MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Sebastian Radu on April 03, 2014, 04:25

Title: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Sebastian Radu on April 03, 2014, 04:25
Hello to all,

I have about 800 - 1000 stock photos on all major agencies. My earnings is about of >100 $ / month. The time that I spend for photos is very short because, unfortunately, I must go to a "classic" job that I don't like it to much but the salary is more consistent (600 $). In March, on SS with my 800 images I sold more than 100.
Do you think that it deserve to make only stock pictures and, let say, in 4 -5 month, if I will produce more and more similar images like I did till now, I'll rich my actual incoming from job?

Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: stocked on April 03, 2014, 04:29
Hello to all,

I have about 800 - 1000 stock photos on all major agencies. My earnings is about of >100 $ / month. The time that I spend for photos is very short because, unfortunately, I must go to a "classic" job that I don't like it to much but the salary is more consistent (600 $). In March, on SS with my 800 images I sold more than 100.
Do you think that it deserve to make only stock pictures and, let say, in 4 -5 month, if I will produce more and more similar images like I did till now, I'll rich my actual incoming from job?

Thank you  :)
I don't thinks so, but it depends how much you  need for a living. Competition is already very fierce and it will be becoming a lot harder in the coming months and years and your results with 1000 images are not very good.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Sebastian Radu on April 03, 2014, 04:38
For 800 images what will be a reasonable amount/motnh ?
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 04:48
looking at your average you will need to create more 5000 pictures to reach 600$ but in fact looking at other contributors skills and changes in the industry I would say you need more like 9k pictures, it depends on the content you will shoot as well, anyway creating that amount of files will take you years and you need the money now to pay bills, etc

the reasonable would be 1$ per file per month, some will say it is very low but I would say it would be a good average thinking of cheap stock photos (not hiring models or buying props)

I am far from that average ;D
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 03, 2014, 04:52
I am making around 600$ month with 1500 LCV images on Shutterstock. I would at least add another 1000-1200 images and see where it gets you.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Pauws99 on April 03, 2014, 05:00
I would suggest giving it another year and see where you are then don't give up the day job just yet!

I think 1$ per image per month is very high - look at your own stats and estimate from there. To replace your income of $600 you would need about 6000 images BUT there is a risk on income going down (or up) also you need to take into account any production costs

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: cobalt on April 03, 2014, 05:16
Although it of course depends where you live and how much money you need, most people I know have at least 6000 -9000 files to be able to make a "living wage".

The agencies receive 200 000 new files every week. So you need to have a good quality portfolio with many files in good search positions to have a reliable income stream. With a few hundred images your income is extremely vulnerable to changes in the agency search engines. Your bestsellers might drop dead very abruptly and then how will you live?
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: shudderstok on April 03, 2014, 06:20
it all depends on what you shoot. all of the answers above are accurate and none of the answers above are correct. there are so many variables that there is no correct answer. the theory of having thousands of images online on every site is a good one, if that is your flavor, and it is also the worst idea in the world if it is not your flavor. there is an amazingly naive view in the last few years that anyone can make a living at stock so there is an amazing sense of entitlement floating around. all i can say is if you are good and you work your butt off then you might make a full time go of it. good luck with it.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Perry on April 03, 2014, 06:25
It all depends on:

1) How good and productive photographer you are
2) Where you live

I make about $3000 per month, but that is not enough for comfortable living in my country when all the costs (equipment) are deducted. So I'm doing also commissioned work, and that sucks (makes it difficult for me to plan and schedule my stock work)

In many, many parts of the world I could live very comfortably with $3000 per month and even save a part of it. Thinking of this makes me very sad.

If your images are good (subject matter, artistic and technical qualities, keywording and descriptions) you could make the $600 month already with 1000 images. So try to ramp up the quality and production and you will see results.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 06:34
It all depends on:

1) How good and productive photographer you are
2) Where you live

I make about $3000 per month, but that is not enough for comfortable living in my country when all the costs (equipment) are deducted. So I'm doing also commissioned work, and that sucks.

In many, many parts of the world I could live very comfortably with $3000 per month and even save a part of it. Thinking of this makes me very sad.

If your images are good (subject matter, artistic and technical qualities, keywording and descriptions) you could make the $600 month already with 1000 images. So try to ramp up the quality and production and you will see results.

The high cost of living where you are probably reflects a lifestyle you are buying into. In places where living is cheap the facilities probably wouldn't fit with your expectations.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Sebastian Radu on April 03, 2014, 06:39
I live in Romania.. In this country a medium salary is about 500 - 600$/month but, in time (I hope not to much time) I want at least 600 x 2 / month.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: cobalt on April 03, 2014, 07:06
Then probably the costs for cameras,software, computer will be a major part of your production costs. But you can probably book models and stylists at very affordable prices.

Maybe for you 3-4000 images would be enough, I donīt know. But the main problem with stock is the risk of having very drastic income drops because of best match changes. So even if 2000 files might be enough to cover basic cost I would still try to have significantly more files online before you quit your day job.

On istock I have 3600 images and sometimes I earn less than 200 dollars with them. The lowest so far was 132 dollars. And many of my files have very good positions in the search engines, because they are older files with thousands of downloads.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 07:20
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Sebastian Radu on April 03, 2014, 07:28
But may be with more images on portfolio the more buyer will find it and, let say some buyer find a pictures with some wine and see other nice pictures, hi will buy another from me, and so on. I think that I will upload more pictures I will attract more buyers... Or may be I'm wrong  :-\
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 07:36
You can only try it and see what happens. But remember that every day tens of thousands of new pictures are uploaded, so the competition just gets harder and harder. A lot will depend on your subject matter and your quality and in general the more you shoot the better you get. So there are pluses and minuses, but most people seem to find that can make their earnings go up to a certain point (it differs from person to person) then they stay flat for a year or two, then they start to go down.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: EmberMike on April 03, 2014, 08:08
But may be with more images on portfolio the more buyer will find it and, let say some buyer find a pictures with some wine and see other nice pictures, hi will buy another from me, and so on. I think that I will upload more pictures I will attract more buyers... Or may be I'm wrong  :-\

It's not too hard to maintain earnings in this business. Growing earnings is hard. Read through various discussions in this forum and you'll find lots of people who upload new work regularly and just maintain (or sometimes lose) income. Simply uploading more images isn't the key to growth.

You can upload tons of images and just hope for some growth by putting as much work out there as possible. But you may need to put up 10,000 images to make $700 if those images aren't very good or are all mostly similar to previous uploads. The trick is experimenting with different concepts, themes, styles, etc., and finding what works best for you. I'd say in your case, based on current portfolio performance, you're not on that right track yet. 1,000 images should be doing better than $100/month for you.

Try some new things, look at expanding your skills and style more so than just your quantity of images.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 08:46
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

In the past I had a positive outlook for the industry as a whole. Unfortunately it has become apparent that many of the leading stock companies never intended on making this model sustainable for contributors. BaldricksTrousers makes a good point regarding diminishing returns. The favorable search placement that new contributors receive in the beginning conceals the challenges new microstock contributors will experience in the years to come. The dangling carrot contributes to the millions of images the sites take in every year via new contributors and makes it harder for existing contributors to compete every month.

Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches.

Shutterstock has publicly stated that "they have not raised prices to buyers for many years and do not intend to raise prices in the future as a long term strategy to gain market share". This is sustainable for them because their volume is far higher than any producer can ever achieve and they use the new contributor boost carrot to bring in higher numbers of new contributors who earn lower royalties. 

The sad tactics they use to gain market share has been profitable for them but has reduced our earnings potential by diminishing the value of our files while inflation and the need to increase quality and file numbers increases our annual production expenses.

Even the very high volume HCV microstock factories who receive more exposure in the search via extreme file numbers are seeing eroding returns per image over time. Yuri and other factories talk about this quite often and as a result Yuri built his own site and made other strategic changes to limit his exposure to the model long term.

The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: EmberMike on April 03, 2014, 09:04
...Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches...

Many, but not all contributors are seeing this effect. Anyone know why that is or how that could be? If companies were systematically pushing down files in searches on the basis of offering images from newer (and thus cheaper) contributors ahead of older contributors, wouldn't it be an across-the-board effect then?

I'd also be curious to know if this is a trend among photographers, illustrators, everyone, just one type of image, etc. For what it's worth, I'm a vector artist, been at SS since 2007 and I have seen zero negative impact on my search placements or on my earnings. 
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 09:10
The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.

high number of HCV images = + search exposure = false (it might get you increased exposure)

most certainly = search penalizes ports with large number of LCV images

man I am confused, that doesn't make any sense, so why are you having drops in earnings?
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 09:30
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Goofy on April 03, 2014, 09:32
Hello to all,

I have about 800 - 1000 stock photos on all major agencies. My earnings is about of >100 $ / month. The time that I spend for photos is very short because, unfortunately, I must go to a "classic" job that I don't like it to much but the salary is more consistent (600 $). In March, on SS with my 800 images I sold more than 100.
Do you think that it deserve to make only stock pictures and, let say, in 4 -5 month, if I will produce more and more similar images like I did till now, I'll rich my actual incoming from job?

Thank you  :)

Strictly looking at the min requirement you stated that $600 per month would get you by thus it is very possible to make a 'living' on microstock at that salary range. Mostly likely 2,000 image or more will start to generate your min salary requirement.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 09:40
Hello to all,

I have about 800 - 1000 stock photos on all major agencies. My earnings is about of >100 $ / month. The time that I spend for photos is very short because, unfortunately, I must go to a "classic" job that I don't like it to much but the salary is more consistent (600 $). In March, on SS with my 800 images I sold more than 100.
Do you think that it deserve to make only stock pictures and, let say, in 4 -5 month, if I will produce more and more similar images like I did till now, I'll rich my actual incoming from job?

Thank you  :)

Strictly looking at the min requirement you stated that $600 per month would get you by thus it is very possible to make a 'living' on microstock at that salary range. Mostly likely 2,000 image or more will start to generate your min salary requirement.

how will they (2000) earn the 600$ if the 1000 he has are only doing 100$?
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: JPSDK on April 03, 2014, 09:46
It does not have much to do with numbers.
But more with who you are.
Can you improve your shooting qualities 10 times next year, and can you improve the postprocessing 10 times.'
not to mention and most important, can you narrow in on the concept 10 times more efficiently.
Can you?
Can you grow that much. Not many can, because in this world there is supercompetition, you are being crowdsourced and you have to be better than the crowd both in guality and quantity.
Can you?
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 09:52
It does not have much to do with numbers. in this world there is supercompetition, you are being crowdsourced and you have to be better than the crowd both in guality and quantity.

Unfortunately, everybody else is busy trying to be head and shoulders above the crowd, too. That's how we all ended up investing so heavily in something that delivers such an uncertain return.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: JPSDK on April 03, 2014, 10:04
It does not have much to do with numbers. in this world there is supercompetition, you are being crowdsourced and you have to be better than the crowd both in guality and quantity.

Unfortunately, everybody else is busy trying to be head and shoulders above the crowd, too. That's how we all ended up investing so heavily in something that delivers such an uncertain return.
ja, thasts called the "rat race" and all the rats are racing around in the bucket, trying to step on eachother to see the sun rising.
Fine, one does. He is happy.
But  on the bottum of the bucket lies many dead rats.
It is a question if you choose super competition and darwinism or if you choose to live in some sort of human friendly civilisation.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 10:40
The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.

high number of HCV images = + search exposure = false (it might get you increased exposure)

most certainly = search penalizes ports with large number of LCV images

man I am confused, that doesn't make any sense, so why are you having drops in earnings?

Luis I feel for you if you have dyslexia, you seem to consistently have trouble reading.  You either purposely post this scrambled garbage executive review or you have real challenges when reading.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 10:48
I don't have any issues man, not that I know at least, can you explain me why the F are your earnings dropping then?

your content isn't LCV, it is obviously HCV, shouldn't you be loaded? unless you are the guy with loads of HCV but no exposure 8)

I have written exactly what you have dude, what is wrong there? ;D
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 11:00
It is a question if you choose super competition and darwinism or if you choose to live in some sort of human friendly civilisation.

Oh, no! It's not that bad! I'm one of the rats who has at least got his fingers scraping towards the top of the bucket - and I didn't have to kill anyone to do it. Look at Sean Locke - he's basked in the sun and nobody has been more friendly towards his competitors.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Batman on April 03, 2014, 11:20
Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches.

Shutterstock has publicly stated that "they have not raised prices to buyers for many years and do not intend to raise prices in the future as a long term strategy to gain market share". This is sustainable for them because their volume is far higher than any producer can ever achieve and they use the new contributor boost carrot to bring in higher numbers of new contributors who earn lower royalties. 

The sad tactics they use to gain market share has been profitable for them but has reduced our earnings potential by diminishing the value of our files while inflation and the need to increase quality and file numbers increases our annual production expenses.

Even the very high volume HCV microstock factories who receive more exposure in the search via extreme file numbers are seeing eroding returns per image over time. Yuri and other factories talk about this quite often and as a result Yuri built his own site and made other strategic changes to limit his exposure to the model long term.

The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.
I'm not sure if this is related but at Shutterstock the best selling files from 2013 sold about 20% less than the best selling files from 2012.  There are probably a few different ways to interpret that stat.

Do you have files on SS that are effected this way? Or are you making up stats again.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 11:21
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 11:23
I don't have any issues man, not that I know at least, can you explain me why the F are your earnings dropping then?

your content isn't LCV, it is obviously HCV, shouldn't you be loaded? unless you are the guy with loads of HCV but no exposure 8)

I have written exactly what you have dude, what is wrong there? ;D

No you did not write what I wrote, you misrepresented and mangled what I wrote to mean something completely different. It is becoming clear that is your intention.

Luis do you have any thoughts of your own or do you just meddle and snoop into other contributors business? You spend most of your time on these boards snooping into successful ports or taking sideways jabs at contributors who have viewpoints different than your own. 

It is my business where I submit my files and how they are doing not yours.



Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 11:32
I am not really going that way mate, if you are unhappy you can always ignore me, in the meantime go and read my post again, I even took the bits from your own post, I haven't made anything up
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Goofy on April 03, 2014, 11:35
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 11:43
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Goofy on April 03, 2014, 12:00
Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...
Isn't that what the hearts, minuses, and emoticons have done?

LOL!  ;D

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: topol on April 03, 2014, 12:31
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

I'm experiencing the opposite. As my files age, the popular ones are becoming even more popular with increasing number of downloads/day as their search placement gets more and more solid. When they start to sell they go from few downloads a week to downloads every day, and when it gets to 2 or more downloads / day, they almost always end up getting 8-10+, 20 downloads every day.... which is logical because every sensible search engine takes it's hints form the customers' actions. So actually when I told myself that this isn't as profitable as it's supposed to be, a whole bunch of files started making a more and more money as they got old enough. This also means that new files coming in to the site have little / no effect on popular files because search preference is coming frome individual image's merits, and the head start those have is actually increasing with time.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: topol on April 03, 2014, 12:45

Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches.

Shutterstock has publicly stated that "they have not raised prices to buyers for many years and do not intend to raise prices in the future as a long term strategy to gain market share". This is sustainable for them because their volume is far higher than any producer can ever achieve and they use the new contributor boost carrot to bring in higher numbers of new contributors who earn lower royalties. 

The sad tactics they use to gain market share has been profitable for them but has reduced our earnings potential by diminishing the value of our files while inflation and the need to increase quality and file numbers increases our annual production expenses.

Even the very high volume HCV microstock factories who receive more exposure in the search via extreme file numbers are seeing eroding returns per image over time. Yuri and other factories talk about this quite often and as a result Yuri built his own site and made other strategic changes to limit his exposure to the model long term.

The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.

I never ever experienced any 'sudden overnight drops'. Only the regular fluctuations according to season/holidays, etc. I suspect you are taking your hints from certain 'SS forum superstar' contributors, who's portfolios don't seem to be noticed by their fans for actually being a piss-poor collection of photography "don't do"-s. :)


I don't think the search penalizes ports for anything, I think the search simply doesn't do anything to 'ports', becasue it only works on individual images.... regardless of their source. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Just doesn't make any sense.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Perry on April 03, 2014, 12:51
The high cost of living where you are probably reflects a lifestyle you are buying into. In places where living is cheap the facilities probably wouldn't fit with your expectations.

I live in a Nordic country, we have pretty high standards here. But I know many (east-)European countries with acceptable standards but with average wages under half of what we have. That would mean that everything produced within that country (food, houses, rents, services, doctors etc.) would cost much less. Of course imported stuff would be only a little cheaper (less markup).

Of course there are those dirt cheap countries too, but they have too low standards (safety, internet, facilities) for long-time living.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 12:56
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

I'm experiencing the opposite. As my files age, the popular ones are becoming even more popular with increasing number of downloads/day as their search placement gets more and more solid. When they start to sell they go from few downloads a week to downloads every day, and when it gets to 2 or more downloads / day, they almost always end up getting 8-10+, 20 downloads every day.... which is logical because every sensible search engine takes it's hints form the customers' actions. So actually when I told myself that this isn't as profitable as it's supposed to be, a whole bunch of files started making a more and more money as they got old enough. This also means that new files coming in to the site have little / no effect on popular files because search preference is coming frome individual image's merits, and the head start those have is actually increasing with time.

That's an interesting result. It may reflect a difference between your portfolio and other peoples. My stuff is mostly LCV but I reckon that the huge competition among HCV subjects probably spreads the sales so thinly that my LCV sales are likely to be as good and the returns from average to decent HCV stuff.  Perhaps you have HCV plus exceptional quality. I can certainly see how that would reinforce sales. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the very top sellers.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 12:58
The high cost of living where you are probably reflects a lifestyle you are buying into. In places where living is cheap the facilities probably wouldn't fit with your expectations.

I live in a Nordic country, we have pretty high standards here. But I know many (east-)European countries with acceptable standards but with average wages under half of what we have. That would mean that everything produced within that country (food, houses, rents, services, doctors etc.) would cost much less. Of course imported stuff would be only a little cheaper (less markup).

Of course there are those dirt cheap countries too, but they have too low standards (safety, internet, facilities) for long-time living.

Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Perry on April 03, 2014, 13:07
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22331.msg373544#msg373544
Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

Finland. Not quite as expensive as Norway, but on-par with Sweden. Massive taxes (good benefits tho).
Average salary 3109 euros/month (about $4200)
Median salary 2774 euros/month (about $3800)

To live like an average Joe and pay for equipment and pension I would need to sell stock images for at least $5000 per month, and I don't seem to be able to do it. But if I moved to Poland or Estonia I could do it instantly.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: topol on April 03, 2014, 13:17
I think the biggest problem of all is that earnings tend to erode over time, and sooner or later earnings will start to fall faster than you can possibly upload to keep your income as it is.

What that means is that unless you are able to earn much more than the minimum you need to live on, you will need to find other ways to add to your income. If you don't, you will gradually become poorer and poorer as time goes by.

Also, the time it takes to build a portfolio is also time that reduces the value of images. If you are making 10c per picture per month now, by the time you have 6,000 pictures online you will probably only be making 7.5c per picture. Six or seven years from now, when you have 12,000 online, they will probably only be making 5c per file - and another five years on it may only be 3c.

I'm experiencing the opposite. As my files age, the popular ones are becoming even more popular with increasing number of downloads/day as their search placement gets more and more solid. When they start to sell they go from few downloads a week to downloads every day, and when it gets to 2 or more downloads / day, they almost always end up getting 8-10+, 20 downloads every day.... which is logical because every sensible search engine takes it's hints form the customers' actions. So actually when I told myself that this isn't as profitable as it's supposed to be, a whole bunch of files started making a more and more money as they got old enough. This also means that new files coming in to the site have little / no effect on popular files because search preference is coming frome individual image's merits, and the head start those have is actually increasing with time.

That's an interesting result. It may reflect a difference between your portfolio and other peoples. My stuff is mostly LCV but I reckon that the huge competition among HCV subjects probably spreads the sales so thinly that my LCV sales are likely to be as good and the returns from average to decent HCV stuff.  Perhaps you have HCV plus exceptional quality. I can certainly see how that would reinforce sales. Indeed, it is the hallmark of the very top sellers.

Nope, nothing exceptional (maybe some...) mostly because I'v been operating pretty cheaply. Mostly just a gal or a two of them, or a couple, amateur / semi pro models, easily accessible mostly public locations. I admit some of the locations are pretty nice tho, and I have a few amateur models that will melt your pants.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 03, 2014, 13:25
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22331.msg373544#msg373544
Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

Finland. Not quite as expensive as Norway, but on-par with Sweden. Massive taxes (good benefits tho).
Average salary 3109 euros/month (about $4200)
Median salary 2774 euros/month (about $3800)

To live like an average Joe and pay for equipment and pension I would need to sell stock images for at least $5000 per month, and I don't seem to be able to do it. But if I moved to Poland or Estonia I could do it instantly.

Greece average wage $962 last year. And the sun shines (though never at midnight!).
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: sobm on April 03, 2014, 13:30
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers link=topic=22331.msg373544#msg373544
Norway? Massive taxes and benefits, from what I heard. I'll be heading for Greece in due course. $1,000 goes a long way in Greece.

Finland. Not quite as expensive as Norway, but on-par with Sweden. Massive taxes (good benefits tho).
Average salary 3109 euros/month (about $4200)
Median salary 2774 euros/month (about $3800)

To live like an average Joe and pay for equipment and pension I would need to sell stock images for at least $5000 per month, and I don't seem to be able to do it. But if I moved to Poland or Estonia I could do it instantly.

Greece average wage $962 last year. And the sun shines (though never at midnight!).

Really? I love Aegean sea ;D
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 13:33
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/EU%20wage.JPG)

gross average wage in US $

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_monthly_average_wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_monthly_average_wage)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: sobm on April 03, 2014, 13:39
people here need to buy an ugly house with millions, I said what kind of wasting , I wont spend my money to stuck in this place, i will move one day to the paradise of earth, hehehe ;D
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 14:35

Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches.

Shutterstock has publicly stated that "they have not raised prices to buyers for many years and do not intend to raise prices in the future as a long term strategy to gain market share". This is sustainable for them because their volume is far higher than any producer can ever achieve and they use the new contributor boost carrot to bring in higher numbers of new contributors who earn lower royalties. 

The sad tactics they use to gain market share has been profitable for them but has reduced our earnings potential by diminishing the value of our files while inflation and the need to increase quality and file numbers increases our annual production expenses.

Even the very high volume HCV microstock factories who receive more exposure in the search via extreme file numbers are seeing eroding returns per image over time. Yuri and other factories talk about this quite often and as a result Yuri built his own site and made other strategic changes to limit his exposure to the model long term.

The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.

I never ever experienced any 'sudden overnight drops'. Only the regular fluctuations according to season/holidays, etc. I suspect you are taking your hints from certain 'SS forum superstar' contributors, who's portfolios don't seem to be noticed by their fans for actually being a piss-poor collection of photography "don't do"-s. :)


I don't think the search penalizes ports for anything, I think the search simply doesn't do anything to 'ports', because it only works on individual images.... regardless of their source. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Just doesn't make any sense.

Enjoy your denial while it lasts. I have files with download numbers that would surprise you and they have been sent to the nether regions. SS purposely killed them and buyers can not find them in searches no matter how many pages they go through.

You will not believe it until it happens to you, but then you are trolling and do not really deserve a rational response. It is too bad that people who are honest about sales patterns are treated with this type of contempt,  because it prevents honest feed back that could help other contributors make wise business decisions.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 03, 2014, 14:42
Honest about sales patterns? You have never even produced one honest number in this forum. No one knows one iota about your business because you choose to be anonymous.

Oh the irony, two anonymous people arguing about each others claims, when they both never showed one figure ever. LOL
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 14:44
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 03, 2014, 14:52
You of all people need to comment on that. LOL. I have no gain in lying about my hobby  :)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 15:04
Honest about sales patterns? You have never even produced one honest number in this forum. No one knows one iota about your business because you choose to be anonymous.

Oh the irony, two anonymous people arguing about each others claims, when they both never showed one figure ever. LOL

Considering the way a few of you behave, I think I made a wise decision. Carry on bragging about your larger than life sales.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 03, 2014, 15:07
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: topol on April 03, 2014, 15:08

Enjoy your denial while it lasts. I have files with download numbers that would surprise you and they have been sent to the nether regions. SS purposely killed them and buyers can not find them in searches no matter how many pages they go through.

You will not believe it until it happens to you, but then you are trolling and do not really deserve a rational response. It is too bad that people who are honest about sales patterns are treated with this type of contempt,  because it prevents honest feed back that could help other contributors make wise business decisions.

Oh man you are the moses of microstock.

"I have files with download numbers that would surprise you"

0? -1?

:)


you make yourself a big target, hard to resist :)))
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: StanRohrer on April 03, 2014, 15:15

Over the last year many older contributors have seen as much as a 70% drop in annual earnings as the sites give their files less exposure in the search. Some of them have seen 30% to 70% overnight drops in earnings as the sites make search changes that no longer give their files exposure in the searches.

Shutterstock has publicly stated that "they have not raised prices to buyers for many years and do not intend to raise prices in the future as a long term strategy to gain market share". This is sustainable for them because their volume is far higher than any producer can ever achieve and they use the new contributor boost carrot to bring in higher numbers of new contributors who earn lower royalties. 

The sad tactics they use to gain market share has been profitable for them but has reduced our earnings potential by diminishing the value of our files while inflation and the need to increase quality and file numbers increases our annual production expenses.

Even the very high volume HCV microstock factories who receive more exposure in the search via extreme file numbers are seeing eroding returns per image over time. Yuri and other factories talk about this quite often and as a result Yuri built his own site and made other strategic changes to limit his exposure to the model long term.

The common perception that producing high number of images to gain search exposure is misguided and false. Large numbers of good quality very HCV files might bring you increased exposure. However the search most certainly penalizes ports with large numbers of LCV images.

I never ever experienced any 'sudden overnight drops'. Only the regular fluctuations according to season/holidays, etc. I suspect you are taking your hints from certain 'SS forum superstar' contributors, who's portfolios don't seem to be noticed by their fans for actually being a piss-poor collection of photography "don't do"-s. :)


I don't think the search penalizes ports for anything, I think the search simply doesn't do anything to 'ports', becasue it only works on individual images.... regardless of their source. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Just doesn't make any sense.
I have a high selling image (for me) that was floating around the first 10 positions for years at iStock (I started in 2003). Then they got wild with the Best match and it fell a few pages. Here in the last few weeks  it is rattling around position 360 (with well over 1000 downloads on record). I have many images that now come much earlier in the search results and these images have under 100 downloads. I am convinced iStock is depressing something related to my best selling images. It could be good to stir the pot and give good low selling images another day in the sun. However, it is costing me because the shift has lost more sales from the previously high sellers than is being made up buy multiple low sellers higher in the search. Ports, image sales, age, I don't know the criteria, but currently my best selling images are buried per my view.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 15:47
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

snip
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 15:53
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

Clearly I am not in this for the money. However after growing up in a company that does offer the people who power it, a fair living income. I find the greed of this model increasingly offensive.

Whether you choose to believe or listen to my viewpoints or not, is of no concern to me. It is the truth plain and simple.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 03, 2014, 16:05
Bragging about 600 dollar per month? lol. You are too funny, you bragging of being part of a family with a fortune 200 company, selling his amazing images for 38 cents. You cant make stuff up like that.

Clearly I am not in this for the money. However after growing up in a company that does offer the people who power it, a fair living income. I find the greed of this model increasingly offensive.

Whether you choose to believe or listen to my viewpoints or not, is of no concern to me. It is the truth plain and simple.

I guess that deserves another snip, sorry to say but that was the most pathetic thing I have ever read in this forum, it is just unbelievable looking at all the moaning you do regarding the devaluation of stock photography, Jon should pay you in peanuts!
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 16:10
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 03, 2014, 16:22


Clearly I am not in this for the money.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. So you are spending all this time on MSG, pissing and moaning about shutterstock's sub model, when you are not even in this for the money. Hahahahahahahahahaha. I have one word for you.

FLICKR
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: pancaketom on April 03, 2014, 17:02
I guess that deserves another snip, sorry to say but that was the most pathetic thing I have ever read in this forum, it is just unbelievable looking at all the moaning you do regarding the devaluation of stock photography, Jon should pay you in peanuts!

It's funny the price of a pound of peanuts is similar to what Shutterstock is paying, 27 cents a pound but in December it was 50 cents, I know not everyone makes 27 cents per pound:
[url]http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pnpr0114.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pnpr0114.pdf[/url])


I wish I could get peanuts for .27 per pound. even .38/pound would be a bargain.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 17:16
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 17:56
The cost of bird seed exceeds .38 per pound.   Perspectives on earnings is dictated by how low or high your bar has been set.

http://tinyurl.com/ljfkruo (http://tinyurl.com/ljfkruo)

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 03, 2014, 18:10
The cost of bird seed exceeds .38 per pound.   Perspectives on earnings is dictated by how low or high your bar has been set.

[url]http://tinyurl.com/ljfkruo[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/ljfkruo[/url])


I honestly dont get you. You act as if the bar is set high for you, but still you chose to submit to Shutterstock in 2004 to get 20 cents per sale.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: dingles on April 03, 2014, 18:10
In my best estimate I would need just shy of 10000 to be able to just get by only on stock. The main thing to be weary of is the lowering value of our images, making it that much harder to sustain a decent amount of income. I find videos to still have a decent return and they have been my main focus. Downside is they take up more time in editing and uploading. As of now I am happy with stock supplementing my income. I think the potential is there to earn a living with stock if you are willing to devote the majority of you time and able to squeeze by the first few years on peanuts. I think it is relevant to state I am in the US, and it might be easier in countries with lower costs of living.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2014, 18:53
Wait a minute... you mean it's not just a drama series, this is real?  ???

How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

Link Please? Where SS discloses this data?

I'm not sure if this is related but at Shutterstock the best selling files from 2013 sold about 20% less than the best selling files from 2012.  There are probably a few different ways to interpret that stat.

Odd isn't it, when best sellers have 10 million more competing files, they will sell less. How revolutionary is that? Why "Surprise, Surprise" More competition makes for less individual sales. Even a "best Seller" which is a vague enough term in itself. Best compared to what. The next 20 million new images?

Smaller piece of the pie and dilution because of competition is not some kind of conspiracy.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: tickstock on April 03, 2014, 19:42
.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 03, 2014, 20:11
I honestly dont get you. You act as if the bar is set high for you, but still you chose to submit to Shutterstock in 2004 to get 20 cents per sale.


I have explained my position with supporting facts to you many times over. You simply choose not to listen, you choose to rally your position despite the hard cold facts.  Trying to communicate with you leaves most of us in a similar position to Anderson's in this absurd flick  http://tinyurl.com/prdy6b9 (http://tinyurl.com/prdy6b9)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Goofy on April 03, 2014, 20:28
I guess that deserves another snip, sorry to say but that was the most pathetic thing I have ever read in this forum, it is just unbelievable looking at all the moaning you do regarding the devaluation of stock photography, Jon should pay you in peanuts!

It's funny the price of a pound of peanuts is similar to what Shutterstock is paying, 27 cents a pound but in December it was 50 cents, I know not everyone makes 27 cents per pound:
[url]http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pnpr0114.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/pnpr0114.pdf[/url])


I wish I could get peanuts for .27 per pound. even .38/pound would be a bargain.

Maybe we should start a petition asking to get paid in peanuts?


Very simple to get paid peanuts- just become 'Exclusive' to iStock  ;)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: shudderstok on April 03, 2014, 20:29
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Uncle Pete on April 03, 2014, 22:50
With 20 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

With 30 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340

Hardly a trend that new files aren't selling as well, when the best sellers are such a minute percentage, .004% of the total files vs a higher number .006% for 2012, to start with. It's like saying by counting unused straws you can figure out how many soft drinks are sold at McDonald's.

Relative decline is insignificant, not 20% - more like .002% while choice for customers increased 33%? If you were in business and your competition increased 33% and your market share dropped .002% would you call is suspicious or free fall decline?

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant.

Sorry. Not convinced there's anything suspicious going on, or best sellers are being "punished". On the contrary, they seem to be holding up against the competition pretty well.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: pancaketom on April 03, 2014, 23:55
With 20 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

With 30 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340

Hardly a trend that new files aren't selling as well, when the best sellers are such a minute percentage, .004% of the total files vs a higher number .006% for 2012, to start with. It's like saying by counting unused straws you can figure out how many soft drinks are sold at McDonald's.

Relative decline is insignificant, not 20% - more like .002% while choice for customers increased 33%? If you were in business and your competition increased 33% and your market share dropped .002% would you call is suspicious or free fall decline?

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant.

Sorry. Not convinced there's anything suspicious going on, or best sellers are being "punished". On the contrary, they seem to be holding up against the competition pretty well.

The illustration from 2012 looks a lot more impressive to me. Of course that has nothing to do with what makes a best seller, but I agree it is hardly a freefall considering the increase in the total numbers. Looking at the number of sales from the top 1% of files would be a lot more informative but I guess we only get the info they reveal.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Ron on April 04, 2014, 01:43
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional
The only inflated egos I see here are anonymous, telling everyone else they have it right, and the rest is wrong. When confronting them with their own contradictions, they start to ridicule and throw insults.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: topol on April 04, 2014, 02:43
With 20 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of photo, illustration, and vector (not including video) from 2012:  13,968

With 30 million images to choose from:
Best sellers of video, photo, illustration, and vector from 2013:  11,340

Hardly a trend that new files aren't selling as well, when the best sellers are such a minute percentage, .004% of the total files vs a higher number .006% for 2012, to start with. It's like saying by counting unused straws you can figure out how many soft drinks are sold at McDonald's.

Relative decline is insignificant, not 20% - more like .002% while choice for customers increased 33%? If you were in business and your competition increased 33% and your market share dropped .002% would you call is suspicious or free fall decline?

Without even including videos for 2012 the best sellers had 20% less sales than the best sellers from the previous year.  I don't know if that means best sellers are punished or there is something else at work but a 20% decline seems significant.

Sorry. Not convinced there's anything suspicious going on, or best sellers are being "punished". On the contrary, they seem to be holding up against the competition pretty well.


Is there a concrete definition of 'best seller', that we can know of + a way to check that files pointed out actually do fit the definition? Because if there isn't, this is 100% completely meaningless. Might as well just plant your face on the keyboard and publish it as the year's stats, bit like the poll here :D
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: shudderstok on April 04, 2014, 05:00
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional
The only inflated egos I see here are anonymous, telling everyone else they have it right, and the rest is wrong. When confronting them with their own contradictions, they start to ridicule and throw insults.

i must have struck a nerve.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: luissantos84 on April 04, 2014, 05:03
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional

yeah the joke is on you ;)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Red Dove on April 04, 2014, 05:04
In answer to the OP's question: Yes. However, as you will gather from this thread, there are various factors and varying degrees of success but the old "y" words work in this business just as well as any other:

Profligacy,originality,efficiency (cost) etc etc.

And remember to do something about it instead of talking about it and if something isn't working or sales are seemingly out of your control, try something else, measure it and if it proves successful, wring it out and use it up. Then move onto the next thing. Look forwards - the good old days are not a measuring stick for the present.

Good Luck.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: shudderstok on April 04, 2014, 05:17
How's does an innocent post- "Living from Stock Photography' turn into a massive Gang Banging? Maybe Leaf should consider turning MSG into a drama tv series...

it is caused by a lot of failed wannabees that have inflated ego's with more time on their hands to tell us how to do it than to actually do it. same guys who yell at the tv telling the coach how to run his team. or what i simply call armchair travelers. this forum is a joke albeit entertaining and delusional

yeah the joke is on you ;)

great!!! i love it :)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Sebastian Radu on April 04, 2014, 07:31
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: ShadySue on April 04, 2014, 07:39
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)
But also sheer luck, with regards default search position.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: shudderstok on April 04, 2014, 07:45
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)

and diligence - Amen. live the dream man and make it happen. it can be done. trust me on this.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Mantis on April 04, 2014, 07:51
To the OP: Another factor, and an important one, is how many images are being added to each micro stock site each week.  I haven't checked lately but I think Shutterstock is adding around 200,000 new images per week. You, me, Sean, Luis, Ron.....all micro stockers are all competing against this.  It's one of the core reasons around uploading volume together with usability, technical quality and uniqueness.  You also need to look at current trends.  For example, in the USA gold investing is a big trend right now as is our crummy political system.  I've shot both and have success in both from a sales perspective. But they probably won't last forever, so you have to keep shooting and understanding current trends/affairs. Remember, what works in the USA, however, won't necessarily work in other countries. But a lot of stuff, like much of what Sean Locke shoots, is cross country compatible for the most part and he does (or used to) do well with these.  He is very good as are a few others here like Joanne and Tyler and Mike Ember for illustrations.  If they chime in with advice, listen to them.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: MichaelJayFoto on April 04, 2014, 08:01
I have about 800 - 1000 stock photos on all major agencies. My earnings is about of >100 $ / month. The time that I spend for photos is very short because, unfortunately, I must go to a "classic" job that I don't like it to much but the salary is more consistent (600 $). In March, on SS with my 800 images I sold more than 100.
Do you think that it deserve to make only stock pictures and, let say, in 4 -5 month, if I will produce more and more similar images like I did till now, I'll rich my actual incoming from job?

I think it's important not to forget that "making money from a job" is not the same as "making money on your own" in several aspects. I don't know the systems in your country but being an independent business usually means you do not only have to consider replacing your employment income but also consider: Taxes, insurance, pension plans, health plans etc. In most countries you would need to earn about 50% more from being self employed than from being employed.

You also need to consider that while you have been buying your equipment from "spare money" in the past, you will have to consider this as investments in the future, with the need to refinance each new camera, lens, light, prop and travel from the money you earn.

The point here is that as long as you treat stock as a "hobby" on the side of an employment, every cent you earn is "additional income". Once you become a self employed stock contributor, all those "income" turns into "revenue" and you might need to make double the revenue to achieve the same income at the end.

Good luck with your decisions.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: ann on April 04, 2014, 08:06
Thank you all ! Now, for a conclusion I think is possible but with a lot of work, ambition and imagination  :)

You appear to be choosing to focus on the more optimistic comments, rather than the more realistic (and, I feel, useful) ones.

If you can earn money through photography in ways other than stock, I advise you to diversify and build on that.

All the best - Ann
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: LesPalenik on April 04, 2014, 08:36
Quote
To the OP: Another factor, and an important one, is how many images are being added to each micro stock site each week.  I haven't checked lately but I think Shutterstock is adding around 200,000 new images per week. You, me, Sean, Luis, Ron.....all micro stockers are all competing against this.

It's been actually 250,000/week for SS lately. Other agencies are not that much further behind.
That's one million per month, 12 millions per year, 24 millions in two years which will bring SS in 2016 to 60 millions images, in 2019 to 100 millions. A portfolio with 10,000 images will constitute a very tiny slice of 0.0001 of the total inventory (.01%).

In other words, in three years, SS image inventory will double - from 35 millions to at least 70 millions. In order to maintain your 2014 earnings, you will need to double also your portfolio. It's hard to imagine that the agencies will raise their royalties, so in the best case scenario, even if you'll double your portfolio and earn in three years the same amount of 2014's dollars, the actual value will be diminished by the inflation rate. And that's the best case scenario.
 
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Red Dove on April 04, 2014, 09:58
Whilst I agree the collections are growing exponentially, so is the market. Twenty years ago people read magazines and newspapers. They still do. We all know that the advent of PCs, laptops and especially tablets and smartphones has been a big bang event for business and the need for imagery. We have yet to see widespread billboard technologies implemented but five years from now you could be standing at a bus stop in Nepal and there will be images moving across an LCD strip trying to sell you something.

In the near future, you will have moving images, stills, animations in 2D and 3D on just about every surface marketeers, politicos, evangelists and vendors can buy up. Portable technologies will become cheaper and cheaper as advertising and click through revenue negates production costs. We will be able to buy stuff almost by thinking about it. I could go on but I'm in need of tea. All I would add is:

There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Rinderart on April 04, 2014, 11:29
In answer to the OP's question: Yes. However, as you will gather from this thread, there are various factors and varying degrees of success but the old "y" words work in this business just as well as any other:

Profligacy,originality,efficiency (cost) etc etc.

And remember to do something about it instead of talking about it and if something isn't working or sales are seemingly out of your control, try something else, measure it and if it proves successful, wring it out and use it up. Then move onto the next thing. Look forwards - the good old days are not a measuring stick for the present.

Good Luck.

Absolute best answer. Going forward, theres gonna be bigger changes coming especially the "Getting Buried quicker" Syndrome. It all comes down to CV and your work ethic.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Rinderart on April 04, 2014, 11:33
Quote
To the OP: Another factor, and an important one, is how many images are being added to each micro stock site each week.  I haven't checked lately but I think Shutterstock is adding around 200,000 new images per week. You, me, Sean, Luis, Ron.....all micro stockers are all competing against this.

It's been actually 250,000/week for SS lately. Other agencies are not that much further behind.
That's one million per month, 12 millions per year, 24 millions in two years which will bring SS in 2016 to 60 millions images, in 2019 to 100 millions. A portfolio with 10,000 images will constitute a very tiny slice of 0.0001 of the total inventory (.01%).

In other words, in three years, SS image inventory will double - from 35 millions to at least 70 millions. In order to maintain your 2014 earnings, you will need to double also your portfolio. It's hard to imagine that the agencies will raise their royalties, so in the best case scenario, even if you'll double your portfolio and earn in three years the same amount of 2014's dollars, the actual value will be diminished by the inflation rate. And that's the best case scenario.
 

Agree.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: lisafx on April 04, 2014, 22:13


Clearly I am not in this for the money.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. So you are spending all this time on MSG, pissing and moaning about shutterstock's sub model, when you are not even in this for the money. Hahahahahahahahahaha. I have one word for you.

FLICKR

Is it just me? I had read that statement as sarcastic.   ???
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Uncle Pete on April 05, 2014, 07:51
Which statement?  ??? I thought both were pretty funny, considering the history of each of them.



Clearly I am not in this for the money.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha. So you are spending all this time on MSG, pissing and moaning about shutterstock's sub model, when you are not even in this for the money. Hahahahahahahahahaha. I have one word for you.

FLICKR

Is it just me? I had read that statement as sarcastic.   ???
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Mantis on April 05, 2014, 08:08
Whilst I agree the collections are growing exponentially, so is the market. Twenty years ago people read magazines and newspapers. They still do. We all know that the advent of PCs, laptops and especially tablets and smartphones has been a big bang event for business and the need for imagery. We have yet to see widespread billboard technologies implemented but five years from now you could be standing at a bus stop in Nepal and there will be images moving across an LCD strip trying to sell you something.

In the near future, you will have moving images, stills, animations in 2D and 3D on just about every surface marketeers, politicos, evangelists and vendors can buy up. Portable technologies will become cheaper and cheaper as advertising and click through revenue negates production costs. We will be able to buy stuff almost by thinking about it. I could go on but I'm in need of tea. All I would add is:

There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

Even if this has some truth to it, it's not happening at nearly same rate (bolded above).  This means that the experience contributors are feeling from uploading content and seeing flat sales will get worse because the delta between the collection sizes and demand will continue to widen.   
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Red Dove on April 05, 2014, 09:22
Whilst I agree the collections are growing exponentially, so is the market. Twenty years ago people read magazines and newspapers. They still do. We all know that the advent of PCs, laptops and especially tablets and smartphones has been a big bang event for business and the need for imagery. We have yet to see widespread billboard technologies implemented but five years from now you could be standing at a bus stop in Nepal and there will be images moving across an LCD strip trying to sell you something.

In the near future, you will have moving images, stills, animations in 2D and 3D on just about every surface marketeers, politicos, evangelists and vendors can buy up. Portable technologies will become cheaper and cheaper as advertising and click through revenue negates production costs. We will be able to buy stuff almost by thinking about it. I could go on but I'm in need of tea. All I would add is:

There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

Even if this has some truth to it, it's not happening at nearly same rate (bolded above).  This means that the experience contributors are feeling from uploading content and seeing flat sales will get worse because the delta between the collection sizes and demand will continue to widen.

I see your point but if the market is not growing fast enough my strategy in any business has been to look for where the market is and what it wants. Some of this information is put out by agencies of course, in their "wants" and articles on market trends/styles in vogue etc. In any event, I work hard not to be in a position where my last sentence above in bold becomes a problem - by ensuring as much as possible that my supply is tuned to ever changing demand.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 05, 2014, 10:24
There is no way supply will exceed demand in this business - but there will always be supply that does not meet the demand.

You can't actually quantify supply in a business that does not sell a tangible object. If anything, the supply exceeds the demand the moment any file is created because a billion copies of it can be created.

Two key issues that affect suppliers (and there are probably others that haven't sprung to mind) are falling market share, given the ever increasing number of suppliers generating material, and falling perceived value of images as their range and availability continues to expand and everyday camera-phones are seen as adequate for their creation.

Combining these factors, we seem to be in a situation where the value of images sold by the industry has multiplied three or four times over in the last decade, the actual number of images used has probably multiplied ten or twenty-fold and the number of active suppliers has multiplied from probably just a few hundred a decade ago to tens of thousands now.

Consequently, the prospect of rapid market growth is very good for agencies (perhaps explaining how SS's share price took off) but is much less likely to translate into earnings growth for suppliers, who are victims of dilution between an increasing pool of suppliers, the falling average value of a download and the rapid growth in the number of available files.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: fotoVoyager on April 05, 2014, 12:24
Two key issues that affect suppliers (and there are probably others that haven't sprung to mind) are falling market share, given the ever increasing number of suppliers generating material, and falling perceived value of images as their range and availability continues to expand and everyday camera-phones are seen as adequate for their creation.

Combining these factors, we seem to be in a situation where the value of images sold by the industry has multiplied three or four times over in the last decade, the actual number of images used has probably multiplied ten or twenty-fold and the number of active suppliers has multiplied from probably just a few hundred a decade ago to tens of thousands now.

Consequently, the prospect of rapid market growth is very good for agencies (perhaps explaining how SS's share price took off) but is much less likely to translate into earnings growth for suppliers, who are victims of dilution between an increasing pool of suppliers, the falling average value of a download and the rapid growth in the number of available files.

This is true now and is what many of us have been saying will happen for a long time, but we're just about to get to the next interesting stage of crowdsourcing where the likelihood of any return for occasional contributors is so small they will no longer bother. Crowdsourcing is a input-reward system after all, whether that be money in this case or compliments on 500px. No reward, no input. Presumably the agencies will have to improve the reward to continue receiving content before we recycle back to oversupply again.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 05, 2014, 12:56
Or maybe the agencies have enough files already and can get by with established people who keep trying to hang on to their earnings by uploading more and more.

I've said for a long time that I don't reckon there's much hope for newbies (though I am surprised by the results in the "experimental year in stock" thread).
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: lisafx on April 05, 2014, 14:24
Which statement?  ??? I thought both were pretty funny, considering the history of each of them.


I assumed the "clearly I'm not in this for the money" statement was sarcastic, but I seem to be the only one who took it that way.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: lisafx on April 05, 2014, 14:30
I see your point but if the market is not growing fast enough my strategy in any business has been to look for where the market is and what it wants. Some of this information is put out by agencies of course, in their "wants" and articles on market trends/styles in vogue etc. In any event, I work hard not to be in a position where my last sentence above in bold becomes a problem - by ensuring as much as possible that my supply is tuned to ever changing demand.

Those articles by the agencies are a double edged sword.  For every one of those articles about what people should be shooting, there are a few folks for whom that was a yet-undiscovered niche.   If it's your niche that's the subject of the next article on what to shoot, there goes a big chunk of your sales. 

I can see how those articles benefit the agencies, but they are of very little use to contributors.  If you run around shooting according to what the agency is putting out there en masse, then you will only get a tiny fraction of sales in an incoming flood of the same subject matter.  And as explained above, if you already were shooting that niche  your photos are practically valueless overnight. 
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: gbalex on April 05, 2014, 15:36
Which statement?  ??? I thought both were pretty funny, considering the history of each of them.



I assumed the "clearly I'm not in this for the money" statement was sarcastic, but I seem to be the only one who took it that way.


I am not surprised that you spotted my intent Lisa. Trying to communicate with a few contributors here leaves me feeling like Anderson in this absurd flick  http://tinyurl.com/prdy6b9 (http://tinyurl.com/prdy6b9)

Yes my comment was frustrated sarcasm.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: robhainer on April 06, 2014, 11:19


I never ever experienced any 'sudden overnight drops'. Only the regular fluctuations according to season/holidays, etc. I suspect you are taking your hints from certain 'SS forum superstar' contributors, who's portfolios don't seem to be noticed by their fans for actually being a piss-poor collection of photography "don't do"-s. :)


I don't think the search penalizes ports for anything, I think the search simply doesn't do anything to 'ports', becasue it only works on individual images.... regardless of their source. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's extremely unlikely. Just doesn't make any sense.

Exactly. Agree on everything said by Topol.

But to be honest, $100 for 1,000 images is very low. You should already be hitting $600 a month with that many images, or at least be in the ball park. It's hard to give advice on what needs to be done to get to $600 without seeing the images you have now. I don't consider myself to be the best photographer in the world, but I'm making about $2,000 a month off 1,850 images on all sites with most of the earnings coming from a core group of images. I'd say about $1 per image in your port per month would be about average.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: ShadySue on April 06, 2014, 14:07
But to be honest, $100 for 1,000 images is very low. You should already be hitting $600 a month with that many images, or at least be in the ball park. It's hard to give advice on what needs to be done to get to $600 without seeing the images you have now. I don't consider myself to be the best photographer in the world, but I'm making about $2,000 a month off 1,850 images on all sites with most of the earnings coming from a core group of images. I'd say about $1 per image in your port per month would be about average.
Not speaking of you/your port, but it's far more important how much profit you're making than your gross.
Someone who makes $500 with few expenses is doing better than someone who earns $2000 but has $1501 of post-tax expenses. Unless the latter is going to keep earning the same for many months ongoing, which is by no means certain nowadays.
Vide how Yu-know-who apparently nearly went bankrupt more than once, despite all that sponsorship.
Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: robhainer on April 06, 2014, 14:38
I have no "post tax" expenses other than my time, and I only do stock in my free time. It did take me three years to build up my port to where it is now doing it that way though.
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: cascoly on April 07, 2014, 19:15

...............

But to be honest, $100 for 1,000 images is very low. You should already be hitting $600 a month with that many images, or at least be in the ball park. It's hard to give advice on what needs to be done to get to $600 without seeing the images you have now. I don't consider myself to be the best photographer in the world, but I'm making about $2,000 a month off 1,850 images on all sites with most of the earnings coming from a core group of images. I'd say about $1 per image in your port per month would be about average.

results will vary completely based on subject matter alone -- 1000 travel shots probably won't make $100 per month.   so any average  isn't really useful for comparison since each portfolio is unique
Title: Re: Living from Stockphotography
Post by: Rinderart on April 08, 2014, 00:11

...............

But to be honest, $100 for 1,000 images is very low. You should already be hitting $600 a month with that many images, or at least be in the ball park. It's hard to give advice on what needs to be done to get to $600 without seeing the images you have now. I don't consider myself to be the best photographer in the world, but I'm making about $2,000 a month off 1,850 images on all sites with most of the earnings coming from a core group of images. I'd say about $1 per image in your port per month would be about average.



results will vary completely based on subject matter alone -- 1000 travel shots probably won't make $100 per month.   so any average  isn't really useful for comparison since each portfolio is unique

Stock Photography Started back in the 1920's, At that time It was about 3 subjects. Travel , landscapes and Flowers. I think  thats covered. But as Rob Knows all to well, You got a cute kid and can shoot  well. Your good to go. No expenses at all. Work that kid till he gets geeky , then shoot another one....LOL