You can credit (blame?) the recent New York Times article about microstock to get me interested in trying it myself. I wonder how many newbies started in microstock this month because of that article and others from the media.

Nice analogy, wysiwyg!!

Hmmm....

Based on sales so far, the three year asset value of every image I submit is around $70.

If I assume that planning, taking and processing takes an average of three hours per picture, the 'value' I am earning is $23.33 per hour.

These numbers assume that after three years every picture is worthless.  Actually, many of them will continue to sell for five years, some for ten years and some 'for ever'.

If I create, process and submit 20 pictures in a week, I 'know' based on numbers so far that I am 'earning $1400' which will come to me over a three year period.

Of course as I am a newbie I am still on the minumum commissions at most agencies.  Clearly once I clear a few hurdles my 'earnings per picture' will be 50% higher.

Added to that is the pricing pressure of the industry, which is pushing up prices at 20% per annum.

Wrong question, although relevant.

The correct question would be: 'How many saleable and commercial images can I create with my model in an hour....?'

When you have the answer to that question you can work out what your model is 'worth'.

I spend very little time (i spend way nmore time wasted at places like this  )

The key is to get your workflow right.  YOu are spending far to much tme getting a photo on line. 

Take great pictures so they dont need much post processing.
Keyword etc into the IPTC so you dont have to repeat at each site.
Use FTP to upload to all sites at once (do something else while this is happening so you aren't watching paint dry).
Go through the actual submit process at each site.

There definitely has been a change to my workflow. I've been posting a lot to Photosig where your image size is so small most artifacts don't show. Often what I've posted there gets rejected at microstocks because of noise and artifacts. Photosig has "taught" me to spend a lot of time post processing for contrast, saturation and sharpness that isn't necessary for stock. From what you and others have said the less processing the better when doing stock photography. I guess it's all part of the learning curve of stock. It will probably take me a few months to get up to speed.

This past week?

that is a good point.  I have been doing a bit this month but technically, the previous 2 to 3 months I have done abosolute zero (as far as PP, Keywording, uploading goes).  yet I still brought in the money.

All of my photos i would be taking them regardless of microstock (not strictly true but I have never gone out just to take microstock photos - ie. I might be travelling and taking some photos and see a good generic background which I take - time taken 1/250 of a second  ).

Greg,

Welcome! Yeah. Microstock is getting a lot of press these days. This morning WCBS Radio's Kim Komando did a 30-second report on microstock (without referring to it as microstock .

The others here have given you a great perspective on microstock, and I believe there is still a lot of growth for the industry. It is maturing quickly, but it still young and there is plenty of opportunity for success.

-Steve

Unfortunately, in articles like the NY Times' and even in the marketing of the micro-sites themselves, one thing they never seem to give you the sense of is that this really and truly does require a dirty 4-letter word......W-O-R-K !!  They make it sound like, "Hey, just grab some of those old pictures that are gathering dust, upload them, and bam! you've got lots of cash rolling in!."  But that is far, far, far from the truth. It is a real investment, and like any investment you will get out of it what you put into it over time, even if it doesn't seem like that at first. You raised an interesting question about how many photog's might venture into stock because of the Times article. Well, if that number's 1K or 100K, it doesn't really matter; if they're not going to put the work in that this field requires they won't hang around very long. One other thing they don't tell you is that it really, and I mean REALLY, helps to have a good understanding of photography before you get too involved in this business (the photo end of it, not talking about illustrations).  If you already know photography, good. If not, it's a wise thing to start now to learn all you can about photography and implement it every chance you get.  Believe it or not, you CAN make money at this, but you have to make the decision for yourself whether you want to stick with it or not  .

Yep - bloody hard work.

Excuse me - I'm off to the studio for another two hour session.......

Photosig has "taught" me to spend a lot of time post processing for contrast, saturation and sharpness that isn't necessary for stock. From what you and others have said the less processing the better when doing stock photography.

I have a personal opinion that its not the truth. Just looking at top sellers at any site you will notice  that post processing is important part of the game.   

Quote from: niemiga on June 22, 2007, 01:45

Photosig has "taught" me to spend a lot of time post processing for contrast, saturation and sharpness that isn't necessary for stock. From what you and others have said the less processing the better when doing stock photography.

I have a personal opinion that its not the truth. Just looking at top sellers at any site you will notice  that post processing is important part of the game.   

Yep.