Author Topic: I might figured out something [Need microstock veterans to confirm] (Read 8442 times)

Madrolly · « **on:** October 03, 2016, 04:07 »

Hello my dear microstock colleagues. I have a "possible strange question" for all of Microstock Veterans that are on this topic.
Let's assume that i'll upload 1 000 000 good shots today. YES! Also let's assume that all of them are accepted in the same day.
My question is: How long does it take to make a decent income from 1 000 000 photos? How many months/years must pass with that million photos already accepted to start earn a living?
I'm asking this because i spoke with a few people and i got to this odd idea that no matter how much you upload, it must take a while to really start earn something serious. And besides the fact that i spoke with others in this business about this fact, i made a sort of test a year ago when i started my MS account on SS.
I got 12 shots accepted and then i just watched them how they act. Strangely, they were earning more and more with every month passed. 12 shots reached to a $4/month from 2015 'till 2016.
My guess is that if you're starting right now in MS business, you won't be satisfied unless you manage to gather around 6000 photos in... let's say 2-3 years.
Might be an file indexing factor in the middle that causes this thing, or it's something else?
I'm really trying to figure it out the "behind the scenes" of Microstock because it really can't be that simple to upload a lot of good shots today and start earning tomorrow.
Also tell me if i'm wrong or not because i want to dig further for the "behind the scenes" of Microstock. Am I on the good path here or not?
Also if somebody figured out how the algorithms works on a specific agency, leave a comment with your thoughts, formulas etc

Good day to you all

Pauws99 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 03, 2016, 04:26 »

I don't really understand what you are trying to achieve here..is it just academic interest? What can you do other than upload good, well key worded images?

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #2 on:** October 03, 2016, 04:27 »

I've been doing Pond5 and VideoHive for quite a few years, but only got on SS, iS, FT, VB and the like in the last year, and I have noticed that sales have been increasing gradually over that time. Not really sure why that is. When I started, Shutterstock would be $50 one month, nothing the next. Now it seems to be $50 one month, $150 the next... got $300 last month! And there's not really been a massive increase in my portfolio over the year, maybe a 25% increase or something.

It's black magic.

ccbcc · « **Reply #3 on:** October 03, 2016, 04:40 »

If you have a million photos, you won't sell 1000x more than if you had a 1000 photos from different subjects. There's just so many cat photos that you can take, so at those numbers you are your biggest competitor. You won't attract 1000x more customers, but the chance increases very much that they'll find what they're looking for.

BelieveInStock · « **Reply #4 on:** October 03, 2016, 04:42 »

With all due respect, do you really think that people who have been doing this business for all these years and have gone through good and bad times in order to learn, will share all this knowledge with you just like that ?

alno · « **Reply #5 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:06 »

Possible strange answer: spherical horse in a vacuum would earn $1.7 million a year then.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:14 »

You are wrong. Images peak not too long after upload and go down hill from there.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:21 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 03, 2016, 05:14

You are wrong. Images peak not too long after upload and go down hill from there.

Not always I think everyone's experience is different the best way forward is to monitor activity on your own portfolio and learn from there

kaboom · « **Reply #8 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:38 »

Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 04:07

Let's assume that i'll upload 1 000 000 good shots today.......
My question is: How long does it take to make a decent income from 1 000 000 photos? How many months/years must pass with that million photos already accepted to start earn a living?

I find these types of questions so seriously annoying.. And this one is particularly nonsensical

How many contributors do you think have EVER uploaded one million photos on one day? How many contributors do you think even have one million photos in their portfolios? Who do you think can truthfully answer this question?

And moreover - is anyone of us a fortuneteller? Do we see into future? The environment in microstock have changed tremendously in last couple of years, the number of images in the databases of agencies have gone up from a few million to more than 100 million, solely on Shutterstock... The conditions for growth are not the same anymore, they are quite different and changing as we speak. So any previous experience regarding number of images in port, increase of income etc... cannot be automatically applied on whatever will happen in future.

Are you just trolling? Unlike you, some people still take this business seriously.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #9 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:46 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 03, 2016, 05:14

You are wrong. Images peak not too long after upload and go down hill from there.

It was true about 8 years ago. Nowadays in many cases months pass before an image starts to sell, and with a selected few images sales increase even after years. Especially these days, when on Shutterstock only old, well established shots seem to sell over and over again

Desintegrator · « **Reply #10 on:** October 03, 2016, 05:48 »

Quote from: kaboom on October 03, 2016, 05:38

Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 04:07
Let's assume that i'll upload 1 000 000 good shots today.......
My question is: How long does it take to make a decent income from 1 000 000 photos? How many months/years must pass with that million photos already accepted to start earn a living?

I find these types of questions so seriously annoying.. And this one is particularly nonsensical

How many contributors do you think have EVER uploaded one million photos on one day? How many contributors do you think even have one million photos in their portfolios? Who do you think can truthfully answer this question?

And moreover - is anyone of us a fortuneteller? Do we see into future? The environment in microstock have changed tremendously in last couple of years, the number of images in the databases of agencies have gone up from a few million to more than 100 million, solely on Shutterstock... The conditions for growth are not the same anymore, they are quite different and changing as we speak. So any previous experience regarding number of images in port, increase of income etc... cannot be automatically applied on whatever will happen in future.

Are you just trolling? Unlike you, some people still take this business seriously.

What's more, "earning a living" means vastly different things around the Globe. For someone it $200 a month, for someone it's 5000.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** October 03, 2016, 06:35 »

" I might figured out something"

I'm not sure what they figured out.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #12 on:** October 03, 2016, 06:49 »

Just on the whole how long to make a living part... if you define $5000 a month as making a living, and you've uploaded 1m images, then I'd be pretty surprised if you weren't making a living from the end of the first month. I mean you need to have a pretty rubbish portfolio to be getting an average of less than half a cent, per image, per month.

Madrolly · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2016, 07:02 »

The thing is that it seems really pointless to try hard to get... let's say 500 shots/month. It seems like alot of wasted time and energy for something that will bloom in years. What if you have the possibility to found a Microstock Factory. That seems to be even more time, energy and in many cases, even money wasted.
I'm one of those guys that believed that internet bs where it says that it's never too late to enter the microstock business. I don't know how you feel about this but it really seems that those photographers that started in early 2000's had a hyper-different beginning then one that starts now in this microstock business.
I studied how microstock works. Talked to different people in hope to see different answers/different experiences but, all is aw was the difference between good/bad shots and high/low volume. Until now! When i realised that it really doesn't matter that you upload 100K shots in a month (possible with a Microstock Factory) or 500 as one photographer. It will take X time for your shots to be... i don't know, indexed or something.
So in my opinion this business it goes like this from the moment of inception (numbers are just examples):

500 pics = $5 <2-3yrs = $50 >2-3yrs
100 000 pics = 500$ <2-3yrs = $5000 >2-3yrs

I understood that there is no way of promotion to push your sales up. That's a good thing because that way it all comes down to the quality and to how well you managed the demands, trends etc.
But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know... i can only think that those guys who figured that out know when to upload and when to stop uploading. there is lots of information out there that must be found out and i thought that it will be someone on this forum to explain those things to this topic as long as he sees someone that is interested in this type of information.

Yeah i guess i was fool to think that an info of this caliber will be offered as charity. I guess i'll have to struggle and dig deeper.

Lots of love to those that tried to help with info and ideas as for those who took this as joke... i guess that shooting and uploading randomly is going just fine for you.

Keep up the good work!

P.S.: stop hangin' to that million photos. numbers where examples. you missed the point in that message.

Difydave · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2016, 07:11 »

What I can tell you is that one million images, assuming you took, processed, keyworded and uploaded one every 5 minutes, 24/7, would take you 9.51 years to complete.

So the question is at best, academic.

Forget about there being some kind of universal answer or logic behind this business. There isn't from a contributor's point of view. Too many variables.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2016, 07:25 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 03, 2016, 06:49

Just on the whole how long to make a living part... if you define $5000 a month as making a living, and you've uploaded 1m images, then I'd be pretty surprised if you weren't making a living from the end of the first month. I mean you need to have a pretty rubbish portfolio to be getting an average of less than half a cent, per image, per month.

But you'd be paying off a huge debt for the 10 years you spend building up the portfolio ridiculous question really......

Tror · « **Reply #16 on:** October 03, 2016, 07:27 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 03, 2016, 04:27

I've been doing Pond5 and VideoHive for quite a few years, but only got on SS, iS, FT, VB and the like in the last year, and I have noticed that sales have been increasing gradually over that time. Not really sure why that is. When I started, Shutterstock would be $50 one month, nothing the next. Now it seems to be $50 one month, $150 the next... got $300 last month! And there's not really been a massive increase in my portfolio over the year, maybe a 25% increase or something.

It's black magic.

I assume you have a great Portfolio and few files. That means that with each sale of a specific file it gets a better DataBase ranking and thus attracts more sales. A cash-Perpetuum-mobile

Congratulations and enjoy!

BelieveInStock · « **Reply #17 on:** October 03, 2016, 07:29 »

I consider myself an experienced and successful microstock artist. I can offer you my expertise for $70,000.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** October 03, 2016, 09:10 »

OP, the answer is in your own question. if you upload 1 million images today, they would make you 333,333 dollar in a few years

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2016, 11:25 »

Whatever, the important thing is that turnover is vanity; profit is sanity. How much would it cost to make even 1000 varied, sellable nowadays, files, taking equipment and time into the equation.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #20 on:** October 03, 2016, 11:39 »

Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 07:02

...But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know...

This is your basic problem - why does it have to be something? Why do you assume this market will conform to some sort of numerical pattern or model and the trick is to figure it out?

This isn't alchemy; there isn't some secret that you just have to dig deep enough to discover.

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #21 on:** October 03, 2016, 12:02 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 03, 2016, 11:39

Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 07:02
...But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know...

Quote from: Madrolly on July 26, 2016, 04:53
Chasing algorithms theories for me it's a completely waste of valuable production time, but hey. It's just me

So what's it gonna be?

mlwp · « **Reply #22 on:** October 03, 2016, 12:05 »

If I had a million good marketable images sitting around I sure as h*ll wouldn't give them to a microstock site.

ccbcc · « **Reply #23 on:** October 03, 2016, 14:03 »

To get rich you only need 10 photos. 10 good photos. Real good photos.

Numbers don't matter. If you offer what people want, then you will sell. There is no trick, no keyword combo algorithm crap that will sell bad photos.

Why . do people think it works like this?

Sometimes this forum disappoints me. For instance, there are people on the video forum asking how to downsize a videofile.. I mean, what? You want to sell stuff to serieus advertising agencies around the world, but you don't even know the basics? If you're an amateur, that's fine of course, but this will reflect in your earnings. Uploading more low end stuff won't help, because this is not what the customers are looking for.

Ok rant is over! I even deleted most of it.

Benozaur · « **Reply #24 on:** October 03, 2016, 14:06 »

I roll my eyes every time I read crap like this on this forum. Just another lazy amateur trying to make a quick and easy buck by trying to beat the system.
There is no "system" to beat and the money is neither quick nor easy.
Here is the advice that you need to hear but obviously find hard to swallow: Put in the time and the effort by actually working hard and your efforts will eventually be paid off by the sweat off your own brow.
I actually miss the days when Shutterstock were so strict when accepting content from new "photographers".

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** October 03, 2016, 14:24 »

Quote from: ccbcc on October 03, 2016, 14:03

To get rich you only need 10 photos. 10 good photos. Real good photos.

Numbers don't matter. If you offer what people want, then you will sell. There is no trick, no keyword combo algorithm crap that will sell bad photos.

And even then it only works until the masses start to offer variations on your ten really good photos.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #26 on:** October 03, 2016, 15:35 »

in the time it takes you to take and post process 1,000 photos a week, if possible...
there are much easier ways to earn money ...
- squeegee cars at the red light
- flip burgers
- be a mime or buskers at the waterfront
- play a flute or saxophone or walk on stilts at the underground
- panhandle

as someone said, it used to be true that feed the beast in ss and you will make money
but even now with the way ss is, this is no guarantee anymore.

but marijuana on white is still the best way to get downloads on ss.
better still, send a box of marijuana in brown paper wrapping by courier to HO ss,
...

riffmax · « **Reply #27 on:** October 03, 2016, 16:22 »

"Why do you assume this market will conform to some sort of numerical pattern or model and the trick is to figure it out?"

Especially when that conformity is variable.

"but marijuana on white is still the best way to get downloads on ss."

Do we really KNOW they generate downloads?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 03, 2016, 16:46 »

"I actually miss the days when Shutterstock were so strict when accepting content from new "photographers"." I actually learnt a heck of a lot from them and especially I stock about the technical side of photography. To be perfectly honest when I look at my own portfolio I have let my standards slip.

cthoman · « **Reply #29 on:** October 03, 2016, 17:57 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 03, 2016, 11:39

Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 07:02
...But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know...

This is your basic problem - why does it have to be something? Why do you assume this market will conform to some sort of numerical pattern or model and the trick is to figure it out?

This isn't alchemy; there isn't some secret that you just have to dig deep enough to discover.

LOL. Yeah, just when I think I've got it all figured out, it all changes.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #30 on:** October 03, 2016, 18:16 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 03, 2016, 16:46

"I actually miss the days when Shutterstock were so strict when accepting content from new "photographers"." I actually learnt a heck of a lot from them and especially I stock about the technical side of photography. To be perfectly honest when I look at my own portfolio I have let my standards slip.

waaa, that is so true... for me too, Pauws!!!
i remember how when i first started with istock, fotolia, drstime, crestock, bst,123,canstock,... 20 all in all , the first 20 to the right of this page at that time LOL...
i had like 20 % approval.. and it took me hours.. yes, hours to post-process 20 images.
then with practise, and approval went to 90% , so did post-process to less than 15 mins per image
as everything was spot on with the shot.
istock, esp gave me a lot of training to cleanup my act and efficient up my workflow.
and it took me 2nd try to get 7/10 for ss.
and the improvement shot skyhigh , as did the downloads..
and with the introduction of regular 28 to 102 dollars signle earnings,
peaked my own interest for micro.

then with the disappearance of the 28 to 102 dollars single earnings, and
the abolition of the 7/10 entrance requisite , and the lowering of the 35 dollar payout limit
also went the earnings to a shortfall like many old contributors.

it wasn't that our work got worse, but more as jo ann , mantis, rinderhart,etc.. point out
that new lesser quality controlled items flooded the new images...

and when looking back of a decade or so, i noticed my best sellers were not actually my best works...
so too, to echo you.. i let my own standard slip...
to the point where it really does not matter anymore,
since the earnings no longer warrant the time spent to shoot.

but maybe, as i said earlier , this might change as i now look to apply to stocksy...
change my workflow and shooting criteria to what stocksy is looking for..
in hope of gaining an earning that used to be my ss portfolio mandate.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** October 03, 2016, 18:17 »

Quote from: cthoman on October 03, 2016, 17:57

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 03, 2016, 11:39
Quote from: Madrolly on October 03, 2016, 07:02
...But it's gotta be something... some algorithms i don't know...

This is your basic problem - why does it have to be something? Why do you assume this market will conform to some sort of numerical pattern or model and the trick is to figure it out?

This isn't alchemy; there isn't some secret that you just have to dig deep enough to discover.

LOL. Yeah, just when I think I've got it all figured out, it all changes.

so true too, ... someone flip the switch and the portfolios went off the cliff...
and the bottom fell out LOL

like clapton quote marley... "every time i planted a seed, (ss) say..
kill it before it grows !!... i say... "(guitar)

angelawaye · « **Reply #32 on:** October 04, 2016, 09:53 »

I think quality over quantity matters. I started in late 2007 and only have 1540 images, but they do me well. I do stock photography because I truly love it. I don't think there is a formula that you can figure out.

I think a lot of people want to write books on how to do this microstock thing and succeed but there isn't an exact recipe for it.

It is a marathon and I'm getting stronger and better with every "mile" ... Good luck to all my runners in it for the long haul!

Pixart · « **Reply #33 on:** October 04, 2016, 10:37 »

I wonder how long it would take SS to review 1M photos these days? After all, it only took 13 seconds to review Lauren's 19 images the other day....

Pauws99 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 04, 2016, 11:32 »

Quote from: angelawaye on October 04, 2016, 09:53

I think quality over quantity matters. I started in late 2007 and only have 1540 images, but they do me well. I do stock photography because I truly love it. I don't think there is a formula that you can figure out.

I think a lot of people want to write books on how to do this microstock thing and succeed but there isn't an exact recipe for it.

It is a marathon and I'm getting stronger and better with every "mile" ... Good luck to all my runners in it for the long haul!

I have looked at your stuff ...you are very talented. I'm not so but I enjoy it too there are many people on here doing something they hate

CJH Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** October 04, 2016, 12:19 »

Oh gosh, if you hate it why bother?

I mean, some people will eventually make a living, but I do that in my day job already. And if you want to get rich at this, well it's a lot of work and a lot of risk and probably will not happen. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 04, 2016, 13:16 »

Quote from: CJH Photography on October 04, 2016, 12:19

Oh gosh, if you hate it why bother? I mean, some people will eventually make a living, but I do that in my day job already. And if you want to get rich at this, well it's a lot of work and a lot of risk and probably will not happen. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it.

Thats what puzzles me so many on here constantly complain and keep going back for more punishment.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #37 on:** October 04, 2016, 13:52 »

Quote from: Pixart on October 04, 2016, 10:37

I wonder how long it would take SS to review 1M photos these days? After all, it only took 13 seconds to review Lauren's 19 images the other day....

i swear to you just the other day i saw two ss reviewers ...
one looked like clark kent with an afro hairdo
the other looks like barry allen with mohawk hairdo...

that explains how they take less than a second to review one image

ArturoDV96 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 06, 2016, 11:22 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 03, 2016, 05:14

You are wrong. Images peak not too long after upload and go down hill from there.

I have not found that to be the case with some of my best-selling images, which are photos I uploaded more than one and two years ago.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2016, 11:43 »

i have seen this as well, images need time to settle in and then take off, dunno how it works, but happens like that

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I might figured out something [Need microstock veterans to confirm] (Read 8442 times)

alno

Justanotherphotographer

Tror

Benozaur

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors