MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: hqimages on August 26, 2009, 17:30

Title: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on August 26, 2009, 17:30
Microstock started off as offering images for free on the internet via a web site. Then went from that to 1 dollar a download, slowly that boundary has been pushed up to 10 dollars a download, now they are trying to push that to 50..

Is the reason for this an evolution? Microstock started out as hobbyists with spare time and spare images, now the industry is FULL of professional photographers, with 10's of 1000's of images a pop. Microstock has grown to DEPEND on these images, to brand microstock as good quality at low prices, otherwise it's crap quality at low prices which, no-one is going to buy in fairness!

As the true hobbyist gets sqeezed out of microstock because of professionals, the professionals are also becoming more demanding. There is a level of unease among ALL microstock pro's as to the path they have chosen, and they find it hard to generate a moderate income, however the web site can't afford to lose the pro, because the pro is what they now depend on for their survival.

I think it's really interesting and, what do you think? What will happen in the end? Will everyone just keep treading that line? How will the microstock sites keep their pro's happy, and CAN they really do it?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on August 26, 2009, 17:54
If your first paragraph is supposed to be a history of iStockphoto, it's incomplete.

Your second paragraph is incorrect as the image library was stocked by designers, not hobbyists.

"True hobbyists" in the third paragraph are not being squeezed out, as they are not particularly concerned with income.  It is a hobby.  Also, there is no "level of unease" among "all" "pro" photgraphers.

"Pro's" or anyone else for that matter, will stick around if they feel they are compensated adequately.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 26, 2009, 18:35
If you said "small player" instead of "true hobbyist", I'd agree.  A small player (like me) does this as a sideline, but would like to get a reasonable price for his effort.   Today I think it's next to impossible for a small player to get a worthwhile return and many will drop out.  It's fun for a while because the sales validate your work, telling you other people like it enough to buy it; and ultimately that's what frustrates you, because you get the sense they'd be willing to pay more than 25 cents, but  you have no control over your prices.  

On the buying side, small design shops and individuals can't afford the subscription plans, which is what the microstocks will be pushing more and more.

If microstock becomes just the latest way to market the output of a few full-time pro shops, I've no doubt something will be lost - variety, originality - but the price, on the subscription plans, is so low that big buyers won't care. In the end, microstock may become just conduit connecting large-scale professional image buyers with large-scale professional photographers.  What's "micro" about that?

Small players - buyers and sellers - may find  new ways to connect with each other.



Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on August 26, 2009, 21:21
Good, question, I think it is worth noting that microstock itself has spawned a great many pro photographers. Folks who got in early and are making a career out of it. There are also the established pros who entered and are entering. The The upward evolution of  price is only natural considering the increase in quality.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 26, 2009, 21:45
Where are these increasing prices everyone is talking about?

I started at SS in February with a handful of photos and within a week, I had a few subs, 2 on-dmands, and one $28 EL sale.   Cool, I thought.  Over the following months I slowly produced and uploaded around 80 images which I think are pretty good. And I never made as much as I did that first week.  That single EL was the only one I ever got, and the OD sales steadily fell off. This month, so far, it's 100%  25-cent sub sales.  Uploading more images simply doesn't increase my earnings.  I make less with 80 than I did with 10, 6 months ago.  

Sure this is a tiny portfolio but if I just look at the numbers, there seems little point in continuing to build it.

I'm not seeing what all the optimism is about.   It doesn't matter if the microstocks raise their on-demand prices, if at the same time they're herding all the customers to subscriptions.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hoi ha on August 26, 2009, 22:12
The The upward evolution of  price is only natural considering the increase in quality.
and as the prices rise commensurate with that, an opportunity opens at the bottom (again) for a new site with bottom of the barrel prices - and the cycle begins again ...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Xalanx on August 26, 2009, 23:22
How will the microstock sites keep their pro's happy, and CAN they really do it?

Microstock sites don't give sh!et about the happiness of their contributors, no matter if they're pros or amateurs.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on August 27, 2009, 00:00
I think that eventually all portfolios get to a baseline level (if you stop uploading).  I havent uploaded anything in more than a year and my earnings are stable since 8 months ago.  Now, with new challenges I know that despite the usual surge in sales in the short run I have to work with longer timetables, not weeks, but months (lot of those).  Keep shooting, diversify, find a niche, keep uploading...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: sharpshot on August 27, 2009, 02:01
Where are these increasing prices everyone is talking about?

I started at SS in February with a handful of photos and within a week, I had a few subs, 2 on-dmands, and one $28 EL sale.   Cool, I thought.  Over the following months I slowly produced and uploaded around 80 images which I think are pretty good. And I never made as much as I did that first week.  That single EL was the only one I ever got, and the OD sales steadily fell off. This month, so far, it's 100%  25-cent sub sales.  Uploading more images simply doesn't increase my earnings.  I make less with 80 than I did with 10, 6 months ago.  

Sure this is a tiny portfolio but if I just look at the numbers, there seems little point in continuing to build it.

I'm not seeing what all the optimism is about.   It doesn't matter if the microstocks raise their on-demand prices, if at the same time they're herding all the customers to subscriptions.
SS isn't the only microstock site.  I do get $0.38 for subs there now, compared to $0.25 when I started 3 years ago, a substantial increase.  Prices for pay per download have gone up a lot across the sites since I started.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: sharpshot on August 27, 2009, 02:08
The The upward evolution of  price is only natural considering the increase in quality.
and as the prices rise commensurate with that, an opportunity opens at the bottom (again) for a new site with bottom of the barrel prices - and the cycle begins again ...
So far, that hasn't worked.  New sites have an almost impossible task to get sales going now and those that have tried low prices have failed to attract enough conbtributors and buyers.  New sites need to have higher prices, so the few sales they have are worthwhile.  istock have raised their prices a lot and have maintained a high sales volume.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Adeptris on August 27, 2009, 02:34
^^^ New sites need to have new markets, a niche market, a high quality unique collection or another unique selling point, higher commissions do not affect customers who are only interested in the image not how much the artist will get.

A new site needs to look at Customers first and what can they give them that adds value to the service, I hate credits and subscription packages as I want only to pay for what I need at the time, I do not pay the supermarket for 10 tins of beans when I need only two so why should images be different.

As a low use blogger I want a new site that is a Pay-Per-Transaction cash, or any amount as a Pay-As-You-Go Top-Up service, if I want an image for my blog, currently I use istock for this and buy 1 credit sized images to blog, they cost me £1.40 a shot and I am happy with this rate, but sometimes I just have a couple of credits left, I may want 3 images but settle for 2 as I do not want to spend £14 on 10 credits.

The service I would change to tomorrow would be one with the same prices for the small image where I can pay as I go through PayPal be that £1.40 or £4.20, if that site gives the contributor a better cut then that is a good thing, but not something I would ever consider.

I know that the theory is that by spending credits the customer is not thinking about the financial value, if this is the case then a system where I can top-up by any amount which is converted at checkout to credits.

David  ;D       
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on August 27, 2009, 04:05
The The upward evolution of  price is only natural considering the increase in quality.
and as the prices rise commensurate with that, an opportunity opens at the bottom (again) for a new site with bottom of the barrel prices - and the cycle begins again ...

lol yeah, that's probably it! Great posts everyone, interesting stuff!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on August 27, 2009, 04:11
If you said "small player" instead of "true hobbyist", I'd agree.  A small player (like me) does this as a sideline, but would like to get a reasonable price for his effort.   Today I think it's next to impossible for a small player to get a worthwhile return and many will drop out.  It's fun for a while because the sales validate your work, telling you other people like it enough to buy it; and ultimately that's what frustrates you, because you get the sense they'd be willing to pay more than 25 cents, but  you have no control over your prices.  

On the buying side, small design shops and individuals can't afford the subscription plans, which is what the microstocks will be pushing more and more.

If microstock becomes just the latest way to market the output of a few full-time pro shops, I've no doubt something will be lost - variety, originality - but the price, on the subscription plans, is so low that big buyers won't care. In the end, microstock may become just conduit connecting large-scale professional image buyers with large-scale professional photographers.  What's "micro" about that?

Small players - buyers and sellers - may find  new ways to connect with each other.





Great post and yeah, that is what I mean by hobbyist, it's the guy/girl with the small gallery, low output, they love to do it, and would love to make enough money back to cover equipment pretty much since it's a * expensive hobby! They aren't treating it like a business, build a portfolio of x amount, generate x amount of new images per month.. I feel they are being squeezed out by those who do!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cathyslife on August 27, 2009, 08:16
Great post and yeah, that is what I mean by hobbyist, it's the guy/girl with the small gallery, low output, they love to do it, and would love to make enough money back to cover equipment pretty much since it's a  expensive hobby! They aren't treating it like a business, build a portfolio of x amount, generate x amount of new images per month.. I feel they are being squeezed out by those who do!

It's funny, I started off on a rant in another thread and deleted it, then found this thread. It fits here perfectly.

My name is Cathy, and I am a small player.
  ;)  My photography skills have improved immensely, I have purchased studio lighting and equipment and I have more than made back enough money to pay for that equipment. I am not a hobbyist, because I do care about the income. But I don't see myself becoming a professional photographer full-time. I have been a graphic designer for many years and love that work. I'm not certain I want to buy a $3000 camera, quit my job, and hire models and do photography 24/7.

But there are some microstock agencies that are forcing that issue. While contributor commissions have risen, they have not gone up enough for me to invest even more money in equipment, etc. In order to make that investment, I would have to become a pro.

I suppose I will get squeezed out of one or two microstocks simply because I am not willing to make the progression. I am truly hoping that some companies will still be around for me to continue on the same path I am on. I will always want to improve my photography skills and I will always need to keep my camera up-to-date. But that doesn't necessarily mean I want to be forced into become a professional photographer.

If all microstock commissions were to increase substantially so that the equipment investment weren't so painful financially, it would be a different conversation. To me, we have a huge catch-22 going on here.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 27, 2009, 09:18
What I am seeing is just a steadily deteriorating market.  The microstocks announce higher prices and commissions, which are more than cancelled out by the increasing volume of subscription sales.  New images now have less exposure, which combined with popularity-based ranking means they have little chance.  

A few months ago, images I put on SS would get a small burst of sales in the first few days; those images continue to sell now and then today, because they acquired enough popularity ranking while new.  Images I submitted a month ago have done nothing - they're DOA.

Meanwhile, huge numbers of new images are being added every week.

If there are still routes to success for the small player, they have to be few in number, narrow and steep.


  
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on August 27, 2009, 09:33
What I am seeing is just a steadily deteriorating market.  The microstocks announce higher prices and commissions, which are more than cancelled out by the increasing volume of subscription sales.  New images now have less exposure, which combined with popularity-based ranking means they have little chance.  

A few months ago, images I put on SS would get a small burst of sales in the first few days; those images continue to sell now and then today, because they acquired enough popularity ranking while new.  Images I submitted a month ago have done nothing - they're DOA.

Meanwhile, huge numbers of new images are being added every week.

Show me one positive trend here, for contributors. Just one.


  

Thanks Cathy it DOES fit perfectly!  :)

Stockastic you speak a lot of sense. It's crazy, there's no way a small supplier can keep up with the likes of pro's to beat that 'new images' search, it's just not going to happen! Then buyers are being bombarded with SO MANY images, that they are looking for brands within the site itself, and sticking with those, and of course they are always 'pro' accounts that are massively updated..

It'll be interesting to see exactly how this works out in the end!!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 27, 2009, 09:54
It'll be interesting to see exactly how this works out in the end!!

My wife works at a big health care facility. Recently she told me that she and some coworkers had noted that they were seeing photos of the same woman in virtually every new piece of promotional and informational literature. It's becoming a joke.  So the sameness, and blandness, of this kind of imagery is already becoming grating, and this is going to eventually cause profound changes in how imagery is used for these purposes. 

 


 
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: sharpshot on August 27, 2009, 10:10
The best way to increase earnings is to think of all the simple images the sites are missing that wont cost much to produce and the buyers will want.  Do those using the equipment you already have.  Why spend more money on cameras, lenses, lights etc?  It doesn't guarantee you will make more money.  Some of my best sellers have hardly any competition at the moment.  That will probably change but I will move on to more new ideas.  The sites might look like they have nearly everything covered and it is impossible to come up with something original but if you look closely that isn't true.  Your imagination is and always will be the most important factor, not how much you can spend on photographic gear.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on August 27, 2009, 10:16
The best way to increase earnings is to think of all the simple images the sites are missing that wont cost much to produce and the buyers will want.  Do those using the equipment you already have.  Why spend more money on cameras, lenses, lights etc?  It doesn't guarantee you will make more money.  Some of my best sellers have hardly any competition at the moment.  That will probably change but I will move on to more new ideas.  The sites might look like they have nearly everything covered and it is impossible to come up with something original but if you look closely that isn't true.  Your imagination is and always will be the most important factor, not how much you can spend on photographic gear.

See, I'm not so sure about that anymore.. is anyone really submitting to stock sites using images taken using a compact camera still? It seems like a DSLR is a basic requirement now (It wasn't always)..
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 27, 2009, 10:27
The best way to increase earnings is to think of all the simple images the sites are missing that wont cost much to produce and the buyers will want.  Do those using the equipment you already have.  

Agreed, and I'm still doing that, now and then. My fear though is that the recent de-emphasis of new images, combined with popularity-based ranking, makes this an exercise in futility.


Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: epantha on August 27, 2009, 14:59
My ad agency is finding holes in the image libraries all the time. Of course I ad these missing items to my shot list. ;D
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on August 27, 2009, 15:07
My ad agency is finding holes in the image libraries all the time. Of course I ad these missing items to my shot list. ;D

I'd be happy to contribute to your Xmas fund for this list.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cascoly on August 27, 2009, 15:10
[

See, I'm not so sure about that anymore.. is anyone really submitting to stock sites using images taken using a compact camera still? It seems like a DSLR is a basic requirement now (It wasn't always)..

it's still possible -- i just bought a sony hx1 - partly for video ability, partly for the 20x zoom combined with the low light capabilities [it takes 6 images and averages them, producing sharper images than a dslr]  and have seen no difference in acceptasnce rates for those shots and my dslr ones

i also use a lumix oint & shoot for ski trips, etc, and these are good sellers.

since i'm submitting 4MP images, the biggest differnence is the dslr gives me more latitude in cropping and reducing than the smaller cameras d

steve
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on August 27, 2009, 15:41
The best way to increase earnings is to think of all the simple images the sites are missing that wont cost much to produce and the buyers will want.  Do those using the equipment you already have.  

Agreed, and I'm still doing that, now and then. My fear though is that the recent de-emphasis of new images, combined with popularity-based ranking, makes this an exercise in futility.


No, Sharpshot has it exactly right.  It's Marketing 101... look to fill a need, give the buyers something they can't find from your competition, and you'll get the sale.  If you're offering something unique, the whole "de-emphasis of new images, popularity-based ranking, etc." doesn't matter because your work will be unique and buyers will find you.  This is what I am doing every day, and I can guarantee you that it works.  Don't rely on your same-old same-old images appearing at the top of the "newest" list, which will make a few bucks and slip into obscurity. 

In a marketplace that is more competitive every day, there will be only one way to be successful:  STAND OUT FROM THE CROWD and when the crowd sees your success and follows you, FIND ANOTHER SPOT AND STAND OUT AGAIN.  The microstock success stories of tomorrow will make this their mission, and everyone else will fail.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hoi ha on August 27, 2009, 19:46
The The upward evolution of  price is only natural considering the increase in quality.
and as the prices rise commensurate with that, an opportunity opens at the bottom (again) for a new site with bottom of the barrel prices - and the cycle begins again ...
So far, that hasn't worked.  New sites have an almost impossible task to get sales going now and those that have tried low prices have failed to attract enough conbtributors and buyers.  New sites need to have higher prices, so the few sales they have are worthwhile.  istock have raised their prices a lot and have maintained a high sales volume.

I agree wholeheartedly that new sites to date have not worked but that is because the prices remain still very low ... but as prices rise (and they will rise) the price bottom will be vacant and calling out for a new "istock" all over again - and with the "hobbyists" and/or "amateurs" getting squeezed out (as they are cause I am one too Cathy) by the increasing number of pros going micro, they will be the ones to join the new cheap site - and the buyers will come ... and the revolution will continue. There are too many amateur photographers looking to sell their wares and there are too many buyers looking for the cheapest prices for this not to be true - IMHO ... I am not talking about this year or even next year ... but it will happen.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 27, 2009, 20:38
hoi ha, you make a good point.  As microstock becomes just the newest channel for big producers to sell to big buyers, prices have to move up so that the 'pros' more than recover their costs.  This could in time create a new market at lower prices; however that sort of implies that the Small Players can never actually make any money, just continue to sell at hobby prices.



Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hoi ha on August 28, 2009, 03:53
however that sort of implies that the Small Players can never actually make any money, just continue to sell at hobby prices.

I think that is true to an extent - of course there are many examples of people who began as hobbyists and had enough time, passion, skill etc to turn into professionals, now making a full time living off microstock - I respect them immensely. But many of us have neither the time nor inclination nor - to be brutally honest - the necessary skill (and alas that would me) to make any kind of a living out of it. Yet (1) I still care enough to keep contributing; (2) I still make a few hundred dollars a month which pays for equipment and even helps fund some of my travels; (3) People still buy my images, albeit in smaller amounts by far than the pros - but I am still "golden" at istock so there is some kind of a market for my images; (4) My downloads have neverthless been going down consistently over the past year and a half because the quality on the micros has gotten better and better and I simply cannot compete against that.

So when the prices start to rise to, say, the vetta level - all the pros will be selling their images at $50 a pop - but nobody is going to buy my images at that price (or at least only very rarely) - so yeah ... the blunt truth is my images are only worth hobby prices ...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 28, 2009, 09:04
the blunt truth is my images are only worth hobby prices ...
And I am ok with that, up to a point.  I think $1 is fair.  Not 25 cents.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cathyslife on August 28, 2009, 09:18
hoi ha, your posts reflect my sentiments exactly.

And stockastic, I agree. If I am not willing to invest a lot more money and make the leap to professional, I shouldn't expect professionals commissions. BUT, my skills have improved, and my photos are selling. I do constantly upload and try to bring fresh and new ideas to the stock photo market.

Therefore, I think that as pros commissions rise, so should the small players' commissions. Hopefully they will continue to do so, and istock won't give all the small players the boot.

I also think there will always be a market for lower-priced stock photos. Not every company can afford 4 stock photos in their monthy newsletter at $100 a pop.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 28, 2009, 18:19
I guess I don't need  'validation' of my efforts like I did at the start; now the 25-cent sales just annoy me.

I make far  more sales on SS than on FT, DT or IS; but this month, the SS sales have been 100.0% subs, at 25 cents.  Not a single OD or EL - it looks like those days are over. I believe that you can't opt out of sub sales on SS, so I'm thinking about closing my account there. 

SS is easy to submit to, has quick reviews and has accepted almost all my shots; but if 25 cents is all they're paying, I guess maybe I don't need to bother with them anymore.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: sharpshot on August 29, 2009, 02:22
I guess I don't need  'validation' of my efforts like I did at the start; now the 25-cent sales just annoy me.

I make far  more sales on SS than on FT, DT or IS; but this month, the SS sales have been 100.0% subs, at 25 cents.  Not a single OD or EL - it looks like those days are over. I believe that you can't opt out of sub sales on SS, so I'm thinking about closing my account there. 

SS is easy to submit to, has quick reviews and has accepted almost all my shots; but if 25 cents is all they're paying, I guess maybe I don't need to bother with them anymore.
It does get better if you stick with them and build a bigger portfolio.  I have had more EL's with SS than any other site and just their pay per download sales have made more for me this month than BS and 123rf combined.  They also pay more for subs when you reach their higher levels.  $0.38 is one of the highest subs commissions with the micros.  My average commission there this month is $0.57.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hoi ha on August 29, 2009, 03:59
I guess I don't need  'validation' of my efforts like I did at the start; now the 25-cent sales just annoy me.

I make far  more sales on SS than on FT, DT or IS; but this month, the SS sales have been 100.0% subs, at 25 cents.  Not a single OD or EL - it looks like those days are over. I believe that you can't opt out of sub sales on SS, so I'm thinking about closing my account there. 

SS is easy to submit to, has quick reviews and has accepted almost all my shots; but if 25 cents is all they're paying, I guess maybe I don't need to bother with them anymore.

And don't forget that at SS especially is about volume of sales, not individual sales ... in fact microstock always was about volume over all else ... the oft repeated mantra we read so often here ... you can sell your image one time for $100 or 100 times for $1.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: lisafx on August 29, 2009, 08:12

SS is easy to submit to, has quick reviews and has accepted almost all my shots; but if 25 cents is all they're paying, I guess maybe I don't need to bother with them anymore.
It does get better if you stick with them and build a bigger portfolio.  I have had more EL's with SS than any other site and just their pay per download sales have made more for me this month than BS and 123rf combined.  They also pay more for subs when you reach their higher levels.  $0.38 is one of the highest subs commissions with the micros.  My average commission there this month is $0.57.
[/quote]

All good points Sharpshot. 

Stocktastic, if you stick with Shutterstock you shouldn't be making .25 for long.  My average is there is .73/DL because of the EL's and the on-demand sales.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on August 29, 2009, 10:09
I hear all the good stuff about SS, but how do I reconcile all that with my own experience - which is continually declining sales over the last 6 months?

I now have about 100 images, and I was making more when I had 20.  ODs have steadily fallen off and are now at 0.  I had a single EL in my first week - never got a second.

At least on FT, DT and IS I occasionally sell someting for a couple of dollars. Why should I have the same photos on SS for 25 cents?  

If I just graphed the numbers and drew a line, I'd conclude that if I went from 100 to 200 images I'd have no sales at all.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on August 29, 2009, 13:46
Remember that, at some point, the number of files you have online becomes a bit secondary to the quality of your images, their uniqueness, the demand on what you are shooting, variety, being a top player o a specific niche...  All those issues become important, sometimes more than the simple number of pics.  How many "girl with headset" images are out there?  How many handshakes?  Many people still shoot these and other usual subjects and expect to have lots of sales.  Innovate and execute and sales will come.  Take this from a guy that did everything wrong the first time around and, after researching, has found out the hard way...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Jonathan Ross on August 29, 2009, 18:58
 Hi All,

 I have noticed a much greater non accept at SS while all my other agencies in Micro are going the other direction and accepting more of my submissions. I just got back an edit today from SS saying my images are out of focus, they took 7 and rejected 14. Istock and the other sites didn't think so as they accepted all the images that SS said where not sharp. We will repost them again in a few weeks to see if it was just the editor. Crazy though isn't it. We make a great deal of income from them and our sales have not dropped off like many said they might. I would much rather receive a notice that we do not want this image for our collection instead of making up statements like " Focus is not where we feel is appropriate for this image "

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: lisafx on August 29, 2009, 19:08
Shocking Jonathan.  There is no way I would believe any of your submitted images are out of focus, much less such a large number of them in one batch.

Definitely sounds like you got a rogue reviewer.  Probably if you wait a couple of weeks and try again they would be accepted.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on August 29, 2009, 20:56
Why don't you post a few so we can see and agree with you?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: fotografer on August 30, 2009, 00:46
I doubt IS would have accepted them if they were out of focus.

Why don't you post a few so we can see and agree with you?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: sharpshot on August 30, 2009, 04:02
In general, SS don't like shallow focus, istock do.  I have had lots of shallow focus photos rejected with SS for being out of focus, when the main subject is sharp and they are accepted by istock.  But try getting non vector illustrations accepted with istock, SS love them.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cthoman on August 30, 2009, 10:52
I don't know if this is what your submitting, but I know istock doesn't really want raster illustrations that look like they could have been created in a vector program (which makes sense). Shutterstock doesn't care because everyone submits raster versions of their vectors as well.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Jonathan Ross on August 30, 2009, 10:55
Hi Lisa,

 That is what we do when this occasionally happens, wait two weeks and send them back through. We find they almost always pass the second time. Thanks for the feedback.

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Randy McKown on September 04, 2009, 23:19
Yeah I have to say the entire subscription option ticks me off .. it's stupid. What will complaining about it get us? Absolutely nothing !!!!! Not without massive organization that is. Let's say that all the agencies sat down at the table and said .. ok we are going to drop subscriptions completely but you have to drop them and you have to drop them ... everyone drops them at the same time. What would buyers do? They would cry about it. The real question is how would it affect the industry? It would make it better for us and they agencies because those buyers are purchasing a need not a want. They don't want to pay for images. They NEED to pay for images. Dropping subscriptions worldwide would not have a negative affect. Do you think a designer is going to huff and puff and say "Well if I cant get images for .25 I'm just going to shut my business down and get a job at McDonalds flipping burgers !!!" Heck no !!! They will pay for it and go about their business.
We will make more money .. the agencies will make more money .. and you know what .. the designers buying the images will make more money because if they have any business education whatsoever they know that you adjust your price for an increase in expense. Will the CEOs get together and do this? LOL probably not. Not without force and guess what .... we don't have an active union in place to force it. So, we just have to deal with it or get out.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: elvinstar on September 04, 2009, 23:44
Quote
SS is easy to submit to, has quick reviews and has accepted almost all my shots; but if 25 cents is all they're paying, I guess maybe I don't need to bother with them anymore.

My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS? I could understand if it was YayMicro or some other tiny site, but SS is one of the big dogs for a reason! They are one of my top 3 earners (along with FT and IS) almost every month.

It seems kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Just my 2 cents...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 05, 2009, 09:33
My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS?
2 reasons I guess:
  1. I feel like I'm helping SS undercut my own sales at other sites that pay more.
  2. The 25 cent sales tick me off.     
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: madelaide on September 05, 2009, 14:32
My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS?
2 reasons I guess:
  1. I feel like I'm helping SS undercut my own sales at other sites that pay more.
  2. The 25 cent sales tick me off.  
  3. I don't want to support a model that is based on providing extremely cheap images. Microstock is already cheap enough, let's make people pay.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 05, 2009, 14:37
My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS?
2 reasons I guess:
  1. I feel like I'm helping SS undercut my own sales at other sites that pay more.
  2. The 25 cent sales tick me off.  
  3. I don't want to support a model that is based on providing extremely cheap images. Microstock is already cheap enough, let's make people pay.

Yep, I gave up undercutting my own images too. In my opinion the best way to do business, is to set your own price, and never go below a level that is lower than that price. That's why I think the sites where you do set your own price are the best ones at the mo, that, and they don't do subs ;)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 05, 2009, 16:01
My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS?
2 reasons I guess:
  1. I feel like I'm helping SS undercut my own sales at other sites that pay more.
  2. The 25 cent sales tick me off.  
  3. I don't want to support a model that is based on providing extremely cheap images. Microstock is already cheap enough, let's make people pay.

Yep, I gave up undercutting my own images too. In my opinion the best way to do business, is to set your own price, and never go below a level that is lower than that price. That's why I think the sites where you do set your own price are the best ones at the mo, that, and they don't do subs ;)

If I only contributed to sites where I set my own prices I would have lost my house by now.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: lisafx on September 05, 2009, 16:20
If I only contributed to sites where I set my own prices I would have lost my house by now.

You and me both.  When I look at my sales breakdown each month, other than istock all the top earners contain subscription plans. 

Not saying I like subs.  I don't.  But not going to throw my monthly income out the window in protest either. 
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 05, 2009, 16:57
I'd accept some number of dirt-cheap subscription sales. Last month, at SS, that's all I got.  100% 25-cent subscription sales and nothing else.

Granted my portofolio is very small and mostly off-beat stuff.  Maybe there are reasons why I only sold through subscriptions. But for me, SS is a drag. At FT, DT and IS, at least I get the wild thrill of an occasional sale for $2, $3.  

Your mileage may vary. Fortunately my house is paid for  :)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 05, 2009, 17:29
My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS?
2 reasons I guess:
  1. I feel like I'm helping SS undercut my own sales at other sites that pay more.
  2. The 25 cent sales tick me off.  
  3. I don't want to support a model that is based on providing extremely cheap images. Microstock is already cheap enough, let's make people pay.

Yep, I gave up undercutting my own images too. In my opinion the best way to do business, is to set your own price, and never go below a level that is lower than that price. That's why I think the sites where you do set your own price are the best ones at the mo, that, and they don't do subs ;)

If I only contributed to sites where I set my own prices I would have lost my house by now.

If everyone did it, those sites would make the most sales, get it?  :)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 05, 2009, 17:33
I'd accept some number of dirt-cheap subscription sales. Last month, at SS, that's all I got.  100% 25-cent subscription sales and nothing else.

Granted my portofolio is very small and mostly off-beat stuff.  Maybe there are reasons why I only sold through subscriptions. But for me, SS is a drag. At FT, DT and IS, at least I get the wild thrill of an occasional sale for $2, $3.  

Your mileage may vary. Fortunately my house is paid for  :)

Yeah and honestly, who on earth who's name isn't Yuri, is paying a mortgage with microstock earnings alone? I mean, really!! Unless you have 1000's of v.high quality images (and a few dozen equally high quality models), and are a 'pro', which is exactly what this thread is about, I'd imagine 2% if even that of microstockers are pro's, and of that 2% probably 1% make a full-time excellent wage that pays mortgages and the like..

I think the smaller contributor is better off setting their own price, that model might not nessesarily transfer across to those at pro levels of microstock production!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 05, 2009, 20:32
Just because you aren't doesn't mean others aren't.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on September 05, 2009, 21:04
If we apply simple statistics and keep in mind a gaussian distribution of population there has to be a % of photographers that make a living out of this.  How many (and how big a %) is the million dollar question... I guess we will never know, many (if not most) submiters spend little time at forums and most wouldn't give the info away either.  For me, it pays my (ever growing) new equipment, my family vacation and some monthly bills...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hoi ha on September 05, 2009, 22:15

[/quote]

Yeah and honestly, who on earth who's name isn't Yuri, is paying a mortgage with microstock earnings alone? I mean, really!! Unless you have 1000's of v.high quality images (and a few dozen equally high quality models), and are a 'pro', which is exactly what this thread is about, I'd imagine 2% if even that of microstockers are pro's, and of that 2% probably 1% make a full-time excellent wage that pays mortgages and the like..

I think the smaller contributor is better off setting their own price, that model might not nessesarily transfer across to those at pro levels of microstock production!
[/quote]

sorry but I think you are wrong on this ... I think the number who could actually pay their mortgage every month off of earnings is probably quite high - in fact I would guess well over a thousand contributors to micro could do just that off of their microstock earnings alone - I mean I make a few hundred a month and, as I noted above, I am not especially good - no models, no studio, etc etc ... so given what I make on my crappy portfolio I bet a lot of mortgage payments are being made !!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Digital66 on September 05, 2009, 22:43
The best way to increase earnings is to think of all the simple images the sites are missing that wont cost much to produce and the buyers will want.  Do those using the equipment you already have.  Why spend more money on cameras, lenses, lights etc?  It doesn't guarantee you will make more money.  Some of my best sellers have hardly any competition at the moment.  That will probably change but I will move on to more new ideas.  The sites might look like they have nearly everything covered and it is impossible to come up with something original but if you look closely that isn't true.  Your imagination is and always will be the most important factor, not how much you can spend on photographic gear.

Well said!  This is exactly what I think.   
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: fotografer on September 06, 2009, 00:06
I agree, I am nowhere near a proffessional and I pay my mortgage, my car payments and many other bills with my microstock earnings as I'm sure many others do.  and  Also there are many people that live in parts of the world where the cost of living is very low and can easily live off their earnings.




sorry but I think you are wrong on this ... I think the number who could actually pay their mortgage every month off of earnings is probably quite high
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Graffoto on September 06, 2009, 01:49
I agree, I am nowhere near a proffessional and I pay my mortgage, my car payments and many other bills with my microstock earnings as I'm sure many others do.  and  Also there are many people that live in parts of the world where the cost of living is very low and can easily live off their earnings.

I'm sorry, but if you make over 50% of your income from photography (as it appears that you do) you qualify as a professional.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Fred on September 06, 2009, 06:21
If we apply simple statistics and keep in mind a gaussian distribution of population there has to be a % of photographers that make a living out of this.  How many (and how big a %) is the million dollar question... I guess we will never know, many (if not most) submiters spend little time at forums and most wouldn't give the info away either.  For me, it pays my (ever growing) new equipment, my family vacation and some monthly bills...

My guess would be that the distribution is more along the lines of a power curve with 80% of sales shared by 20% of the photographers.  Given the number of photographers involved many must be making enough to pay a mortgage - at least in Mexico.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 06, 2009, 06:36
If we apply simple statistics and keep in mind a gaussian distribution of population there has to be a % of photographers that make a living out of this.  How many (and how big a %) is the million dollar question... I guess we will never know, many (if not most) submiters spend little time at forums and most wouldn't give the info away either.  For me, it pays my (ever growing) new equipment, my family vacation and some monthly bills...

My guess would be that the distribution is more along the lines of a power curve with 80% of sales shared by 20% of the photographers.  Given the number of photographers involved many must be making enough to pay a mortgage - at least in Mexico.



lol, yeah, so really we have three groups..

Microstock Professionals - Can spend 1000's on shoots, sometimes have assistants, have over 5-10,000 images on file, and are adding approx 1000+ to that per month.

Microstock Contributors - Don't organise shoots, generally do not have studios (although some may have equipment at home), they do add photos to their collection, but not at the pace set above, at a much slower pace.

Generally if you live in Ireland or the UK, the cost of living is very high, so being able to be a 'contributor' and pay something like a mortgage, is not going to happen. However you will be able to pay perhaps a smaller monthly bill, or buy the odd lens/piece of equipment.

If you live in a country where the cost of living is quite low, then I'm sure, you can be a contributor, and actually pay a mortgage or even more with those earnings.

Then the pros well, they HAVE to pull a full-time wage out of microstock regardless of where they live or the cost of living, they have actual overheads to cover, and this is their full-time wage, so they will make sure they make enough money to dedicate themselves to it.

Maybe if you live in a country with a very low cost of living, and you are a contributor but not on the pro level of production, you can still make enough with a small gallery, to make a living.. in that case, copy what the pros do and submit to as many sites as possible regardless of the price they sell at, or the % they give you.

I still believe the smaller contributor (living in an expensive country) is better served by using different methods of sale, than thinking that way of selling (no price is too low based on volume of images) will work for small galleries, in my experience, and from my years chatting with other microstockers, the average microstock contributor is barely making enough to pick up a lens these days, and that has a lot to do with sub sales that only benefit those with a high volume of images that can still turn a profit.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: gostwyck on September 06, 2009, 07:33
I'm sorry but you completely over-estimate the difficulty in earning 'a living' at this.

You don't need a studio (other than a corner of a room in your house), you don't need any models or assistants, you don't need 5-10,000 images in your port and you don't need to be uploading 1000 new images a month.

You do need to have a bit of talent in photography (but nothing special), you do need a $1000 camera and lens, you do need to find your niche of what you can shoot well and economically, you probably need an existing portfolio of 2500+ images and to be uploading 50-100 new images a month depending on the saleability. If you keep your overheads low then that should generate at least the average wage in most of the developed world (ok, maybe not Norway or Switzerland!).

I know several microstockers who are doing precisely this or sometimes much, much better. You do need to work reasonably hard at it, keep yourself motivated and keep thinking up new ideas for shoots __ but it's not that difficult.

NB: Off topic but being as you mentioned the cost of living in Ireland - I toured Ireland a couple of years ago and one thing that really struck me was the extraordinary property market, both the bizarrely high prices and also the scale of new-builds of (often massive) houses in progress. Apart from the 'silicon valley' of the Dublin area I couldn't see any evidence of where the money to sustain this market was coming from __ there was precious little industry, large-scale agriculture or anything obvious at all. When I discussed it with a local man (in Cork) he said "Oh, they're all on 35-40 year mortgages around here. You don't leave your house to the kids any more __ you leave them the mortgage!". That was about 18 months before 'the crunch'. It'll be interesting to see where Irish property prices are in 5-10 years time.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: snokid on September 06, 2009, 07:35
This all goes back to you get out of it what you put in to it....

I would love to have more time to contribute, but my day job doesn't allow that.  Even so I have built up a good income from my crappy stock images.

I can only shoot 1 day a week, I give myself a break every 3 or 4 weeks so I end up with 40-50 shooting days a year.

I can buy a new lens every month from my earnings....  hehe a new lens can be had for as little as 100.00 LOL!!!  but I can buy a new piece of l glass each month if I wanted to...

Is the pro ever going to be able to compete with me?  I don't think so.
The pro has staff, rent/studio, etc to deal with.  I don't have all that overhead.

Subs don't bother me at all, it's just a part of the puzzle.  As long as I get a paycheck from all those pieces of the puzzle I don't care how I got there....

if you want a us vs them thing to end prices should drop to pennies a download then the pro's wouldn't bother selling and would find a different outlet for their work, and us hobbiest would be all alone to sell stock as we like, but once all the pro's are gone hobbiest are going to want more for our work, then the pro's will want a piece of the pie again....

it wil never end...

Bob
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 06, 2009, 07:38
I'm sorry but you completely over-estimate the difficulty in earning 'a living' at this.

You don't need a studio (other than a corner of a room in your house), you don't need any models or assistants, you don't need 5-10,000 images in your port and you don't need to be uploading 1000 new images a month.

You do need to have a bit of talent in photography (but nothing special), you do need a $1000 camera and lens, you do need to find your niche of what you can shoot well and economically, you probably need an existing portfolio of 2500+ images and to be uploading 50-100 new images a month depending on the saleability. If you keep your overheads low then that should generate at least the average wage in most of the developed world (ok, maybe not Norway or Switzerland!).

I know several microstockers who are doing precisely this or sometimes much, much better. You do need to work reasonably hard at it, keep yourself motivated and keep thinking up new ideas for shoots __ but it's not that difficult.

NB: Off topic but being as you mentioned the cost of living in Ireland - I toured Ireland a couple of years ago and one thing that really struck me was the extraordinary property market, both the bizarrely high prices and also the scale of new-builds of (often massive) houses in progress. Apart from the 'silicon valley' of the Dublin area I couldn't see any evidence of where the money to sustain this market was coming from __ there was precious little industry, large-scale agriculture or anything obvious at all. When I discussed it with a local man (in Cork) he said "Oh, they're all on 35-40 year mortgages around here. You don't leave your house to the kids any more __ you leave them the mortgage!". That was about 18 months before 'the crunch'. It'll be interesting to see where Irish property prices are in 5-10 years time.

No I agree, I only picked two examples of microstock contributors that had the biggest gap between them to differenciate between the two groups of contributors we have in the market.. of course it's not that everyone is either one or the other, in between the two there will be 1000's of groups of people that are neither pro, or 'hobbyist', but in between, and make an in between amount..
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 06, 2009, 07:41
This all goes back to you get out of it what you put in to it....

I would love to have more time to contribute, but my day job doesn't allow that.  Even so I have built up a good income from my crappy stock images.

I can only shoot 1 day a week, I give myself a break every 3 or 4 weeks so I end up with 40-50 shooting days a year.

I can buy a new lens every month from my earnings....  hehe a new lens can be had for as little as 100.00 LOL!!!  but I can buy a new piece of l glass each month if I wanted to...

Is the pro ever going to be able to compete with me?  I don't think so.
The pro has staff, rent/studio, etc to deal with.  I don't have all that overhead.

Subs don't bother me at all, it's just a part of the puzzle.  As long as I get a paycheck from all those pieces of the puzzle I don't care how I got there....

if you want a us vs them thing to end prices should drop to pennies a download then the pro's wouldn't bother selling and would find a different outlet for their work, and us hobbiest would be all alone to sell stock as we like, but once all the pro's are gone hobbiest are going to want more for our work, then the pro's will want a piece of the pie again....

it wil never end...

Bob

You see, I think you're wrong. Pro's are the only ones that can keep selling at 'pennies a download' (due to sheer volume and continued production), and it's the smaller contributor that will be squeezed out..
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Jonathan Ross on September 06, 2009, 12:19
 Hi HQimages

 I guess it also depends on what you call earning a living. That is a very vague term, especially when you are speaking globally. What is a good living one place may be considered poverty somewhere else.

Best,
Jonathan
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on September 06, 2009, 12:37
In my country, Panama, US$2000 a month used to be good money... Today you'll be lower middle class with that and struggle to meet months end... So, yes, it is relative, in place and time...
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cascoly on September 06, 2009, 13:35
i not only pay for my mortgage, but pay for several tax deductible foreign trips each year mostly from MS earnings. 

too much of the discussion here seems t assume an either-or zero sum situation; even if all the participants in this forum withdrew all their portfolios from subscriptions, the world wouldnt even notice.  instead, this is a huge field, and 'dancing among the elephants' is a profitable niche to aim for.

similarly, many seem to assume that by contributing to a subscription site you're hurting sales elsewhere - but that assumes buyers search by photographer, AND that they search multiple sites. 

finally, too many focus on the big $ that images sell for on some sites, ignoring the number of users that would/could never consider those prices.  'different horses,  different courses' -- it's up to the individual to analyze their portfoo and decide where it will perform best.

steve

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 06, 2009, 14:42
i not only pay for my mortgage, but pay for several tax deductible foreign trips each year mostly from MS earnings. 

too much of the discussion here seems t assume an either-or zero sum situation; even if all the participants in this forum withdrew all their portfolios from subscriptions, the world wouldnt even notice.  instead, this is a huge field, and 'dancing among the elephants' is a profitable niche to aim for.

similarly, many seem to assume that by contributing to a subscription site you're hurting sales elsewhere - but that assumes buyers search by photographer, AND that they search multiple sites. 

finally, too many focus on the big $ that images sell for on some sites, ignoring the number of users that would/could never consider those prices.  'different horses,  different courses' -- it's up to the individual to analyze their portfoo and decide where it will perform best.

steve



Hi Steve thanks for that info!! Can I ask you if you don't mind, how many images do you have in your gallery, and how many do you add to that on a monthly basis? Just curious!  :)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: snokid on September 06, 2009, 18:15
hqimages....

I still think us hobby photog's could stick around for pennies.

I really don't have much invested.
camera, bunch of lenses, lights, and some misc stuff.  Most of which I would of bought for my hobby anyways.

take yuri for example he has a building much like a greenhouse, several people on staff, a ton of equipment.
at last I heard/read he was bringing in around a million a year.  Would Yuri continue if his income dropped to say 100k a year?, I don't think so, I think he would find an outlet that would bring the same or more income than he has today.

But if Istock decided to pay me .10 a download all of a sudden what am I out really? Income sure, but to be truthful I could make what I make off photo's by doing dog photo's at the pet store once a month, so I'm not in this for the money right now.

why am I in this right now?
a little spending money.
validation of my work
I like this hobby

This will all change one day, when I get ride of my day job and turn full time.


Bob
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 06, 2009, 18:27
i not only pay for my mortgage, but pay for several tax deductible foreign trips each year mostly from MS earnings.

Now Steve, we all know there's no money to be made in micro.  You mustn't spread such lies! ;)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: elvinstar on September 06, 2009, 18:34
I guess that what I was trying to say is that buyers at SS very rarely shop anywhere else. They have already paid for their subscription and have tons of images to choose from.

I'm a designer as well as a photographer and I only buy from 2 sites where I can purchase small credit packages. I have friends that work for larger ad agencies and they buy subscriptions. Period. No credit sales at all. If you don't have photos on SS, you aren't selling to those people.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 06, 2009, 20:22
But if Istock decided to pay me .10 a download all of a sudden what am I out really?

Well gee, snokid, thanks so much for posting that. You might  also email IStock directly and tell them you're fine with 10 cents in case they ever want to make the change.

You drive a hard bargain, my friend.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cthoman on September 06, 2009, 21:56
It's always nice to get paid large royalties, but I think in the micros there is definitely a "sweet spot". That place where the price is good for the contributors and the buyers.

In 2007 to early 2008, I think iStock raised their prices for vectors at least twice. The first raise was great. Income instantly went up in a dramatic way. The second raise was a little more nebulous. Prices went up, but downloads went down. It seemed like it was a break even raise. Many people were asking if they could lower prices on some of their old files because they felt they sold better at the old price.

My point is, it is hard to know what the result will be of a price increase at some of the micro sites.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Graffoto on September 06, 2009, 22:29
I believe that Vetta files on IS are moving well.
I myself have 6 Vetta files and 19 sales on them since turning Vetta.

Yes, there is a price point that buyers won't go above.... but it is subject and file dependent.

No one will pay a premium for an isolated shot of an apple, pear, orange, your razor blades or your toothbrush. Too common and too easy to replicate.

So, go ahead and sell the easy to do stuff for $0.25 ea or whatever.
But don't fool yourself into believing that people cannot and will not pay more for better images.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cascoly on September 07, 2009, 03:28
Hi Steve thanks for that info!! Can I ask you if you don't mind, how many images do you have in your gallery, and how many do you add to that on a monthly basis? Just curious!  :)

it really varies - if i'm home i work steadily on editing, tagging & uploading. most months i add 500-1000 images to my MS portfolios.  last month it was 3000, but that's because i signed up at 3d Studio and snapixel & they take most submissions.

i've got somewhere around 3500 images in my work area,  including about 800 from last year's peru trip - but many of these are similar to images already submitted, so they won't all get processed and submitted.  my total archive is about 5500 digital images, plus about 1000 images scanned from slides.

we're heading to India in nov for 5 weeks, and i expect i'll gather about 15K images plus video - about 1/2  of that can be reviewed and discarded quickly [often over beer and papadams in the hotel bar] - near dupes, bad comp, camera moved, etc, but it will still keep me busy thru ski season.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 07, 2009, 05:06
Hi Steve thanks for that info!! Can I ask you if you don't mind, how many images do you have in your gallery, and how many do you add to that on a monthly basis? Just curious!  :)

it really varies - if i'm home i work steadily on editing, tagging & uploading. most months i add 500-1000 images to my MS portfolios.  last month it was 3000, but that's because i signed up at 3d Studio and snapixel & they take most submissions.

i've got somewhere around 3500 images in my work area,  including about 800 from last year's peru trip - but many of these are similar to images already submitted, so they won't all get processed and submitted.  my total archive is about 5500 digital images, plus about 1000 images scanned from slides.

we're heading to India in nov for 5 weeks, and i expect i'll gather about 15K images plus video - about 1/2  of that can be reviewed and discarded quickly [often over beer and papadams in the hotel bar] - near dupes, bad comp, camera moved, etc, but it will still keep me busy thru ski season.



Wow, that's dedicated production for the amount you're adding per month.. I'll have to stick you in the 'pro' bracket for microstock! Well done, that's a lot of hard work!!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: lisafx on September 07, 2009, 09:57
There was a discussion in another thread about what constitutes a FT "pro" income in photography.  Some seemed to think it was upwards of a million, while most stats indicate it is in the mid 5 figure income range.  

Personally, I considered myself earning a FT income when I began to approach the income my husband makes as a FT teacher.  Yeah, I know it is two completely different professions, and he is working for someone else and I work for myself, etc.  But still, if there are people working FT at middle-class jobs (not flipping burgers or parking cars) and making what I make, then to me that is a FT income.

And FWIW I only do a couple of shoots a month - although I cram as many different concepts and setups in there as I can.  By submitting around 100 pics a month, give or take, I have managed to rack up around 5k images on each site.

For the amount of effort I put in I am satisfied at this level.  Not everyone needs to be making six or seven figures to consider themselves "pro" and be happy with their level of success. 

BTW, I live in the US and the median income here is still around 50k or so.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 07, 2009, 11:55
There was a discussion in another thread about what constitutes a FT "pro" income in photography.  Some seemed to think it was upwards of a million, while most stats indicate it is in the mid 5 figure income range.  

Personally, I considered myself earning a FT income when I began to approach the income my husband makes as a FT teacher.  Yeah, I know it is two completely different professions, and he is working for someone else and I work for myself, etc.  But still, if there are people working FT at middle-class jobs (not flipping burgers or parking cars) and making what I make, then to me that is a FT income.

And FWIW I only do a couple of shoots a month - although I cram as many different concepts and setups in there as I can.  By submitting around 100 pics a month, give or take, I have managed to rack up around 5k images on each site.

For the amount of effort I put in I am satisfied at this level.  Not everyone needs to be making six or seven figures to consider themselves "pro" and be happy with their level of success. 

BTW, I live in the US and the median income here is still around 50k or so.

You add 100 a month.. that's really good for the money you're getting back.. and 5k roughly in total.. that's good value for work produced, your images are TOP class though, they really are!!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: lisafx on September 07, 2009, 18:11

You add 100 a month.. that's really good for the money you're getting back.. and 5k roughly in total.. that's good value for work produced, your images are TOP class though, they really are!!

Thanks Hilary  :)  I beyond meeting basic image quality standards, though, I think it is mostly about consistency. 

A lot of people talk about uploading hundreds of images a week, but when you check their portfolio size and time doing it, mostly the numbers don't add up.  Probably they are uploading that many in bursts, on the occasional week, but not week in week out 50 - 52 weeks a year. 

For me I would rather stick to a schedule like 20-30 pics a week that is sustainable every week over a long period of time.  Sort of tortoise vs. hare, and I am definitely more of a tortoise ;)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 07, 2009, 22:22
so really we have three groups..

You really have only two groups:

   - People losing money with microstock (includes just about all contributors; over 99% if you prefer technical terms)

   - Everybody else (includes microstock agency owners; less than 1% to be specific)

The boobs in this thread who claim they're "making money" in microstock have learned all their business accounting from the Bernie Madoff School of Business and Crookery.

Within the "People losing money" category, you'll find two groups of people:

   - Those who are too naive, too dumb, or just too arrogant to notice how unsuccessful they are at microstock.  These are usually the ones that will proudly describe their microstock accomplishment in terms of how many expenses they were able to pay for with their microstock "earnings". 

Imagine I am a cab driver and after a full year of driving a cab in my free time, I was able to only make the monthly payments on my car.  I would be a hugely successful cab driver in microstock terms, despite the fact that I made absolutely nothing for the time I spent driving the cab and had to pay for the gas, license, registration, etc... out of my own pocket.

   - Those who actually do make money at microstock after properly accounting for their expenses and labor but who are too dumb, too naive, or too arrogant to realize they could be earning much more outside of the microstock realm.

In other words, these bozos lose money just for being involved in microstock when other avenues would reward them more handsomely.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Suljo on September 07, 2009, 22:52
Why any definition of groups at all???
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: gostwyck on September 08, 2009, 09:02
- Those who actually do make money at microstock after properly accounting for their expenses and labor but who are too dumb, too naive, or too arrogant to realize they could be earning much more outside of the microstock realm.

In other words, these bozos lose money just for being involved in microstock when other avenues would reward them more handsomely.


Out of interest how do you account for the pro's who have spent years within the stock industry, like Iophoto or Monkey Business Images for example, but who now have several thousand images on micro? Why don't they put their images on the 'other avenues' you speak of instead?

MBI sold Banana Stock to Jupiter for $20M a few years ago so she probably knows a bit about the industry. Anyway she's been uploading nearly 1000 images a month to micro for the last 18 months. From her sales in her first year on micro it would appear that she made about $200K, not bad from a standing start, and that will most likely be doubled or trebled in the second year.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 08, 2009, 09:09
widdigo: LOL LOL

In fact I once was a cab driver.  And they're a lot like microstockers. You might hang around at an empty cab stand from 8 AM to 11AM and not make a dime; then you pick up a fair to the airport, and suddenly life is good, it all makes sense again.  All those drivers would have made a heckuva lot more money clerking at a convenience store, or mowing lawns, but hey - they wanted to be cab drivers, it's independence, it's an identity. 


The truth often hurts, but the truth is often hilarious.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 08, 2009, 09:40
MBI sold Banana Stock to Jupiter for $20M a few years ago so she probably knows a bit about the industry. Anyway she's been uploading nearly 1000 images a month to micro for the last 18 months. From her sales in her first year on micro it would appear that she made about $200K, not bad from a standing start, and that will most likely be doubled or trebled in the second year.

Interesting and positive story. Who is MBI?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 08, 2009, 09:41
- Those who actually do make money at microstock after properly accounting for their expenses and labor but who are too dumb, too naive, or too arrogant to realize they could be earning much more outside of the microstock realm.

In other words, these bozos lose money just for being involved in microstock when other avenues would reward them more handsomely.


Out of interest how do you account for the pro's who have spent years within the stock industry, like Iophoto or Monkey Business Images for example, but who now have several thousand images on micro? Why don't they put their images on the 'other avenues' you speak of instead?

MBI sold Banana Stock to Jupiter for $20M a few years ago so she probably knows a bit about the industry. Anyway she's been uploading nearly 1000 images a month to micro for the last 18 months. From her sales in her first year on micro it would appear that she made about $200K, not bad from a standing start, and that will most likely be doubled or trebled in the second year.

Right, but when the small contributor (small being, has a day job) is competing against that well.. they don't have a hope really do they?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 08, 2009, 09:46
Having been reading this forum and doing a little microstock for over 6 months now, I've concluded that the only people with credible claims of signficant income are simply flooding the microstocks with thousands of images.   

I don't think the microstocks intended this to be the 'business model' but that's what they've ended up with, because of their pricing and marketing decisions.  In the long run I don't think it's sustainable. 

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on September 08, 2009, 09:57
so really we have three groups..

You really have only two groups:

   - People losing money with microstock (includes just about all contributors; over 99% if you prefer technical terms)

   - Everybody else (includes microstock agency owners; less than 1% to be specific)

The boobs in this thread who claim they're "making money" in microstock have learned all their business accounting from the Bernie Madoff School of Business and Crookery.

Within the "People losing money" category, you'll find two groups of people:

   - Those who are too naive, too dumb, or just too arrogant to notice how unsuccessful they are at microstock.  These are usually the ones that will proudly describe their microstock accomplishment in terms of how many expenses they were able to pay for with their microstock "earnings". 

Imagine I am a cab driver and after a full year of driving a cab in my free time, I was able to only make the monthly payments on my car.  I would be a hugely successful cab driver in microstock terms, despite the fact that I made absolutely nothing for the time I spent driving the cab and had to pay for the gas, license, registration, etc... out of my own pocket.

   - Those who actually do make money at microstock after properly accounting for their expenses and labor but who are too dumb, too naive, or too arrogant to realize they could be earning much more outside of the microstock realm.

In other words, these bozos lose money just for being involved in microstock when other avenues would reward them
more handsomely.


I think the two groups are closer to:

- Those who have no idea what their microstock financials are (and may or may not be profitable)
- Those who know what their financials are (and should be adjusting their expenses to be profitable)

What the split is between those, who knows.

I wonder how many people know how much they make per hour compared to other jobs. Lets say new guy Joe Average makes $100 per month and $1,200 per year doing microstock. During the year Joe buys $1,000 worth of lenses, computer upgrades, lighting stuff, gas money traveling, etc. Joe is new at this so he doesn't do writeoffs or taxes and has $200 left over in profit. He works an average of 20 hours per week doing microstock. Joe makes 19 cents per hour.

And this applies to both micro and macro. If you're earning good money with macro and blow all of it what's the difference?



Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: RacePhoto on September 08, 2009, 11:45

I agree wholeheartedly that new sites to date have not worked but that is because the prices remain still very low ... but as prices rise (and they will rise) the price bottom will be vacant and calling out for a new "istock" all over again - and with the "hobbyists" and/or "amateurs" getting squeezed out (as they are cause I am one too Cathy) by the increasing number of pros going micro, they will be the ones to join the new cheap site - and the buyers will come ... and the revolution will continue. There are too many amateur photographers looking to sell their wares and there are too many buyers looking for the cheapest prices for this not to be true - IMHO ... I am not talking about this year or even next year ... but it will happen.

No it won't, and here's why. The same logic would say, someone else should open up and copy McDonalds (Wendy's, Hardee's, Burger King...) because there's room at the bottom to grow. The cost of doing business changes, so we won't be seeing 19c hamburgers any day, or a new Micro site that can work their way up from "Free" or even copying the SS design and marketing small images at low prices, subscription based. And there already is a Flickr with 3.5 Billion "free" images!

Most of the people who contribute will wake up and see there's no future in the new sites, they don't pay as well as the established agencies which by the way, will be selling more and paying better.  ;D

What's left is the new sites and people who try to make something on them, scrambling for the bones after the big dogs ate the meat off of them. Clients and buyers won't go to the new sites, because they don't have the library of desirable images that the established agencies have. Some day photographers will stop wasting their time hoping that the next new micro site will actually be the first one in five years to make any reasonable sales.

Not all doom and gloom. As the small agencies finally disappear and the new start-ups realize it's a waste of time, the survivors will produce better and make it more profitable for photographers. Consolidation of the images where buyers can find them at whatever the market will support. Part of the price war is driving out the small ones, or buying them because they can't survive. There is not unlimited market or growth. At some point things level off, and that's what we are seeing right now.

I like the idea of niche market agencies that could make a dent in the marketplace.

Look at the history of any booming business sector and you'll see the same type of expansion, price competition, contraction and consolidation. Railroads, automobiles, fast food, computers, cell service providers, anything. Take your pick. Stock photo sales are no different.


...if you stick with Shutterstock you shouldn't be making .25 for long.  My average is there is .73/DL because of the EL's and the on-demand sales.

Exactly!  8)

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 08, 2009, 12:17
Anyway she's been uploading nearly 1000 images a month to micro for the last 18 months. From her sales in her first year on micro it would appear that she made about $200K, not bad from a standing start, and that will most likely be doubled or trebled in the second year.

"Not bad"?

Dude, how . can you tell whether a business is "not bad" by only looking at the estimated revenue figures?

Or do you conveniently forget to quote profit figures out of microstock habit?  Is this how you and your microstock hamsters keep up their delusional microstock aspirations going for so long?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 08, 2009, 14:48

Or do you conveniently forget to quote profit figures out of microstock habit?  Is this how you and your microstock hamsters keep up their delusional microstock aspirations going for so long?


Wilddingo, I agree with your insistence that it's profit that matters, not revenue.  But in your insistence that 99% of contributors are actually losing money, are you leaving out people who literally don't have costs aside from their time?  What about someone spending about 2 hours a day churning out a couple illustrations or 3d renders and making a hundred dollars a day (or two hundred... or three hundred)?  When they first embarked in microstock, their revenue surely didn't offset the value of their time, but after a few months of building up a decent portfolio, they're well into the black and earning serious PROFIT.  Are these people hamsters as well?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: gostwyck on September 08, 2009, 15:14

"Not bad"?

Dude, how . can you tell whether a business is "not bad" by only looking at the estimated revenue figures?

Or do you conveniently forget to quote profit figures out of microstock habit?  Is this how you and your microstock hamsters keep up their delusional microstock aspirations going for so long?


No 'Dude'. I was simply using MBI as an example of an evidently highly successful and business-savvy individual who seems to be putting a lot of effort into microstock. Maybe you could learn something from her and others instead of whining constantly about microstock.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 08, 2009, 17:09
Wilddingo, I agree with your insistence that it's profit that matters, not revenue.  But in your insistence that 99% of contributors are actually losing money, are you leaving out people who literally don't have costs aside from their time?  What about someone spending about 2 hours a day churning out a couple illustrations or 3d renders and making a hundred dollars a day (or two hundred... or three hundred)?  When they first embarked in microstock, their revenue surely didn't offset the value of their time, but after a few months of building up a decent portfolio, they're well into the black and earning serious PROFIT.  Are these people hamsters as well?

Where do these people who "have no costs aside from their time" get their computers, Adobe Illustrator/3d rendering software, disk drives/storage media, drawing tablets, electricity, facilities to house everything, and the Internet connection to upload their files?

You are not suggesting that the only way these people can keep justifying their microstock illusion is by conveniently forgetting to account for all their expenses, are you? 

You are not saying that these people subsidize their foray into microstock with a real job that pays for these "forgotten" items, do you? 

Nah, I didn’t think so…
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 08, 2009, 17:35
No 'Dude'. I was simply using MBI as an example of an evidently highly successful and business-savvy individual who seems to be putting a lot of effort into microstock. Maybe you could learn something from her and others instead of whining constantly about microstock.

The only thing your example illustrates is that only someone with years of industry experience and $20 million in the bank can finance a serious attempt to achieve the massive scale required to make a profit out of microstock.

It's a predictable reflex among microstockers.  You boobs always pull up these "examples" of "pros" whose realities are a world away from your own because that's how you keep your microstock daydreams alive.

You can't use yourselves or your peers as examples because there ain't many of you who can claim to be successful on purely business terms.  Goes to show how sustainable microstock is as a business model.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 08, 2009, 20:25

You are not saying that these people subsidize their foray into microstock with a real job that pays for these "forgotten" items, do you? 

Nah, I didn’t think so…


Mr. Dingo,

See if you can follow this simple mathematic exercise if you can.  It's quite simple... I'll go slowly for you.

A new Imac costs $1,300 plus tax, so say $1,400.  The computer is bought for personal leisure use, but we'll use your argument that it's entirely a cost of microstocking.   Further, an Adobe package or 3d rendering program is purchased... let's say that's another $1,000.  The home already has electricity and internet, but let's attribute $50 a month to microstock use. 

This person becomes a microstock contributor and begins uploading images that start earning, say $.10 every day.  After one month, he is earning 30 x 2 x .10, or $6 per day.  After one month, this person is in the red, or in your terms, a hamster.  But this person sees his work as investment in growing a business, enjoys creating the images, and keeps at it.  Fast forward six months, and the person is earning 180 x 2 x .10, or $36 per day.  In six months, he has made more than $3,000 and has paid off the computer and software and is more than meeting the $50/month electrical and internet cost.  He's paid off his fixed costs, is covering his utilities, and will now start earning money for his time.  Oh, and he's still having fun at it.

After one year of microstocking, he's making 365 x 2 x .10, or $73 per day, or $71 per day after his electricity and internet cost.  His total for year one is $13,000.  If he's working two hours a day on microstock, that's $35.50 an hour.  Still a hamster?  If so, call me a hamster, because this is my story. 

What does this hamster see for year two of hamsterdom?  If I'm steadily contributing images that are serving a niche market and selling consistently well, I'm maintaining the $.10/per image per day rate, and after year two, that's 730 x 2 x .10 or $146 per day or $144 per day after utilities.  Working 2 hours a day, that's $72 per hour.  My total revenue over for these first two years would be about $52,000 and with only $2,500 in hardware and software and $50/month in internet and electricity, it's almost all profit.  Still a hamster? 

Now my question to you is, what do you call someone who proclaims to be above all this microstock "nonsense" yet spends so much of his time in a microstock forum clammering for attention from its members.  You seem to think we're pretty sad, but I think it's time to look in the mirror.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cthoman on September 08, 2009, 20:35
Alright, I was going to just ignore this, but I'm jumping in. It's filled my head with extreme silliness that can only be let out in one way... the crazy man on the street rant!

Are you serious with all this expenses talk?

Yes, I have to pay for power when I'm inside my house, although I'm working on a giant hamster wheel powered by the neighborhood children to eliminate that. Now, how to lure them into it (insert maniacal laughter here).

Yes, I had to buy computer equipment and software, but that doesn't really take very long to recoup the expense. I didn't even have to stop eating for a month or sell my kidneys to afford it. I did just upgrade to CS4, so I may want to look up the Kelley Blue Book value on my kidneys again though.

Yes, I have a facility to house all my equipment. It is called my house. I even have my own office, but my name isn't on the door. I guess I need to talk to the boss about that.

Yes, I have the internet. I was working on some kind of device that does the same thing, but I can't find one of those sarcastic Flintstones' dinosaurs that says, "It's a living."

No, I don't do microstock full time. I happen to run a very well respected and extremely unprofitable freelance business full time, so there. The microstock started off as a little extra money each month to pad the freelance, but it is creeping closer and closer to the freelance income each month. If it keeps going, it will eventually pass it and I will freelance part time. Or, I could go back to work and make some real money, but I like working in my pj's.

So there you have it. A modest success story from an illustrator/microstocker who overcame the adversity of mediocre talent and extreme laziness to make it to the big time of paying for his mortgage, utilities and some other stuff. Dare to dream people. Dare to dream. ;D
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on September 08, 2009, 21:43
i get Wildingo's point in that some people don't put a money tag on their time and don't consider some very real expenses that come from doing microstock.  The two previous analysis are nice, but don't forget that there are people buying props, lights, doing research to find niches, etc.  All those things have a price.  Also you assume that everybody is constant in uploading and that all images keep on selling without variations (both wrong assumptions).  Also many people tend to go for more expensive gear than they would if they weren't doing microstock, so it puts an extra cost on the table.  Costs are real and they add up pretty fast without your realizing it.

I also concurr that many people invoke the Yuri/Andresr/Iophoto et al card, ignoring they are the exception and not the rule.  But that is human nature and we usually seek inspiration on some role models in every activity, it is not wrong but the contrary.

I disagree with him on other points but I enjoy his posts as a reminder that micros are just a part of photographic business.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 08, 2009, 23:46
don't forget that there are people buying props, lights, doing research to find niches, etc.  All those things have a price.  Also you assume that everybody is constant in uploading and that all images keep on selling without variations (both wrong assumptions).

I was just speaking of my own experience to refute the Wilddingo's assertion that NO ONE is profitable in microstock.  I just told my own story.  The points are accurate descriptions of my own experience... the numbers are averages (.10/image/day has held true since day one, though of course some sell much more and some sell much less... and I upload up to five some days and 0 on others, so 2 a day is my average since day 1).  Everyone's own mileage will vary.

I just don't want microstock newcomers to get discouraged by Wilddingo's posts.  He does post some valid concerns that should open everyone's eyes about the costs and realities of a challenging business, but at the same time, budding microstockers should be encouraged and inspired that some people are actually earning a healthy profit doing this.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 08, 2009, 23:55
I just don't want microstock newcomers to get discouraged by Wilddingo's posts.  He does post some valid concerns that should open everyone's eyes about the costs and realities of a challenging business, but at the same time, budding microstockers should be encouraged and inspired that some people are actually earning a healthy profit doing this.

The more he posts, the more disastrous things look, the less competition decides to join.  Keep on postin' dude!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: RacePhoto on September 09, 2009, 01:29
Neat hypothesis PowerDroid, but how about some factual numbers, not cheerleading.

It's going on two years now, 100-200 images on the big six, when do I start making that 10c a day per photo?  ;D

As I look, BS, FT, StockXpert and DT are running about 5c a day per photo. IS slightly better and SS is almost 20c a day.

In a couple of years, maybe three, I'll be able to cash out for the first time on BS, FT, DT and StockXpert for my big paycheck which won't even cover props and light bulbs. Maybe you should re-check your math against reality and the real world.  ;) It may work for you and there may be someone with 300 photos, selling thousands on IS, but lets be fair and look at honest numbers. The IS survey site tells the story of how many people never reach payout! Look at how many people start and drop out with under 10 photos.

Of the referrals I've been fortunate enough to have at all, one of them is uploading and making some money. Best wishes. The rest, which I've followed, have never been accepted on IS or never uploaded even one photo. On the other sites, I'm still waiting for the first one to sell a single photo. The exception is the one who I'm thankful for making money because it gave me $1.17 last month.

In support of micro, I don't depend on the income, nor do I have any delusions that I'll ever make more than it takes to edit and upload the photos. But I already had the camera and computer and equipment (except some lights and props) so it's a hobby that I play with over the Winter months. Some people do work very hard and build a collection of 1000 photos and do get monthly returns. Micro has made me more critical and a better photographer for what I do shoot, that will never see a microstock site. It fills my idle time and sometimes I see a shot and say "Hey that would be good for Micro."

Your example of 2 hours a day comes out to making about 50c an hour for the first year and $1 an hour after the second year. Be honest, if someone said they would pay you $1 an hour and all you had to do was work for them for two years, would you say that's a good job or interesting. Did you include uploading. keywording, shooting, editing and all the time you spend on each photo? Or are you making one illustration a day, which will honestly make more than photos.

Here's the answer, ten photos a week uploaded to the top six, don't forget to account for rejections, and you'll have over 1000 photos in two years, (many less on IS and SS) which will make you possibly, in the real world, $500 a year in returns. I think I could make that picking cans out of the trash or scouting drive-throughs and parking lots, for dropped change. Of course it lacks the glamor and integrity of being a microstock photographer, but considering the investment side, picking up change or re-cycling is more profitable!  :o Get a job and work two weeks a year, or one month a year, part time and you'll have the same $500. LOL

Where else could you be promised that if you work for two years, you can make $2 a day! Oh wow, I can see the unemployed just clamoring for cameras so they can get into Microstock.  ;D

It's not profitable, it's not going to make 98% of the people who try it, any significant income. It's not easy and there are no promises. But as a hobby or something enjoyable to do with spare time or as an artistic outlet, there's nothing wrong with Microstock. Are we having fun yet? If so, then keep on going. If not then quit.

I just can't tell people honestly that for the average person, there's money, or a profit, to be made in Micro.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 09, 2009, 04:11
Neat hypothesis PowerDroid, but how about some factual numbers, not cheerleading.

It's going on two years now, 100-200 images on the big six, when do I start making that 10c a day per photo?  ;D

As I look, BS, FT, StockXpert and DT are running about 5c a day per photo. IS slightly better and SS is almost 20c a day.

In a couple of years, maybe three, I'll be able to cash out for the first time on BS, FT, DT and StockXpert for my big paycheck which won't even cover props and light bulbs. Maybe you should re-check your math against reality and the real world.  ;) It may work for you and there may be someone with 300 photos, selling thousands on IS, but lets be fair and look at honest numbers. The IS survey site tells the story of how many people never reach payout! Look at how many people start and drop out with under 10 photos.

Of the referrals I've been fortunate enough to have at all, one of them is uploading and making some money. Best wishes. The rest, which I've followed, have never been accepted on IS or never uploaded even one photo. On the other sites, I'm still waiting for the first one to sell a single photo. The exception is the one who I'm thankful for making money because it gave me $1.17 last month.

In support of micro, I don't depend on the income, nor do I have any delusions that I'll ever make more than it takes to edit and upload the photos. But I already had the camera and computer and equipment (except some lights and props) so it's a hobby that I play with over the Winter months. Some people do work very hard and build a collection of 1000 photos and do get monthly returns. Micro has made me more critical and a better photographer for what I do shoot, that will never see a microstock site. It fills my idle time and sometimes I see a shot and say "Hey that would be good for Micro."

Your example of 2 hours a day comes out to making about 50c an hour for the first year and $1 an hour after the second year. Be honest, if someone said they would pay you $1 an hour and all you had to do was work for them for two years, would you say that's a good job or interesting. Did you include uploading. keywording, shooting, editing and all the time you spend on each photo? Or are you making one illustration a day, which will honestly make more than photos.

Here's the answer, ten photos a week uploaded to the top six, don't forget to account for rejections, and you'll have over 1000 photos in two years, (many less on IS and SS) which will make you possibly, in the real world, $500 a year in returns. I think I could make that picking cans out of the trash or scouting drive-throughs and parking lots, for dropped change. Of course it lacks the glamor and integrity of being a microstock photographer, but considering the investment side, picking up change or re-cycling is more profitable!  :o Get a job and work two weeks a year, or one month a year, part time and you'll have the same $500. LOL

Where else could you be promised that if you work for two years, you can make $2 a day! Oh wow, I can see the unemployed just clamoring for cameras so they can get into Microstock.  ;D

It's not profitable, it's not going to make 98% of the people who try it, any significant income. It's not easy and there are no promises. But as a hobby or something enjoyable to do with spare time or as an artistic outlet, there's nothing wrong with Microstock. Are we having fun yet? If so, then keep on going. If not then quit.

I just can't tell people honestly that for the average person, there's money, or a profit, to be made in Micro.


Great post!!!! I have to agree too.. if you have a few 100 shots, and you aren't adding at least 100 to that per month over a period of 1-2 years (consistently), then you won't make much.. especially when competing against pro's on the same web sites adding 1000 a month, your images get lost in the mix unless you want to produce at that level.. which I believe cannot be done if you have a 'day job'.. but these people don't, they have made microstock their living, and you have to compete against the person with all the time in the world to give to it, with whatever you have left after making a living.

I really think they will have to do something to keep the small contributor happy, with all the pro level people entering and producing massive volume of images, they will monopolise it, and then they will only compete with each other, but they have saturated the market to a huge extreme.. it makes it harder for anyone to sell any image, and it drives the price down. It will be interesting to see what happens though that's for sure!!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 09, 2009, 05:36
After one year of microstocking, he's making 365 x 2 x .10, or $73 per day, or $71 per day after his electricity and internet cost.  His total for year one is $13,000.  If he's working two hours a day on microstock, that's $35.50 an hour.  Still a hamster?  If so, call me a hamster, because this is my story. 

Actually, now that you've made things clearer, I'd call you a hamster AND a liar.

First, you haven't been doing this microstock thing for a year, have you?  Second, when you claim you'll be making $35.50/hr you conveniently failed to consider the cummulative hours you put into building your archive in the previous months, didn't you?

Here's what you said 8 days ago in another thread:

"I started in Nov 2008, and here's my growth to date:

Nov 08 - $4.02 per day
Dec 08 - $9.80 per day
Jan 09 - $13.65 per day
Feb 09 - $20.86 per day
Mar 09 - $26.97 per day
Apr 09 - $26.80 per day
May 09 - $39.36 per day
Jun 09 - $47.79 per day
Jul 09 - $47.50 per day
Aug 09 - $51.35 per day

I have two revenue goals: short term ($100 / day) and long term ($300 / day).

My projections show me hitting my short term goal around April 2010."

So, you really aren't earning $73/day, are you? 

You're using the special microstocker rose-colored glasses that allow you to daydream of a constant 9% growth each month and project your imaginary earnings into the future and completely ignore the fact that your monthly earnings, in less than a year have gone from growing 143% in your second month (Dec 08) to 8% in August '09.

It takes posts like yours, giving actual microstocker figures, to illustrate just how naive you bunch really are.

You completely ignore than in less than a year, your monthly microstock revenue growth has stalled (and even turned negative once) several times already and is now in the single digits.

You imagine this fairy tale world where your revenue will just keep growing at 9% each month if you keep putting in your 2 hours per day.

WAKE UP, bozo!

A business that grows 9% each month is growing at over 100% per year!  For most of these businesses, the party doesn't last more than a few months.  Getty projects that Istock will grow 15% per year for the next two years.  And they have millions of dollars available to fund this growth.

If you want to keep growing at 100%+ pace, you'll have to invest a LOT more than your measly two hours per day.

Step up to the hamster wheel, sunny, you're in for a looong ride.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 09, 2009, 05:59
OK, now I'm being called delusional and a liar, so I'll make one last post and call it quits here.  My tally for yesterday was $82.33 and my daily average for Sept so far is $66/day including weekends.  Growth has been more or less steady since my start just under a year ago.  Yes, I'm putting in 2 hours a day for image creation AND uploading process, churning out an average of 2 images a day. Crunch those numbers anyway you like guys, but I'm pretty * happy with them and will happily continue on my little hamster wheel.

For any beginners following this thread, you've now read both sides of the story: the success story of someone who has done his research, figured out a niche and is making it work (also see cthoman's post), vs. the skepticism and anger of folks who either blame microstock for ruining the world or couldn't figure out how to make it work for them.

Good night and good luck, I'm done here.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: gostwyck on September 09, 2009, 06:31
It takes posts like yours, giving actual microstocker figures, to illustrate just how naive you bunch really are.

You completely ignore than in less than a year, your monthly microstock revenue growth has stalled (and even turned negative once) several times already and is now in the single digits.


Ok, ok, you can twist the figures quoted any which way you like to make your point. You are of course choosing to ignore the fact that the work done up to now will also produce revenue well into the future.

If you're so emphatic that we're all wasting our time, and presumably costing you money, why don't you state what these 'other avenues' are that you keep keep referring to? How about providing some of your own revenue figures to illustrate the error of our ways and steer us away from micro?

With over 40 posts in little more than 3 weeks, all on the same theme, you're putting a huge amount of effort into persuading us. Unfortunately, unless you provide any evidence to reinforce your points, it is difficult to give you any credibility __ you come across as yet another loser from the macros who cannot compete in the vastly more competitive digital age.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Perry on September 09, 2009, 07:03
why don't you state what these 'other avenues' are that you keep keep referring to? How about providing some of your own revenue figures to illustrate the error of our ways and steer us away from micro?

Yes, I would be interested in that too. But my guess is that we are never, ever going to get such information from this wilddingo guy. I'm guessing he's somebody that has gotten rejected at iStock for the fourth time.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: qwerty on September 09, 2009, 07:06
move along nothing to see here, 1cent per hour if your lucky. :)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 09, 2009, 09:02
Microstock is still new, and the microstock companies have been making it all up as they go along.  I have no inside knowledge, but it seems to me that the current situation - where the only way to make money is to continue flooding the sites with thousands of images - isn't what these companies really want.  It's just what they ended up with, based on decisions they made.

It's not a healthy marketplace, and it suggests the old joke "I lose money on every sale, but I make it up on volume."   It's also like a country with runaway inflation, where you need a bag full of paper money to buy a loaf of bread today, and next week you'll need a wheelbarrow full, and then a truckload.




Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 09, 2009, 09:04
For any beginners following this thread, you've now read both sides of the story: the success story of someone who has done his research, figured out a niche and is making it work (also see cthoman's post), vs. the skepticism and anger of folks who either blame microstock for ruining the world or couldn't figure out how to make it work for them.

You've been doing microstock for less than a year and you're giving advice to beginners?

You want to leave the thread because you've come across someone who is not smoking the same stuff as you and presents you facts and truth, which in your arrogance you confuse with skepticism and anger.

Here are the facts as stated by you.  These are your own figures.  I've added some additional information so the whippersnapper beginners can see exactly what is going on in your delusional world of microstock success.  It's hard to show tabular data on forum posts, so I've listed the column headings in order.  All the information is there if you look at it carefully:

Columns are in the following order:

1. Month   
2. Earnings/ day   
3. Earnings for month   
4. Total earnings (cumm)   
5. % Growth (month to month)   
6. Hours worked (cumm)   
7. $/hour (cumm)

11-08   $4.02   $121   $121      60   $2.01
12-08   $9.80   $294   $415   144%   120   $3.46
01-09   $13.65   $410   $824   39%   180   $4.58
02-09   $20.86   $626   $1450   53%   240   $6.04
03-09   $26.97   $809   $2259   29%   300   $7.53
04-09   $26.80   $804   $3063   -1%   360   $8.51
05-09   $39.36   $1181   $4244   47%   420   $10.10
06-09   $47.79   $1434   $5678   21%   480   $11.83
07-09   $47.50   $1425   $7103   -1%   540   $13.15
08-09   $51.35   $1541   $8643   8%   600   $14.41


So our hamster friend here with unique "niche" material has made the equivalent of $14.41 per hour after his first 10 months in microstock and before all expenses are deducted.  In that short period his month to month growth was negative twice and is now at 8% for Aug-09.

He's projecting that his growth will continue at 9% each month, which means he'll achieve about $100/day earnings sometime in April '10.  Here's what it will look like:

04-10   $102.32   $3070   $27161   9%   1080   $25.15

He has said that his long term goal is to achieve $300/day in earnings, which at 9% monthly growth will allow him to get there in May '11.  After about two and a half years, our friend will have made the equivalent of $55.89 per hour before all expenses.

05-11   $313.69   $9411   $103959   9%   1860   $55.89

If we continue smoking whatever he is and keep going at 9% growth each month, he'll be earning $37,363 per month and $157/hour before expenses exactly three years from now:

09-12   $1245.43   $37363   $442494   9%   2820   $156.91

And in five years, $295K per month and $838 per hour:

09-14   $9852.74   $295582   $3569813   9%   4260   $837.98

This is the scenario he has presented as plausible and the dream he is pursuing.

But, here is what it will look like in five years if his monthly growth stalls:

09-14   $55.97   $1679   $111068   0%   4260   $26.07

In other words, if his delusional growth stops, after almost six years in microstock he will have made the equivalent of $26 per hour before all expenses.  I'll leave you the exercise of calculating how much he'll keep after you subtract all the thousands of dollars of expenses he will have accumulated.

In truth, what will most likely happen is that his growth will not only stall, it will reverse course into negative territory and our hamster friend will have to work much harder at the wheel to maintain the same level of earnings he saw in the past.  Once he starts doing this, his hourly wage will dramatically drop.

He doesn't know this yet because he's a newbie and, for him, ignorance is bliss.  Humans are wired to be optimists when they're doing something they like.

It takes a super hound like Dingo to sniff out the flakey logic in microstockers' fantasy world.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 09, 2009, 10:14
Is macro the answer?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 09, 2009, 10:16
Wow. Your wisdom has convinced me of what an utter failure I am.  I'll earn $2,000 this month, but your calculations have shown me how it will all evaporate before I can touch it.  I guess I should throw out my computer and shut off my electricity and internet, since I don't want those "costs" lingering.  And I certainly don't want my portfolio to continue to be downloaded after I've given up and saddle me with a mountain of more costs, so I should just delete them as well.  Count me as another worthless hamster slain by the mighty dingo.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 09, 2009, 10:33
Wow. Your wisdom has convinced me of what an utter failure I am.  I'll earn $2,000 this month, but your calculations have shown me how it will all evaporate before I can touch it.  I guess I should throw out my computer and shut off my electricity and internet, since I don't want those "costs" lingering.  And I certainly don't want my portfolio to continue to be downloaded after I've given up and saddle me with a mountain of more costs, so I should just delete them as well.  Count me as another worthless hamster slain by the mighty dingo.

lol!  :o ;D
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cybernesco on September 09, 2009, 11:07
For any beginners following this thread, you've now read both sides of the story: the success story of someone who has done his research, figured out a niche and is making it work (also see cthoman's post), vs. the skepticism and anger of folks who either blame microstock for ruining the world or couldn't figure out how to make it work for them.

You've been doing microstock for less than a year and you're giving advice to beginners?


But you are a beginner yourself aren't you?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 09, 2009, 11:49
Wow. Your wisdom has convinced me of what an utter failure I am.  I'll earn $2,000 this month, but your calculations have shown me how it will all evaporate before I can touch it.

By the end of this month, you will have earned around $10K total for your 660 hours of work.  That means you made around $15/hour during the equivalent of over four months of full-time work (40 hours per week).  From your $10K you'll deduct your expenses which will leave you with much less, in terms of real hourly wage.  Your agents, on the other hand, have made probably close to $100K from your work and labor.

In my book, you are a failure.  In fact, in your own book, you are a failure.  If you were a success, you would've quit your other job and be doing microstock full time.  This means that, in terms of investing your time, you have options that pay you more but you continue to spend time on those options that pay you less.

This is not some microstocker pipe dream projected out 3 or 5 years into the future or speculation drivel.  These are facts based on your own figures and experience.

None of what Dingo says will change your mind.  You will continue to make poor business choices because you never took this seriously as a business -- you're just another poor sap who is passionate about some aspect of your hobby and unable to see the forest for the trees when it comes to getting the best value for your intellectual property.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 09, 2009, 12:03
You humble me yet again, Mr. Dingo.  But I assure you that your wisdom has convinced me of the folly of my actions and I will give up.  But it's a shame.  I just checked today's figures and it will be a best sales day ever for me.  I will immediately contact the agencies to inform them that: 1) their numbers must be inaccurate as wilddingo's calculations have proven without a doubt I should not have experienced such growth, and 2) they will have to keep this money as I cannot bear the costs associated with it.  Thank you again, dingo, for showing me the futility of my actions.  This time, I promise, will be the last you hear from me, as my computer is going straight to the curb.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Perry on September 09, 2009, 12:04
By the end of this month, you will have earned around $10K total for your 660 hours of work.  That means you made around $15/hour during the equivalent of over four months of full-time work (40 hours per week).  From your $10K you'll deduct your expenses which will leave you with much less, in terms of real hourly wage.  Your agents, on the other hand, have made probably close to $100K from your work and labor.

Your math really sucks. Let's say he stopped shooting. I'm sure he would make $10K during the next three years (let's say 6K next year, 3K year after that and 1K third year). That doubles the revenue and there is no additional expenses. Shooting stock is an investment, you can't wait for instant returns.

In my book, you are a failure.  In fact, in your own book, you are a failure.  If you were a success, you would've quit your other job and be doing microstock full time.  

You need to check your books. Stock photography doesn't work that way, it takes time to build a library. I think he's doing great, just one more year and he could quit his day job too (if he wanted to)

I'm asking again: Where does the dingoguy sell his images and how much does he make?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cybernesco on September 09, 2009, 12:06
Wow. Your wisdom has convinced me of what an utter failure I am.  I'll earn $2,000 this month, but your calculations have shown me how it will all evaporate before I can touch it.

By the end of this month, you will have earned around $10K total for your 660 hours of work.  That means you made around $15/hour during the equivalent of over four months of full-time work (40 hours per week).  From your $10K you'll deduct your expenses which will leave you with much less, in terms of real hourly wage.  Your agents, on the other hand, have made probably close to $100K from your work and labor.


In my book, you are a failure. 

But you are a failure yourself aren't you?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: RacePhoto on September 09, 2009, 12:09

Great post!!!! I have to agree too.. if you have a few 100 shots, and you aren't adding at least 100 to that per month over a period of 1-2 years (consistently), then you won't make much.. especially when competing against pro's on the same web sites adding 1000 a month, your images get lost in the mix unless you want to produce at that level.. which I believe cannot be done if you have a 'day job'.. but these people don't, they have made microstock their living, and you have to compete against the person with all the time in the world to give to it, with whatever you have left after making a living.

I really think they will have to do something to keep the small contributor happy, with all the pro level people entering and producing massive volume of images, they will monopolise it, and then they will only compete with each other, but they have saturated the market to a huge extreme.. it makes it harder for anyone to sell any image, and it drives the price down. It will be interesting to see what happens though that's for sure!!

I look at it strictly on a business level. The agencies don't care about the small contributors, and don't need to. They are in it for a profit, not a "feel good" website for lazy people like me who don't upload enough photos.  ;D

The people who can upload 1000 a month are a small select group. Lets be realistic, we aren't them, don't have a studio or staff and they have a big advantage. They have financial backing to start with, or built the business by re-investing in growth. Some people can create 100 photos a month. Nice work! Best wishes... that's the competition as well as the people who enjoy making some spare change, or added monthly income with their spare time.

Some people give glorious stories of how much can be made selling stock, but the facts are there. The agencies are being filled by established pros and if someone doesn't have at least 1000 photos online, they are going to be lost in the percentages. A few years ago that may have been 200 photos to get some returns. The market has changed. It's not 2005 anymore, but some people are still using that data and information. Times have changed.

One photo a day or 7-10 a week for a year and there will be returns. I won't say profits, but a steady flow of sales. After two years, someone will have something coming in every month. Some people pay their rent, some pay for equipment, some just have fun and are entertained.

Day job? Up until last year I had a full time job days a part time job four nights, weekend work (and I skipped out of the day job to work some days for cash) and I was shooting photos for some publications. Someone asked me why I didn't get a job, and I said, I need to sleep sometime?  :D No excuse for not shooting more micro, but I'm already months behind on editing what I've shot this Summer.

I'm adverse to the people who claim that there's big money or actual profit to be made from grabbing a P&S and uploading to the sites, which gives people false hope and dreams. Sure a tiny portion of the people, do make it. But lets be honest up front. Only hard work, long hours, a good eye and patience, will bring sales and positive results.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: RacePhoto on September 09, 2009, 12:15
OK, now I'm being called delusional and a liar, so I'll make one last post and call it quits here.  My tally for yesterday was $82.33 and my daily average for Sept so far is $66/day including weekends.  Growth has been more or less steady since my start just under a year ago.  Yes, I'm putting in 2 hours a day for image creation AND uploading process, churning out an average of 2 images a day. Crunch those numbers anyway you like guys, but I'm pretty  happy with them and will happily continue on my little hamster wheel.

For any beginners following this thread, you've now read both sides of the story: the success story of someone who has done his research, figured out a niche and is making it work (also see cthoman's post), vs. the skepticism and anger of folks who either blame microstock for ruining the world or couldn't figure out how to make it work for them.

Good night and good luck, I'm done here.

My compliments for anyone who can make even $50 a day on micro. You are exceptional. Just don't forget that the next 100 or 1000 new people will never reach payout, ever. I think that's my point and you can't project your success to other people.

Did you mention you were an illustrator not a photographer? Did I read that right?

How many images have you actually uploaded in the last year? I recognize that some sites have limits, but on average, what's the count on the top six?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 09, 2009, 12:30
Just don't forget that the next 100 or 1000 new people will never reach payout, ever.

This is what I keep coming back to - sort of. Sure there are people "making money" today, depending on how you look at it. But it seems like the whole thing is just losing steam.  You used to need 100 new photos a month,  now you need 1,000, next year I calculate you will have to upload 1,000,000 new images a month to succeed .  Ok I made that all up, but you get the point. This thing is steadily ceasing to make sense.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 09, 2009, 12:47
Just don't forget that the next 100 or 1000 new people will never reach payout, ever.

This is what I keep coming back to - sort of. Sure there are people "making money" today, depending on how you look at it. But it seems like the whole thing is just losing steam.  You used to need 100 new photos a month,  now you need 1,000, next year I calculate you will have to upload 1,000,000 new images a month to succeed .  Ok I made that all up, but you get the point. This thing is steadily ceasing to make sense.



So true.. and the image libraries started out with 40k images, then 80k, then 1 million, then 1.2 million, it's crazy.. plus what started out as the big six, will slowly become the big seven, the big eight, the big nine.. we can't ALL make money with market saturation at these levels!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 09, 2009, 13:04
I just want a place where small contributors can play.  I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 09, 2009, 13:13
I just want a place where small contributors can play.  I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.



Me too! A web site with a cap would be great, set a cap of 1k images per person, and if you want to add more, then delete some first.. if supply was restricted, the price would go up.. never going to happen tho, the web sites just want to say 'we have the biggest database of images in the world', there's nothing in it for them to control supply unless EVERYONE does it, which also will never happen..

It has to implode at some point though.. if the pro's can't sustain the work it currently takes to make it full-time, it will implode.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Perry on September 09, 2009, 13:17
I just want a place where small contributors can play.  I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.

Sounds like you should try macro instead..
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: sharpshot on September 09, 2009, 13:18
I just want a place where small contributors can play.  I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.
I upload less than 60 a month now, quantity doesn't matter as long as enough buyers want what you upload.  Alamy has over 16 million images and I get sales there with a portfolio of 250.  The micros are easier than alamy.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 09, 2009, 13:23
I just want a place where small contributors can play.  I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.
I upload less than 60 a month now, quantity doesn't matter as long as enough buyers want what you upload.  Alamy has over 16 million images and I get sales there with a portfolio of 250.  The micros are easier than alamy.

You know, I should bite the bullet this year and give it a go! The up-sizing thing is scary it always puts me off, I should try it tho!  :)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 09, 2009, 13:36
I too looked at Alamy but forgot about it when I saw the upsizing requirement.  Not only is it very time consuming, and possibly requires buying a high-quality upsizing tool, but it's completely pointless and in fact counterproductive. Alamy could easily upsize images on demand, on their servers, if the customer insists on a monster image and won't do it themselves.

The goofy upsizing requirements gave me an image of Alamy as being seriously  out-of-date and not going anywhere.  Maybe I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Perry on September 09, 2009, 13:50
The goofy upsizing requirements gave me an image of Alamy as being seriously  out-of-date and not going anywhere.  Maybe I'm wrong.

No... It has been the digital cameras that haven't been up to the task to provide images that are large enough for a magazine spread. Luckily some prosumer (for example Canon 5DmkII and 7D) cameras have large enough images so no upsizing is required. I definitely have shot more for Alamy after I got my 5DmkII.

If your images are of good quality, it's easy to make an action with image size -> bicubic smoother -> save as.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 09, 2009, 14:10
If your images are of good quality, it's easy to make an action with image size -> bicubic smoother -> save as.
Sure, I get that.

It's still pointless, because Alamy's system could do it automatically, on demand, and only when needed. Why have every photographer do all this, for every image, and then devote time and bandwidth and storage space to upsized images that will never be bought - and why should Alamy pay for all that disc space instead of using the server CPU to upsize only when a customer makes a purchase - ok I give up, I've had the "Alamy argument" before and it goes nowhere.

And Alamy's prices are crumbling too, aren't they?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on September 09, 2009, 14:29
Average sale price at Alamy has come down to 87 dollars (I dont remember where did i read this, but 3 yrs ago was about 120 dollars, I think it was a survey on some forum)  Sales are about the same since i joined about 3 yrs ago, so returns have come somewhat down.

The resizing is no problem, even from a G7... I have resized with CS3 and Genuine Fractals, the former is quicker and haven't had a rejection since 18 months ago.  It shouldn't be a problem if you know your thing.  Even "noisy" pics get in and sell (of course, noise is expected under some situations).
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 09, 2009, 14:31
You humble me yet again, Mr. Dingo.  But I assure you that your wisdom has convinced me of the folly of my actions and I will give up.  But it's a shame.  I just checked today's figures and it will be a best sales day ever for me. 

Dude, this is your best sales day ever and you're still earning less than $14/hour, closer to $10/hr after expenses.

The pimple-faced kid STARTING at a McDonald's gets paid around $8/hour.

Yep, it is a shame.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cybernesco on September 09, 2009, 14:48
You humble me yet again, Mr. Dingo.  But I assure you that your wisdom has convinced me of the folly of my actions and I will give up.  But it's a shame.  I just checked today's figures and it will be a best sales day ever for me.

Dude, this is your best sales day ever and you're still earning less than $14/hour, closer to $10/hr after expenses.

The pimple-faced kid STARTING at a McDonald's gets paid around $8/hour.

Yep, it is a shame.

How much value would you put into someone's advice that will refuse talking about his own experiences? Are you such a failure and ashamed of yourself?
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: PowerDroid on September 09, 2009, 15:16


Dude, this is your best sales day ever and you're still earning less than $14/hour, closer to $10/hr after expenses.


Yes, yes, yes, dear dingo, you've convinced me again!  I'd like to now become your humble troll-in-training and we can go tell others the foolishness of their endeavors.  Master, let us now go talk to the idiot hamsters at Pixar.  The morons spent several years toiling away on the movie Up, spending $175 million.  Imagine!  For years, they made NOTHING!  In fact, even when it was released it made only $20 million on its first day!  FAILURE!  In fact it took several months for them to make that $175 million back just to get to ground zero.  (Let us forget the $125 million it has made in the days since, for it is irrelevant!)  Let us go preach to those hamsters and convince them of their folly!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 09, 2009, 16:12
plus what started out as the big six, will slowly become the big seven, the big eight, the big nine.. we can't ALL make money with market saturation at these levels!

No they won't.  The "big" whatever, is about who brings in the most revenue, not who has X images.  Besides, independents could just spread their work at any additional agencies to get whatever buying royalties are cannibalized from other sites.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 09, 2009, 16:15
if the pro's can't sustain the work it currently takes to make it full-time, it will implode.

No it won't.  Micros are supplied in large by crowd sourcing.  They existed before any "pros" came to the game.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Graffoto on September 09, 2009, 20:23
if the pro's can't sustain the work it currently takes to make it full-time, it will implode.

No it won't.  Micros are supplied in large by crowd sourcing.  They existed before any "pros" came to the game.


True, that is how it began & most professionals shunned the micros.
The game has changed though. The buyers expect profesional quality now.
Who knows what will happen in the future?
My crystal ball broke ages ago.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cthoman on September 09, 2009, 20:44
Who knows what will happen in the future?
My crystal ball broke ages ago.
Mine too.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: wilddingo on September 09, 2009, 21:39
Yes, yes, yes, dear dingo, you've convinced me again!  I'd like to now become your humble troll-in-training and we can go tell others the foolishness of their endeavors.  Master, let us now go talk to the idiot hamsters at Pixar.  The morons spent several years toiling away on the movie Up, spending $175 million.  Imagine!  For years, they made NOTHING! 

Ahh, Grasshopper, you have seen the light and you too seek the wisdom.

Come child and you too shall see truth.  For there is no truth that shines brighter than the truth spoken by Dingo.

Close your eyes and listen.

First, Grasshopper, you shall learn to break from the urge to look upon the problems of other morons and to focus on your own.  For each moron was not created equal and you can never know what motivates morons other than yourself.

Second, Grasshopper, you shall not dwell on the accomplishments of the artist, but seek the education of a businessman.  You shall learn how to correctly calculate your costs, your revenue and your profit and learn the laws of accounting and finance.  And you shall employ your knowledge to be truthful with yourself and make realistic projections.

Third, Grasshopper, you shall learn to be passionate with your art and rational with your business.  You must know your costs at all times and seek to keep them low.  You must be aware of the value of your art at all times and seek to keep it high. 
 
Fourth, Grasshopper, you shall learn that you will only earn the respect of others after you endeavour to respect yourself.  At no time, Grasshopper, must the value you attribute to your art ever be lower to your costs. 

And fifth, Grasshopper, you shall learn to shun the crowd and think independently.  For crowds act emotionally, and you have risen from the ashes of doom and now think rationally.  And at no time, must you accept to embark upon a journey proposed by an agent or partner simply because others are willing to do so.  For just as you would not accept used toilet paper, you should not accept contracts that stink.

Grasshopper, here concludes our first lesson.  Go now child and ponder your new future with eyes wide open.  Your future shines brighter by the clarity of your wisdom.

For you now know the truth.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 09, 2009, 21:52
True, that is how it began & most professionals shunned the micros.
The game has changed though. The buyers expect profesional quality now.
Who knows what will happen in the future?
My crystal ball broke ages ago.

The buyers will buy what they can at the price they can afford.  If "pro" quality is not available at lower prices, they will need to pony up or lower standards.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 04:42
Case in point, Clusterstock, which I really like actually..

"We are about to hit 280,000 images. Since we hit 275,000 last night it seems we're growing by about 5,000 per day."

5000 a day, 35000 a week, 150000 a month.. how is someone even adding 100 a month meant to get found, at this point even the pro adding 1000 a month will suffer, but definitely has a better chance, but they will have to go from adding 1000 a month, to 2000 a month if these kinds of numbers keep going through the roof!

Now Clusterstock is kind of different in that, you have your own page, and it's essentially your own shop, so perhaps you can market locally to some success.. but this kind of growth in microstock sites that depend on search results to get downloads for people.. well.. the small contributor is screwed really!!! And by small I mean dedicated part-time with good equipment.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 04:53
Here's an interesting article for anyone interested in this topic! http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-source/stock-guide/e3i149b78bd472801659bdb98218cf7fcf4 (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-source/stock-guide/e3i149b78bd472801659bdb98218cf7fcf4)  :)

Wow, it's like they read my mind, it's all exactly what I was thinking.. this quote from Dreamstime CEO:

“We have to bring in enough revenue to support the production of high-volume producers, but we also have to motivate the hobbyists and amateurs who helped us build the community as it is now,” Enache says.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 10, 2009, 05:22
5000 a day, 35000 a week, 150000 a month.. how is someone even adding 100 a month meant to get found, at this point even the pro adding 1000 a month will suffer, but definitely has a better chance, but they will have to go from adding 1000 a month, to 2000 a month if these kinds of numbers keep going through the roof!

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that everyone is uploading "apples on white" or essentially the exact same subject matter.  One would assume that good images on varying subject matter that can be found using specific keywords will be found.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 10, 2009, 05:55
5000 a day, 35000 a week, 150000 a month.. how is someone even adding 100 a month meant to get found, at this point even the pro adding 1000 a month will suffer, but definitely has a better chance, but they will have to go from adding 1000 a month, to 2000 a month if these kinds of numbers keep going through the roof!

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that everyone is uploading "apples on white" or essentially the exact same subject matter.  One would assume that good images on varying subject matter that can be found using specific keywords will be found.

I have to agree. I don't think the size of the collection is the problem, I think it's about how good your images are, how effective the search engine is and how the buyer enters their search query. Google being a case in point, I don't have too much trouble finding the info I want from tens of millions of pages, if I enter a logical search query.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 06:47
5000 a day, 35000 a week, 150000 a month.. how is someone even adding 100 a month meant to get found, at this point even the pro adding 1000 a month will suffer, but definitely has a better chance, but they will have to go from adding 1000 a month, to 2000 a month if these kinds of numbers keep going through the roof!

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that everyone is uploading "apples on white" or essentially the exact same subject matter.  One would assume that good images on varying subject matter that can be found using specific keywords will be found.

I have to agree. I don't think the size of the collection is the problem, I think it's about how good your images are, how effective the search engine is and how the buyer enters their search query. Google being a case in point, I don't have too much trouble finding the info I want from tens of millions of pages, if I enter a logical search query.

Right, because buyers use unique search phrases such as 'business man on white'  ;) Maybe you have a point though, there must be an obscure search or two that only return a few 100 results regardless of age or downloads..
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 10, 2009, 07:12
Right, because buyers use unique search phrases such as 'business man on white'  ;) Maybe you have a point though, there must be an obscure search or two that only return a few 100 results regardless of age or downloads..


Right.  Because the entire universe revolves around "businessman on white". 

A search doesn't have to be that obscure to return a reasonable subset.

For example, an isolated businessman sitting in a chair.  Now, I know that's crazy obscure and no one would ever use that ;), but it returns less than 200 images:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=businessman+isolated+sitting+chair (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=businessman+isolated+sitting+chair)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 07:22
Right, because buyers use unique search phrases such as 'business man on white'  ;) Maybe you have a point though, there must be an obscure search or two that only return a few 100 results regardless of age or downloads..


Right.  Because the entire universe revolves around "businessman on white". 

A search doesn't have to be that obscure to return a reasonable subset.

For example, an isolated businessman sitting in a chair.  Now, I know that's crazy obscure and no one would ever use that ;), but it returns less than 200 images:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=businessman+isolated+sitting+chair[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=businessman+isolated+sitting+chair[/url])


7 pages of isolated business men sitting on chairs.. lol!!!!! I guess, I mean maybe if you shot an isolated business man sitting on a chair once a week so that you're always on the first page.. but really, 7 pages of just isolated business men sitting on chairs, you really think a person looking for that photo is even going to look at page 2? They just got EXACTLY what they wanted on the first page.. so you gotta keep shooting over and over to serve that fresh image if that's the market you want.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 10, 2009, 07:31
7 pages of isolated business men sitting on chairs.. lol!!!!! I guess, I mean maybe if you shot an isolated business man sitting on a chair once a week so that you're always on the first page.. but really, 7 pages of just isolated business men sitting on chairs, you really think a person looking for that photo is even going to look at page 2? They just got EXACTLY what they wanted on the first page.. so you gotta keep shooting over and over to serve that fresh image if that's the market you want.

As I said, 200 images.  Actually 160 of just photos.  My pages are set to 100 images a page.  It is not very difficult to scan through two pages  to find exactly what you want.  I would also say that most of them would be useful in different situations - ie. they are not exactly the same.  Different expressions, character types, ethnicities, etc.

The point is that your comment about "obscure" searches being the only thing to return small amounts is incorrect.  I know this may invalidate whatever point you were trying to make, but there you go.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 07:44
7 pages of isolated business men sitting on chairs.. lol!!!!! I guess, I mean maybe if you shot an isolated business man sitting on a chair once a week so that you're always on the first page.. but really, 7 pages of just isolated business men sitting on chairs, you really think a person looking for that photo is even going to look at page 2? They just got EXACTLY what they wanted on the first page.. so you gotta keep shooting over and over to serve that fresh image if that's the market you want.

As I said, 200 images.  Actually 160 of just photos.  My pages are set to 100 images a page.  It is not very difficult to scan through two pages  to find exactly what you want.  I would also say that most of them would be useful in different situations - ie. they are not exactly the same.  Different expressions, character types, ethnicities, etc.

The point is that your comment about "obscure" searches being the only thing to return small amounts is incorrect.  I know this may invalidate whatever point you were trying to make, but there you go.

7 pages of results for an incredibly specific search, ie, Must be male, must have a suit on, must be isolated on white, must be sitting on a chair, just proves, even the most specific of searches are over represented.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 10, 2009, 08:03
7 pages of results for an incredibly specific search, ie, Must be male, must have a suit on, must be isolated on white, must be sitting on a chair, just proves, even the most specific of searches are over represented.


Stop saying "7 pages".  Say "160 images".  It is a clearer representation of what is not a very specific search.  Sorry, you're just wrong.  Stepping to a 4, 3 or even 2 word search in many cases will show a rather small and easily scannable subset.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=woman+wheelchair+outside (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=woman+wheelchair+outside) - 300 images
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=alcohol+beach+ (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=alcohol+beach+)"palm+tree" - less than 100
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=pumpkin+ (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=pumpkin+)"isolated+on+black" - less than 200
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 10, 2009, 08:47
You can see the way buyers have found your images at DT, it's quite helpfull. When you look at these results you can see that most buyers use a 'string search' to find what they are looking for.

I have used these strings to see the search results, and in most cases the images returned are only in the hundreds. As Sean said, it doesn't take long to skim through to find a suitable image.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 10, 2009, 09:16
Ok - so the trained, eagle-like eyes of microstock buyers can take in 160 businesmen at a glance, and spot the one that truly conveys their message, and they'll still be able to do that next year when there are 1600.  There are still some crucial limitations to what the search functions on the microstock sites can do.

The microstocks aren't searching images, just a database of keywords, which in many cases are junk. They can't improve that situation without paying reviewers to re-keyword millions of images, which is never going to happen. The search engines can't apply any 'quality' standards to the image because that's all pretty subjective.  They can't even determine what's in the image. 

Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: cybernesco on September 10, 2009, 09:23
deleted
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 10, 2009, 09:52
Ok - so the trained, eagle-like eyes of microstock buyers can take in 160 businesmen at a glance, and spot the one that truly conveys their message, and they'll still be able to do that next year when there are 1600.  There are still some crucial limitations to what the search functions on the microstock sites can do.

The microstocks aren't searching images, just a database of keywords, which in many cases are junk. They can't improve that situation without paying reviewers to re-keyword millions of images, which is never going to happen. The search engines can't apply any 'quality' standards to the image because that's all pretty subjective.  They can't even determine what's in the image. 



I doubt if each stock agency will be carrying 80 million images each this time next year. ;) I think the agencies also realise that image keywording and search functionality are critical for their success, especially as their collections grown even bigger. Even if there were 1600 results for a specific search query, it still isn't going to take that long to find the suitable/perfect image.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 09:58
Ok - so the trained, eagle-like eyes of microstock buyers can take in 160 businesmen at a glance, and spot the one that truly conveys their message, and they'll still be able to do that next year when there are 1600.  There are still some crucial limitations to what the search functions on the microstock sites can do.

The microstocks aren't searching images, just a database of keywords, which in many cases are junk. They can't improve that situation without paying reviewers to re-keyword millions of images, which is never going to happen. The search engines can't apply any 'quality' standards to the image because that's all pretty subjective.  They can't even determine what's in the image. 



I doubt if each stock agency will be carrying 80 million images each this time next year. ;) I think the agencies also realise that image keywording and search functionality are critical for their success, especially as their collections grown even bigger. Even if there were 1600 results for a specific search query, it still isn't going to take that long to find the suitable/perfect image.

But if you're image number 1599, you really don't have much hope. In the same way that you could upload 5-10 really high quality images of 'business man on white', until Yuri and Co decide it's a great idea, and upload 200 of the same the following week.. your offering has SERIOUS competition!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: stockastic on September 10, 2009, 10:45
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.

More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision.  That sort of worked because there were (if you  were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.

But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes".  The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk.  The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5  a pair.

I left without buying anything.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 10, 2009, 10:51
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.

More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision.  That sort of worked because there were (if you  were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.

But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes".  The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk.  The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5  a pair.

I left without buying anything.

You obviously didn't really need a pair of shoes. :)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 10:57
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.

More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision.  That sort of worked because there were (if you  were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.

But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes".  The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk.  The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5  a pair.

I left without buying anything.

You obviously didn't really need a pair of shoes. :)

 ;D

Or like most men, you need to grab the absolute first thing you see and RUN AWAY!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: massman on September 10, 2009, 11:01
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.

More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision.  That sort of worked because there were (if you  were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.

But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes".  The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk.  The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5  a pair.

I left without buying anything.

You obviously didn't really need a pair of shoes. :)

 ;D

Or like most men, you need to grab the absolute first thing you see and RUN AWAY!

I take ages to choose a pair of shoes and then I wear them until they fall apart.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: hqimages on September 10, 2009, 11:17
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.

More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision.  That sort of worked because there were (if you  were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.

But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes".  The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk.  The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5  a pair.

I left without buying anything.

You obviously didn't really need a pair of shoes. :)

 ;D

Or like most men, you need to grab the absolute first thing you see and RUN AWAY!

I take ages to choose a pair of shoes and then I wear them until they fall apart.

:) Not the ideal customer for the shoe shop  ;)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: elvinstar on September 10, 2009, 16:38
I can only assume that many of you (and I'm sure that you know who you are) are only producers of imagery, not buyers. I happen to be both and I can tell you from years of experience that I will look through many more than 200 images to find the one that I want.

Many buyers on micro sites are in a position similar to my own: They are buying an image for a client project. Therefore, they need an image that represents that particular client, not just some "businessman in a chair isolated on white".

Even with the millions of photos available, I often have to settle for an "almost" shot, rather than finding one that is exactly what I need. It is one the (many) things that makes me so mad when photos are rejected for "we don't need any more of those".

With intelligent keywording (which iStock doesn't allow! >:() you can get your image in front of the person looking for just what you've produced, regardless of the number of images available on any given site.

Perhaps we as photographers should spend a bit of time talking to local ad agencies to find out what they are looking for, rather than guessing and hoping to get it right.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: lisafx on September 10, 2009, 17:01

With intelligent keywording (which iStock doesn't allow! >:() you can get your image in front of the person looking for just what you've produced, regardless of the number of images available on any given site.

Perhaps we as photographers should spend a bit of time talking to local ad agencies to find out what they are looking for, rather than guessing and hoping to get it right.

Really excellent post!  Keywording sounds like the answer to getting your images in front of people.  

Also, great suggestion about talking to ad agencies to find out what they need.  Reading the request forums can yield great new ideas too.  

On the rare times that I click "more like this" on my sold images on istock I generally find that the buyer has narrowed the search down quite specifically.  I see the same thing on Dreamstime where you can see what the buyer searched on.

OTOH there are always the ones that do single word searches.  I sold an image yesterday on DT with the keyword "person".  That's it.  Really does leave me scratching my head wondering how they selected my "person" out of the likely millions that came up in the search.
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 10, 2009, 17:27
With intelligent keywording (which iStock doesn't allow! >:() you can get your image in front of the person looking for just what you've produced, regardless of the number of images available on any given site.

As you buy on iStock, you help improve the sort routine with your purchase, based on your keyword search. So don't give up!
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: elvinstar on September 10, 2009, 19:19
Thanks for the info Sean. I just get so frustrated with CV! It makes it extremely difficult to shoot concept photos when you can't put the concept into the keywords. I'll try to keep my venting under control in the future.  ;)
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: HermanM on September 10, 2009, 20:50
The recipe seems simple, it boils down to good eye catching images+good keywording. 
Title: Re: Microstock tug o' war
Post by: RacePhoto on September 10, 2009, 22:15
The thread should have been called...  (http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k94/TeamHodag/beatdeadhorse5.gif)