Author Topic: do new stock photographers still have a chance to earn (Read 18975 times)

marcnim · « **on:** April 26, 2013, 03:32 »

dear community,

i do have an experience that I am sure most of us occasionally have:

* it becomes increasingly difficult to produce original content
* in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies
* I earn a living as a professional photographer so I know not to glorify my own work
* I have the feeling that a majority of existing stock images wouldn't pass review nowadays
* I am aware that superior content always finds its way

so my question is:

given these (perceived) facts

* are stock sites just protecting their old and loyal clientele?
* do newcomers still have chances to earn a living with a reasonable portfolio and reasonable effort?
* whats your experience? do your rely more on your back catalog or new productions?
* are there discussions with the agencies to purge material that has a certain age and is not top seller?

thanks for your shared experiences

marc

www.fischka.com

fotografer · « **Reply #1 on:** April 26, 2013, 03:35 »

It's certainly possible but a lot more difficult than it was when I started 8 years ago. Those of us that have been uploading for a long while have already earnt our position in the ranks, are bookmarked by a lot of buyers etc but newcomers have to work their way up. Saying that, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for those of us that have been doing this for a long while. It isn't the gold mine that it used to be unless you are willing to put in a LOT of work.

marcnim · « **Reply #2 on:** April 26, 2013, 03:40 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 26, 2013, 03:35

It's certainly possible but a lot more difficult than it was when I started 8 years ago. Those of us that have been uploading for a long while have already earnt our position in the ranks, are bookmarked by a lot of buyers etc but newcomers have to work their way up. Saying that, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for those of us that have been doing this for a long while. It isn't the gold mine that it used to be unless you are willing to put in a LOT of work.

it appears to me as such a weird market. I am sure that the demand of stock photography is rising all the time. It's weird that supply obviously outweighs demand so much. In traditional photo business (at least in my home country Austria) the demand is sinking every year (more stock, lesser budgets, economic crisis) and there are more people running around with a camera and dumping prices. Therefor my newly found interest in stock.

Microbius · « **Reply #3 on:** April 26, 2013, 04:25 »

* it becomes increasingly difficult to produce original content
agree

* in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies

These sales are for the most part historical, in my experience the older not as good images made a lot of sales back in the day but don't sell any more. I have images that still show thousands of downloads but rarely get a sale today.

* I have the feeling that a majority of existing stock images wouldn't pass review nowadays

Not sure about the majority, but a lot wouldn't. Some of the sites remove work that hasn't sold for a number of years.

* I am aware that superior content always finds its way

Not necessarily, sometimes it gets initially buried by not being downloaded in first few weeks then disappears in the search results

* are stock sites just protecting their old and loyal clientele?

No, the work just got up there when standards were lower.

* do newcomers still have chances to earn a living with a reasonable portfolio and reasonable effort?

Not a high income with a reasonable effort, you have to put in a high effort for a high income, same as any business.

* whats your experience? do your rely more on your back catalog or new productions?

I have to maintain a certain level of uploads to maintain my income, I expect RPI to drop and income to rise only when my upload volume is high enough to maintain it.

* are there discussions with the agencies to purge material that has a certain age and is not top seller?

As mentioned some already do it when the work doesn't sell, if it sells why remove it?

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #4 on:** April 26, 2013, 05:34 »

The chance to earn is that if the demand don't change so much in term of subject, it change a lot, and periodically, in term of style.

Example: today you will not take a picture of a same subject in a same situation as you did 5 years ago (because the trend changes).

But yes, personally (I am new on stocks too) I think that it is harder and harder.
But I don't think that it is a bad thing.

loop · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2013, 05:53 »

* in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies

I have a good number of old images that still sell well. Best sellers sell for a reason. Maybe some of this oldies are of " lesser quality than your products" from a technical point of view, but often, even if technically inferior, these images have something, maybe spontanety, maybe truth, maybe concept brillance that makes them to stand up against outright copies or similar concepts and get new downloads nowadays. Example: you get 200 fles of children blowing dandelions in the first page of an an IS search, but the the one that never ceases to sell is the old one from caracterdeisgn, no matter if others are shot with better cameras or if are cleaner, sharper or bigger.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2013, 06:22 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 26, 2013, 03:32

* do newcomers still have chances to earn a living with a reasonable portfolio and reasonable effort?

Define "reasonable" - twice. What I've read from stock photographers from the 90's it was quite common for them to have 10,000+ images in their stock portfolios. And many of them did that on the side of their regular business.

For some time during the microstock growth phase, there was a potential to make a living with a few thousand images. This might not be the case anymore. So I guess if your question is like "upload 1,000 images and make a living from it within 6 months" the answer is most likely no. If you have a back catalog of thousands and keep shooting thousands per year, you might still have a good chance to make a full time income but it will take you a year, maybe two or three. That's my guess.

Quote from: marcnim on April 26, 2013, 03:32

* in my research I find a good number of images that share my topics, that have often enough a similar or lesser quality than my products, images that have sold hundreds and thousands of copies

There is a difference between "perceived quality" and "usability". Maybe many photographers would agree with your judgement seeing two images side by side. Customers might not, they are not looking for the technical brillant image with perfect composition, they are looking for an image at a reasonable price as quickly as possible that will serve their purpose. So any image with mediocre quality on page 1 will be sold easier than an excellent image on page 3 of a given search.

Which leads to...

Quote from: marcnim on April 26, 2013, 03:32

* are stock sites just protecting their old and loyal clientele?
* are there discussions with the agencies to purge material that has a certain age and is not top seller?

It's not about loyalty, it's about business sense. Once reviewed, an image doesn't cause much cost. Why would an agency put up effort to clean up which would cause at least some manual work. And there might still be a chance that an image gets bought by a client.

The same goes for proven bestsellers: For the agency it's not about "who" produced the image, it's about images having a proven sales record. Those images are more likely to attract new clients, so they will be placed on top of new images without a record. It's a challenge for each agency to come up with a good mix of "fresh" and "proven" stuff but in case of doubt I guess they will always tend to "proven".

Mactrunk · « **Reply #7 on:** April 26, 2013, 06:25 »

At Shuttertsock good images always sell within 1 day or 1 week and they keep selling. With every 10 images I upload there is always one to three images that pick up really fast and sells every week or every day. I have some images online that sell once or even 3 times every day that are just weeks old so it doesnt really matter if they are new or old.

So to answer your topic question I think yes, newcomers still have a change to earn on microstock as long as they produce competing images.

marcnim · « **Reply #8 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:06 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 26, 2013, 06:22

It's not about loyalty, it's about business sense. Once reviewed, an image doesn't cause much cost. Why would an agency put up effort to clean up which would cause at least some manual work. And there might still be a chance that an image gets bought by a client.

The same goes for proven bestsellers: For the agency it's not about "who" produced the image, it's about images having a proven sales record. Those images are more likely to attract new clients, so they will be placed on top of new images without a record. It's a challenge for each agency to come up with a good mix of "fresh" and "proven" stuff but in case of doubt I guess they will always tend to "proven".

i can think of a reason why to purge older not-so-high sellers. you don't want to browse through 1000 children blowing their dandelions . 100 is enough. purging what failed in the past increases the quality more than just restricting new stuff to come in.

marcnim · « **Reply #9 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:12 »

on a different note, but similar subject. I am amazed by the technical quality of the average professional stock photographer. Way higher than in my original field (events, people, design). competition drives quality. But since it was mentioned before, I sense a lack of humanity and authenticity. (compared with the level of technical quality). Images that really grab the viewer emotionally. Is that just my perception or a result of business logic?

marcnim · « **Reply #10 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:19 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on April 26, 2013, 06:22

Define "reasonable" - twice. What I've read from stock photographers from the 90's it was quite common for them to have 10,000+ images in their stock portfolios. And many of them did that on the side of their regular business.

Haven't been around that long but I get the impression that agencies are getting tighter and tighter with copyrights and property.

When I weeded my 120.000 archived images, I took out the bad ones, the private ones, the copyrighted ones, the ones for clients only, most of the analog ones, ones with property issues, with model issues, I had roughly 400 left. But then again, I never thought of going into Stock.

fotografer · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:31 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 26, 2013, 09:06

i can think of a reason why to purge older not-so-high sellers. you don't want to browse through 1000 children blowing their dandelions . 100 is enough. purging what failed in the past increases the quality more than just restricting new stuff to come in.

If all you want is a 100 then you just need to look at the first 100 but for those who don't find what they want then the others are there for them to look at. I've never seen the point of deleting images. The bad images that nobody wants soon sink into the back of the search so they aren't causing any problem.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** April 26, 2013, 09:40 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 26, 2013, 09:31

Quote from: marcnim on April 26, 2013, 09:06

i can think of a reason why to purge older not-so-high sellers. you don't want to browse through 1000 children blowing their dandelions . 100 is enough. purging what failed in the past increases the quality more than just restricting new stuff to come in.
If all you want is a 100 then you just need to look at the first 100 but for those who don't find what they want then the others are there for them to look at. I've never seen the point of deleting images. The bad images that nobody wants soon sink into the back of the search so they aren't causing any problem.

Also some buyers might prefer an older file without much sales as a choice, as then they're not so likely to find a rival firm using the same image (as gets recorded many times, notably with book covers). I've noted here a few times that I get ELs for older files with few/no dls, and I'm sure that's the reason.

daveh900 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2013, 10:30 »

There's always room for new and better images.

I have a file that I uploaded to SS about a month ago and it is currently in the second row on the first page of popular search on a keyword that brings 11,000+ pages of results.

A bit of luck involved there but it can still happen.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2013, 12:11 »

Da vinci with all of his ingenuity and talent would be hard pressed to make a living in this biz these days.

To me the effort has seemed like blowing up a baloon with a hole in it. And the hole is slowly getting bigger.

I expect to be slapped for my honesty but that has been what it seems like.

tab62 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2013, 12:19 »

I slap you Leo with a heart for telling the truth. There is no 'Easy Money' in this business...

T

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2013, 12:29 »

[snip]

cascoly · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2013, 13:17 »

a major reason most agencies don't cull their files is the perception by new buyers that more is better -- only a few years ago it was a big deal to offer a million images. and, since storage is cheap there's no incentive to spend time deleting non-sellers; the solution isn't to make collections smaller but to make searches smarter

fotografer · « **Reply #18 on:** April 26, 2013, 13:20 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 26, 2013, 13:17

the solution isn't to make collections smaller but to make searches smarter

Exactly

Xanox · « **Reply #19 on:** April 26, 2013, 14:37 »

i can say the chances to make money on micros are LOT higher than selling ebooks on Amazon or music on iTunes.

and last i've heard was a friend of mine earning around 50$ (100 downloads) from a sub-genre top-20 song on Beatport and he'll have to wait 6-9 months from his label to be paid.

what else ? merchandising on PoD sites ? good luck considering the top sellers are mostly vectors and crap.

fine-art ? that's an even harder nut to crack.

seriously, if you think we have it bad try music or journalism.

Xanox · « **Reply #20 on:** April 26, 2013, 14:47 »

Quote from: Leo on April 26, 2013, 12:11

Da vinci with all of his ingenuity and talent would be hard pressed to make a living in this biz these days.

To me the effort has seemed like blowing up a baloon with a hole in it. And the hole is slowly getting bigger.

I expect to be slapped for my honesty but that has been what it seems like.

sooner or later it will become impossible to live with stock alone.
it's already the same for music and much more, and it was already the norm for book writers since decades.

i mean there's nothing stopping agencies from pushing prices and royalties even lower, and they will as they've nothing to lose as long as they can still make a decent profit.

we're just "collateral damage", they will never see us in person, they will never even know we pay the bills with stock, we don't exist, we're just numbers on a monitor.

you can stay afloat if you've 30,000 RM images or 10,000 RF images but the agency can quickly change the rules of the game, maybe because of domino effect or maybe because buyers have smaller budgets and we're the last wheel of the chain, the voiceless ones who can either accept being enslaved even more or forced to leave the industry to the crowd of young happy snappers willing to upload for free or for a credit line.

agencies owe us nothing and if you think stock images are a masterpiece of art that cannot be easily replaced by Flickrs and newbies think again !

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #21 on:** April 27, 2013, 01:20 »

Quote from: Xanox on April 26, 2013, 14:47

[…] and we're the last wheel of the chain […]

I have always thought that we are the first link in the chain…
Without the contributors stock could not exist.
(without customers too, I agree)

gillian vann · « **Reply #22 on:** April 27, 2013, 01:42 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 26, 2013, 09:12

on a different note, but similar subject. I am amazed by the technical quality of the average professional stock photographer. Way higher than in my original field (events, people, design). competition drives quality. But since it was mentioned before, I sense a lack of humanity and authenticity. (compared with the level of technical quality). Images that really grab the viewer emotionally. Is that just my perception or a result of business logic?

[speaking as a newbie, only 1 year in]

I think this is due in part to the high technical standards of places like iStock, which force us all into 'safe' territory with regard to exposure, composition and so forth. It's very like my days at college, where creativity came second to technical perfection. A brilliant shot that captured the moment and made you smile came second place to something that had better technical skill or - worse - was "arty". ugh! Out in the real world of magazines, newspapers and other publications the reverse is true. They really don't care/can't tell if you shoot at ISO640 and the colour cast if off a touch, so long as the moment is good. Anyone noticed the pics of celebs that DT has been featuring lately? Hardly brilliant photos are they? But if it's Kate and Wills, who cares if your focus is in the right spot and you use an on camera flash?

Having said that there are plenty of different sites that have different standards, and places like Stocksy are certainly veering away from "bland blonde perfection" that has been so popular at other agencies. SS is launching Offset which will probably be similar, and iS have their own version (but we shant talk about them too much, they're still in our bad books).

edit: sp and grammar

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #23 on:** April 27, 2013, 05:33 »

A little note: I have got a -1 to one of my previous post.

I completely accept when somebody put a negative vote to my comments.
As we are different and we can have different or opposite points of view I think that is is normal, but I would be very more happy if these people will give the reasons why, and don't hide as cowards behind anonymity.

Thank you for understanding

(Now put all the minus that you want here

)

fotografer · « **Reply #24 on:** April 27, 2013, 05:38 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on April 27, 2013, 05:33

A little note: I have got a -1 to one of my previous post.

I completely accept when somebody put a negative vote to my comments.
As we are different and we can have different or opposite points of view I think that is is normal, but I would be very more happy if these people will give the reasons why, and don't hide as cowards behind anonymity.

Thank you for understanding

(Now put all the minus that you want here )

I can't see anything wrong with that post. Maybe they meant to put a + and pressed the wrong button.

grsphoto · « **Reply #25 on:** April 27, 2013, 06:42 »

Quote from: Xanox on April 26, 2013, 14:47

we're just "collateral damage", they will never see us in person, they will never even know we pay the bills with stock, we don't exist, we're just numbers on a monitor.

Welcome to the world of business in the 21 century.... the world of outsourcing, globalization.

As someone who is just moving into stock I am thinking hard on planning my moves.
Do I shoot what I like ( and am good at) and hope that it sells, or do I change my style to get accepted at the agencies?

Glenn

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** April 27, 2013, 07:01 »

Quote from: grsphoto on April 27, 2013, 06:42

As someone who is just moving into stock I am thinking hard on planning my moves.
Do I shoot what I like ( and am good at) and hope that it sells, or do I change my style to get accepted at the agencies?

If your normal style wouldn't get accepted, there's no choice.

If you want to change your style to 'what sells', be aware that 'what sells' is already oversupplied by a lot of very skillful people who have already built up followings at all the agencies. These are your competition, and they often spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on shoots.

If the new style would bore, stifle or depress you, you need to ask how much you need the money, which might not be all that good anyway given the competition.

Check out the competition and ask what you have to offer which is commercially more viable.

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** April 27, 2013, 11:28 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on April 27, 2013, 05:33

A little note: I have got a -1 to one of my previous post.

I completely accept when somebody put a negative vote to my comments.
As we are different and we can have different or opposite points of view I think that is is normal, but I would be very more happy if these people will give the reasons why, and don't hide as cowards behind anonymity.

Thank you for understanding

(Now put all the minus that you want here )

FWIW, I did not give you that -1 and didn't disagree with you, but I do disagree that we should all make a post about why every time we hit the -1. That would just lead to more of these forum pi$$ing contests, and I think there are already an excess of those.

Some people just like to lurk and read, and use the +/- buttons to weigh in. I think it's unreasonable and pretty insulting to brand anyone who is anonymous, or who gives a rating without explaining it as "cowardly". Not everyone is equally outgoing or confrontational.

stockastic · « **Reply #28 on:** April 27, 2013, 15:15 »

IMHO, definitely do what you like, and what you're good at, and try to find a market for it. The microstocks are up to their eyeballs in sameness. There's no point in going into this today unless you have your own 'spin'.

leaf · « **Reply #29 on:** April 27, 2013, 15:27 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2013, 11:28

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on April 27, 2013, 05:33
A little note: I have got a -1 to one of my previous post.

I completely accept when somebody put a negative vote to my comments.
As we are different and we can have different or opposite points of view I think that is is normal, but I would be very more happy if these people will give the reasons why, and don't hide as cowards behind anonymity.

Thank you for understanding

(Now put all the minus that you want here )

FWIW, I did not give you that -1 and didn't disagree with you, but I do disagree that we should all make a post about why every time we hit the -1. That would just lead to more of these forum pi$$ing contests, and I think there are already an excess of those.

Some people just like to lurk and read, and use the +/- buttons to weigh in. I think it's unreasonable and pretty insulting to brand anyone who is anonymous, or who gives a rating without explaining it as "cowardly". Not everyone is equally outgoing or confrontational.

Ditto. I think I'll have to change the labels or how they are displayed. People take too much offense when they get a -1 or -2. It is simply someone saying they disagree and there is certainly not anything wrong with people disagreeing with something (whether they give reason for it or not)

dingles · « **Reply #30 on:** April 27, 2013, 19:54 »

I'm under the belief that you should do what you like. I create what I like and when I self edit I ask myself if I would use this in my work. I feel if you are doing what you like you will produce better work. It is hard work either way, but when you like what you are doing you tend not to mind the hard part so much.

And yes, I think there is plenty of room for someone new to earn money in stock. I don't think anyone has a road map as it continuously evolves. I feel quantity over quality is no longer the way to produce work of value and is nothing but a race to the bottom. I think we all struggle with finding something specific to make our work stand out and honestly that is part of the fun in it...at least for me.

shudderstok · « **Reply #31 on:** April 27, 2013, 21:16 »

^^^^^^^^ I feel quantity over quality is no longer the way to produce work of value and is nothing but a race to the bottom.

It's never been about quantity and it's always been about quality. pretty much every microstock site takes in way too much mediocre to downright bad work. just cause you were there does not make it a great shot. great site xyz has zillions of images but it's mostly mediocre, that is a downward spiral and a race to the bottom.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #32 on:** April 28, 2013, 01:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2013, 11:28

FWIW, I did not give you that -1

Nobody told this as I know…

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2013, 11:28

and didn't disagree with you, but I do disagree that we should all make a post about why every time we hit the -1. That would just lead to more of these forum pi$$ing contests, and I think there are already an excess of those.

Some people just like to lurk and read, and use the +/- buttons to weigh in. I think it's unreasonable and pretty insulting to brand anyone who is anonymous, or who gives a rating without explaining it as "cowardly". Not everyone is equally outgoing or confrontational.

At me they call this "throw the stone and remove the hand"
And it is the (too much easy) behavior of politicians, provocateurs and cowards (that is almost the same)!
I don't want to offend nobody calling him/her coward. After all maybe they are only politicians……
But I don't accept to be freely offended/disapproved by people that has not the simple good education/politeness to express the own opinions clearly and directly without hide.
From my point of view if you have no arguments to explain your dissension it is better that you do nothing, nothing at all.

If you want to participate to a discussion do it.
But if you just want to lurk and read, just lurk and read, no more (not any kind of interference).
I think it's unreasonable and pretty insulting to put a negative note to a post without explain the reasons why.
If you have reasons explain it, if you have no reason just do nothing, but nothing at all.
A forum is not Facebook.

With this I close the argument because we are completely off topic.

shudderstok · « **Reply #33 on:** April 28, 2013, 04:00 »

whether I get a -1 or -100 or +1 or +100, it matters not to me. i also remain anonymous not out of being cowardly rather so that i can express my true view/opinion/perspective in full honesty and not have some person from one of my agencies or all of my agencies creep me and determine my future within that agency, it's pretty easy to do on computer algorithms, the can make or break you if they want, and you'd be a * fool to think they are not even going to read this post. one thing can be assured, you will always get my honest view/opinion/perspective whether you agree with it or not. so zap me with a minus or zap me with a big plus, i really don't care. but if you zap me with a minus i would appreciate a full report as to why...

marcnim · « **Reply #34 on:** April 29, 2013, 04:38 »

i see that i can't sell so much what I usually shoot in the way i usually shoot. But despite me having some sort of style that I sell to my clients, in the end, the client tells me what to do. I figure that what sells well at the moment is high end studio shots, both people and objects. For Objects, the isolated white single object is no bestseller. But for instance high level food shots can still earn good. But you need a full setting, middle- and background included. Beautiful light and a little extra.

So I personally have a vision on where to go and I advance to that position with every week in the studio and maybe I can sell some of the stuff I do on the road.

btw: thanks for all the posts. Good insights there!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** April 29, 2013, 07:29 »

Food photography is no gold mine. A tablecloth, a couple of white cards to bounce light, and a little styling is all it takes. There are a ton of food photographers

shudderstok · « **Reply #36 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 07:29

Food photography is no gold mine. A tablecloth, a couple of white cards to bounce light, and a little styling is all it takes. There are a ton of food photographers

so bitter. sounds like a fall from grace to me.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #37 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:07 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 29, 2013, 09:04

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 07:29
Food photography is no gold mine. A tablecloth, a couple of white cards to bounce light, and a little styling is all it takes. There are a ton of food photographers

so bitter. sounds like a fall from grace to me.

Uh, what? Look on IS at the recipe request threads. Everyone is a 'food photographer'. Heck, I do some occasionally.

So, you disagree, and feel food photography is a hidden gold mine?

shudderstok · « **Reply #38 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 09:07

Quote from: shudderstok on April 29, 2013, 09:04
Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 07:29
Food photography is no gold mine. A tablecloth, a couple of white cards to bounce light, and a little styling is all it takes. There are a ton of food photographers

so bitter. sounds like a fall from grace to me.

Uh, what? Look on IS at the recipe request threads. Everyone is a 'food photographer'. Heck, I do some occasionally.

So, you disagree, and feel food photography is a hidden gold mine?

what i disagree with is your sudden desire to knock anybody who shoots anything other than what you shoot. do we all have to shoot predictable and boring set up scenes in the doctors office to find the gold?

Xanox · « **Reply #39 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:23 »

Quote from: leaf on April 27, 2013, 15:27

Ditto. I think I'll have to change the labels or how they are displayed. People take too much offense when they get a -1 or -2. It is simply someone saying they disagree and there is certainly not anything wrong with people disagreeing with something (whether they give reason for it or not)

these buttons are useless, it would make sense in a discussion with dozens or hundreds or readers and posters but how many are using these buttons ? i guess it's always the same 3-4 guys.

this is a forum, not facebook or twitter, can't see why modern forums are so cluttered with cr-ap.

Xanox · « **Reply #40 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:33 »

Quote from: grsphoto on April 27, 2013, 06:42

Welcome to the world of business in the 21 century.... the world of outsourcing, globalization.

As someone who is just moving into stock I am thinking hard on planning my moves.
Do I shoot what I like ( and am good at) and hope that it sells, or do I change my style to get accepted at the agencies?

Glenn

i would shoot what you're good for and based on that i would pick up the right agency for such images, could be a generic macro o micro, o a specialist or even merchandising or fine-art, up to you and your style.

how could you bring any added value shoting stuff you hate when there's no shortage of photographers doing the same subjects with passion, quantity, and quality ?

take Travel photography, anyone can go in holiday including photographers who dont do travel or lifestyle but they will be no match against those who covered the same niche since a long time and know the score.

i mean, you can get many lucky shots but that's all.
if you're seriously asking how to plan a solid foundation for your career the answer is to become specialized in one field that you like and that at least pays the bills.

if your favourite subject has absolutely no market value, sorry but for the moment it can only become an expensive hobby, in the future who knows, technology is changing quickly.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:33 »

Quote from: shudderstok on April 29, 2013, 09:19

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 09:07
Quote from: shudderstok on April 29, 2013, 09:04
Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 07:29
Food photography is no gold mine. A tablecloth, a couple of white cards to bounce light, and a little styling is all it takes. There are a ton of food photographers

so bitter. sounds like a fall from grace to me.

Uh, what? Look on IS at the recipe request threads. Everyone is a 'food photographer'. Heck, I do some occasionally.

So, you disagree, and feel food photography is a hidden gold mine?

what i disagree with is your sudden desire to knock anybody who shoots anything other than what you shoot. do we all have to shoot predictable and boring set up scenes in the doctors office to find the gold?

I don't care what you shoot. I'm just discussing whether 'high level food shots can still earn good'. I don't think so as there really is a lot out there. But you go ahead and type whatever cheers you up.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #42 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:42 »

I don't make a lot of money on anything but, for what it's worth, food is the best selling category in my portfolio. That's based on sales tracking tools at SS.

Food sales are nearly double the next best seller -- nature and landscape.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #43 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:46 »

Ok, we'll I guess experience and expectations are different based on what comprises the rest of your portfolio. I wouldn't take the time to upload a flower shot, but one flower sale a month might be awesome for someone.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #44 on:** April 29, 2013, 09:58 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 09:46

Ok, we'll I guess experience and expectations are different based on what comprises the rest of your portfolio. I wouldn't take the time to upload a flower shot, but one flower sale a month might be awesome for someone.

I think that's the point. My flowers sell okay too.

shudderstok · « **Reply #45 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 09:33

Quote from: shudderstok on April 29, 2013, 09:19
Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 09:07
Quote from: shudderstok on April 29, 2013, 09:04
Quote from: sjlocke on April 29, 2013, 07:29
Food photography is no gold mine. A tablecloth, a couple of white cards to bounce light, and a little styling is all it takes. There are a ton of food photographers

so bitter. sounds like a fall from grace to me.

Uh, what? Look on IS at the recipe request threads. Everyone is a 'food photographer'. Heck, I do some occasionally.

So, you disagree, and feel food photography is a hidden gold mine?

what i disagree with is your sudden desire to knock anybody who shoots anything other than what you shoot. do we all have to shoot predictable and boring set up scenes in the doctors office to find the gold?

I don't care what you shoot. I'm just discussing whether 'high level food shots can still earn good'. I don't think so as there really is a lot out there. But you go ahead and type whatever cheers you up.

i really have no desire to turn this into a pissing contest. your original post regarding food photography was not a discussion at all, rather it was seemingly unilaterally conclusive there is no possibility of success by shooting food as anyone can do it with a few bounce cards and a tablecloth. it was somewhat condescending to those who shoot food. good photos always have the potential to sell.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #46 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:26 »

"i really have no desire to turn this into a pissing contest. "

Too late. You're the one who started discussing posts instead of the topic, as Warren did. Take a lesson.

grsphoto · « **Reply #47 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:57 »

Quote from: Xanox on April 29, 2013, 09:33

Quote from: grsphoto on April 27, 2013, 06:42
Welcome to the world of business in the 21 century.... the world of outsourcing, globalization.

As someone who is just moving into stock I am thinking hard on planning my moves.
Do I shoot what I like ( and am good at) and hope that it sells, or do I change my style to get accepted at the agencies?

Glenn

i would shoot what you're good for and based on that i would pick up the right agency for such images, could be a generic macro o micro, o a specialist or even merchandising or fine-art, up to you and your style.

how could you bring any added value shoting stuff you hate when there's no shortage of photographers doing the same subjects with passion, quantity, and quality ?

take Travel photography, anyone can go in holiday including photographers who dont do travel or lifestyle but they will be no match against those who covered the same niche since a long time and know the score.

i mean, you can get many lucky shots but that's all.
if you're seriously asking how to plan a solid foundation for your career the answer is to become specialized in one field that you like and that at least pays the bills.

if your favourite subject has absolutely no market value, sorry but for the moment it can only become an expensive hobby, in the future who knows, technology is changing quickly.

My favourite thing to photograph was wildlife. Never really got good at it.
When I decided to go pro, I went for the boudoir market since pretty girls have always been a subject I liked.
I taught myself how to shot in this market.... and became really bored with seeing naked ladies all day ( who woulda thunk it...

.)

Now that I have located south of the equator I am shooting travel and wildlife again. My best selling images, so far, are wildlife ( snow monkey) I photographed a few years ago.

I am looking forward to continuing this interesting ride.

Glenn

marcnim · « **Reply #48 on:** April 30, 2013, 02:37 »

to glen:

I love your humor. Would you share how much you have earned with the snowmonkey? I have looked up your website. Would you share how much you earn in percentage vis-a-vis agencies?

cheers

marc

www.fischka.com

marcnim · « **Reply #49 on:** April 30, 2013, 04:00 »

an addition to the discussion about the originality of food photography. It's a dogma that one is always advised to be original. To browse existing material and then find an understocked niche. This can be quite frustrating since like most of the photographic continents have already been discovered. Niches get smaller.

I hear, in China it is an honorable thing to be a good copy cat. Maybe the niche can be to copy and just try to become as good as it gets. (Usually originality will come out anyway with professionalism)

gillian vann · « **Reply #50 on:** April 30, 2013, 04:34 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 30, 2013, 04:00

I hear, in China it is an honorable thing to be a good copy cat.

pfft, that's just an excuse to be lazy and steal others' ideas. there's a lot of morally bankrupt things the chinese (and other races/religions) do in the name of "culture".

food has fads and fashions, just like anything else, so there's always new stuff to shoot. cupcakes are over (aren't they?), macarons are still in, cakepops never really took off, what's next? quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS), what'll be the next superfood? hopefully something that's local and plentiful in my part of the world (and not #@!! expensive). The sardine quiche I just uploaded to Stocksy is pretty niche: ZERO sardine quiche to be found at iS or SS! People you know where to go if you're desperate for such an image.

marcnim · « **Reply #51 on:** April 30, 2013, 04:50 »

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 04:34

food has fads and fashions, just like anything else, so there's always new stuff to shoot. cupcakes are over (aren't they?), macarons are still in, cakepops never really took off, what's next? quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS), what'll be the next superfood? hopefully something that's local and plentiful in my part of the world (and not #@!! expensive). The sardine quiche I just uploaded to Stocksy is pretty niche: ZERO sardine quiche to be found at iS or SS! People you know where to go if you're desperate for such an image.

good prose! Maybe your sardine quiche is just a dressed up zucchini tart :-)

to the copy issue. For the contributer there is one benchmark: sales. In that area, a selling copy is better than an invention nobody wants

marc

www.fischka.com

gillian vann · « **Reply #52 on:** April 30, 2013, 05:14 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 30, 2013, 04:50

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 04:34

food has fads and fashions, just like anything else, so there's always new stuff to shoot. cupcakes are over (aren't they?), macarons are still in, cakepops never really took off, what's next? quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS), what'll be the next superfood? hopefully something that's local and plentiful in my part of the world (and not #@!! expensive). The sardine quiche I just uploaded to Stocksy is pretty niche: ZERO sardine quiche to be found at iS or SS! People you know where to go if you're desperate for such an image.

good prose! Maybe your sardine quiche is just a dressed up zucchini tart :-)

why, how dare you!

there is no mistaking the sardines! (I also have prawn quiche which is far less attractive.)
Sardines are just food porn for photographers, along with pears and artichokes. I can't quite think of a new way to shoot artichokes (and we don't get fresh ones easily where I live).

marcnim · « **Reply #53 on:** April 30, 2013, 06:56 »

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 05:14

Quote from: marcnim on April 30, 2013, 04:50
Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 04:34

food has fads and fashions, just like anything else, so there's always new stuff to shoot. cupcakes are over (aren't they?), macarons are still in, cakepops never really took off, what's next? quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS), what'll be the next superfood? hopefully something that's local and plentiful in my part of the world (and not #@!! expensive). The sardine quiche I just uploaded to Stocksy is pretty niche: ZERO sardine quiche to be found at iS or SS! People you know where to go if you're desperate for such an image.

good prose! Maybe your sardine quiche is just a dressed up zucchini tart :-)

why, how dare you! there is no mistaking the sardines! (I also have prawn quiche which is far less attractive.)
Sardines are just food porn for photographers, along with pears and artichokes. I can't quite think of a new way to shoot artichokes (and we don't get fresh ones easily where I live).

i don't know which fact makes me more jealous. the delicious foods you are capturing or that artichokes grow at your place. Do you have a link to your portfolio? I am hungry am promise not to copy. (just lobster quiche, or whale cake)

ShadySue · « **Reply #54 on:** April 30, 2013, 07:15 »

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 04:34

... quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS),


GWYNETH PALTROW: My Quinoa's the Best! - The Graham Norton Show NEW Apr 25 BBC AMERICA

(BBC America, so I'm not sure who can see it outside the UK and US.)

gillian vann · « **Reply #55 on:** April 30, 2013, 07:23 »

we DON't get good artichokes. I've seen stock pics of fresh artichokes and am very, very jealous. I live in a warm, sub tropical area (think: bananas, pineapples, mangos). We don't grow good grapes, even though we have wine industry... but then, so does california

(i reserve my palate and $ for the Barossa and other places.).

I shoot food for a magazine I work for, so sometimes that food is groovy enough for stock. I've got a young food stylist who want to do some portfolio shoots that hopefully will yield some nice stuff - once I work out what to shoot. For me, my people shots still outsell food, (as Sean said.)

for the record, I have 3 flower shots in my port. I took them last month when my kids were doing craft at Bunnings (our hardware superstore in Australia) and I wandered around the nursery, bored). no cats either. although a small collection of dog stuff: I have 3 dogs, and my recent set are doing v well. and chooks. again, <12, but doing ok.

gillian vann · « **Reply #56 on:** April 30, 2013, 07:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 30, 2013, 07:15

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 04:34
... quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS),

GWYNETH PALTROW: My Quinoa's the Best! - The Graham Norton Show NEW Apr 25 BBC AMERICA
(BBC America, so I'm not sure who can see it outside the UK and US.)

1) love GN, good one
2) do none of them even know ... quinoa is a grass, not a grain. sheesh!
3) yes, graham is right, it's really bland and needs special attention
4) my version is awesome, w sweet potato, pine nuts, fetta, chicken, fresh herbs (any, really), olive oil. spinach leaves. + a glass of chardonnay. *seriously, what wouldn't be good about pine nuts, fetta, and chardonnay for lunch:*
perfect summer lunch.
so despite the fact that I agree it's not even yet gone mainstream, we are overdone on stock pics of quinoa? unless you are going to shoot the political angle and get sth american farmers looking unhappy. (and happy, while you're at it)

I also have a Thermomix (google it), and there are zero entries for it anywhere. ("mixer" reveals a lot of KitchenAid, logos removed of course, appliances. as Sean mentioned earlier, I'd be buggered if I would take pics of such things). the thermomix community, thriving as it is, tends to just steal images where it can. such is life.

marcnim · « **Reply #57 on:** April 30, 2013, 07:49 »

Gillian, I like your spa photos...

grsphoto · « **Reply #58 on:** April 30, 2013, 07:52 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 30, 2013, 02:37

to glen:

I love your humor. Would you share how much you have earned with the snowmonkey? I have looked up your website. Would you share how much you earn in percentage vis-a-vis agencies?

cheers

marc

Marc
About 50% of my small earning on SS are for my snow monkeys ( approx $30).
I don't know if this is food, or travel but my best selling image is "Fresh pineapples at Ecuadorian fresh fruit market"
My web site hasn't generated any sales...yet

Glenn

marcnim · « **Reply #59 on:** April 30, 2013, 08:04 »

Quote from: grsphoto on April 30, 2013, 07:52

Marc
About 50% of my small earning on SS are for my snow monkeys ( approx $30).
I don't know if this is food, or travel but my best selling image is "Fresh pineapples at Ecuadorian fresh fruit market"
My web site hasn't generated any sales...yet
Glenn

Glenn, thanks for sharing. Thats not too bad with the Monkey (like that shot a lot), if it held a Dollar bill or a tool or a surgical mask, you'd be rich by now. I was wondering about websites, I have one for my regular photo business ( www.fischka.com ) but I thought I had to create so much traffic in order to get some sales. Speaking of that, on freelancer.com you find a good number of tech guys from the indian subcontinent that offer to boost your google ranking on any subject for 100 bucks.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 30, 2013, 12:01 »

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 07:31

2) do none of them even know ... quinoa is a grass, not a grain. sheesh!

Sorry, but I have to correct this, you are wrong - it is neither a grain nor a grass. It is related to Amaranth - another grain-like crop cultivated by the indigenous people of the Americas - and definitely is not a grass. Other distantly related crops would be beet, spinach and buckwheat. Probably not great subjects for stock, but making me hungry for lunch.

grsphoto · « **Reply #61 on:** April 30, 2013, 12:12 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 30, 2013, 08:04

Quote from: grsphoto on April 30, 2013, 07:52

Marc
About 50% of my small earning on SS are for my snow monkeys ( approx $30).
I don't know if this is food, or travel but my best selling image is "Fresh pineapples at Ecuadorian fresh fruit market"
My web site hasn't generated any sales...yet
Glenn

Glenn, thanks for sharing. Thats not too bad with the Monkey (like that shot a lot), if it held a Dollar bill or a tool or a surgical mask, you'd be rich by now. I was wondering about websites, I have one for my regular photo business ( www.fischka.com ) but I thought I had to create so much traffic in order to get some sales. Speaking of that, on freelancer.com you find a good number of tech guys from the indian subcontinent that offer to boost your google ranking on any subject for 100 bucks.

The earnings for my monkey images ( 10+) not a single shot.

I am not sure if the individual website will work, especially at my low level, but the Symbiostock Networking idea (IMHO) is too full of promise and potential to not get on board.

tab62 · « **Reply #62 on:** April 30, 2013, 13:35 »

Yes, you do have a good chance of earning money as long as your spouse has a good job according to the rules of success in this business

luissantos84 · « **Reply #63 on:** April 30, 2013, 13:54 »

YES! but you need to be exclusive at iStock

tickstock · « **Reply #64 on:** April 30, 2013, 14:03 »

luissantos84 · « **Reply #65 on:** April 30, 2013, 15:06 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 30, 2013, 14:03

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 30, 2013, 13:54
YES! but you need to be exclusive at iStock
First thing you've said that makes sense in a while.

now I can breathe! thank you

ShadySue · « **Reply #66 on:** April 30, 2013, 17:12 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 30, 2013, 15:06

Quote from: tickstock on April 30, 2013, 14:03
Quote from: luissantos84 on April 30, 2013, 13:54
YES! but you need to be exclusive at iStock
First thing you've said that makes sense in a while.

now I can breathe! thank you

Was Lobo sitting on your chest?

gillian vann · « **Reply #67 on:** April 30, 2013, 17:21 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on April 30, 2013, 12:01

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 07:31
2) do none of them even know ... quinoa is a grass, not a grain. sheesh!

Sorry, but I have to correct this, you are wrong - it is neither a grain nor a grass. It is related to Amaranth - another grain-like crop cultivated by the indigenous people of the Americas - and definitely is not a grass. Other distantly related crops would be beet, spinach and buckwheat. Probably not great subjects for stock, but making me hungry for lunch.

thanks, always good to learn stuff.

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** April 30, 2013, 17:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 30, 2013, 07:15

Quote from: gillian on April 30, 2013, 04:34
... quinoa is still going strong as a fad (800 images on iS),

GWYNETH PALTROW: My Quinoa's the Best! - The Graham Norton Show NEW Apr 25 BBC AMERICA
(BBC America, so I'm not sure who can see it outside the UK and US.)

OT - I absolutely LOVE Graham Norton! Best interviews and most entertaining talk show on TV on either side of the Atlantic, IMO.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 30, 2013, 23:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 30, 2013, 17:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 30, 2013, 15:06
Quote from: tickstock on April 30, 2013, 14:03
Quote from: luissantos84 on April 30, 2013, 13:54
YES! but you need to be exclusive at iStock
First thing you've said that makes sense in a while.

now I can breathe! thank you
Was Lobo sitting on your chest?

ahahah no, I just cannot live if tick-tock doesn't understand me

marcnim · « **Reply #70 on:** May 01, 2013, 05:17 »

Quote from: grsphoto on April 30, 2013, 12:12

The earnings for my monkey images ( 10+) not a single shot.

I am not sure if the individual website will work, especially at my low level, but the Symbiostock Networking idea (IMHO) is too full of promise and potential to not get on board.

i had never before heard of Symbiostock. I will take a look. It sure is promising. How long did it take you to set up your microsite?

cascoly · « **Reply #71 on:** May 01, 2013, 17:16 »

Quote from: marcnim on April 30, 2013, 06:56

i don't know which fact makes me more jealous. the delicious foods you are capturing or that artichokes grow at your place. Do you have a link to your portfolio? I am hungry am promise not to copy. (just lobster quiche, or whale cake)

surprising where artichokes can grow - I grow them here in Seattle, where they usually just die back a bit in the winter; esp'ly nice are the 2nd & 3rd crops of baby ones that we never see in the market

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: do new stock photographers still have a chance to earn (Read 18975 times)

Microbius

Beppe Grillo

Mactrunk

Leo Blanchette

tab62

Leo Blanchette

Beppe Grillo

Beppe Grillo

lisafx

shudderstok

Beppe Grillo

shudderstok

shudderstok

shudderstok

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

shudderstok

tab62

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors