MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Semmick Photo on May 05, 2015, 02:22
-
Creative Market, Stocksy rejected me because my content is not good enough. Photodune rejects 90% of my stuff And now Canva will disable the majority of my portfolio. I guess if I want any chance of making some money I need to step up to the plate. I really need to get into this new filtered look business, because it seems that is hot right now. The times of shooting what I like is over. I dont have time to be a pro stock shooter. I shoot on my travels, editorial and landscapes, but that kind of stuff is present over-abundant. It was a nice run, 3 years, but I think I need to accept the fact that I wont get into the high end agencies such as Getty, Stocksy, OFFset, Creative Market, Canva, etc, etc.
Problem is that my pride and love for money gets in the way of things. LOL
-
But they still want that high end content for pennies???
They must think we are mad ::)
What a crowd of daft buggers we are to pander to these agencies ;D
-
Stocksy, Getty and OFFset dont pay pennies. The other agencies do.
But yes, its a bit weird that crap on OFFset sells for $500 and a perfectly good image pays $0.35c on Canva where they dont want the image because its not good enough.
-
Images can sell at Getty for pennies. But not every Getty sale is cheap.
-
Have to disagree on Getty with a 20% royalty rate and a fellow photographer (in Getty) had $1.5 sales and she said on the Getty forum some had complained they got as low as 5 cents per image :'(
-
Fair enough, but still people make good money on Getty and they are traditionally not seen as a penny for stock agency.
-
In the next years all the big agencies will want only the best stuff and will pay less and less.
Photography is a commodity product.
It was fun and profit some years ago ...
-
Fair enough, but still people make good money on Getty and they are traditionally not seen as a penny for stock agency.
The problem with Getty is that they don't have volume sales, for the few sales they make they have to lower theire prices close to micro. Sometimes they do a better sale, at normal price, and that saves the month.
-
Trouble is Semmick is that if we wanted to get into the likes of Stocksy it would need a complete overhaul in style and technique.
What works for micro is definitely not what Stocksy want.
As to Getty well judging by some of the rubbish they've been taking recently it's a wonder they set such high criteria.
-
I think I am ready to change, I just have been stubborn about it as I think my images are good but I need to realise they are mediocre mostly. LOL. But there is potential in me.
I am ready to step it up, it might take a while to get there, but hey, slow and quality is better then fast and no quality. I might just shoot for micro and high end separately and slowly build a high quality port.
If I want to make some money I have to get better with my photography. Simple as.
-
Creative Market, Stocksy rejected me because my content is not good enough. Photodune rejects 90% of my stuff And now Canva will disable the majority of my portfolio. I guess if I want any chance of making some money I need to step up to the plate. I really need to get into this new filtered look business, because it seems that is hot right now. The times of shooting what I like is over. I dont have time to be a pro stock shooter. I shoot on my travels, editorial and landscapes, but that kind of stuff is present over-abundant. It was a nice run, 3 years, but I think I need to accept the fact that I wont get into the high end agencies such as Getty, Stocksy, OFFset, Creative Market, Canva, etc, etc.
Problem is that my pride and love for money gets in the way of things. LOL
Its same case everywhere, agencies are now very choosy with the images and vectors both.
Look as this perspective. I am looking for say "football" photos, I searched for it in shutterstock and I find 316,085 images.
Now, the scene is I will want only 1 or say 2, or on most 20 photos and for which I will search only on the popular ones. Why will go for newest first where most of images are inspired with one another.?
Sale for new creative content have become very less due to this.
Now think, Shutterstock website is only a business for John Oringer..... He started as a photo selling website then goes selling vectors then goes selling footage then goes selling music and things goes on and on.
A business model which bought too many choices giving these company a lot of money. Now we as a contributor are floating with some pennies with no raise in our royalty.
Its 2015, and we are seeing approx 400,000 photos per week giving buyer lot and lot and lot of choices.. guess whats going to happen in 2020. See the future and take the right step.
-
I think I am ready to change, I just have been stubborn about it as I think my images are good but I need to realise they are mediocre mostly. LOL. But there is potential in me.
I am ready to step it up, it might take a while to get there, but hey, slow and quality is better then fast and no quality. I might just shoot for micro and high end separately and slowly build a high quality port.
If I want to make some money I have to get better with my photography. Simple as.
Good for you :D I wish you well and judging by your portfolio I think you'll make the change in style very easily. :)
-
Think it is not so much about quality of the photography technically/artistically but rather meeting what the market, or what the agencies think the market, needs.
So far my sales are meeting my modest expectations and still on an upward trend - how long this will last who knows?
-
Fair enough, but still people make good money on Getty and they are traditionally not seen as a penny for stock agency.
The problem is that you have to accept to have your photos exclusively sold through Getty. I am not sure that you can more more this way, even if the RPD is higher
-
I think I am ready to change, I just have been stubborn about it as I think my images are good but I need to realise they are mediocre mostly. LOL. But there is potential in me.
I am ready to step it up, it might take a while to get there, but hey, slow and quality is better then fast and no quality. I might just shoot for micro and high end separately and slowly build a high quality port.
If I want to make some money I have to get better with my photography. Simple as.
I don't know that getting better at photography will help much. I have over 95% acceptance rate at all sites and shoot high demand subjects and still income going down at a troubling rate. I read the same from lots of others.
If you want to improve your skills for personal satisfaction, great. If your doing it for stock income, don't bother.
-
I think I am ready to change, I just have been stubborn about it as I think my images are good but I need to realise they are mediocre mostly. LOL. But there is potential in me.
I am ready to step it up, it might take a while to get there, but hey, slow and quality is better then fast and no quality. I might just shoot for micro and high end separately and slowly build a high quality port.
If I want to make some money I have to get better with my photography. Simple as.
I don't know that getting better at photography will help much. I have over 95% acceptance rate at all sites and shoot high demand subjects and still income going down at a troubling rate. I read the same from lots of others.
If you want to improve your skills for personal satisfaction, great. If your doing it for stock income, don't bother.
But if I get onto Stocksy and Creative Market my earnings will increase, thats the whole point. Problem is both agencies want filtered highly commercial images with copy space. I dont shoot like that, yet.
-
"I don't know that getting better at photography will help much. I have over 95% acceptance rate at all sites and shoot high demand subjects and still income going down at a troubling rate. I read the same from lots of others.
If you want to improve your skills for personal satisfaction, great. If your doing it for stock income, don't bother."
[/quote]
Presumably not high demand relative to supply? or not so much in demand now?
-
I guess if I want any chance of making some money I need to step up to the plate. I really need to get into this new filtered look business, because it seems that is hot right now.
...
The times of shooting what I like is over. I dont have time to be a pro stock shooter. I shoot on my travels, editorial and landscapes, but that kind of stuff is present over-abundant.
Here's a hint: Filter all you want, average images in oversupplied sectors will not be accepted to any of the premium agencies. Then again, really interesting images will be accepted without any fancy filters applied.
Just sharing my own experiences I've made over the last two years when - while having been accepted at most places - I still struggle to come up with enough volume for them. Trying to perfection the way I take images however works much better for me than trying to perfection using Lightroom Presets.
-
I have over 95% acceptance rate at all sites and shoot high demand subjects and still income going down at a troubling rate. I read the same from lots of others.
I'm seeing the same, income decreasing faster than the I can produce the work. I supply Micro and Macro, it's becoming apparent in the last couple of years that deflation is everywhere now.
Micro's have undercut their prices too far, when RPI per month was around $4 it was completely sustainable,
RPI per month needs to be at least $2 not to below $1 where it's heading now.
SS are heading the way of Getty now with gradually eroding royalties.
Stocksy could potentially save the day if they opened their doors a little wider to bring in illustrators to make the collection a bit more useful for buyers.
-
I think there is a mis-conception about Stocksy and filtration. The emphasis is on good photography, not on filtered images.
-
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.
-
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.
Macro is more about narrative than filters. Micro is about hammering in loud metaphors and dumping every image from a set, macro is about images that evoke a subtle backstory and tight editing.
-
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.
Macro is more about narrative than filters. Micro is about hammering in loud metaphors and dumping every image from a set, macro is about images that evoke a subtle backstory and tight editing.
You hit the nail with this definition :)
-
Presumably not high demand relative to supply? or not so much in demand now?
Yes, oversupply of high demand subjects is half the issue. Agency issues like cheapening images, lowering royalties, and search engine volatilities are the other half. Sales numbers are not crashing, but earnings are.
Stocksy may be the saviour some say, but when I talked with them a year or so ago, they only want one or two images per shoot, those are exclusive, and you can't sell any others from shoot elsewhere. Even if that one does well on Stocksy, I don't see how it could pay for a HCV shoot involving models. Maybe someone who does well on Stocksy can correct my misperception if I'm wrong.
-
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.
Macro is more about narrative than filters. Micro is about hammering in loud metaphors and dumping every image from a set, macro is about images that evoke a subtle backstory and tight editing.
great but stocksy is neither micro nor macro and neither is creative markets
-
Stocksy may be the saviour some say, but when I talked with them a year or so ago, they only want one or two images per shoot, those are exclusive, and you can't sell any others from shoot elsewhere. Even if that one does well on Stocksy, I don't see how it could pay for a HCV shoot involving models. Maybe someone who does well on Stocksy can correct my misperception if I'm wrong.
They do like "found" images, which are normally limited to one or two, but model shoots are fine to have as many images as are different and useful.
-
Ron,
Upload your landscapes and more artsy stuff to 500px prime. I've had good sales there on that kind of stuff despite only having a few images up.
-
Stocksy may be the saviour some say, but when I talked with them a year or so ago, they only want one or two images per shoot, those are exclusive, and you can't sell any others from shoot elsewhere. Even if that one does well on Stocksy, I don't see how it could pay for a HCV shoot involving models. Maybe someone who does well on Stocksy can correct my misperception if I'm wrong.
They do like "found" images, which are normally limited to one or two, but model shoots are fine to have as many images as are different and useful.
Oh, that is good info to have. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Cheers Rob. I'll pm you later. Watching Barca Bayern match atm
Sean, what's a found image?
Cheers
-
Sean, what's a found image?
I believe he means an image you happened upon and took pictures of (versus a shoot you set up, styled, staged, etc.). Not a snapshot, but not an organized shoot either :)
-
Oh, as in what used to be sneered at as a 'walkaround' shot? ::)
-
I think I am ready to change, I just have been stubborn about it as I think my images are good but I need to realise they are mediocre mostly. LOL. But there is potential in me.
I am ready to step it up, it might take a while to get there, but hey, slow and quality is better then fast and no quality. I might just shoot for micro and high end separately and slowly build a high quality port.
If I want to make some money I have to get better with my photography. Simple as.
I don't know that getting better at photography will help much. I have over 95% acceptance rate at all sites and shoot high demand subjects and still income going down at a troubling rate. I read the same from lots of others.
If you want to improve your skills for personal satisfaction, great. If your doing it for stock income, don't bother.
But if I get onto Stocksy and Creative Market my earnings will increase, thats the whole point. Problem is both agencies want filtered highly commercial images with copy space. I dont shoot like that, yet.
Some will agree with me some certainly wont so please do find this post my personal opinion and advice.
Forget who wants what, who does what and go out and shoot a lot,and I mean a lot, play with post processing, fill your hard drives with all kind of photos and build an arsenal to play with and to experiment with and compete only with yourself in time. You will be winning all the time for sure but more important, I would even say most important is that you are eventually gonna build a style.
Then start to build a portfolio of various levels, there are crappy low paying sites...well pick stuff from your work which is exactly like that and save your best for the best sites even if it means that something is sitting on your hard drive when it could be making pennies somewhere... it will come back multiple times at a point.
I really believe everyone should rank the sites he submits to at multiple levels and then rank his portfolio same way and pick what goes where and that long term strategies are the best of them all.
The best thing I ever read about photography is about a guy that won some photographer of the year award on bugs photography. He said that he doesn't even consider himself a good photographer and doesn't even like photography itself much. But he likes bugs, from every perspective under every light and that he is ready to wait for days for right moment because he wants to own that shot. But if someone gives him a camera and sends him to a soccer game he will come back with a full disc of snapshots. And I cant agree more with him.
-
The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?
The answer is a resounding NO.
-
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.
I don't agree. I don't have numbers to support my view but I believe there is a lot of "unfiltered" images. There are quite a few really great photographers who know exactly how to use light to get the image they want and coming from a microstock experience this might look like some awesome photoshop work but isn't. Then there is a bunch of enthusiast who shoot film (analog), so those images also have a different look than what you find on micro. And obviously parts of the Stocksy reputation comes from the "Curated" section which especially at the start contained a lot of filtered images.
But if you go to the big portfolios, you will find a lot of professional stock photographers who don't use any fancy faded filters on their images.
great but stocksy is neither micro nor macro and neither is creative markets
I think those definitions are blurring. When I was iStock exclusive back in 2012, I averaged about $10 per download. On Getty, while there are occasional three digit sales, a large majority of royalties I get to see is $5 or less. Even macro agencies sell a large number of licenses to editorial online use sites which typically justify only a low amount, so the average RPD has dropped in those traditional agencies.
I get a rather high RPD on Stocksy - while the prices don't look as high, it makes a difference to receive a 50% share, and no sales below the minimum $10 for the smallest size.
I believe RPD might only be higher at Offset (and maybe 500px but I didn't find anyone selling high volumes there yet) but it's not easy to get in there as direct contributor as well, I guess.
-
The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?
The answer is a resounding NO.
I am not talking about Shutterstock, but about Stocksy or other midstock agencies. Just a question, have you stopped submitting to SS and the other micros that dont pay you enough?
-
I know but the majority on stocksy is filtered. I am sure I can create unfiltered images for stocksy I just need to get on with it.
I don't agree. I don't have numbers to support my view but I believe there is a lot of "unfiltered" images.
OK, I just checked and it seems that indeed they have a lot of mixed content now. When they started out it was different. But I see there is a lot of 'normal' images now. Thats great.
-
I think is not about filters or even the style ... we all have photos that match some of the ones we see at Stocksy.
I think the way to be accepted at Stocksy now is showing them the type of images that they are looking for ... and that is the gold question. For us, that don't have access to the Stocksy foruns is hard to know that.
For my aplication this year, i need a mentor someone to guide me into to the right path ... any one there to help? ;)
-
Sean, what's a found image?
I believe he means an image you happened upon and took pictures of (versus a shoot you set up, styled, staged, etc.). Not a snapshot, but not an organized shoot either :)
And the person who takes such images, could be called "Image Finder".
-
Yes, it seems like photography business is going after VSCO these days. Has any photographers seen better sales by adding vsco filters?
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.
-
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.
Nice images, but I wouldn't touch them with a 20 foot pole. Nothing about releases or protection for the user or anything.
-
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.
Nice images, but I wouldn't touch them with a 20 foot pole. Nothing about releases or protection for the user or anything.
Yeah. Landscape images are safe, but those people images you newer know. They claim all images are "Free (do whatever you want) high-resolution photos", but I think they don't aks Model Releases is it photographers fault if there comes a lawsuit?
-
Yes, it seems like photography business is going after VSCO these days. Has any photographers seen better sales by adding vsco filters?
I think unsplash is affecting the whole photographic scene now. Those photos are so in demand right now. I'm using them frequently. I would assume that those kind of images sells great on microstock.
Just checked out Unsplash. So let's see if I have this right.
Crew, a web design firm that uses images for their paid work, starts a website for... free images. And wait for it... photographers gladly submit work. For free. So designers can take those free images and... charge their clients for the work. Their clients are using the finished product, which includes the free image, to... make money. And, and... it's based on Creative Commons whose board and advisers consist of... publishers, web companies, and other businesspeople who have an interest in free images. SMFH.
That seems to be the trend these days. Maybe I need to quit tying to sell my images and set up a website where everyone just gives me their images for free and I sell them, make money, and pay them nothing. Sure would save me a lot of time and money from having buy equipment and take pictures. And photographers seem to jump at any chance for attention. I'll just hang the exposure carrot out there and watch them jump like crazy for it.
I'm beginning to wonder if photography really has no long term financial potential. We are increasingly headed toward everything being free. It's becoming easier to take great pictures and those who take them don't seem to care that while they slave away at their day job, and even second job, while everyone is using their pictures to make money except for them.
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?
-
According to Similarweb, unsplash is getting a pretty significant amount of visitors:
http://www.similarweb.com/website/unsplash.com (http://www.similarweb.com/website/unsplash.com)
I think unsplash do cut some sales from microstock (specially micro bloggers etc.), but there's still a huge need for paid images.
I'm actually pretty sure Crew has some idea behind unsplash. I mean they will sure monetize it somehow.
-
The question I am asking myself - Do the agencies deserve higher quality content and is it my best interest to provide it to them?
The answer is a resounding NO.
I am not talking about Shutterstock, but about Stocksy or other midstock agencies. Just a question, have you stopped submitting to SS and the other micros that dont pay you enough?
To a large degree Yes, I do not see micro as a productive way to spend my resources. There are too many contributors who are willing to sell the farm in the race to the bottom.
-
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?
we should just ask money straight away on crowdfunding sites and give nothing back, not even a print or a book, actually there are even sites where people donate to strangers so they can make a round-the-world trip and write a blog !
however ! yeah there's more and more images given away for free but this because the bar has been lowered so much that now cr-ap shot with an iPhone seems to be "good enough" for publishers, which was unthinkable not long ago.
they will indeed get their free images but the quality is still low, if it works for them, good, but it won't work for Stock or for serious buyers.
and if the sh-it hits the fan these guys will learn a thing or two about copyright when they get sued by a random iphone snapper, the CC licence is well clear about commercial use, many limitations, not at all a poorman's public-domain as many people tend to believe.
finally, if your company can't even pay for licenced images your just a fly by night operation, no excuses.
they're risking a lot using the cheapest imagery on the market, it takes nothing to ruin a brand.
-
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?
Yes, basically in all creative areas: Musicians pay to go on stage at some events. Authors are paying to get their books printed. It has been like this for decades. Why should photography be different?
-
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?
Yes, basically in all creative areas: Musicians pay to go on stage at some events. Authors are paying to get their books printed. It has been like this for decades. Why should photography be different?
Then creatives need to take some sales and marketing business courses and learn negotiating skills. No wonder why this industry is full of starving artists.
-
Is there any other product or service that people so willingly give their work away?
Yes, basically in all creative areas: Musicians pay to go on stage at some events. Authors are paying to get their books printed. It has been like this for decades. Why should photography be different?
Lots of acts at Edinburgh Fringe run at a loss, even with an army of volunteers flyering, ushering etc., and some less-known acts performing in portacabins and literal garden sheds and other non-conventional venues.
And still some shows can be quite expensive for the audience. So much so that there's now a growing Free Fringe, where the audience donates after the show.
-
Then creatives need to take some sales and marketing business courses and learn negotiating skills. No wonder why this industry is full of starving artists.
That ignores the fact that creative expression seems to be a need for many (or all?) of us. And it ignores the fact that many people do have a full time job supporting them, so they can afford to be creative for free. The difference may be that it's rather easy to press the shutter button on a camera (or phone) rather than typing 50,000 characters on a keyboard.
-
Then creatives need to take some sales and marketing business courses and learn negotiating skills. No wonder why this industry is full of starving artists.
That ignores the fact that creative expression seems to be a need for many (or all?) of us. And it ignores the fact that many people do have a full time job supporting them, so they can afford to be creative for free. The difference may be that it's rather easy to press the shutter button on a camera (or phone) rather than typing 50,000 characters on a keyboard.
While that may be true, there's creative aspects to many professions and I can't think of one where people so willingly work for free. Do you know of any beauticians who work for free? Maybe as a favor to friends or family but not to strangers who say "Hey I love your work. Will you style my hair? Pay you? Why would I pay you? Can't you just do my hair".
And regarding a full time job, I don't know of anyone who ever makes enough money at their full time job. Unless you're filthy rich, and I don't think most creatives qualify, you could probably use more money to help your finances so why not earn something from your work?
So Semmick can have his topic back, I started a new post about free stuff at http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/strategies-for-free-usage-requests (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/strategies-for-free-usage-requests)
-
And regarding a full time job, I don't know of anyone who ever makes enough money at their full time job.
I guess it depends how you would define 'enough'.