Author Topic: Anyone still making a living with microstock? (Read 30000 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #76 on:** July 22, 2011, 19:26 »

Here's one looking for an easy answer to all that photography money:
http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00Z3z2

louoates · « **Reply #77 on:** July 23, 2011, 10:00 »

sjlocke: I really like the advice several folks have made regarding focusing on very specific subjects. In my opinion the future of successful stock shooting will be in highly specific fields. Much like a boutique shop amidst big box stores. If I were a buyer I'd rather search a site "Successful Business People Photographs" than wading through the spam-packed 10 million image sites.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #78 on:** July 23, 2011, 10:35 »

Why would you want to open accounts on 10 sites to find images of 10 subjects? Nope. Besides, it's plenty easy to find what you need if you search with the right keywords.

That doesn't have anything to to with #2-4, anyways.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #79 on:** July 23, 2011, 11:39 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2011, 10:35

Why would you want to open accounts on 10 sites to find images of 10 subjects? Nope. Besides, it's plenty easy to find what you need if you search with the right keywords.

In a perfect world i agree. However, just because you search using the right keywords doesn't mean the people uploading the images use the right keywords so you still end up wading through tons of junk. That's the problem with microstock sites right now. It's not the 10-20 million images in the database it's the loosy goosy keywording habits of the spammers and the suzy homemaker "please tell me how you're using my images" contributors. If the contributors started acting like pros the industry might get a little more respect.

I should add that doesn't apply to the contributors that already conduct their business professionally.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #80 on:** July 23, 2011, 11:46 »

The IS relevancy factor is self policing. Poor keywords are weeded out automatically.

klsbear · « **Reply #81 on:** July 23, 2011, 12:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2011, 11:46

The IS relevancy factor is self policing. Poor keywords are weeded out automatically.

What's relevant, good or poor is subject to the whims of the CV too unfortunately. As an independant I have images on several sites that show what search words were used to find downloaded images. I have a series of images where a few keywords relating to the concept were accepted on some images, rejected on others at IS. I had an ongoing discussion with the CV powers-that-be to update the CV to disambiguate for these words and the ultimate decision was that they stripped it from all my images because they deemed it to be not relevant. So I know it's a keyword that buyers are using to find and purchase my images, but on IS those images get much lower DL's because the keywords are not allowed.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #82 on:** July 23, 2011, 13:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2011, 11:46

The IS relevancy factor is self policing. Poor keywords are weeded out automatically.

IS has one of the poorest Keyword management systems I have ever seen. Many special subjects are just not findable because of missing representations in the disambiguation. In other cases the Inspectors just do not seem to understand some technical terms like PHP (website coding language - almost every Agency e.g. is running on PHP scripts). Their disambiguation system is simply a waste of time and resources with only disadvantages.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #83 on:** July 23, 2011, 13:17 »

I don't like controlled vocabulary: it's just another layer of organised spam between what people search and what they actually get, imo

louoates · « **Reply #84 on:** July 23, 2011, 13:20 »

For whatever technical reason my sales at IS nosedived almost 50% after disambiguation and never came back. I also had numerous snotty objections to my keywords from whomever or whatever is in charge of such things.

madelaide · « **Reply #85 on:** July 23, 2011, 14:06 »

CV could be a great tool to allow perfect keyword translation, because each will have its correct context. But it has to be complete, and all my various suggestions to IS in the past, supported by dictionary definitions, were ignored.

lisafx · « **Reply #86 on:** July 23, 2011, 16:51 »

I'm late to this discussion, but I have been earning my living shooting microstock since 2006. I started in 2005 and by 2006 I was making as much as I ever had working at any part time job.

By 2007 it was a full time income, and kept growing until it reached a very comfortable income in 2009. Then I hit "the wall" and the income has been declining the last couple of years. It is still a "full time income" according to US government stats on median and average incomes, but it isn't as good as it had been.

At one time I had assumed (naively) that the income would keep growing, or at least sustain itself at a comfortable level. Not sure anymore.

After just having read the discussion over on LL, Tyler, I sympathize with the futility of tilting at that particular windmill. I think it is probably fair to assume that most people who are busy earning their full time living in microstock can't be bothered to spend time yapping on LL with a bunch of dinosaurs who are hostile to the concept

lthn · « **Reply #87 on:** July 23, 2011, 17:09 »

Quote from: luceluceluce 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!!! : )

I suspect you fail to differentiate betwen loving phtotgpraphy, which is a craft or an art, as you wish preceive it, or loving microstock which is a business model / agency. Do you seriously say that you love fotolia / istock / ... whatever? You must be joking...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #88 on:** July 23, 2011, 17:41 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on July 23, 2011, 13:17

I don't like controlled vocabulary: it's just another layer of organised spam between what people search and what they actually get, imo

Actually, the cv, while it still needs improvements, is a great improvement over sites that can't tell the difference between orange the color and orange the fruit, for example.

heywoody · « **Reply #90 on:** July 23, 2011, 18:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2011, 17:41

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on July 23, 2011, 13:17
I don't like controlled vocabulary: it's just another layer of organised spam between what people search and what they actually get, imo

Actually, the cv, while it still needs improvements, is a great improvement over sites that can't tell the difference between orange the color and orange the fruit, for example.

It's just like the newspeak dictionary - it doesn't prevent spam it just restricts what can be expressed whether relevant or irrelevant. Complex, badly designed solutions tend not to work as well as simple effictive ones. If you want to get rid of spam restrict the number of allowed keywords which will force contributors to stay relevant.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #91 on:** July 23, 2011, 19:00 »

Keywords are restricted to 50, which, sometimes, isn't even enough for me.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #92 on:** July 23, 2011, 22:53 »

Quote from: lthn on July 23, 2011, 17:09

Quote from: luceluceluce 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!!! : )

I suspect you fail to differentiate betwen loving phtotgpraphy, which is a craft or an art, as you wish preceive it, or loving microstock which is a business model / agency. Do you seriously say that you love fotolia / istock / ... whatever? You must be joking...

It's difficult to fail to differentiate between photography in general and microstock. The shots that interest me, and probably most of us, are not the shots microstock would accept (although perhaps should accept). But I can't deny the results and what microstock has allowed - which is huge amounts of freedom. I feel massively lucky to be doing this....

luceluceluce · « **Reply #93 on:** July 23, 2011, 23:25 »

I just went to the luminous landscape forum and saw the post (in response to Leaf) about us all being misguided; and then I read a few other threads - and one thing really jumps out and strikes you...

they have to do an awful lot of boring things that don't have anything to do with photography at all: getting clients, dealing with clients, running galleries, printing things, selling themselves, selling their images oh god snooooooooze

Sure, if you love admin and marketing and doing what other people want it's fine. If you don't there's stock. There's RM where you get paid once, and then there's RF where you probably ultimately get the same but it comes in tiny drops over time.

If there's a choice between having to shoot a wedding and not having to shoot a wedding then I know where I want to be - far away shooting whatever I want.

rinderart · « **Reply #94 on:** July 23, 2011, 23:52 »

Just a quick reply. In my First book in 2007 geared to Newbies We did some research. It was the salad days and I could reach the owners. We found out that an average of 6% of all submitters actually made any real Money or even had sustained payouts. Sean is right though about where these folks live and how far it will Go. Here In Los Angeles a unskilled,Uneducated Latino Day Laborer makes on average $90.00 per day. I think you would be hard pressed to find to many making that selling Penny stock . After time invested and money spent on equipment factored in.

In Late 2004 I saw the trend after watching Andres,Forgiss,Jamie Duplass then Yuri and a lot of others including Sean. I said to Myself coming from a 50 year shooting Background I could easily do this ...Or, Find a way to teach the flood of newbies I saw arriving every minute of everyday. I do Fairly well with my varied Portfolios and have been with 27 sites and Do Ok with Footage and sound effects But My Income , and Im in Beverly Hills is derived from teaching and of course owning the copyrights of 460 TV shows and Renting My Images and paintings for set decorations in TV and film productions and doing Gallery shows with Non Stock work. Far more fun and rewarding than shooting basically the same thing day after Day. Been there and done that, owned studios, had all the big clients. No Thanks.
Coming up on 69 now and teaching is very rewarding In many ways. Lise was and still Is my Favorite shooter in this business, I watched her from her start also Chase Jarvis he breaks every rule and I love that about him. There unique. Thats why. I have about 300 People on SS bookmarked, Theres some major Talent coming up Guys. 3 people in a office situation or a spa was done 30 years ago Folks. I know because I shot it. I would lose the juice that makes me shoot what turns me on if I had to even try to think of doing that again. Variety counter balances fluctuations in sales,Quality makes Buyers bookmark you and they do. those 2 things trump Quantity. Unless you have all 3, Then you win.

IMHO.

BTW, I'd love to get some of you out on a mountaintop somewhere and see what you do. When I came up we had to shoot something different everyday and know how to pull it off from Products to Bugs to architecture to Beautiful women......In Camera. Gee, Imagine that. Theres a concept.LOL

Have Fun.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #95 on:** July 24, 2011, 11:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2011, 11:46

The IS relevancy factor is self policing. Poor keywords are weeded out automatically.

Yes, words like, James Whistler and Frederic Remington?

I wonder if they could make a catch all exception for proper names. I mean there are billions and they can't add them all, even famous people, there's an issue with many of them not being acceptable. Or do I write a ticket for every name like Frederic Remington when it gives me the blue exclamation mark triangle, for my information only. Yeah, great, it's there but no one can search for it?

After that I'm still a fan of CV because in the end it makes things easier for someone who is searching, to not have to guess all the possible variations of the same meaning. I know people who think a thesaurus full of words, all meaning the same thing, is a neat tool for getting more views. The average person will search for what they are looking for, not some obscure definition.

Really when someone wants a "red apple" do they search for that or "crimson Malus" sure scientific names for plants and animals work, but come on, the obvious is what the search is going to be except when someone is being specific and needs an exact match. Don't give me solanaceae carved as productive keywords for selling images.

Yeah, CV is a PITA for us, but can be helpful for buyers. Now if the search actually worked on most sites, that would be another good move in the right direction.

lthn · « **Reply #96 on:** July 27, 2011, 08:10 »

Quote from: rinderart on July 23, 2011, 23:52

... 3 people in a office situation or a spa was done 30 years ago Folks....

So why do ppl like Yuri, Andresr, etc, keep reshooting those endlessly? You all go on fantasizing and seem to forget that its micro: sales need to pile up, which meands generic... well, generic everything. I also strongly suggest not to dream about things like getting bookmarked by whoever client. I'v been a buyer for many years without even knowing the pics belong to certain indivduals... it was just a site with lots of pics. I downloaded some shots from yuri, andresr, and many others without having the slightest clue that those come from different ppl (they are so generic). I had tight deadlines, looking for shots was considered the most wasteful time spent in the workflow, what I wanted was generaly hard to find, the clock was ticking so who the f. cares who shot what, to be honest? Forget it, I -or any of my colleagues, often a dozen at a time working next to me- was never-eva'-ever looking for certain shooters, but certain kind of shots.

RT · « **Reply #97 on:** July 27, 2011, 09:29 »

Quote from: lthn on July 27, 2011, 08:10

Quote from: rinderart on July 23, 2011, 23:52
... 3 people in a office situation or a spa was done 30 years ago Folks....

So why do ppl like Yuri, Andresr, etc, keep reshooting those endlessly? You all go on fantasizing and seem to forget that its micro: sales need to pile up, which meands generic... well, generic everything. I also strongly suggest not to dream about things like getting bookmarked by whoever client. I'v been a buyer for many years without even knowing the pics belong to certain indivduals... it was just a site with lots of pics. I downloaded some shots from yuri, andresr, and many others without having the slightest clue that those come from different ppl (they are so generic). I had tight deadlines, looking for shots was considered the most wasteful time spent in the workflow, what I wanted was generaly hard to find, the clock was ticking so who the f. cares who shot what, to be honest? Forget it, I -or any of my colleagues, often a dozen at a time working next to me- was never-eva'-ever looking for certain shooters, but certain kind of shots.

There's a reason you're the only one who's replied to his comment!

Microbius · « **Reply #98 on:** July 27, 2011, 11:08 »

Quote from: lthn on July 27, 2011, 08:10

Quote from: rinderart on July 23, 2011, 23:52
... 3 people in a office situation or a spa was done 30 years ago Folks....

So why do ppl like Yuri, Andresr, etc, keep reshooting those endlessly?

I guess because buyers want their office and spa shots with less sideburn and flares now?

Noodles · « **Reply #99 on:** July 27, 2011, 15:26 »

Quote from: luceluceluce on July 23, 2011, 23:25

I just went to the luminous landscape forum and saw the post (in response to Leaf) about us all being misguided; and then I read a few other threads - and one thing really jumps out and strikes you...

they have to do an awful lot of boring things that don't have anything to do with photography at all: getting clients, dealing with clients, running galleries, printing things, selling themselves, selling their images oh god snooooooooze

Sure, if you love admin and marketing and doing what other people want it's fine. If you don't there's stock. There's RM where you get paid once, and then there's RF where you probably ultimately get the same but it comes in tiny drops over time.

If there's a choice between having to shoot a wedding and not having to shoot a wedding then I know where I want to be - far away shooting whatever I want.

What about if the choice was between shooting a story for National Geographic or not? I mean really, you need to think outside the box here! Weddings I don't do, and unfortunately I've never been asked to shoot for National Geographic either, but I can tick boxes for photographing horses on a farm a few weeks ago and documenting the aftermath of cyclone damaged N.Queensland recently, as well as an architectural shoot last week - well over 10k just for those 3 alone and all expenses paid of course. Oh, and no boring pixel perfect, 100% no noise and keywording involved

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Anyone still making a living with microstock? (Read 30000 times)

una

Sean Locke Photography

louoates

Sean Locke Photography

digitalexpressionimages

Sean Locke Photography

klsbear

velocicarpo

microstockphoto.co.uk

louoates

madelaide

lisafx

lthn

Sean Locke Photography

MatHayward

heywoody

Sean Locke Photography

luceluceluce

luceluceluce

rinderart

RacePhoto

lthn

RT

Microbius

Noodles

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors