Author Topic: How robust is the "new contributor" arena? (Read 10647 times)

oxman · « **on:** September 05, 2010, 14:59 »

Is there much data available regarding new contributors to microstock? I've wondered if there is a constant or increasing flow of new shooters actively submitting work. In other words, is the competition increasing, stagnant or becoming less.

I became a contributor at IS about three months ago and found the experience VERY frustrating. As a creative director for 30-years I felt I knew what would sell. Plus, I was a fairly good photographer ( I thought ) with semi - pro level equipment and had art directed hundreds of photo shoots from table top to all kinds of models. Then came the iStock Inspector Beat Down. I had a 40% acceptance for the first few months. I was ready to quit but sucked it up and kept shooting (now at 65%). My sales are marginal but show signs of optimism... so I persevere.

It made me realize that it is HARD to shoot acceptable stock that sells. One has to invest in a quality camera, lenses, strobes, soft boxes, props, lights, stands, quality laptop (if tethered), and Photoshop. Then you need to learn all the techniques for using your camera and software. And then you need to upload alot and that means spending alot of time shooting, editing, retouching, keywording, submitting... and then you marvel at the 25 cents you earned today. THAT IS if your stuff gets past the inspectors. ARRGG!

So i imagine that only the most determined photo-hobbyist survive and a large number of contributors try it out and give up. I read on a blog that only a small percent of contributors make up about 80% of the uploads.

So do you think the pool of new contributors growing or slowing?

OX
...still trying to figure this stuff out

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2010, 15:10 »

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2010, 15:29 »

Purely based on Shutterstock's "K's new images added this week" figure I'd say the figure is starting to fall. A few months ago they were adding new images at over 110K per week and now they are down to 75K. This may of course be due to the holiday season, both for contributors and reviewers, but I doubt it.

It is undoubtedly getting harder though, both to have images accepted and especially to get them to sell in worthwhile volumes. I really wouldn't want to be starting in microstock today. I think microstock has already peaked and, if you think it is hard today, it'll be even harder in another year to two.

Blufish · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2010, 17:14 »

At OP: I hear ya! I've been a designer for many years and my ego is taking a hit with what I "thought" I knew. I also started about 3 months ago and still on a steep learning curve. I am enjoying the change of scenery though and plan on sticking with it.

louoates · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2010, 17:22 »

So many of those "get rich quick" schemes result in a steep fall off in effort once the suckers realize that this business also results in "get rejected quick". Somehow that reality isn't stressed in the come-on promotions.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2010, 18:20 »

I can relate to your feeling that, after a successful career working with images, coming to the microstock world and being shot down is very difficult to deal with. I've been doing this about 2 years, although I've been a studio still life photographer in NYC for about 30 years. When I first submitted to istock, i was shocked at the rejections. What I have to come to learn is that the technical requirements for microstock are much higher than in the regular macrostock, and advertising/design world. You will find that the average photographer in microstock has a pretty impressive command of the craft. The "look" of microstock is quite different as well. I think a contributor at this forum, FD-regular, put it the best: "In microstock, it's not about light and shadow, it's about light and light". ( or words to that effect.) The point that I take from this quote is that moody, rich images have a very hard time getting approved, and just as hard a time selling.
What got me started was seeing Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez at the PDN photo show talking about how much money they were making. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to have a lightbulb go off over his head at that seminar. I think there are always new people coming in to this business, just as others get burned out or get tired of the rejections. If I were to guess, I would think that the high end "professional model and prop" category will be squeezed much more than the "shoot every hamburger I ever ate" model in the future, because increased selectivity and rising costs of production will mean out of pocket expenses will take much longer to cover. The next year at the same photo show, Yuri and Andres were very cranky about the competition, and reduced return per image. This year i don't see the seminar on the schedule(!).
My point of view on this business is this: There is a pretty substantial correlation between the effort you put into this and the return you get. Given the extremely uncertain future of the other business models in this industry, this seems like a good bet to grow,and I can't say that for the work I've been doing for the past 30 years. And here's the really good part: no art directors come to the shoot! ( sorry I couldn't resist

)
So anyway, yes, you can do this. If you survived as a Creative Director for all those years, you must have an eye for design and lighting. With the instant feedback from digital imaging, you can learn to make a proper image. The next level up for microstock will be to raise the bar of ideas and concept, as well as execution. Just keep the cost per image as low as possible, and you can make money at this. That 25 cents will come in from all over the globe, day and night. It's instant gratification ( at least compared to advertising).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2010, 19:27 »

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

One has to invest in a quality camera, lenses, strobes, soft boxes, props, lights, stands, quality laptop (if tethered), and Photoshop. Then you need to learn all the techniques for using your camera and software. And then you need to upload alot and that means spending alot of time shooting, editing, retouching, keywording, submitting... and then you marvel at the 25 cents you earned today. THAT IS if your stuff gets past the inspectors. ARRGG!

I think Rob Sylvan is very honest in his new book that things like this are true.

donding · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2010, 19:40 »

I've been wondering if the new contributors have been fleeing the flock simply because of the dead sales lately and the increased rejections. The bar is rising higher and higher and I really think with the rejections and the next to nothing payouts, they are walking away. I think that may have been why iStock as well as Dreamstime increased the upload limit because of the shortage of new images.

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2010, 14:21 »

Quote from: Blufish on September 05, 2010, 17:14

At OP: I hear ya! I've been a designer for many years and my ego is taking a hit with what I "thought" I knew. I also started about 3 months ago and still on a steep learning curve. I am enjoying the change of scenery though and plan on sticking with it.

Very interesting to hear your perspectives, Oxman and Blufish. You are right, it is a lot harder than it looks. Thanks for posting

I only wish that more designers would try submitting, if only so they could see how hard it is and perhaps get a better sense of the value of what they are getting. Hearing designers complain about micro prices, which seems to happen fairly often, is tough when we know how much effort went into making the images.

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2010, 14:28 »

Really great post Jbarber. I agree with everything you said. I found this particularly interesting:

Quote from: jbarber873 on September 05, 2010, 18:20

What got me started was seeing Yuri Arcurs and Andres Rodriguez at the PDN photo show talking about how much money they were making. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to have a lightbulb go off over his head at that seminar.
<snip>
The next year at the same photo show, Yuri and Andres were very cranky about the competition, and reduced return per image. This year i don't see the seminar on the schedule(!).

macrosaur · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2010, 18:21 »

bwhahahahaha !!!!

@ OP :

the issue is not microstock, the issue is you trying to make a dime out of istock
thinking it's a dump to sell crap at low prices.

well, that's how it started actually but now getty is serious about it, even too
much in my opinion.

macrosaur · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2010, 18:28 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on September 05, 2010, 15:10

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59
...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

excellent sum up of the situation but all these rejections and gave-ups are a good thing.

strict QC ? don't make me laugh.
certainly stricter than other agencies but see how many of the people complaining is actually
uploading crap taken with their iPhones from their balconies...

and by the way, the strict QC is there because Getty decided to squeeze the most they can
from microstockers, raising the bar high and paying crap because they know microstockers
have no other options and will agree selling their photos even for 0.1$/download, correct
me if i'm wrong.

macrosaur · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2010, 18:31 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 06, 2010, 14:21

I only wish that more designers would try submitting, if only so they could see how hard it is and perhaps get a better sense of the value of what they are getting. Hearing designers complain about micro prices, which seems to happen fairly often, is tough when we know how much effort went into making the images.

yes and no.

because as long as you sell micro you "agree" that your work is potentially worth 1$, no matter
if "potentially" it can sell 10K times.

so who can blame people for downvalueing micro (and macro as well, if that matter) ?

the actual trend in newspapers is that any image is not worth more than 50-60 euro for instance
and go tell them otherwise, they already fired the photo editors and the photographers, why else
you think they use Stock if not to cut costs even more ?

stock is the rock bottom, getty included, we have to deal with it.

macrosaur · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2010, 18:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 05, 2010, 19:27

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59
One has to invest in a quality camera, lenses, strobes, soft boxes, props, lights, stands, quality laptop (if tethered), and Photoshop. Then you need to learn all the techniques for using your camera and software. And then you need to upload alot and that means spending alot of time shooting, editing, retouching, keywording, submitting... and then you marvel at the 25 cents you earned today. THAT IS if your stuff gets past the inspectors. ARRGG!

I think Rob Sylvan is very honest in his new book that things like this are true.

you don't need "photo gurus" , i was saying the same crap years ago in this forum but all i've got was getting banned
or ignored.

as i see it, the only issue is the meager payout.
rejections and bars raising higher come later, if ever, as if you're a serious photographer you should know what it takes
to pass QC.

the 25 cents factor is VERY important by opposite : microstock can only exist as long as you can seriously sell
photos many times, but nowadays this is not gonna happen for many new contributors so the very reason to
sell on micros CEASES to exist unless proven otherwise.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2010, 19:04 »

Quote from: macrosaur on September 06, 2010, 18:28

excellent sum up of the situation but all these rejections and gave-ups are a good thing.

Agree they are a good think. A bit of competition is good (variety and quality attract new buyers), but sharing the pie with too many wannaby photographers is useless for everyone, us and them: beyond a certain point, it is just unsustainable.

Quote from: macrosaur on September 06, 2010, 18:28

strict QC ? don't make me laugh.
certainly stricter than other agencies but see how many of the people complaining is actually
uploading crap taken with their iPhones from their balconies...

I didn't say "strict". I said "stricter than 3 years ago" and agree that QC is still not so difficult to meet with a bit of experience.

But many friends of mine - and not only teen-agers sadly - are indeed convinced that iPhones - or any other mobile phone with a tiny lens - can make good photos, there's nothing I can do to change their mind, they even confute evidence. Why the heck are we carrying around heavy reflex cameras and lenses? Just because it's cool?

jbarber873 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 06, 2010, 19:57 »

Quote from: macrosaur on September 06, 2010, 18:28

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on September 05, 2010, 15:10
Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59
...still trying to figure this stuff out

I think you've figured it out pretty well. Microstock is difficult - and at times it doesn't make sense - but in the end those who persevere can make it. Not so bad.

Regarding new contributors, even when I started 3 years ago the large majority of newbies resigned after a few rejections - now it's even worse because acceptance criteria are stricter. I think the number of new wannabe contributors is growing but the % of success is falling. The only data available to me is what I see from my affiliates: lots of new subscribers to SS but no one actually passing the test.

It must be said that there's a lot of spam on the internet: many see this business as a get rich scheme or as a passive income. While it's partially true - the passive income, not the get rich part - it's a pretty active form of passive income (requires contant portfolio maintenance).

It would be nice to hear from new contributors directly, but I am afraid there aren't many here.

excellent sum up of the situation but all these rejections and gave-ups are a good thing.

strict QC ? don't make me laugh.
certainly stricter than other agencies but see how many of the people complaining is actually
uploading crap taken with their iPhones from their balconies...

and by the way, the strict QC is there because Getty decided to squeeze the most they can
from microstockers, raising the bar high and paying crap because they know microstockers
have no other options and will agree selling their photos even for 0.1$/download, correct
me if i'm wrong.

2 thoughts about this:

1- Photography is about getting someone to look, and getting a message across. If there are people who can do that with an iphone, good for them. I can't, so my edge is an insane attention to detail and trying to make everything as perfect as possible. I am always open to a great idea, but my feeling is that an artist should first be a master of the craft.

2- With the numbers of images sold at any microstock site, there are always going to be those clients who complain, and for many people without any artistic ability, the easiest thing to complain about is some sort of measurable technical failing. The best place to minimize the complaints is to stop it at the source- that is- the original image. I think many images that would have made it in 3 years ago would be rejected now. The biggest problem for a microstock site is how to keep the entire transaction- from intake of image to sale of image- as free of human interface as possible. Humans responding to complaints costs money and computers are ( essentially) free. If you only take images that will cause the least friction, the whole process gets closer to the ideal- no humans- just bits going out and money coming in. This cuts out a lot of good images, but in the long run, it's the way to make the most money. (if you are a microstock website).

3- The original idea of microstock- people who love photography and just want the thrill of selling a few images- is gone. It's over. Now it's a very big and growing business, and the suits are running it.

click_click · « **Reply #16 on:** September 06, 2010, 21:11 »

Quote from: oxman on September 05, 2010, 14:59

Is there much data available regarding new contributors to microstock? I've wondered if there is a constant or increasing flow of new shooters actively submitting work. In other words, is the competition increasing, stagnant or becoming less.

I became a contributor at IS about three months ago and found the experience VERY frustrating. As a creative director for 30-years I felt I knew what would sell. Plus, I was a fairly good photographer ( I thought ) with semi - pro level equipment and had art directed hundreds of photo shoots from table top to all kinds of models. Then came the iStock Inspector Beat Down. I had a 40% acceptance for the first few months. I was ready to quit but sucked it up and kept shooting (now at 65%). My sales are marginal but show signs of optimism... so I persevere.

It made me realize that it is HARD to shoot acceptable stock that sells. One has to invest in a quality camera, lenses, strobes, soft boxes, props, lights, stands, quality laptop (if tethered), and Photoshop. Then you need to learn all the techniques for using your camera and software. And then you need to upload alot and that means spending alot of time shooting, editing, retouching, keywording, submitting... and then you marvel at the 25 cents you earned today. THAT IS if your stuff gets past the inspectors. ARRGG!

So i imagine that only the most determined photo-hobbyist survive and a large number of contributors try it out and give up. I read on a blog that only a small percent of contributors make up about 80% of the uploads.

So do you think the pool of new contributors growing or slowing?

OX
...still trying to figure this stuff out

Welcome to the world of microstock!

The bar is set quite high these days for microstock and I dare to say it will keep getting higher.

The days are a over where we could upload an image of our kittie and make $100 over the course of a few months.
Competition is fierce right now. This is the best training scenario you can get - being in the middle of a real battle.
Master the challenges and stay alive or die trying.

If you learn quick I'm still convinced you can succeed but clinging on to your experience as you mentioned is not going to help much.
You're playing a different ball game now with a new set of rules as you have learned.

I'm also hoping that the number of competitors will decline at some point but we have to face the fact the new children are born every day and new talents will rise, so I won't get my hopes up that the competition will get any easier to tackle.

Some people deal with it and move on and others will withdraw from this game sooner or later.

In any case, images can be used in more ways than just on microstock...

macrosaur · « **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2010, 03:01 »

well, hobbyists can still play with Flickr and DeviantArt, and eventually make the odd sale or print, who said
there's only microstock ...

and by the way, you can still monetize somehow your "kittie" images, just make a personal photo blog
and if you're good at promoting it there's some money to be made with advertising, certainly more than 0.25$ per
download and no need to upload full size images too, a 640px will suffice.

macrosaur · « **Reply #18 on:** September 07, 2010, 03:11 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on September 06, 2010, 19:04

I didn't say "strict". I said "stricter than 3 years ago" and agree that QC is still not so difficult to meet with a bit of experience.

But many friends of mine - and not only teen-agers sadly - are indeed convinced that iPhones - or any other mobile phone with a tiny lens - can make good photos, there's nothing I can do to change their mind, they even confute evidence. Why the heck are we carrying around heavy reflex cameras and lenses? Just because it's cool?

if they start allowing pics taken with iphones and P&S than it'll be the end of microstock.

there's already a place for that stuff .. facebook, flickr, webshots, weblog, and the rest of the gang.

i mean there's still a potential value in these picture .. in some rare case they're newsworthy, in some
other cases they are web-worthy, or they can fill some obscure niche, or used for low-res apps like
iPad and so on ... so for sure they're unsellable in micros and macros but this doesn't mean they're junk
and worth nothing .. there's always a way to monetize it even if it can mean scratching the very bottom
of the barrel.... time will tell !

Albert Martin · « **Reply #19 on:** September 07, 2010, 03:15 »

"Master the challenges and stay alive or die trying."

Well put!

That says it all.

lagereek · « **Reply #20 on:** September 07, 2010, 04:15 »

Must say, I dont find it all that differant from the Trad-photolibrary or Macro business philosophy, you still have to produce great stuff and find some sort of a niche in order to stay on top and once there you will sooner or later hit "the wall" no matter how much you upload or produce, exactly the same as with the Trads.

macrosaur · « **Reply #21 on:** September 07, 2010, 09:52 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 07, 2010, 04:15

Must say, I dont find it all that differant from the Trad-photolibrary or Macro business philosophy, you still have to produce great stuff and find some sort of a niche in order to stay on top and once there you will sooner or later hit "the wall" no matter how much you upload or produce, exactly the same as with the Trads.

if you read my earlier posts in this forum i already predicted this a long time ago.

it wasn't possible for microstock to be so easy to join and make money, only a matter
of time before reaching implosion and saturation.

as i see it now, it must be very very hard to rank for specific keywords.

oxman · « **Reply #22 on:** September 07, 2010, 11:39 »

Quote from: macrosaur on September 07, 2010, 09:52

Quote from: lagereek on September 07, 2010, 04:15
Must say, I dont find it all that differant from the Trad-photolibrary or Macro business philosophy, you still have to produce great stuff and find some sort of a niche in order to stay on top and once there you will sooner or later hit "the wall" no matter how much you upload or produce, exactly the same as with the Trads.

if you read my earlier posts in this forum i already predicted this a long time ago.

it wasn't possible for microstock to be so easy to join and make money, only a matter
of time before reaching implosion and saturation.

as i see it now, it must be very very hard to rank for specific keywords.

I see the industry adjust in the future due to the avalanche of ULed images with minimal commercial value. From my "art buyer" chair, it is a 20 page search in many cases to find the good stuff. I think SS is already doing that more than IS. I sense the goal for the major microstock sites is less images of weak subject matter and poor execution equating to better relevant keyword searches. Ultimately, it is about ART.

The business model to accept their deluge of non-selling images will just bog down the system -- if it hasn't already. Getty isn't a fool. I suspect they are filling the corrals before they thin the herd.

OX
...future gazer

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #23 on:** September 07, 2010, 12:21 »

Quote from: oxman on September 07, 2010, 11:39

I see the industry adjust in the future due to the avalanche of ULed images with minimal commercial value. From my "art buyer" chair, it is a 20 page search in many cases to find the good stuff. I think SS is already doing that more than IS. I sense the goal for the major microstock sites is less images of weak subject matter and poor execution equating to better relevant keyword searches. Ultimately, it is about ART. The business model to accept their deluge of non-selling images will just bog down the system -- if it hasn't already. Getty isn't a fool. I suspect they are filling the corrals before they thin the herd. OX...future gazer

So how would you define "good stuff" and also stuff with minimal commercial value? What's the difference?

And do you feel the majority of buyers using micro feel the same way as you?

oxman · « **Reply #24 on:** September 07, 2010, 16:38 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 07, 2010, 12:21

Quote from: oxman on September 07, 2010, 11:39
I see the industry adjust in the future due to the avalanche of ULed images with minimal commercial value. From my "art buyer" chair, it is a 20 page search in many cases to find the good stuff. I think SS is already doing that more than IS. I sense the goal for the major microstock sites is less images of weak subject matter and poor execution equating to better relevant keyword searches. Ultimately, it is about ART. The business model to accept their deluge of non-selling images will just bog down the system -- if it hasn't already. Getty isn't a fool. I suspect they are filling the corrals before they thin the herd. OX...future gazer

So how would you define "good stuff" and also stuff with minimal commercial value? What's the difference?

And do you feel the majority of buyers using micro feel the same way as you?

Good question. It is purely subjective but there are a number of artistic elements that are desirable and timeless in a photo. Most of the time, when presenting designs to clients, I know which one they will pick. I think if an image has not sold in a number of years then it should be deleted.

Minimal commercial value: images poorly executed in an overly saturated category, or in a very obscure category

Dunno what the majority thinks. I see alot of schlock purchased by buyers and that always throws me off but I believe good work rises to the top in the end.

These are just my opinion and I have no hard evidence... just observations from experience.

OX
...thinking

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How robust is the "new contributor" arena? (Read 10647 times)

oxman

microstockphoto.co.uk

gostwyck

Blufish

louoates

jbarber873

Sean Locke Photography

donding

lisafx

lisafx

macrosaur

macrosaur

macrosaur

macrosaur

microstockphoto.co.uk

jbarber873

click_click

macrosaur

macrosaur

Albert Martin

lagereek

macrosaur

oxman

PaulieWalnuts

oxman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors