Author Topic: Sick of getting crumbs (Read 11677 times)

Phadrea · « **on:** April 01, 2016, 01:06 »

I don't know about anyone else here but I am sick of earning crumbs from under the table from the feast that the fat cats are getting from our images. Piddling little sales of a few cents (converted to UK pounds spells even less) I didn't study photography for 4 years as a student to be one day being reduced to earning a pittance from my images. As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

It's like everything online that has been devalued. Music, video footage and photography. Rant over.

fotografer · « **Reply #1 on:** April 01, 2016, 01:26 »

You are in the wrong line of photography if you want to make big money nowadays. Sad but true.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 01, 2016, 01:34 »

I'm a bit surprised you were told of a lucrative career I always thought it was well known that the industry is hugely competitive and only a small %age earn a good living.

cobalt · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2016, 02:20 »

I work at a photography school and we tell our students from day one that the world is not waiting to discover them, photography is one of the most popular hobbies on the planet and many amateurs deliver better work than some so called professionals.

In any creative profession - music, painting, dance,acting, the majority don´t make it to full time income for a family status.

You have to work crazy hard to stand above the crowd.

Phadrea · « **Reply #4 on:** April 01, 2016, 04:42 »

It was mid 1980's when times were more optimistic I suppose. I don't mind selling just microstock but we should get paid far more than we do for the time, editing and legwork of getting to these locations. I also sold an image that ended up being used as the main backdrop of an A listed Hollywood movie poster. Did I get much for it ? No, I got peanuts.

Chichikov · « **Reply #5 on:** April 01, 2016, 05:26 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 01:06

I don't know about anyone else here but I am sick of earning crumbs from under the table from the feast that the fat cats are getting from our images. Piddling little sales of a few cents (converted to UK pounds spells even less) I didn't study photography for 4 years as a student to be one day being reduced to earning a pittance from my images. As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

It's like everything online that has been devalued. Music, video footage and photography. Rant over.

+1

I agree with you, but ranting is useless and won't change nothing.
So, concretely, what can we do to change that?

andy_arden · « **Reply #6 on:** April 01, 2016, 06:52 »

for starters we should value our photos. i see on pond5, creative market and other places where you can set your own prices that ppl set them at 5 and 8$. well i set them at 50$ minimimum and i have sales. thats why the market goes down. 5 and 8 :|

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 01, 2016, 08:06 »

I have done reasonably well in photography over the years. I have worked as a commercial photographer, photojournalist, photo editor (current) and stock photographer. When young photographers ask me about the prospects of earning a good living in photography today I tell them it is unlikely. Some will do well, most won't. If it is a passion then go for it. I have watched the photography industry as a whole decline since the mid-1990s. Rates are static and declining in virtually all areas. The businesses of many high earning editorial and commercial photographers decline steadily over the years. I know some "name" commercial guys that are now shooting for the factory studios, because the rates cannot justify their studio overhead. All that said, I love photography and it is the only thing I have ever known, so I can't imagine another life.

sharpshot · « **Reply #8 on:** April 01, 2016, 08:38 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 04:42

It was mid 1980's when times were more optimistic I suppose. I don't mind selling just microstock but we should get paid far more than we do for the time, editing and legwork of getting to these locations. I also sold an image that ended up being used as the main backdrop of an A listed Hollywood movie poster. Did I get much for it ? No, I got peanuts.

Was it a photo arts course? I did a photo science course in the UK in the mid eighties and we were told that a career in photography wasn't easy and that most of the photo arts students usually ended up waiting tables.

You decide to sell your photos for low amounts of money, nobody forced you to use microstock. There are other sites that pay higher but sell less volume, like Alamy. Lots of photographers just use them and do well but it still takes a lot of hard work. Most of my microstock portfolio cost very little to produce, I wouldn't want to sell photos that cost a lot to produce for such low prices but things like a brick wall background have made money and cost almost nothing and are suited to microstock.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #9 on:** April 01, 2016, 10:35 »

Anyone who told you that microstock was a path to a "lucrative" career did you a great disservice.

There was a time when people made alot of money at this gig with very little input. Back when there were few players and only "professionals" could afford the equipment. However, it is a crowd sourced industry and the technology has become ubiquitous, inexpensive and very advanced; so "everyone" can do it to a great extent.

If you want to make alot of money at photography you need to distinguish yourself from the crowd. Probably do some more commercial work, maybe weddings. If you have the talent and the work ethic to be outstanding in those then you will be fine (good luck). Microstock should be a side income.

lephotography · « **Reply #10 on:** April 01, 2016, 11:41 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 01:06

I don't know about anyone else here but I am sick of earning crumbs from under the table from the feast that the fat cats are getting from our images. Piddling little sales of a few cents (converted to UK pounds spells even less) I didn't study photography for 4 years as a student to be one day being reduced to earning a pittance from my images. As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

It's like everything online that has been devalued. Music, video footage and photography. Rant over.

Photography school for 4 years? Of course they will tell you how lucrative a career in photography could be. They were making money off you.
Having a photography studio is alot of hard work and can be some good money but there are alot of draw backs these days with all the "Moms with camera's" running around saying they are professional and charging peanuts and the public really does not know what good images are anymore so that is your competition like it or not. So, when you do have a business and winter months are harder to stay busy... These stock agencies that give you "Piddling little sales of a few cents" sometimes help you pay your bills. So in the hard knocks of life, we sometimes do things we dont like or lower our objective so we can keep the money flowing.
What stock will teach you.. is to be a better photographer and editor as well. The more you have up online, the more you will sell. This business being in the microstock industry.. is not a get rich quick, but makes you quite a bit over time. Maybe you need to find yourself a niche and stick with it like weddings to make more money.

Phadrea · « **Reply #11 on:** April 01, 2016, 13:14 »

Sorry folks, just woke up in a bad mood and stayed like that all day. One of those days. My experience as a student was using all types of format of camera, studio, darkroom, printing and processing. Editorial too. Digital photography was still light years away in 1985-89. I knew a guy who I used to go out with shooting stock who shot medium format tranparency film submitting to image bank and other Uk libraries. he seemed to be making good money at it and I think still does. I think the shrinking sales coupled with low priced images has started to get to me. The more I get accepted doesn't seem to make any difference to sales. Footage at least gets higher prices but again sales for that I get are once in a blue moon. And as for setting your own pricess on sites like Pond5, forget it. Never sell any images there and hardly any at Alamy. I personally prefer to walk around and get shots that I find by accident. I never plan or reserch and would find things like weddings uninspiring and not my cup of tea. I also wouldn't like the responsilbility. Walk around photography granted isn't the best business plan but thta's how I like to work and feel most creative freedom. Perhaps going to more events and getting food, people etc will help.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #12 on:** April 01, 2016, 13:57 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 01:06

I don't know about anyone else here but I am sick of earning crumbs from under the table from the feast that the fat cats are getting from our images. Piddling little sales of a few cents (converted to UK pounds spells even less) I didn't study photography for 4 years as a student to be one day being reduced to earning a pittance from my images. As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

It's like everything online that has been devalued. Music, video footage and photography. Rant over.

I'd agree with you and the rest. The schools will tell you how you can make a carrer from the degree but the truth is, there are many schools and many graduates, it's much harder. Schools are in the business of selling you classes and making things look rosy.

Everything has been devalued. Supply and demand, plain economics. The main cause is the internet. Everything in the world is available anywhere in the world, in seconds. Technology is our friend and also worst enemy.

It's not so much of a rant when it's all true. We get peanuts because the RF license doesn't take the use into consideration past a few limitations. I don't know how a movie poster background isn't EL or at least worth more then a sub.

We sign up for this and know how much we will get paid and underpaid. The only other options are do something else or sell the market some other way. Maybe some of the new people will read and see that the market for Microstock is not a good decision for the average person.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2016, 14:05 »

you think you feel like $h*t???
think about those who were in your shoes 30 years ago!
-started to use the view camera 8by10,4by5, before medium format rolleiflex, mamiya,bronica
-started to use medium format before 35mm came
-started to use 35mm before dslr came
-started to use dslr before microstock came
-started to be stock photographer with dslr before mobile phone came
-
take your pick... and tick off one or all of the above

many here would be ticked-off (no pun intended) 5 times already

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2016, 14:11 »

p.s.

update, last minute...

got a newsflash ... a moment ago,
HEADLINE- Shutterstock shareholders rejoice for contributors to cease being microstock.
Over the board increase of all usage fee to the old school stock photos rates.

k_t_g · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2016, 15:31 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 01, 2016, 02:20

I work at a photography school and we tell our students from day one that the world is not waiting to discover them, photography is one of the most popular hobbies on the planet and many amateurs deliver better work than some so called professionals.

In any creative profession - music, painting, dance,acting, the majority don´t make it to full time income for a family status.

You have to work crazy hard to stand above the crowd.

Exactly! You can't just be a mindless sheep and just be a follower. Just to be satisfied with watching paint dry on the wall. Besides that's boring.
You have to have an imagination, you have to want it, you have to show off your work and not be afraid to do and best of all strive to be unique. But that doesn't mean you have to look desperate. You definitely don't want that.
You have to be like a smart colourful parrot and sometimes squacky parrot even if it may annoy some people in order to stand out.

As for hard times its everywhere. You have to work all that much smarter and harder I guess. Even in freelancing some providers of jobs try to offer peanuts for your hard work. There are poor suckers who take those jobs but that doesn't mean that you have to. Just hold out for the jobs that are appropriate for you and that pay honestly. The rest will come.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2016, 16:08 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 01:06

As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

At High School, I remember an English teacher saying we shouldn't bother about Home Economics as if we did well academically, we wouldn't be cooking for ourselves.

Well, maybe she was presaging M&S Cook-chill c10 years in advance; but I've often wondered since if she really had a "woman that did".

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2016, 16:30 »

Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2016, 18:02 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 01, 2016, 16:30

Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.

it's all about the availability , as you or someone else said in another thread.
remember in the 80's we were maybe one of what??? 50 photographers in the district...
some had photo studios, others go freelance. in NYC the freelancers were earning more money
freelancing there than many studio owners across the USA and Canada.
wedding and retouching were also a "professional" job.

then as every cousin's cousin's cousin got to be a "professional" because they could afford
an automatic camera with BIGGGGGG ZOOOOM lens with the coming of auto and digital
respectively, it became saturated with "professionals".

i remember how just before that, these same people could not even figure out how to use
the gossen luna pro or sekonic meter; never mind figure out the proper fstop for depth of field
manually,etc...

it also started the introduction of department store photo studio where the christmas portrait
with santa and the elves wearing purple suits (*underexposure*) ... and every customer was so
happy with their christmas portraits with those multi size pictures on one 8 by 10.

time capsule till today, it's quite a big step for mankind, isn't it???

personally, if i were to be a photographer today, i rather learn to do the jive, waltz, tango, rhumba,etc.. and become a dancer teacher.
it's highly unlikely there is going to be an automatic learn to dance invention to replace
the dance class.

Asthebelltolls · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2016, 20:57 »

And what's the definition of a "professional photographer"? Certainly it's not one who makes money taking pictures....we all achieve that distinction....it's my view that a professional photographer is "one who earns a good, decent living strictly as a photographer/videographer".

I'm not there yet. I make money but I need other means of income to pay the bills and keep my financial head above the water....And that's what I love about stock photography. There's a learning curve but it provides monetary rewards while you're learning.

AlessandraRC · « **Reply #20 on:** April 01, 2016, 21:05 »

I am a professional scientist in my real life and make pretty good money. My husband, conversely, is a musician and he earns for his work the equivalent of what we earn in stock. Some here may actually make a whole lot more than him. It is hard.

Why don't you migrate to industrial photography? It will pay...

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** April 02, 2016, 04:39 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 01, 2016, 16:30

Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.

I remember the rejection letters I received from stock agencies in the 80's, never thought we would have it as good as it is now. Almost every post you make here is negative and didn't you give up on microstock? I don't like a lot of the things the sites have done but I still prefer being able to do this job than have rejection letters and just hear about how much other people are making.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 02, 2016, 05:35 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 01, 2016, 18:02

Quote from: stockastic on April 01, 2016, 16:30
Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.

it's all about the availability , as you or someone else said in another thread.
remember in the 80's we were maybe one of what??? 50 photographers in the district...
some had photo studios, others go freelance. in NYC the freelancers were earning more money
freelancing there than many studio owners across the USA and Canada.
wedding and retouching were also a "professional" job.

then as every cousin's cousin's cousin got to be a "professional" because they could afford
an automatic camera with BIGGGGGG ZOOOOM lens with the coming of auto and digital
respectively, it became saturated with "professionals".

i remember how just before that, these same people could not even figure out how to use
the gossen luna pro or sekonic meter; never mind figure out the proper fstop for depth of field
manually,etc...

it also started the introduction of department store photo studio where the christmas portrait
with santa and the elves wearing purple suits (*underexposure*) ... and every customer was so
happy with their christmas portraits with those multi size pictures on one 8 by 10.

time capsule till today, it's quite a big step for mankind, isn't it???

personally, if i were to be a photographer today, i rather learn to do the jive, waltz, tango, rhumba,etc.. and become a dancer teacher.
it's highly unlikely there is going to be an automatic learn to dance invention to replace
the dance class.

Dance teachers are very poorly paid. And free dance lesson videos are all over YouTube now. I've been ballroom dancing for 15 years and have watched that industry collapse. Many of the dance studios I took lessons in have closed. And it's a young person's job, like any sport. It gets harder to make a living as you get older.

While the lessons are very expensive, the studio keeps most of the money and gives only a little to the teachers. Sound familiar?

Hongover · « **Reply #23 on:** April 02, 2016, 11:36 »

Every profitable industry gets saturated quickly. There are 7 Billion people in the world and they're all gunning to make money. The only way to fight them off is stay on top of the curve and be one of the best at what you do.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #24 on:** April 02, 2016, 12:16 »

Quote from: Asthebelltolls on April 01, 2016, 20:57

And what's the definition of a "professional photographer"? Certainly it's not one who makes money taking pictures....we all achieve that distinction....it's my view that a professional photographer is "one who earns a good, decent living strictly as a photographer/videographer".

technically, whether you paid money enough to earn a living or paid peanuts for monkeys,
you are "profession-al" as opposed to amateur (amat - for the love of).

Quote from: sharpshot on April 02, 2016, 04:39

Quote from: stockastic on April 01, 2016, 16:30
Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.
I remember the rejection letters I received from stock agencies in the 80's, never thought we would have it as good as it is now. Almost every post you make here is negative and didn't you give up on microstock? I don't like a lot of the things the sites have done but I still prefer being able to do this job than have rejection letters and just hear about how much other people are making.

i don't think stockastic is being negative, more like realistic observant.
it is as he says it, we know the end is near when the food on the table is all taken
much like that yahoo news recently i saw of those greedy people rushing to grab crayfish
at an all you can eat.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #25 on:** April 02, 2016, 13:27 »

For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Dakota · « **Reply #26 on:** April 02, 2016, 13:52 »

People will tell you that we are living in the best times ever for selling stock.

The average income for shutterstock shooters is $1200 per year.

Let's have a party. Bring peanuts and water!!!!!!!

Firewall · « **Reply #27 on:** April 02, 2016, 14:35 »

I only give my rejects to microstock nowadays. Sick of all the agencies screwing their contributors. They pay me peanuts, they get peanuts.

candidcruiser · « **Reply #28 on:** April 02, 2016, 19:50 »

As with everything in life - If you are not happy with what you are doing, don't do it.

Harvepino · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2016, 04:08 »

I've never studied photography, my gear is fairly average and I feel comfortable with what I achieved with it in microstock. Especially the freedom it gives me and doing what I like is priceless. I feel quite sorry for guys who spent years studying photography, invested in the best gear and then sell their creations for pennies. You are in wrong business guys, you must be able sell your work in higher places than microstock.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #30 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:05 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 02, 2016, 13:27

For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you're asking if people are making money by reselling your micro as prints, maybe.

There could be a lot of different reasons for not getting sales on FAA. One reason could be because buyers can print it cheaper by buying your micro images. I've found that a lot of print buyers do price shopping. The problem with having stuff on both micro and POD sites is you're competing against yourself on price. Meaning if FAA has a print for $50 and the buyer does a quick search and finds the same image on micro for $5 they can buy the micro image, print it for a couple dollars at Walmart, and save $40. A 40x60 canvas on FAA can be over $600. Again, if they can buy the image for a few dollars on micro, print it at Costco for $275, they just saved over $300.

I'd suggest to anyone that you have a strategy with a consistent price model across all sites and all licensing.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #31 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:10 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 09:05

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 02, 2016, 13:27
For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you're asking if people are making money by reselling your micro as prints, maybe.

There could be a lot of different reasons for not getting sales on FAA. One reason could be because buyers can print it cheaper by buying your micro images. I've found that a lot of print buyers do price shopping. The problem with having stuff on both micro and POD sites is you're competing against yourself on price. Meaning if FAA has a print for $50 and the buyer does a quick search and finds the same image on micro for $5 they can buy the micro image, print it for a couple dollars at Walmart, and save $40. A 40x60 canvas on FAA can be over $600. Again, if they can buy the image for a few dollars on micro, print it at Costco for $275, they just saved over $300.

I'd suggest to anyone that you have a strategy with a consistent price model across all sites and all licensing.

good advice. i remember maybe it was you too, who once said the same thing about cannabalizing
micro port ...

HappyBunny · « **Reply #32 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:12 »

No, I don't have the microstock images on FAA. I have completely different photos on there. Microstock is not getting photos from me which I shot for hanging on someone's walls. Microstock is not getting sunrises or sunsets...from me when all I get is a few cent. These photos were taken specifically for hanging up inside someone's living room...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:21 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 03, 2016, 09:12

No, I don't have the microstock images on FAA. I have completely different photos on there. Microstock is not getting photos from me which I shot for hanging on someone's walls. Microstock is not getting sunrises or sunsets...from me when all I get is a few cent. These photos were taken specifically for hanging up inside someone's living room...

Okay then, sounds like you have a strategy. There are a ton of posts about sales on FAA and there are a lot of reasons why people may not be selling. I sell quite a bit there and in my opinion the most important things that most artists seem to dismiss is SEO optimization. I believe an average image that has high visibility will outsell an amazing image that no one sees.

everest · « **Reply #34 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:28 »

Wise words. Unfortunately, too many people (and agencies) take buyers for stupid. They are not....... so to all those whining with with this huge discrepancies to their image pricing should listen to this advice.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 09:05

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 02, 2016, 13:27
For a side income Microstock is far too much work and time consuming. Does anyone make money by selling my images that get printed? I am not getting sales on FAA.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

If you're asking if people are making money by reselling your micro as prints, maybe.

There could be a lot of different reasons for not getting sales on FAA. One reason could be because buyers can print it cheaper by buying your micro images. I've found that a lot of print buyers do price shopping. The problem with having stuff on both micro and POD sites is you're competing against yourself on price. Meaning if FAA has a print for $50 and the buyer does a quick search and finds the same image on micro for $5 they can buy the micro image, print it for a couple dollars at Walmart, and save $40. A 40x60 canvas on FAA can be over $600. Again, if they can buy the image for a few dollars on micro, print it at Costco for $275, they just saved over $300.

I'd suggest to anyone that you have a strategy with a consistent price model across all sites and all licensing.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:41 »

Sorry to ask. What do you mean by SEO optimisation? Some photos I turned into digital art. I don't have a website of my own. I just add photos onto their website. I don't have a paid account there. I spend a lot of time on these photos. Microstock only gets the easy to shoot photos from me. They don't get holiday photos either from me unless it is one that isn't excellent for digital art or canvas prints. I went through a holiday brochure today and someone took a stunning photo in the golden hour in the morning. I wondered if the photographer had put this stunning image on microstock. I just hope he hasn't. He/she should get lots of money for it. It's just stunningly beautiful.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2016, 09:45 »

Quote from: Herg on April 01, 2016, 01:06

I don't know about anyone else here but I am sick of earning crumbs from under the table from the feast that the fat cats are getting from our images. Piddling little sales of a few cents (converted to UK pounds spells even less) I didn't study photography for 4 years as a student to be one day being reduced to earning a pittance from my images. As a student we were told of the lucrative career we could make from photography.

It's like everything online that has been devalued. Music, video footage and photography. Rant over.

A lot has been devalued but not all of it. You can choose to accept the crumbs or you can find the areas that haven't been devalued yet and make changes so you can feast at your own table instead of waiting for crumbs underneath someone elses.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #37 on:** April 03, 2016, 10:03 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 03, 2016, 09:41

Sorry to ask. What do you mean by SEO optimisation? Some photos I turned into digital art. I don't have a website of my own. I just add photos onto their website. I don't have a paid account there. I spend a lot of time on these photos. Microstock only gets the easy to shoot photos from me. They don't get holiday photos either from me unless it is one that isn't excellent for digital art or canvas prints. I went through a holiday brochure today and someone took a stunning photo in the golden hour in the morning. I wondered if the photographer had put this stunning image on microstock. I just hope he hasn't. He/she should get lots of money for it. It's just stunningly beautiful.

There is a ton of information on SEO. It means Search Engine Optimization. And I don't mean the old methods of gaming or tricking the search engines. SEO optimization just really means adding the right content (titles, keywords, descriptions, etc) so that more buyers can find your images. If you respond with "I already do titles, keywords, descriptions, etc" I'm sure you do, but that fact that you don't know what SEO is means your stuff isn't optimized which is the important part.

I've seen plenty of contributors say they add titles, keywords, descriptions, etc. I then look at their work and their title for a picture of a cat on a sofa says something like "Furry Love" or even "DSC_1234.jpg". Search engines use all of this data to try and match your image to a buyer search. If a buyer is searching for "Cat on a sofa" it is going to give better search placement to an image that has more content of "Cat on a sofa" then "Furry Love" or "DSC_1234.jpg". And that's just the beginning. There are so many little intricacies of SEO that affect search placement such the order of your words. Meaning "Cat on a sofa" will get different search placement than "Sofa with a cat". And it also matters what buyers are searching for. If 1,000,000 people per month search for "Sofa with a cat" vs 10 people per month searching for "Cat on a sofa" it would probably be better to have "Sofa with a cat". I've been studying SEO for close to 20 years. It's a huge and complex topic. It also may be changing again because of new image recognition technology that may make titles, keywords, descriptions, etc less relevant.

Photoshelter has a good primer on it so I'd suggest searching "Photoshelter SEO" and reviewing the doc.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #38 on:** April 03, 2016, 10:10 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on April 03, 2016, 09:41

Sorry to ask. What do you mean by SEO optimisation? Some photos I turned into digital art. I don't have a website of my own. I just add photos onto their website. I don't have a paid account there. I spend a lot of time on these photos. Microstock only gets the easy to shoot photos from me. They don't get holiday photos either from me unless it is one that isn't excellent for digital art or canvas prints. I went through a holiday brochure today and someone took a stunning photo in the golden hour in the morning. I wondered if the photographer had put this stunning image on microstock. I just hope he hasn't. He/she should get lots of money for it. It's just stunningly beautiful.

Also, if you don't have a paid account there, that's probably another reason. It's a numbers game. Unless you're already world famous or have the most amazing work, you're not going to get sales with 30 images. I have almost 2,000 images there and had around 300 sales last year.

HappyBunny · « **Reply #39 on:** April 03, 2016, 10:28 »

Thank you so much. I guess it's not so much my keywording and description. I don't have 2000 images. Maybe I shouldn't be so fussy. What I don't like and what I wouldn't hang up on my own walls I don't upload. Maybe I just need to go out take more photos and upload photos which I wouldn't buy. You are doing really well. I am happy for you. It gives me hope.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #40 on:** April 03, 2016, 11:49 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 10:10

Also, if you don't have a paid account there, that's probably another reason. It's a numbers game. Unless you're already world famous or have the most amazing work, you're not going to get sales with 30 images. I have almost 2,000 images there and had around 300 sales last year.

so you think the game rules change too???
i remember when you were with istock exclusive, you said it's not the number but the quality.
you said you sold more with less.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #41 on:** April 03, 2016, 11:54 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 03, 2016, 11:49

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 03, 2016, 10:10

Also, if you don't have a paid account there, that's probably another reason. It's a numbers game. Unless you're already world famous or have the most amazing work, you're not going to get sales with 30 images. I have almost 2,000 images there and had around 300 sales last year.

so you think the game rules change too???
i remember when you were with istock exclusive, you said it's not the number but the quality.
you said you sold more with less.

The rules always change. Obviously ideally the best thing to have would be a huge quantity of amazing sellable images. But I'd rather have 100 amazing highly sellable images than 10,000 pictures that nobody is interested in buying.

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** April 04, 2016, 11:17 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 01, 2016, 18:02

Quote from: stockastic on April 01, 2016, 16:30
Photography was a perfectly good career choice in the 80s and a nice field of study, combining art and technology. No one could have predicted where it would end up.

it's all about the availability , as you or someone else said in another thread.
remember in the 80's we were maybe one of what??? 50 photographers in the district...
some had photo studios, others go freelance. in NYC the freelancers were earning more money
freelancing there than many studio owners across the USA and Canada.
wedding and retouching were also a "professional" job.

then as every cousin's cousin's cousin got to be a "professional" because they could afford
an automatic camera with BIGGGGGG ZOOOOM lens with the coming of auto and digital
respectively, it became saturated with "professionals".

i remember how just before that, these same people could not even figure out how to use
the gossen luna pro or sekonic meter; never mind figure out the proper fstop for depth of field
manually,etc...

it also started the introduction of department store photo studio where the christmas portrait
with santa and the elves wearing purple suits (*underexposure*) ... and every customer was so
happy with their christmas portraits with those multi size pictures on one 8 by 10.

time capsule till today, it's quite a big step for mankind, isn't it???

personally, if i were to be a photographer today, i rather learn to do the jive, waltz, tango, rhumba,etc.. and become a dancer teacher.
it's highly unlikely there is going to be an automatic learn to dance invention to replace
the dance class.

Actually, photography is still a good field of study. The 'art' part hasn't gone away. New technology has made some aspects vastly easier. It has also created huge new areas of possibility. But the conceptual part is still there.

Dance instructor? Not a good bet. I'm pretty sure the Japanese are working on a robot that will teach dance as well as be the ideal partner, instantly adapting to your style and compensating for your mistakes.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sick of getting crumbs (Read 11677 times)

Chichikov

Hongover

Harvepino

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors