MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Travel photography Sales  (Read 19692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #75 on: October 29, 2014, 12:07 »
0
Good that you could prove my point Tick. Thanks

42,482 and 1700 DLs = 4%

21 and 8 DLs = 38%

Which is better? 1700 DLs out of 42,000 similar files of a subject that well covered, and has a low DL percentage from the total population (meaning 40,000+ images have no downloads?)  or one that will get you a 38% chance of getting sold? This is where a well produced and shot image will shine, not lost in a morass of 42,000 others.

There are McDonald's stores that go out of business. It's not an automatic. Shooting Paris doesn't seem like a good idea to me, it's been done and overdone.

True, If you want to do a good job, it's not a vacation it's work. But some people have answered that they mix the two, which makes sense. My point which seems to have been lost in, how to go on the cheap, stay with a friend, or who knows what else... was this:

You already live someplace. We don't have to travel, vacation, or spend great amounts to take "travel" photos. Sometimes places that are near, have a better chance of making a sale than going to somewhere which is out of the way or over covered.

Here's one of the flaws in Microstock. People think that the way to make money is copy or imitate what's popular. In other words, make more of what's already been over done. Instead we should look for things that need more representation and shoot that. Like small towns and out of the way places, which might not have the high volume, but you'll have the better exposure than going where every man has gone before.

Didn't anyone watch Star Trek? "boldly go where no man has gone before"  :) or at the least get away from the crowd, the over produced and common? Far From the madding crowd's ignoble strife


« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2014, 12:22 »
0
Good that you could prove my point Tick. Thanks

42,482 and 1700 DLs = 4%

21 and 8 DLs = 38%

Which is better? 1700 DLs out of 42,000 similar files of a subject that well covered, and has a low DL percentage from the total population (meaning 40,000+ images have no downloads?)  or one that will get you a 38% chance of getting sold? This is where a well produced and shot image will shine, not lost in a morass of 42,000 others.

There are McDonald's stores that go out of business. It's not an automatic. Shooting Paris doesn't seem like a good idea to me, it's been done and overdone.

True, If you want to do a good job, it's not a vacation it's work. But some people have answered that they mix the two, which makes sense. My point which seems to have been lost in, how to go on the cheap, stay with a friend, or who knows what else... was this:

You already live someplace. We don't have to travel, vacation, or spend great amounts to take "travel" photos. Sometimes places that are near, have a better chance of making a sale than going to somewhere which is out of the way or over covered.

Here's one of the flaws in Microstock. People think that the way to make money is copy or imitate what's popular. In other words, make more of what's already been over done. Instead we should look for things that need more representation and shoot that. Like small towns and out of the way places, which might not have the high volume, but you'll have the better exposure than going where every man has gone before.

Didn't anyone watch Star Trek? "boldly go where no man has gone before"  :) or at the least get away from the crowd, the over produced and common? Far From the madding crowd's ignoble strife
That's a bizarre argument, the best selling travel image of Gary has probably made less than $10 per year.  You would have to shoot thousands of best sellers to make any money, that's just not possible.  I'm not sure if you are just kidding around but $10 a year for the best selling image is not a great opportunity.  The top 5 Gary travel images have 20 dls total compared to more than 7400 of the top 5 of paris.  I think your point must be that you don't have a clue?

« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2014, 12:54 »
+1
Good that you could prove my point Tick. Thanks

42,482 and 1700 DLs = 4%

21 and 8 DLs = 38%

Which is better? 1700 DLs out of 42,000 similar files of a subject that well covered, and has a low DL percentage from the total population (meaning 40,000+ images have no downloads?)  or one that will get you a 38% chance of getting sold? This is where a well produced and shot image will shine, not lost in a morass of 42,000 others.



That is one of the most bizarre bits of math/logic I've seen in a long time. How exactly do you figure that 40K + have no downloads?

I'll take a photo that gets me 1400 downloads over one that gets me 8 ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Who cares what percentage of the total available on that subject is. "boring image of fruit" has only 5 photos on IS. Doesn't really mean that I'd want to fill a port with that. There is a reason why generic images of small towns aren't big sellers. Nobody really needs them.

"you already live someplace" so we should be filling our ports with photos of the boring places we live? By that logic, everyone has feet so we should all be uploading photos of our feet to stock sites. Grand idea. ::)

Uncle Pete

« Reply #78 on: October 30, 2014, 14:01 »
-1
Bad math I read the top image as the total.

Here's the point: People who live in Europe should shoot Europe. Don't go fly to Paris to shoot what there's already 42, 000 shots of on IS. Like this person...

I live in Europe. I have 2-3 travel holidays/year in Europe countries and i earn more money from images that the cost of holidays. So, it is possible to earn more than the cost.
But, i don't stay at 5 stars hotels, i don't eat every lunch at restaurant and i don't fly at first class. I am not a VIP, i am just a tourist :)

Same goes for the USA. People who live here have better access.

And the everyone lives someplace is not "shooting boring places" unless you find anything that's not over produced and over covered = boring.

There are interesting things right around the corner from our homes.

It was a pretty simeple point to start with.

There are subjects in your own city or back yard, that can produce good returns and they aren't over saturated with excessive coverage.

But that's OK if people want to spend $2000 to make a bunch of 25 cents DLs, please ignore anything that's unconventional. Go to the National Parks and shoot the same shots that have been taken for 50 years. And come back here and ask, why you aren't getting the DLs you used to.

I really think the agencies should put out requests for more sliced vegetables, more pictures of things they have 42,000 shots of and more bland, nearly monochrome models, in muted tans, against white.

If people are going to just reshoot the same things that are covered and the best sellers and the same interesting and exciting places, same as thousands of others, they should also expect to be buried in the search under the thousands of others.

Now lets be fair with the numbers. Top image all time, Paris France 1700 DLs, (round numbers) it is an Essential which is good and uploaded in 2008, Image #2 is also Essential, circa 2007 by the way, First image on page 2 = 200 DLs, First image on page 3 = 100 DLs page 4 = 90 DLs, Signature - since 2005.

And you say, well what about those other 42,000? At number 2,500 (page 25) The top image of all time for most popular has 10 Downloads. So where does that leave the other 40,000? counting eggs, that's where.

How is this a good investment again? Taking a photo on a travel investment, competing against 10's of thousand similar images, and you can get ten DLs in three years. That's the competition that's already established and well entrenched.

I could make more standing on the corner with a "will work for food" sign, or picking up change under the drive through windows at fast food joints. Heck I could collect cans in the parks and recycle. It pays better than spending thousands to make $5 a year on travel photos. Some people make money on Amway and the other MLMs. Right, some people do. So that's proof that everyone else will?  (Hint: research shows that 99% of people lose money in MLMs)

It's not a good investment to travel exclusively for shooting travel photos. The ROI just isn't in it. And as soon as I say, make it part of a vacation someone else jumps up... you need to be more serious to shoot professional travel. Which is it?

Spend thousands to make hundreds or make money and enjoy the vacation? I prefer the second.

Anyway pointing out the top image of 42,500 as an example of how much someone could make is silly! But apparently me pointing out that image 10,000 has one DL isn't interesting? Or that 27,000 images have ZERO DLs. Doesn't seem to concern anyone?

Better yet if spending a couple grand to go someplace and shoot travel, so you can imagine you'll make $50 a year from it, is a great idea, why not save the time and just buy 2000 lottery tickets?  :)


Good that you could prove my point Tick. Thanks

42,482 and 1700 DLs = 4%

21 and 8 DLs = 38%

Which is better? 1700 DLs out of 42,000 similar files of a subject that well covered, and has a low DL percentage from the total population (meaning 40,000+ images have no downloads?)  or one that will get you a 38% chance of getting sold? This is where a well produced and shot image will shine, not lost in a morass of 42,000 others.



That is one of the most bizarre bits of math/logic I've seen in a long time. How exactly do you figure that 40K + have no downloads?

I'll take a photo that gets me 1400 downloads over one that gets me 8 ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. Who cares what percentage of the total available on that subject is. "boring image of fruit" has only 5 photos on IS. Doesn't really mean that I'd want to fill a port with that. There is a reason why generic images of small towns aren't big sellers. Nobody really needs them.

"you already live someplace" so we should be filling our ports with photos of the boring places we live? By that logic, everyone has feet so we should all be uploading photos of our feet to stock sites. Grand idea. ::)
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 14:05 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #79 on: October 30, 2014, 14:28 »
+1
Pete, it looks as though you've never sold a travel image on istock in 7 years.  Why should anyone here think you know what you're talking about?  If you could make more money shooting your home town than going to the top tourist destinations in the world how come you haven't followed your own advice?

Uncle Pete

« Reply #80 on: October 30, 2014, 14:56 »
0
What's a "travel photo" so I can check if I every sold one? Since you took the time to look, (and make a half-assed, personal insult) I'll assume you are a travel expert. But since you are anonymous, I can't even return the tasteless attempt at a personal attack. I mean we don't even know if you have a photo on your IS exclusive account, because you don't exist, except on the forum? Right?

Here's my idea. We do a Kickstart fund and send you to Central Africa where there's no Internet, you can shoot travel. I'd pay for a month of that...  ;)

So Mr. travel expert, how far to I have to be from home to make it travel, or how close to make it Not travel, but just scenery or something else? I need some definitions to play your game.

Birmingham Alabama USA - April 10, 2011


Wildlife on the shore of Lake Michigan?


Iowa?


Holy Hill Wisconsin?


Joliet, IL


You are correct though, I don't travel much. I'm still working and don't get paid vacations.

(ps hope you liked the stamp scans, they really are terrible and horrid. I'll save you the trouble of pointing out what a misguided effort that was.)






Pete, it looks as though you've never sold a travel image on istock in 7 years.  Why should anyone here think you know what you're talking about?  If you could make more money shooting your home town than going to the top tourist destinations in the world how come you haven't followed your own advice?

« Reply #81 on: October 30, 2014, 15:06 »
+1
What's a "travel photo" so I can check if I every sold one? Since you took the time to look, (and make a half-assed, personal insult) I'll assume you are a travel expert. But since you are anonymous, I can't even return the tasteless attempt at a personal attack. I mean we don't even know if you have a photo on your IS exclusive account, because you don't exist, except on the forum? Right?
I wasn't trying to insult you.  I think travel photography is photography which shows off  a specific location.  Taking a picture of your feet on the sidewalk in Paris doesn't make it a travel photo even though you were traveling when you took it.  It's not generic, it's specific to the location.  You don't have to travel at all to make travel photographs, your home town can be shot just as well.  Things like landmarks, unique scenery, the people, etc... would fall into that category.  In your examples the church or panoramic would be travel photos, the generic duck on a generic shore wouldn't.

And I'd love to go to Central Africa, I doubt it would make much money though.  Remember that there needs to be demand not just low supply for sales to happen.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 15:11 by tickstock »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #82 on: October 30, 2014, 15:18 »
0
Can you link to your portfolio please?

So the claim that I haven't every sold a travel photo, isn't quite accurate. Right?

(now you've insulted my favorite duck model. Will this become a Duck thread? Or a thread to Duck?)

What's a "travel photo" so I can check if I every sold one? Since you took the time to look, (and make a half-assed, personal insult) I'll assume you are a travel expert. But since you are anonymous, I can't even return the tasteless attempt at a personal attack. I mean we don't even know if you have a photo on your IS exclusive account, because you don't exist, except on the forum? Right?
I wasn't trying to insult you.  I think travel photography is photography which shows off  a specific location.  Taking a picture of your feet on the sidewalk in Paris doesn't make it a travel photo even though you were traveling when you took it.  It's not generic, it's specific to the location.  You don't have to travel at all to make travel photographs, your home town can be shot just as well.  Things like landmarks, unique scenery, the people, etc... would fall into that category.  In your examples the church or panoramic would be travel photos, the generic duck on a generic shore wouldn't.

And I'd love to go to Central Africa, I doubt it would make much money though.  Remember that there needs to be demand not just low supply for sales to happen.

« Reply #83 on: October 30, 2014, 15:28 »
+1
So the claim that I haven't every sold a travel photo, isn't quite accurate. Right?
I said on iStock.  I can't see sales on Shutterstock so I can't say how you've done there but with subjects like the two you posted I doubt you can have too many sales.  I've never heard of Holy Hill, Pikes Peak is a better travel subject I would guess. Your skyline of Milwaukee is a better example of travel photography than those two though.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #84 on: October 30, 2014, 16:01 »
0
You are correct... for some strange reason it sells? I just re-uploaded it to IS last night. They had issues with some lettering and a logo on one of the buildings.

You doubt I have too many sales with those? How about with anything? You mean this is all about sales?

How about a link to your work? Fair is only fair if you are going to offer free advise, critiques and go check other peoples collections?

Gertie forgives you, she says it's difficult to support a large family on just spare change and quarters for her modeling efforts. She was only briefly insulted...


See below = Shazam! (apologies to Gomer Pile) Isn't that exactly what I said to start with!  ::)

You don't have to travel at all to make travel photographs, your home town can be shot just as well.  Things like landmarks, unique scenery, the people, etc... would fall into that category.


So the claim that I haven't every sold a travel photo, isn't quite accurate. Right?

I said on iStock.  I can't see sales on Shutterstock so I can't say how you've done there but with subjects like the two you posted I doubt you can have too many sales.  I've never heard of Holy Hill, Pikes Peak is a better travel subject I would guess. Your skyline of Milwaukee is a better example of travel photography than those two though.

« Reply #85 on: October 30, 2014, 16:03 »
0
You mean this is all about sales?
I thought it was.

« Reply #86 on: October 30, 2014, 16:22 »
+2
You mean this is all about sales?
I thought it was.

but it should be about return vs. cost (and cost = time and effort as well as money).

That is where a local skyline shot on the morning commute with perfect light can have a better return vs effort than traveling a long distance to a destination in the hope of hitting the potentially much more lucrative jackpot.

« Reply #87 on: October 30, 2014, 16:25 »
0
You mean this is all about sales?
I thought it was.

but it should be about return vs. cost (and cost = time and effort as well as money).

That is where a local skyline shot on the morning commute with perfect light can have a better return vs effort than traveling a long distance to a destination in the hope of hitting the potentially much more lucrative jackpot.
What I've been saying the whole time is that you can't shoot travel photography hoping to hit a jackpot or win the lottery.  You have to plan and put effort into it.  I do agree you'll make more shooting snapshots with no cost than with a couple thousand dollars of cost or maybe it's better to say you'll lose less. 
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 16:29 by tickstock »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #88 on: October 30, 2014, 17:04 »
-3
DUCKS!

OMG is this another one of those?

Lookout!

DUCKS are fast so I have heard.

Better watch out Pete the DUCKS will getcha! ;D :D :o


« Reply #89 on: October 30, 2014, 18:45 »
+2
the whole quantity vs quality argument would be simpler if anyone KNEW what would sell -- the agencies certainly don't.  in biology there are 2 basic strategies for survival -- invest energy in intensive care of the young (mammals)  or spread your genome over thousands or millions of offspring and hope a few survive (viruses, insects, mushrooms) (some insects carry this  to the extreme that newly hatched larva are born pregnant so popluations can explode when scarce resources are discovered)

the 'concentrate efforts on a few quality images' approach will only work if you know what will sell.  otherwise you're spending too much time creating images no one will buy.

serendipity is everything -- the best selling image from my Antarctica cruise is a traffic jam picture I grabbed from a hotel rooftop in Buenos aires  (and, as a 'travel' picture it's usually not used in context of location)


« Reply #90 on: October 30, 2014, 19:01 »
0
the whole quantity vs quality argument would be simpler if anyone KNEW what would sell -- the agencies certainly don't.  in biology there are 2 basic strategies for survival -- invest energy in intensive care of the young (mammals)  or spread your genome over thousands or millions of offspring and hope a few survive (viruses, insects, mushrooms) (some insects carry this  to the extreme that newly hatched larva are born pregnant so popluations can explode when scarce resources are discovered)

the 'concentrate efforts on a few quality images' approach will only work if you know what will sell.  otherwise you're spending too much time creating images no one will buy.

serendipity is everything -- the best selling image from my Antarctica cruise is a traffic jam picture I grabbed from a hotel rooftop in Buenos aires  (and, as a 'travel' picture it's usually not used in context of location)
Has the trip made back the money you spent taking it?  I don't have much confidence that I could make back the money from an Antarctica trip, those are pretty expensive even if you try to do it on the cheap (a quick price check looks like it could cost easily $10,000-$20,000 for one person to go on a two week cruise, taking into account hotels and flights and gear, etc..).  Also Shutterstock's search by popular is strange that image shows up on the 30th page of your portfolio, kind of surprising for a best seller.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 19:17 by tickstock »

« Reply #91 on: October 30, 2014, 19:47 »
+3
the whole quantity vs quality argument would be simpler if anyone KNEW what would sell -- the agencies certainly don't.  in biology there are 2 basic strategies for survival -- invest energy in intensive care of the young (mammals)  or spread your genome over thousands or millions of offspring and hope a few survive (viruses, insects, mushrooms) (some insects carry this  to the extreme that newly hatched larva are born pregnant so popluations can explode when scarce resources are discovered)

the 'concentrate efforts on a few quality images' approach will only work if you know what will sell.  otherwise you're spending too much time creating images no one will buy.

serendipity is everything -- the best selling image from my Antarctica cruise is a traffic jam picture I grabbed from a hotel rooftop in Buenos aires  (and, as a 'travel' picture it's usually not used in context of location)
Has the trip made back the money you spent taking it?  I don't have much confidence that I could make back the money from an Antarctica trip, those are pretty expensive even if you try to do it on the cheap (a quick price check looks like it could cost easily $10,000-$20,000 for one person to go on a two week cruise, taking into account hotels and flights and gear, etc..).  Also Shutterstock's search by popular is strange that image shows up on the 30th page of your portfolio, kind of surprising for a best seller.

you obviously don't know how to find travel bargains - 2 of us traveled to antarctica for 20 days to Antarctica for < $10,000.  I can find similar trips right now for not much more

but the point was never that I expected to make back the costs - this was one of the best trips we've ever taken. the point was that no one can predict which images will sell

as far as numbers, I don't discuss details with trolls who refuse to identify their portfolios


« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2014, 20:00 »
0
the whole quantity vs quality argument would be simpler if anyone KNEW what would sell -- the agencies certainly don't.  in biology there are 2 basic strategies for survival -- invest energy in intensive care of the young (mammals)  or spread your genome over thousands or millions of offspring and hope a few survive (viruses, insects, mushrooms) (some insects carry this  to the extreme that newly hatched larva are born pregnant so popluations can explode when scarce resources are discovered)

the 'concentrate efforts on a few quality images' approach will only work if you know what will sell.  otherwise you're spending too much time creating images no one will buy.

serendipity is everything -- the best selling image from my Antarctica cruise is a traffic jam picture I grabbed from a hotel rooftop in Buenos aires  (and, as a 'travel' picture it's usually not used in context of location)
Has the trip made back the money you spent taking it?  I don't have much confidence that I could make back the money from an Antarctica trip, those are pretty expensive even if you try to do it on the cheap (a quick price check looks like it could cost easily $10,000-$20,000 for one person to go on a two week cruise, taking into account hotels and flights and gear, etc..).  Also Shutterstock's search by popular is strange that image shows up on the 30th page of your portfolio, kind of surprising for a best seller.

you obviously don't know how to find travel bargains - 2 of us traveled to antarctica for 20 days to Antarctica for < $10,000.  I can find similar trips right now for not much more

but the point was never that I expected to make back the costs - this was one of the best trips we've ever taken. the point was that no one can predict which images will sell

as far as numbers, I don't discuss details with trolls who refuse to identify their portfolios
Sorry for asking.  Congrats on the deal. 

Lightrecorder

« Reply #93 on: October 31, 2014, 03:02 »
+1
Why are people disrupting a good discussion with stupendous big images of smileys !! Seriously.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2014, 10:33 »
+1
It's all about ducks and catching them in photos, sharp images are nearly impossible, because they are so fast and stealth. That's why people can't get a sharp duck shot. Don't try to shoot ducks, your photos will be rejected!

As for "Travel" it's been beat to death. Four pages of stupid arguments and contradictions only to end up that we agreed. That is: you can make good travel photos locally, and don't necessarily have to spend a load of money on a trip, to far away places, to get them.

Part two is, the trip may not recover the expenses involved, but it's worthwhile to have done it. Taking a trip for photos only and believing that they will pay for the excursion, isn't really a good business decision. Sure you'll get nice photos and they might sell, but if this is about investment and earnings, Travel exclusively for Travel Photos isn't the best way to make money.

Part three: People who live in the prime places, will be shooting closer to home and can just motor over on a weekend or spend vacation time, without the expense and overhead of crossing an ocean for pictures that will earn pennies in most cases.

Also apparently flying to the UK is much more expensive than flying to France. My error, I over estimated the price of transportation. Looks like I'd be better off, flying to France and taking the Chunnel train $68.  :) For much less.

Why are people disrupting a good discussion with stupendous big images of smileys !! Seriously.


Seriously you ask? Speaking of anonymous trolls. I must ask you LR, when do you drop out and change your October name-of-the-month for November?

And that's why a duck... and why a huge smiley face



« Reply #95 on: October 31, 2014, 11:03 »
0
As for "Travel" it's been beat to death. Four pages of stupid arguments and contradictions only to end up that we agreed. That is: you can make good travel photos locally, and don't necessarily have to spend a load of money on a trip, to far away places, to get them.

Part two is, the trip may not recover the expenses involved, but it's worthwhile to have done it. Taking a trip for photos only and believing that they will pay for the excursion, isn't really a good business decision. Sure you'll get nice photos and they might sell, but if this is about investment and earnings, Travel exclusively for Travel Photos isn't the best way to make money.

Part three: People who live in the prime places, will be shooting closer to home and can just motor over on a weekend or spend vacation time, without the expense and overhead of crossing an ocean for pictures that will earn pennies in most cases.
You are misunderstanding me if you think I'm contradicting myself or that we agree.  Making good photos doesn't mean you'll make money, those are different things.  You can take the best travel photo of Gary - Indiana (to use your example) and you'll make maybe $50 in a year if you're lucky or you can take the best travel photo of say Paris and make many thousands of dollars.  Both would be good photos but one would make you a lot more.  There is no contradiction in that, good photos don't always sell.   More people need photos of Paris than they do of Gary.
I agree with your second point, taking photos while on vacation will not make you much money.  I've been saying the whole time that in order to make money you need to plan and devote your time to shooting, not vacationing.  I take trips for fun and shoot a little bit (actually very little) because I know it's not worth it to miss out on my vacation trying to get shots.  On the other hand I take trips for shooting travel photography and on those I spend many hours preparing, I get up early, stay out late, go without family, don't go to tourist sites or museums, I spend my time focused on working.  On those trips I make money.
Your third point misses the fact that each of us a photographers have our own vision, skill, and aesthetic not to mention work ethic and business sense.  If you put in the effort and have some skill you can take unique and useful images that will make money.   Just like everything else you have to put in the work if you expect to make a good return on your investment. 
In order to do well in this business I think it takes investment.  You could shoot family members for free or you could pay money to get better looking more professional models, I would rather make $1,000 off of a $100 investment than $100 off a zero dollar investment. 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2014, 11:06 »
0
Link to your port please so I can see what you mean?

As for "Travel" it's been beat to death. Four pages of stupid arguments and contradictions only to end up that we agreed. That is: you can make good travel photos locally, and don't necessarily have to spend a load of money on a trip, to far away places, to get them.

Part two is, the trip may not recover the expenses involved, but it's worthwhile to have done it. Taking a trip for photos only and believing that they will pay for the excursion, isn't really a good business decision. Sure you'll get nice photos and they might sell, but if this is about investment and earnings, Travel exclusively for Travel Photos isn't the best way to make money.

Part three: People who live in the prime places, will be shooting closer to home and can just motor over on a weekend or spend vacation time, without the expense and overhead of crossing an ocean for pictures that will earn pennies in most cases.
You are misunderstanding me if you think I'm contradicting myself or that we agree.  Making good photos doesn't mean you'll make money, those are different things.  You can take the best travel photo of Gary - Indiana (to use your example) and you'll make maybe $50 in a year if you're lucky or you can take the best travel photo of say Paris and make many thousands of dollars.  Both would be good photos but one would make you a lot more.  There is no contradiction in that, good photos don't always sell.   More people need photos of Paris than they do of Gary.
I agree with your second point, taking photos while on vacation will not make you much money.  I've been saying the whole time that in order to make money you need to plan and devote your time to shooting, not vacationing.  I take trips for fun and shoot a little bit (actually very little) because I know it's not worth it to miss out on my vacation trying to get shots.  On the other hand I take trips for shooting travel photography and on those I spend many hours preparing, I get up early, stay out late, go without family, don't go to tourist sites or museums, I spend my time focused on working.  On those trips I make money.
Your third point misses the fact that each of us a photographers have our own vision, skill, and aesthetic not to mention work ethic and business sense.  If you put in the effort and have some skill you can take unique and useful images that will make money.   Just like everything else you have to put in the work if you expect to make a good return on your investment. 
In order to do well in this business I think it takes investment.  You could shoot family members for free or you could pay money to get better looking more professional models, I would rather make $1,000 off of a $100 investment than $100 off a zero dollar investment.

« Reply #97 on: October 31, 2014, 11:10 »
0
You can do a search for the best selling or most popular travel images and see that for the most part those images don't come from portfolios of people who take snapshots hoping to get lucky.  I think you'll be able to see that the best selling travel photographers portfolios are filled with high quality, well thought out, diverse subjects.

cuppacoffee

« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2014, 11:17 »
+1
You can do a search for the best selling or most popular travel images and see that for the most part those images don't come from portfolios of people who take snapshots hoping to get lucky.

You can say that about all subjects. That's the underlying problem and definition of microstock today.

« Reply #99 on: October 31, 2014, 11:19 »
0
You can do a search for the best selling or most popular travel images and see that for the most part those images don't come from portfolios of people who take snapshots hoping to get lucky.

You can say that about all subjects. That's the underlying problem and definition of microstock today.
I'm not sure that's a problem.  The reality is that in order to make a living at this you have to be professional about it.  You have to work hard and have some skill no matter what your focus is whether it's lifestyle, travel, or anything else.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2586 Views
Last post January 14, 2008, 12:19
by zorki
16 Replies
8931 Views
Last post May 09, 2009, 05:44
by psd photography
14 Replies
9358 Views
Last post November 07, 2009, 17:08
by RacePhoto
69 Replies
14157 Views
Last post July 03, 2015, 02:02
by skyfish
0 Replies
2711 Views
Last post February 26, 2019, 01:00
by FiledIMAGE

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle