm not sure when the term businessman became synonymous with I'll do anything for money. We already have a term for that and it starts with a "wh".

That said, it was amusing to read the comments over there. I like that Tyler provided a link to the end of the year stats that was just ignored.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #62 on:** July 22, 2011, 10:49 »

I'd disagree with 2-4 above.

Ed · « **Reply #63 on:** July 22, 2011, 11:15 »

It's interesting reading all of the comments above. Various different perspectives.

Not sure any of you ever communicated with Ellen Boughn when she was consulting through Dreamstime. I had the opportunity to receive some free advice from her (she was very helpful). She currently consults with professional stock photographers at a rate of $250 hour. If you want to read more about her - here's her site http://www.ellenboughn.com/

One piece of advice she gave me was that if you want to distinguish yourself, you need to find a niche in what you do - what you will be known for. I think many of the successful folks in the micros and in the trads follow this trend - whether it's head shots, lifestyle imagery, food, whatever. Sure, anyone can pick up a camera and make $3,000 shooting a wedding, but I'm one of those that will let the wedding pros deal with that. I HATE SHOOTING WEDDINGS - one of the reasons I'm not good at it and I refuse to do it. I'm not willing to do anything for a buck - that's a basic business principle that will make you lose credibility in just about any business circle. No, I'm not full time at this but I've been in business with an MBA for 20 years and I'll tell you that your credibility (your good name) is the most important thing you can have in business - it doesn't matter what industry it's in.

I'm also surprised at the replies here - lots of people that don't make a living through microstock getting defensive at other people saying they are operating at a loss and can't. But nobody getting to the root of the matter and putting it on the line with cold hard facts...and a lot of the folks that I'd expect/know are working full time at it not chiming in (with the exception of Sean)

That speaks volumes to me.

My personal thoughts - there's a market for every image. You can find Coca-Cola everywhere from the food cart on the street to the fanciest of restaurants. You choose which market you want to supply, and what you want to supply it with....that's your business

leaf · « **Reply #64 on:** July 22, 2011, 11:25 »

I think more users in this thread are making a living with microstock than you think. They just don't sign their posts with 'I make a living with microstock' or are as well known as Sean...

So how about this.
If you are making more than 50% of your income (ie.. if you are 'making a living with microstock) make a post in this thread saying you are.

leaf · « **Reply #65 on:** July 22, 2011, 11:27 »

<-- very happily making a living with microstock and plan to do so for the foreseeable (hopefully long term) future.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #66 on:** July 22, 2011, 11:50 »

I can say yes once I don´t do anything else (but I could do a lot more than what I do).. I don´t have a "big" house to pay, actually I share with brother/sister, and we are far from starving but I wasn´t never a crazy guy spending without having, so I am going with the flow but carefully spending and keep expenses as low as possible (almost 0), I have just spent money on gear not much, I really try to pull the max I can with what I have (props, family, stuff).. yesterday got a gorgeous lens 24-70 that I have been saving for a while

I am close to the 1k $ which is still ridiculous small but I think I can go further if I work more and better, if things don´t go well I will have to deal with it..

luceluceluce · « **Reply #67 on:** July 22, 2011, 11:59 »

Yes, but my living costs are low because i spend a lot of time on the beach.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #68 on:** July 22, 2011, 12:15 »

Quote from: luceluceluce on July 22, 2011, 11:59

Yes, but my living costs are low because i spend a lot of time on the beach.

I live in a van down by the river.

SNP · « **Reply #69 on:** July 22, 2011, 12:23 »

lol...Chris Farley....nothing beats that guy in a Chippendales costume

Smithore · « **Reply #70 on:** July 22, 2011, 12:43 »

The truth is very easy to catch:
Microstockers are people who work very hard to feed some gangsters who rule the liberal business and go to destroy all photography activities around the world in some years, just don't be blind please.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #71 on:** July 22, 2011, 12:55 »

Quote from: Smithore on July 22, 2011, 12:43

The truth is very easy to catch:
Microstockers are people who work very hard to feed some gangsters who rule the liberal business and go to destroy all photography activities around the world in some years, just don't be blind please.

If blindness means loving what we do, doing what we want and living how we want ... then bring it on!!! : )

lagereek · « **Reply #72 on:** July 22, 2011, 13:15 »

I joined micro some 5 years ago, it felt like a natural extension of having supplied stock for some 15 years. I didnt have to join but it looked like fun and it WAS fun untill things started to go wrong and with certain agencies.

Most if not all of my stock, is supplied via commissioned work, or else I would never be able to obtain the kind of stock I shoot and a lot is based on mutual client/photographer trust, etc.

I believe, no matter what we think, Micro or something similar, is the future and perhaps the only stock-shooting that will exist in a few years time. Sure there will be the odd RM client, wanting rights and copy etc but they are diminishing by the hour and pretty soon, even that kind of buyer will open his eyes for the Micro, theres little choice really. Proof of this is ofcourse the latest Getty contract where we were made to sign away plenty of RMs to micro, or else, get-out.

So weather we like it or not, here we are, all the big-shots, clicking away for pennies, getting jerked off and we are just lovin it.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #73 on:** July 22, 2011, 15:05 »

Quote from: leaf on July 22, 2011, 11:25

So how about this.
If you are making more than 50% of your income (ie.. if you are 'making a living with microstock) make a post in this thread saying you are.

As of right now, microstock is about exactly 50% of my income. A year from now I expect it to be about 70% if my trend lines hold (if I don't hit "the wall.") When I started, my wife would complain that I was spending too much time on this... now she regularly thanks me.

PixelsAway · « **Reply #74 on:** July 22, 2011, 17:22 »

I should close the 2011 year with 50% of my living coming from microstock
assuming that I manage to keep my expenses down
(no new lenses or camera).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Anyone still making a living with microstock? (Read 33462 times)

ShadySue

Pheby

RT

ShadySue

Microbius

SNP

lagereek

velocicarpo

louoates

Perry

SNP

cthoman

Sean Locke Photography

Ed

leaf

leaf

luissantos84

luceluceluce

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

Smithore

luceluceluce

lagereek

stockmarketer

PixelsAway

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors