Author Topic: What's your advice to somebody new to Stock Photography? (Read 10883 times)

PhotoWorkout · « **on:** January 06, 2016, 10:17 »

What would be your most important advice to somebody new in Stock Photography? (E.g. Which type of Photography to focus on, where to submit, what gear to buy)

And how long do you think it will take a newcomer (with basic photography skills and DSLR equipment) to make the first $1,000 selling photos online?

Difydave · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2016, 10:32 »

Is that "New to photography" or "New to stock photography"?
Your's is an often asked question here, and how well you will do depends on which you are.
You need to understand how to take good, if not great, photographs before you will make any money.

As far as "how long to make $x" is concerned. It depends a lot on what I've written above. Someone who is a good photographer, who has some idea about design, and "what stock is" will be a lot more successful than someone who is learning. The former will make money, the latter may make little.

Incidentally don't mistake being accepted by many of the agencies as a recipe for success. It's just being accepted, nothing more really.

Good luck.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2016, 10:45 »

my advice is stay out

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2016, 10:51 »

Quote from: PhotoWorkout on January 06, 2016, 10:17

What would be your most important advice to somebody new in Stock Photography? (E.g. Which type of Photography to focus on, where to submit, what gear to buy)

Don't quit your day job.

cathyslife · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2016, 10:52 »

In 2005, when I started, soon after I had 500 images online, I started to get daily downloads, and it continued to increase as the next couple of years went on. I also started submitting to a few other sites, which also helped. In the past few years, though, the numbers have been going down for a lot of contributors. I havent uploaded any new material for over year, yet I still get payouts from a couple of sites. And I have less than 1000 images in my portfolio, so I am by no means a heavy hitter.

I think it is much more difficult for new contributors to gain traction, what with there being millions of images online. As Difydave mentioned, it all depends on the quality of your images, the number of images you get up online, and your persistence and ability to see what types of images are selling well and are needed, and fulfilling that niche. It isn't impossible. It's one of those things that you just have to try for yourself, give it a year, and see where you go.

Where to submit...check out the top 4 to the left. I would not suggest investing a ton of money into a lot of equipment until you get some images online and see how things go, especially since you mention you have basic photo skills and DSLR equipment. Knowing what photographs are useful for stock images is a big help too.

And +1 for what Sean said...if you have a day job, keep it. Mostly, selling microstock will be mad money for you.

Symbiostock Official · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2016, 11:09 »

Purchasing a camera is a good investment which has nothing to do with stock photography - if I were just starting out and didn't have much experience, I would consider the Panasonic FZ1000.

The FZ1000 is extremely versatile; it permits you to carry a non-interchangeable lens system that is also a zoom, and you can also dabble in 4K video with it for under $1000.

When you buy a larger DSLR, your costs will skyrocket as soon as you start investing in lenses. This way you get to feel it out while investing in a very solid piece of hardware that can be used for personal use as well.

The key things you should start off with are:

1) Ensuring that your photos are 100% in focus - that means when you zoom in, there is no motion blur and it is pretty much as sharp as the lens can get. This is achieved through lots of light and a good shutter speed, and of course, making sure your focus is right.

2) Ensure that you get the widest dynamic range - if your camera supports zebra stripes, go as bright as possible without overexposing.

3) Practice framing, unless you are doing stuff isolated on white.

So, what I would suggest is, get a camera, then take a few pictures and explore the process of converting the raw in post, removing any impurities, and time yourself. It is extremely important to time yourself. You must realistically determine how long each photo takes you because in order to be successful, in any capacity, you need to build your portfolio. And this means 500+. Even at a thousand, you're not likely to bring in a significant amount of revenue each month. So we're talking a lot of work.

If, after testing a few shots (or ten) and seeing how you fare with the amount of effort and time involved, then you can determine how best to approach your workflow.

IMO, the advice I've given is a safe, low cost way to open up as many avenues of opportunity for yourself while not digging in so deep that you can't move on.

U11 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:24 »

my advice is
answer honestly to yourself why you want to be in Stock Photography ?
and then think if Stock Photography is a right/effective/reliable way to achieve that

PhotoWorkout · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:31 »

Thanks for the valuable insights and tips!

I am a hobby photographer (with some DSLR shooting & Lightroom experience) and new to stock photography.

I think I am starting to understand the most important metrics (investment in gear, time needed per image and average payout per image).

I am however missing one of the key metrics: How many times is a stock photo (on average) purchased over its lifetime?

Is it safe to assume that for an enthusiast photographer the average number of downloads per image is 5?

Some may reach 50 or even 100+ downloads, but some or bulk of the photos will not sell at all or just 2-3 times.

Is 5 downloads on average per image as "lifetime" download too low or high?

I can see the benefit of becoming a better photographer when submitting stock photos to agencies.
But it would be nice to understand the possible income from stock photography and if the initial hard work and patience would ultimately also pay off financially (as a part time / side job).

Difydave · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:32 »

Quote from: U11 on January 06, 2016, 12:24

my advice is
answer honestly to yourself why you want to be in Stock Photography ?
and then think if Stock Photography is a right/effective/reliable way to achieve that

This is a good answer.
Stock photography isn't an easy way to make money.
I've never seen anyone admit to the fact that the "easy money" thing drew them into the business.
Although you have to suspect that some have been drawn in by that.

If you have no investment in either skill or equipment in the business, then there really are easier ways to make money.
A lot of established contributors to lots of the agencies are seeing falls in income.

Difydave · « **Reply #9 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:37 »

Quote from: PhotoWorkout on January 06, 2016, 12:31

Thanks for the valuable insights and tips!

I am a hobby photographer (with some DSLR shooting & Lightroom experience) and new to stock photography.

I think I am starting to understand the most important metrics (investment in gear, time needed per image and average payout per image).

I am however missing one of the key metrics: How many times is a stock photo (on average) purchased over its lifetime?

Is it safe to assume that for an enthusiast photographer the average number of downloads per image is 5?

Some may reach 50 or even 100+ downloads, but some or bulk of the photos will not sell at all or just 2-3 times.

Is 5 downloads on average per image as "lifetime" download too low or high?

I can see the benefit of becoming a better photographer when submitting stock photos to agencies.
But it would be nice to understand the possible income from stock photography and if the initial hard work and patience would ultimately also pay off financially (as a part time / side job).

You can't assume anything. No one can really know what will sell and what won't, or how many times they will sell, although some of the more experienced people here will have an idea.

There really are too many variables, what the subject is, how well it is shot, which agency it's with.

If you are trying to work out how much you can or will make, then the reality is you can't until you have been selling for a while. then you will have some idea.

If you're trying to work out how much to invest in equipment, then my advice would be to keep going with the gear you have until you have made some money.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:40 »

Quote from: PhotoWorkout on January 06, 2016, 12:31

I am however missing one of the key metrics: How many times is a stock photo (on average) purchased over its lifetime?

Is it safe to assume that for an enthusiast photographer the average number of downloads per image is 5?

Some may reach 50 or even 100+ downloads, but some or bulk of the photos will not sell at all or just 2-3 times.

Is 5 downloads on average per image as "lifetime" download too low or high?

I'd say that's not an unrealistic assumption.

But only if you upload images that meet the market's needs. I do know stock beginners who get about 1 download per month for each 100 images they upload. That wouldn't even add up to an average of 1 download/image if their sales stay consistent for eight years which is unlikely. New images disappear into the back of the searches quickly these days if they don't get downloaded.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:46 »

I don't know where you got the average sales numbers but most of my photos have never sold and never will. You can't assume that the average photo sells or for how much and you can't tell the average RPI for 1000 photos like 5 years ago. Accepted and making money are far different. Concentrate on the top 3 on the right and see what you find in 6 months. Then you will know for your photos and subjects.

The new photographer can make more money working minimum wage part time. Very few new will make any good income. Most new microstock will make very small sums for very long hours.

My advise is find something else.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2016, 12:51 »

The ancient rule of thumb was $1 per image per year income in your sales portfolio. Over the past few years I suspect it is falling a lot. I had one site many years ago that produced $14 PIPY and is now under $4. I have another site that is under $0.30 PIPY and thousands of my images have never sold. I started back in 2002. Your mileage will certainly vary. So how far can you go at, say, $0.25 or $0.50 Per Image Per Year? How many images do you need to create and work to get 1 image up on a sales site? What is the cost of creating those images?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2016, 13:26 »

you cant make any assumptions as difydave already correctly said. you will become a technically better photographer but not a better photographer per se because stock photography is limiting the photographs to adhere to the standards set out by the agency. famous photos sold for millions at auctions would never have been accepted by stock agencies

jamiehooper · « **Reply #14 on:** January 06, 2016, 13:44 »

Good advice from everyone here. I would just add that you need to "keep your eye on the prize". That is not uploading a lot of images. Also, it is not "making a great photo" (although that can be a prerequisite.)
The only thing that counts is what someone buys from you. If the market is saturated for a type of image (beautiful flower close up, for example) it will never sell.

Keep in mind that most buyers are not looking for "great photos"; they are looking for the ONE that illustrates what THEY want to communicate. As you select images to take and upload, ask yourself "why would someone want to buy this? How might it be used? How many images like yours are online? How versatile is the image?

For example, there's lots of photos of firemen at fires, so competition is high - and there's only one market, people looking for firefighters (probably for an insurance blog or ad.)
But, how many photos of firemen holding a dog or cat are there? Not only are there few to none, BUT that image could be used not only for firefighting, but the concept of caring, protecting animals/the helpless, or service. Any time you can come up with a compelling, story-telling image that can illustrate many different concepts, you have a good candidate.
Staying with that illustration, you might upload 50 photos of firefighters that never sell, but the one of them holding a pet could sell 50 times. So, again, it's the quality, not the amount.
Keeping all these things in mind, in the end it all comes down to your own research. Pay attention the images you upload that sell and those that don't. Then you can build on your own strengths to add more of that type of image.

And one last, surprising thing. Different sites have different buyer "personalities". I have some photos that sell like gangbusters on SS; but very low on FT. And vice versa. Uploading to the top 4 or 5 microstock sites and then noting how sales compare will give you some personal feedback that will help you do better.

And, oh yeah. As others have said, don't quit your day job.

Symbiostock Official · « **Reply #15 on:** January 06, 2016, 14:16 »

I understand your desire to acquire statistics upon which to base your plans on, but the thing is, the industry is changing at a rapid pace. Lots of new images are flooding the market, but how that will affect the bottom line, or whether these are good images or not is still to be determined.

Because of the changes that are happening almost every half year, no one can confidently answer your question. And anyone doing well may not want to share those details simple for the fact that they would want to protect their 'niche'.

Other than technical advice, you're basically going to have to join the ranks of people who are still unsure about how much their images are going to generate next month - that is, in and of itself, as much a part of the business right now as lighting technique is.

Some of us are trying to change that, but nothing certain can be predicted yet.

noodle · « **Reply #16 on:** January 06, 2016, 15:20 »

My advice : RUN!!!

PixelBytes · « **Reply #17 on:** January 06, 2016, 15:56 »

Quote from: noodle on January 06, 2016, 15:20

My advice : RUN!!!

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Elenathewise · « **Reply #18 on:** January 06, 2016, 16:09 »

My advice is - whatever your expectations are, lower them.
Unless you understand stock industry really well and able to deliver very large number (hundreds a month) of highest quality sellable images on a regular basis. As a side job, you probably won't be able to pay even for the gear.

ACS · « **Reply #19 on:** January 06, 2016, 16:21 »

If I were you, I would start wlth footages. Photography market is oversaturated. Invest your time on learning video.

stockastic · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2016, 16:32 »

I'd say forget it. It's over.

Well, you asked.

DallasP · « **Reply #21 on:** January 06, 2016, 16:35 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on January 06, 2016, 13:26

you cant make any assumptions as difydave already correctly said. you will become a technically better photographer but not a better photographer per se because stock photography is limiting the photographs to adhere to the standards set out by the agency. famous photos sold for millions at auctions would never have been accepted by stock agencies

On that same token, most designers in groups that I follow have begun steering clear of the stock agencies because the photos are "too stocklike" or "crappy stock photographs", with many of the higher paid designers and agencies even hiring or contracting a photographer, it takes me a bit by surprise that they reject any technically correct photo. Silly on the agencies part really ...

PixelBytes · « **Reply #22 on:** January 06, 2016, 18:16 »

Quote from: DallasP on January 06, 2016, 16:35

Quote from: Microstockphoto on January 06, 2016, 13:26
you cant make any assumptions as difydave already correctly said. you will become a technically better photographer but not a better photographer per se because stock photography is limiting the photographs to adhere to the standards set out by the agency. famous photos sold for millions at auctions would never have been accepted by stock agencies

On that same token, most designers in groups that I follow have begun steering clear of the stock agencies because the photos are "too stocklike" or "crappy stock photographs", with many of the higher paid designers and agencies even hiring or contracting a photographer, it takes me a bit by surprise that they reject any technically correct photo. Silly on the agencies part really ...

Contracting photographers for high end campaigns is exactly what they should have been doing all along. Foolish to think mass produced images would be right for every situation. But to say micro is crap is only because recently the top sites are accepting more crap and pushing it to the front of searches.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #23 on:** January 06, 2016, 20:24 »

Quote from: PhotoWorkout on January 06, 2016, 12:31

Thanks for the valuable insights and tips!

I am a hobby photographer (with some DSLR shooting & Lightroom experience) and new to stock photography.

I think I am starting to understand the most important metrics (investment in gear, time needed per image and average payout per image).

I am however missing one of the key metrics: How many times is a stock photo (on average) purchased over its lifetime?

Is it safe to assume that for an enthusiast photographer the average number of downloads per image is 5?

Some may reach 50 or even 100+ downloads, but some or bulk of the photos will not sell at all or just 2-3 times.

Is 5 downloads on average per image as "lifetime" download too low or high?

I can see the benefit of becoming a better photographer when submitting stock photos to agencies.
But it would be nice to understand the possible income from stock photography and if the initial hard work and patience would ultimately also pay off financially (as a part time / side job).

There are so many variables it's almost impossible to answer an average. I've seen people just getting into stock who have exceptional work that could all sell 100 times per image. I've also seen people who will probably never sell anything so their answer is zero. It depends on the commercial saleability of your work. And it also depends on the quality of your keywords, how many sites you're on, search engine positioning, how lucky you are, and a bunch of other variables.

I've posted this a few times before and I think it applies here. I think the rejection rates have lightened up quite a bit though.

Quote

So, on average

About 5% of the images you shot will be sellable
You spend 30 minutes per image in an image editing program like Photoshop doing post-processing, keywording, etc
You start with about a 20% acceptance rate, 80% rejected
You earn .10 cents US per accepted photo per month per agency on average

So let's say...

You spend about 16 hours over a week or two shooting 2000 images
You select 100
100 images x 30 minutes processing each = 50 hours
Because of poor focus and other issues you find only 80 are usable
You submit 80 images
16 images get accepted (20% acceptance rate)

So for your 16 approved images…

You’ve worked 66 hours that month and 16.5 hours per week
You’ve earned $1.60 for the month and .40 cents for the week (.10 cents per accepted photo per month)
Based on a 40 hour work week, you’ve earned .10 cents US per hour for your efforts

You'd probably need to get out an Excel spreadsheet and over a period of time calculate how many images you can grow per month and figure somewhere between 10 to 50 cents of revenue per image per month.

Since you're doing this part time and just starting out, if I had to guess I'd say it would probably take a year to earn a total of $1,000. Again, there are so many variables that number could also be $0 or it could be $5,000. Who knows.

The only way you'll know the answer is to give it a try and see if the results are, or aren't, what you expected.

DallasP · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2016, 21:42 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on January 06, 2016, 18:16

Quote from: DallasP on January 06, 2016, 16:35
Quote from: Microstockphoto on January 06, 2016, 13:26
you cant make any assumptions as difydave already correctly said. you will become a technically better photographer but not a better photographer per se because stock photography is limiting the photographs to adhere to the standards set out by the agency. famous photos sold for millions at auctions would never have been accepted by stock agencies

On that same token, most designers in groups that I follow have begun steering clear of the stock agencies because the photos are "too stocklike" or "crappy stock photographs", with many of the higher paid designers and agencies even hiring or contracting a photographer, it takes me a bit by surprise that they reject any technically correct photo. Silly on the agencies part really ...

Contracting photographers for high end campaigns is exactly what they should have been doing all along. Foolish to think mass produced images would be right for every situation. But to say micro is crap is only because recently the top sites are accepting more crap and pushing it to the front of searches.

Obviously, however ...

With the pricing structure and licensing deals they've set up though it kind of seems like they've branded them self "purposfully" into groups like ... (honest one's who actually pay for images) bloggers, scrapbookers, the dying newspaper industry and ... very poor designers who are trying to just trying to make enough to buy a cup of coffee themselves. lol.

and it keeps falling ... Even without a subscription getting a small blog sized image for a buck or less? Hard to understand why there are so many thieves but ... easy to see why the market keeps "sinking".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What's your advice to somebody new to Stock Photography? (Read 10883 times)

PhotoWorkout

Difydave

Microstockphoto

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

Symbiostock Official

U11

PhotoWorkout

Difydave

Difydave

MichaelJayFoto

FlowerPower

StanRohrer

Microstockphoto

jamiehooper

Symbiostock Official

noodle

PixelBytes

Elenathewise

ACS

stockastic

DallasP

PixelBytes

PaulieWalnuts

DallasP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors