pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Profitable?  (Read 8964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Goofy

« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2014, 23:06 »
0
I am anonymous and I know I am not successful- Some folks make more in one single day on just on site than I make in an entire month on all sites- just a fact...

 8)



« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2014, 23:15 »
0
I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2014, 09:02 »
0
I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

As Mantis said in your new thread on same topic, profitable change over time.  Many successful microstockers struggle to remain profitable over long term due to factors out of our control, such as money grabs from agencies, and exponential growth in competition.

  But hey, you teach photography part time at a college, so you know everything.  Don't let reality stand in the way of your simplistic graphs and theories.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 09:05 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2014, 09:09 »
-2
I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

As Mantis said in your new thread on same topic, profitable change over time.  Many successful microstockers struggle to remain profitable over long term due to factors out of our control, such as money grabs from agencies, and exponential growth in competition.

  But hey, you teach photography part time at a college, so you know everything.  Don't let reality stand in the way of your simplistic graphs and theories.

I can make more difficult analysis but I'm sure you'll not understand. What's your point? If you so insist you're struggling why don't you just quit?

« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 09:11 by Epsilonth »

« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2014, 09:18 »
+1
I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

As Mantis said in your new thread on same topic, profitable change over time.  Many successful microstockers struggle to remain profitable over long term due to factors out of our control, such as money grabs from agencies, and exponential growth in competition.

  But hey, you teach photography part time at a college, so you know everything.  Don't let reality stand in the way of your simplistic graphs and theories.

I can make more difficult analysis but I'm sure you'll not understand. What's your point? If you so insist you're struggling why don't you just quit?

You dont read much do you?  I already said I still make some profit on older images.  It is nearly impossible to profit on new ones for reasons repeated many times in these forums and in this thread.  Its not just me struggling, its most of the long term full timers.  And many are quitting and more will do so in coming months and years if agencies keep bleeding us dry. 

You seem to be assuming again that the anonymous person you talk to is not successful or have no clue.  Once again your wrong. 

« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2014, 09:27 »
-2
I love it when you guys assume anyone anonymous not successful.

From your post "With that attitude you're not going very far", you were the one making that assumption about Pauly.  It is not anonymity that suggests not successful, it is silly posts.

The silly thing is 'a supposedly successful stocker guy' declared stock photography is not profitable. Contradiction right there.

As Mantis said in your new thread on same topic, profitable change over time.  Many successful microstockers struggle to remain profitable over long term due to factors out of our control, such as money grabs from agencies, and exponential growth in competition.

  But hey, you teach photography part time at a college, so you know everything.  Don't let reality stand in the way of your simplistic graphs and theories.

I can make more difficult analysis but I'm sure you'll not understand. What's your point? If you so insist you're struggling why don't you just quit?

You dont read much do you?  I already said I still make some profit on older images.  It is nearly impossible to profit on new ones for reasons repeated many times in these forums and in this thread.  Its not just me struggling, its most of the long term full timers.  And many are quitting and more will do so in coming months and years if agencies keep bleeding us dry. 

You seem to be assuming again that the anonymous person you talk to is not successful or have no clue.  Once again your wrong.

If you insist you cannot produce profitable new contents you should quit and enjoy what you already have then? Go do something else photography related.Stock earning will go downhill then stay pretty constant.

Things always change. Stop complaining and find ways to adapt. Without analysis and pretty graphs you'll be walking blind into minefield.

« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2014, 15:48 »
+1
lol. This has gotten out of hand a bit again. (lol. typical MSG)

I understand what Epsilonth is saying though, as illustration is mostly a hobby for me I post an image today, maybe two ... and then wait, sometimes wait a few days, sometimes wait a month, sometimes quarters come in and sometimes quarters don't. For me it's gotten more consistent over a long term but, I might be crazy. I wouldn't advise anyone to jump in to microstock right now assuming that they can make a full-time income but, if you take it for what it is ... it works ... kinda.

I try to not sit and pull my hair out over worrying about when or if the quarters come in. It'd be nice to get some payouts before Christmas but, if not."Meh."

« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2014, 03:08 »
+1
I understand you Paulie ;-)

As I said in some other post, the stock business continues to be attractive at the begining ... when we aim to earn $100, then $500 ... or even $1000. After that, and at this time, most of us will face the true and learn that is very hard to make more money.

I think most of the contributors who have earn more (many more) than $1000 are facing a decline in earnings in the last years. And will be rare the new ones that will reach what we earn in the good old years of stock.

The stock photo business in microstock is not dead, but is not profit anymore.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 04:28 by hjalmeida »

« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2014, 03:28 »
0
I understand you Paul ;-)

As I said in some other post, the stock business continues to be attractive at the begining ... when we aim to earn $100, then $500 ... or even $1000. After that, and at this time, most of us will face the true and learn that is very hard to make more money.

I think most of the contributors who have earn more (many more) than $1000 are facing a decline in earnings in the last years. And will be rare the new ones that will reach what we earn in the good old years of stock.

The stock photo business in microstock is not dead, but is not profit anymore.

Of course there's profit in it.

That's the whole reason I commented on this thread in the first place. If you're a photographer, you have equipment, you have lenses you have flashes, reflectors, lights and all of that other crap. I mean, I wouldn't recommend "microstock" as a profession ... Apparently a few years ago it could have been.

But, now? If you're a photographer you've already got the shots post them and just continue to take pictures or whatever it is that you do. There's no time for speculation. Your roi could be small but, it does add up over time. Go flip hamburgers ;)

« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2014, 04:25 »
+1
Quote

Your roi could be small but, it does add up over time. Go flip hamburgers ;)

:-) I have 44, maybe I will start profit from new work some year after I died ... I think to much hamburguers will make me sick.

It's good to be optimistic, but microstock photos are commodity products.

« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2014, 06:09 »
+5
At this point, many photographers looking to make a little money would not do this if they were well informed.  Unforntunetly, it is like quick sand.  You learn about stock and say , hey that's cool and you jump in and maybe buy your first serious DSLR.  Then uh oh, they didn't accept it.  Then the learning curve begins.  The reading, the forums, the questions about sharpening, size and resolution, color, pushing shadows, file types and on and on.  Now comes the purchasing, lighting,  the right tripod, rats I need lenses, oh dern  now i need software, dang, computer is not handling this well.  Then you learn that all your purchases could have been a little smarter by not being so budget minded.  And then the advanced stuff kicks in as you try to problem solve, blend mode and high pass sharpening, noise reduction using color channels, color management, monitor calibration etc etc.  Then you look back at your self taught college level education and say hey,  these folks are getting a lot for what I get in return. 

But cudos to all of you here and everywhere that have done this.  I look at your shots on the agencies and know that I am up against some d*mn fine competition.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 10:23 by old crow »

« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2014, 11:18 »
+1
back here again, can't get enough of it. enjoy the comments.
personally, microstock is as passive income . it also has in many ways profited my local business in the sense that before microstock, i was not exposed to "analities" such as noise, fringe, etc.
and suddenly i see noise the size of golf balls, fringe the color of rainbows,etc.. on everybody gallery photos,LMAO
it has also made me a fast producer, as once you mastered and developed a workflow on your image-manipulation software (no name needed to mention), your prints seem to impress everyone who has not seen the work of a stock photographer .
so in a way, profitable? yes, in many ways than just money.
and i just bought a mirrorless which is an amazing camera for editorials. which has replaced my DSLRs
which i now only leave for studio work.
all this, using only earnings from micros. so really, is it profitable. it pays my internet, it pays my mob, it paid for my AlienBees, and 3 DSLRs and my new mirrorless.
so yes, it is profitable.

but i am not a full time microstocker. if so, i would be making more money flipping burgers (which i am not, lol but i do music, dance, comedy, art,etc..). 
i just do not spend production money with models, props, etc.. at least not for 38 cts .

as SJLocke pointed out in one of the thread a while back, you give to ,... the low cost stuff,
and you give to .... the high cost stuff.

i don't give the high cost stuff to anyone. i don't make high cost stuff, only when the local clients
are paying for the production , then i shoot the high cost stuff.
so, profitable? yes.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2014, 11:23 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2014, 11:27 »
+1
At this point, many photographers looking to make a little money would not do this if they were well informed.  Unforntunetly, it is like quick sand.  You learn about stock and say , hey that's cool and you jump in and maybe buy your first serious DSLR.  Then uh oh, they didn't accept it.  Then the learning curve begins.  The reading, the forums, the questions about sharpening, size and resolution, color, pushing shadows, file types and on and on.  Now comes the purchasing, lighting,  the right tripod, rats I need lenses, oh dern  now i need software, dang, computer is not handling this well.  Then you learn that all your purchases could have been a little smarter by not being so budget minded.  And then the advanced stuff kicks in as you try to problem solve, blend mode and high pass sharpening, noise reduction using color channels, color management, monitor calibration etc etc.  Then you look back at your self taught college level education and say hey,  these folks are getting a lot for what I get in return. 

But cudos to all of you here and everywhere that have done this.  I look at your shots on the agencies and know that I am up against some d*mn fine competition.

wow, well said ! ...
especially like your quicksand analogy

i used to say when people ask me about microstock, i say, "the first puff of opium is always free".
but i think i will use quicksand from now on, because u can go cold-turkey like john and yoko
,but with quicksand there is no escape.

« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2014, 13:08 »
+3
This question came to me from another thread. People always come here trying to figure out how much they can make doing micro. Nobody seems to ask what it takes to be profitable. They only care about how much they can earn per month or year.

I then see some people responding that they have thousands of images and are making a hundred-ish dollars per month. I can't imagine those figures being worth anyones time. There are costs for everything even when trying to be frugal. Camera, memory cards, camera accessories, computer upgrades, gas to travel, parking fees, props, models, and on and on. And then theres time to take pictures and the ton of time to edit, keyword, submit pictures, redo rejections, etc. Micro is a lot of work.

And overall things seems to have taken a downturn from a few years ago. Contributors are reporting they're growing their portfolio but income is dropping.

Can anyone turn a profit earning .05 cents per image per month? Is anyone in micro profitable anymore?

Well it's definitely much worse than a few years ago, I think everyone would agree with that. Many contributors with big portfolios make the same money as they did back then with half of the images - just natural result of increasing competition. When people asking me if it's worth starting now, I usually say - don't bother unless it's just a hobby for you and you get kicks from seeing your images used. I don't think we will return to reasonable profits until everyone on the planet will get their chance to dabble in photography and then get bored of it... but right now it's not that time yet. Fads do pass though, so there is hope:)

Goofy

« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2014, 13:19 »
+1
also another note- my spouse is wealthy thus tells me not to worry about making $$ thus not sure if that would be passive mode in my case- anyway no real pressure on me to produce big bucks...

« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2014, 18:14 »
+2
also another note- my spouse is wealthy thus tells me not to worry about making $$ thus not sure if that would be passive mode in my case- anyway no real pressure on me to produce big bucks...

so the real solution seems to be to find out if your spouse has unmarried siblings,,,

« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2014, 18:54 »
+3
also another note- my spouse is wealthy thus tells me not to worry about making $$ thus not sure if that would be passive mode in my case- anyway no real pressure on me to produce big bucks...

so the real solution seems to be to find out if your spouse has unmarried siblings,,,

Or if he or she is willing to support a few more photographers.


« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2014, 21:01 »
+3
also another note- my spouse is wealthy thus tells me not to worry about making $$ thus not sure if that would be passive mode in my case- anyway no real pressure on me to produce big bucks...

so the real solution seems to be to find out if your spouse has unmarried siblings,,,

Or if he or she is willing to support a few more photographers.

Now I think we're on track!

Goofy

« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2014, 22:28 »
0
also another note- my spouse is wealthy thus tells me not to worry about making $$ thus not sure if that would be passive mode in my case- anyway no real pressure on me to produce big bucks...

so the real solution seems to be to find out if your spouse has unmarried siblings,,,

Or if he or she is willing to support a few more photographers.

LOL! I think one is more than enough for her  8)

« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2014, 01:49 »
+4
I have other ventures so microstock is part-time but very profitable at present. My capital expenses on hardware are flat. I shoot everything at home or in the streets of London. The biggest cost is time - or as I often wonder, what could I earn by doing something else.

However, the added value of working for myself and never going back to having some suit I have no respect for telling me what to do......is immeasurable.

« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2014, 03:14 »
-1
It kinda gotten out of topic now. To sum up. My point is: This is passive income.that recurring cost is almost non existent  It will be profitable no matter what. Unless what you shoot is really expensive to produce or your image is really amateurish.

The question should be when it will break even and turn profit. You need to do a break-even analysis. Basically time when (initial cost fixed cost variable cost) - all income = 0. Will It be in days?weeks? Months?

You wouldn't want to be dead before that! With this really simple method you will know where you need to keep the cost down.

Exactly, this is the emotional-dribble-free, logical answer. Passive income here means you can get your work related costs to almost 0. When people fail to understand how this leads to profit, it just means they got used to their poorly done stuff getting almost no sales, and they can't see tah it can workout an other way for someone more professional and efficient. The question after that is how hard you have to work to make a decent amount of money later.

« Reply #46 on: July 29, 2014, 03:23 »
-1
I understand you Paulie ;-)

As I said in some other post, the stock business continues to be attractive at the begining ... when we aim to earn $100, then $500 ... or even $1000. After that, and at this time, most of us will face the true and learn that is very hard to make more money.

I think most of the contributors who have earn more (many more) than $1000 are facing a decline in earnings in the last years. And will be rare the new ones that will reach what we earn in the good old years of stock.

The stock photo business in microstock is not dead, but is not profit anymore.

this is very hard way to make a living? really? compared to what? I'd say 80% of this planet's working population would just facepalm if they heard this.

« Reply #47 on: July 29, 2014, 03:32 »
0
It's good to be optimistic, but microstock photos are commodity products.

so is the average person looking for work. if you are not pretty much an expert at something, you are gonna be just part of the gray crowd that's getting flushed down the toilet by the unsustainable economy.

« Reply #48 on: July 29, 2014, 03:36 »
-1
So hilarious.  Some newbie lecturing Pauly on how to go far in stock.  This guy has been successful for years.  He don't need your advice.  You need his.  If you ignore, well that's on you.

wow, he must be almost as great an expert and folk hero as rinder on the SS forums :)))

« Reply #49 on: July 29, 2014, 03:53 »
+1
I understand you Paulie ;-)

As I said in some other post, the stock business continues to be attractive at the begining ... when we aim to earn $100, then $500 ... or even $1000. After that, and at this time, most of us will face the true and learn that is very hard to make more money.

I think most of the contributors who have earn more (many more) than $1000 are facing a decline in earnings in the last years. And will be rare the new ones that will reach what we earn in the good old years of stock.

The stock photo business in microstock is not dead, but is not profit anymore.

this is very hard way to make a living? really? compared to what? I'd say 80% of this planet's working population would just facepalm if they heard this.

If you don't get it ... I was talking about "microstock profit"

It's good to be optimistic, but microstock photos are commodity products.

so is the average person looking for work. if you are not pretty much an expert at something, you are gonna be just part of the gray crowd that's getting flushed down the toilet by the unsustainable economy.

Do you know what is a commodity product? Google it ;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2388 Views
Last post August 21, 2009, 21:15
by elvinstar
4 Replies
2664 Views
Last post March 23, 2012, 13:09
by totals
18 Replies
4508 Views
Last post June 20, 2012, 08:22
by Wim
13 Replies
3151 Views
Last post July 27, 2014, 13:20
by sgoodwin4813
7 Replies
3903 Views
Last post January 24, 2017, 06:54
by alno

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results