Author Topic: What's your advice to somebody new to Stock Photography? (Read 10918 times)

charged · « **Reply #25 on:** January 07, 2016, 01:34 »

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

What would be your most important advice to somebody new in Stock Photography?

1. Begin with very low expectations. Do it because $1-5 you might earn in the early months is exciting for you.
2. Be prepared to work hard
3. Always be working towards being more efficient in your workflow, from beginning to end.
4. Be willing to spend money on more equipment to save time. You might think your time is free to you, but it is a cost. It is just a cost in a different manner. Part of efficient is being willing to spend money on equipment and software.

Of cause #4 is much easier to do when one has money to fund these purchases.

BikeTourist · « **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2016, 06:59 »

"What would be your most important advice to somebody new in Stock Photography?"

Truthfully? Don't do it.

Difydave · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2016, 08:02 »

Quote from: BikeTourist on January 07, 2016, 06:59

"What would be your most important advice to somebody new in Stock Photography?"

Truthfully? Don't do it.

I seriously think that if I was coming into now as a (with all due respect to the OP) "hobby photographer" I'd follow the advice above.
The OP might be an excellent hobby photographer, but even then it's going to be a hard slog these days to make anything from it.
Assuming I had some sort of DSLR, I certainly wouldn't be spending anything on the business until I'd actually made some money at it.

seawhisper · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2016, 08:39 »

When I read this topic I think it must be quite discouraging.

One might even think we would do that so we don't get a competition.

But I do believe many people put so much time and effort into building a portfolio so it's hard to get out.
And I do agree with most of opinions here.

The stock market is a hard one. It eats a LOT of time and builds frustration and disbelief in your own skills. I do believe it's much more profitable to became a wedding or any other kind of photographer. BUT you don't deal with customers you do as much as you want to, when you want to any way you want to. If you're smart and dedicated you probably might get some living out of it after a year or two.

The real question is if the stock sites will be able to support you after this year or two. I ask this because I see quite a worrying trend. More and more photos in the database, lowering the revenues and accepting lower quality photos.

I have a feeling in a time this market will have to change. I'm wondering what will come next.

But to sum up - if you still want to get in after reading all the advices.

Focus on... focus

and the noise. Low end cameras and lens tend to get highest rejection rate on these two aspects.
Do a lots of stats - how many photos you get accepted, what are main reasons for rejections, on which stock nad learn from it.

Predict on the data you have. You still need to work, you need to sleep, eat and have some family, maybe social, life. (Yup, that's also important.

) How much time does that leave on pushing photos into stock sites? How many photos do you already have and when do you find time to make new ones? How many photos are you able to put in one week, one month and so on? So how many photos accepted will you have in next three months, half of year, by the end of year?

Build your process - how do you keyword your photos, what software and what is the best way to automate it and do it faster.

Invest in learning digital photo enhancement - how to reduce noise, how to work on curves, how to best sharpen your pics. Learn much more about photoshop and lightroom then you already know.

Your time here is priceless, stock sites takes a lot of time so you need to maximize your results and minimize the time needed to do it.

Mantis · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2016, 09:05 »

Very hard to make it these days and I would say that the angle to have any degree of reasonable success beyond just quality (sharpness, noise, etc) is commercial viability with differentiation. You have to supply work that is commercially in demand, unique and hard to copy. There are some really good artists in this forum and not who are simply amazing at what they do. Many are Photoshop experts who can effectively combine imagery with PS manipulation, some like Sandralaise who is quite amazing at her light from a window shots.

Do not think you can get into stock by shooting snappies around town and make any money. I also believe you need to establish what financial goals are acceptable to you. $250 a month? $500 a month? Set your expectations low, but your goals high. There's a balance there.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #30 on:** January 07, 2016, 09:38 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 07, 2016, 09:05

Very hard to make it these days and I would say that the angle to have any degree of reasonable success beyond just quality (sharpness, noise, etc) is commercial viability with differentiation. You have to supply work that is commercially in demand, unique and hard to copy. There are some really good artists in this forum and not who are simply amazing at what they do. Many are Photoshop experts who can effectively combine imagery with PS manipulation, some like Sandralaise who is quite amazing at her light from a window shots.

Do not think you can get into stock by shooting snappies around town and make any money. I also believe you need to establish what financial goals are acceptable to you. $250 a month? $500 a month? Set your expectations low, but your goals high. There's a balance there.

Sandra is doing less and less work for Microstock these days - she's producing more for Stocksy and RM outlets. If people with the quality of Sandra are moving away from Microstock you can be sure the business model is failing...

noodle · « **Reply #31 on:** January 07, 2016, 10:30 »

There is an interesting shift seem to be taking place with a lot of the more talented photogs migrating to rm sites.
Im sure that whatever content from these ones is on micros will stay there and they will collect the residual income, whatever keeps getting generated. However, the micros will only be getting whatever work these ones produce as being deemed 'mediocre', or no new work at all, depending on the author. So some time down the road micros will have an overabundance of sub-par to professional i,ages ratio.
It will be interesting to see how these dynamics play out.. But the glory days of microstock have past, probably for all parties concerned.

cathyslife · « **Reply #32 on:** January 07, 2016, 11:09 »

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on January 07, 2016, 09:38

Quote from: Mantis on January 07, 2016, 09:05
Very hard to make it these days and I would say that the angle to have any degree of reasonable success beyond just quality (sharpness, noise, etc) is commercial viability with differentiation. You have to supply work that is commercially in demand, unique and hard to copy. There are some really good artists in this forum and not who are simply amazing at what they do. Many are Photoshop experts who can effectively combine imagery with PS manipulation, some like Sandralaise who is quite amazing at her light from a window shots.

Do not think you can get into stock by shooting snappies around town and make any money. I also believe you need to establish what financial goals are acceptable to you. $250 a month? $500 a month? Set your expectations low, but your goals high. There's a balance there.

Sandra is doing less and less work for Microstock these days - she's producing more for Stocksy and RM outlets. If people with the quality of Sandra are moving away from Microstock you can be sure the business model is failing...

I don't think it is the business model that is failing. Microstock was started to fulfill the market of people who can't afford to pay $100+ for a stock image. Contributors were supposed to be people who loved photography, weren't necessarily pros, and wanted to make some money off of their images. Anyone who is a pro or expert who wants to make more than pennies or dollars for an image absolutely should move on to higher grounds, and they absolutely do deserve to make more money.

But there are still lots of companies/individuals who can't afford to pay macrostock prices or hire a photographer for their stock photo needs. I think microstock is still a viable business model, I just think those who are producing excellent work will move away from microstock, and leave the "hobby" or part-time photographers to contribute to microstock, as was its intention. The goal of microstock hasn't changed, but the expectations of contributors have.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #33 on:** January 07, 2016, 11:14 »

The shift to Macro has been happening for sometime now.

Serious producers are putting new work into Macro and leaving what they had in Micro, I think some may even be shifting their better work from Micro to Macro, you can already see it happening with some of the Stocksy producers.

Personally I abandoned micro a while back and just concentrating on Macro now. I've given up on the Micro agencies curating anything or raising prices. Micro is out of control now, hell bent on taking in as much content as possible irrespective of quality and selling it out as cheap as possible. The libraries are full of dated poor quality clichés, it's turning designers off and micro is getting a deservedly bad rep.

To answer the OP, shoot what you love, and respect the craft of photography and the rest will follow. If you're in it for a quick buck shooting any old crap, well you'll find out soon enough...

Anyka · « **Reply #34 on:** January 07, 2016, 11:31 »

My advice : if you are a hobby photographer and you go into stock photography, find another hobby. Photography will stop being a hobby.

Monty-m-gue · « **Reply #35 on:** January 07, 2016, 11:34 »

Quote from: cathyslife on January 07, 2016, 11:09

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on January 07, 2016, 09:38
Quote from: Mantis on January 07, 2016, 09:05
Very hard to make it these days and I would say that the angle to have any degree of reasonable success beyond just quality (sharpness, noise, etc) is commercial viability with differentiation. You have to supply work that is commercially in demand, unique and hard to copy. There are some really good artists in this forum and not who are simply amazing at what they do. Many are Photoshop experts who can effectively combine imagery with PS manipulation, some like Sandralaise who is quite amazing at her light from a window shots.

Do not think you can get into stock by shooting snappies around town and make any money. I also believe you need to establish what financial goals are acceptable to you. $250 a month? $500 a month? Set your expectations low, but your goals high. There's a balance there.
[/quote

Sandra is doing less and less work for Microstock these days - she's producing more for Stocksy and RM outlets. If people with the quality of Sandra are moving away from Microstock you can be sure the business model is failing...

I don't think it is the business model that is failing. Microstock was started to fulfill the market of people who can't afford to pay $100+ for a stock image. Contributors were supposed to be people who loved photography, weren't necessarily pros, and wanted to make some money off of their images. Anyone who is a pro or expert who wants to make more than pennies or dollars for an image absolutely should move on to higher grounds, and they absolutely do deserve to make more money.

But there are still lots of companies/individuals who can't afford to pay macrostock prices or hire a photographer for their stock photo needs. I think microstock is still a viable business model, I just think those who are producing excellent work will move away from microstock, and leave the "hobby" or part-time photographers to contribute to microstock, as was its intention. The goal of microstock hasn't changed, but the expectations of contributors have.
]

The business model *did* work well for high-end, individual producers. It doesn't anymore. The Micro aesthetic is dated and the market is saturated - both high-end buyers and sensible producers have migrated elsewhere. What remains is a pond being ever diluted by the same old, same old cliches thousands upon thousands every day.

petersmall · « **Reply #36 on:** January 07, 2016, 13:59 »

My advice is to take into consideration the fact that images are bought because they are going to be used for a purpose.

For a project I'm working on (an illustrated directory), I look for images that will provide an imaginative representation of a website - but the vast majority of the stock I see is totally inappropriate. Surely, it would pay stock image producers to target particular subject areas and produce stock images that would be useful for those niches.

To explain: I've just posted this message on another forum. It illustrates how a potential stock buyer might have a use for stock images:

"I'm near to completing an illustrated directory for products that involves product suppliers creating imaginative artwork (480by400 pixels) to represent their websites.
As most product suppliers aren't very good at producing artwork themselves I need to provide them with a comprehensive directory of sources of help and inspiration.
I am providing links to all the stock images suppliers but I'd like to be able to put them in touch with creative artwork designers who can create customised artworks for them (using their own and/or purchased stock images). What is the best way to do this? How can I arrange this so that I can be sure that all artworks in my illustrated directory have appropriate permissions?

I'm not looking to earn commissions on these artworks as I see the contribution of the images as being a big plus and I'd like to do everything I can to promote the work of the artwork designers and let them receive the full price for their work.

Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated"

Peter Small
newbielink:mailto:[email protected] [nonactive]

cascoly · « **Reply #37 on:** January 07, 2016, 14:11 »

its been mentioned a bit but I'd strongly recommend resisting the urge to buy more equipment past the basics and instead invest in software to speed up post processing and iptc editing -- the adobe subscription to PS & lightroom is about $10/mo and speeds workflow enormously

re migration to macro -- what are the macro sites where people have been successful? alamy seems to have withered and 500px,crated, etc don't seem to produce many sales

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** January 07, 2016, 14:55 »

A lot of advice I'd give would relate to the reality 'now' as opposed to even a couple of years ago. Here's a Wayback machine screenshot of msg from Jan 2013. Compare the poll results there to those being reported now.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130115230159/http://www.microstockgroup.com
This is not a business that you can accurately make any sort of projection of income and profits. As well as your skills in producing images for the market and keywording, and being at the mercy of each site's search algorithm, you're also at the mercy of changing circumstances at each agency - they can change their side of their contract at any time (e.g. demoting images, cutting prices and/or commissions, sending to distributors, removing files, etc) and our only response can be to accept the changes or remove our files. Even then, sometimes people have reported great difficulties in getting their images off all 'associate' or 'distributor' sites.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #39 on:** January 07, 2016, 18:28 »

Only one person liked my analysis so I'm changing my response to go flip burgers.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #40 on:** January 08, 2016, 13:08 »

If we haven't turned you off by now, and you are still intent on entering stock photography, consider this entry path.

Take account of your vocations, hobbies, and vacations. Who are you and what do you do? If you are an architect, you likely have training in building styles and could shoot architecture and keyword to suit.

If you are a collector (stamps, coins, guns, cars...) you need photos for insurance purposes. Do the photos well enough to also sell as stock.

Do you do a lot of travel for business or vacation or even medical reasons? Skip the evening bar stop and produce cityscapes and street scenes at your remote location or along the way.

Drive a truck? Is there a photo op at the next layover?

Engineer? Can you do parts assemblies or CAD 3D modeling for stock? Or shoot the tools of the trades you have access too.

Like to sew? Cover all the various stitch styles. Photograph and identify patterns in blankets and quilts. How about your own needlepoint designs?

Like to write? Add photos to go along with your magazine/book submissions.

A dentist? Office settings, fillings and tooth repairs.

A florist? Identify individual flowers as they come through. Shoot the finished bouquets.

Photographing a street fair? Do it for money (or maybe free) for the organizing committee on the basis you can also use the images for stock sales.

A family and high school seniors photographer? You have a steady stream of people who might become models for fashion or business settings or family time in a home setting.

My point here is to find a way to add stock photography as a small incremental step onto something you are already well familiar. Keywording in the stock world is a major task and if you already have the knowledge of the environment you are a big step ahead. Photography should only be an incremental cost (the vacation money is already being spent for this "photo" trip) on top of your normal efforts. Access is also key for some locations (doctors office, museums, private locations) for photos within an environment if you have such. Contacts which may provide venue access are also helpful if you have what many others may not.

Don't think of just going into stock photography. Think of how you can add stock photography to something you already can do well. Then look for an advantage that you can provide where there might be market buyers and is not already over saturated.

Harvepino · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2016, 08:26 »

I started 5 years ago and I am now full time microstocker. While there are discouraging elements in this business described in many of the previous posts, there are many advantages as well... maybe not so many if you have family with children and need to pay mortgage, but if you like more "free" lifestyle, microstock might suit you well.

#1 It is time consuming - get ready for long working hours, lots of optimizing, efficiency is the key, or you'll spend lifetime sitting by your computer.

#2 Plan $ - I think your estimate of 5 sales per 1 photo per year is ok. I went with $1 per year as pesimistic estimate, $5 per year as optimistic estimate. I am now on $4 per image per year but careful, trend is decreasing cca $o.2 every year in my case.

#3 Find your niche - this is important to achieve efficiency and also helps you to keep improving in particular areas, beating competitors who are not as good at it. Find not one, but 5-10 various themes and keep working on them, test what sells and than produce more of it, get better at it, then try something new if you exhaust your theme.

#4 Keep learning - this market is so dynamic, you have to keep on the top of the changes. I had a lovely portfolio of landscapes from one beautiful destination. It was earning well, then 2 years on went dead. Other photographers appeared, they had better shots, HDR, filters, aerials, my photos were suddenly too "normal". Keep an eye on changes, adapt, keep getting better. This is not fun, this is very competitive market, treat it has business, but keep having fun taking photos and learning new stuff.

seawhisper · « **Reply #42 on:** January 12, 2016, 03:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 07, 2016, 14:55

A lot of advice I'd give would relate to the reality 'now' as opposed to even a couple of years ago. Here's a Wayback machine screenshot of msg from Jan 2013. Compare the poll results there to those being reported now.
http://web.archive.org/web/20130115230159/http://www.microstockgroup.com
This is not a business that you can accurately make any sort of projection of income and profits. As well as your skills in producing images for the market and keywording, and being at the mercy of each site's search algorithm, you're also at the mercy of changing circumstances at each agency - they can change their side of their contract at any time (e.g. demoting images, cutting prices and/or commissions, sending to distributors, removing files, etc) and our only response can be to accept the changes or remove our files. Even then, sometimes people have reported great difficulties in getting their images off all 'associate' or 'distributor' sites.

Well just out of curiosity - you gave me idea to put the webarchive results into excel. I can't go much earlier then 2013 because it seems the scale has been different before. Even based on three years it's interesting to observe the trends. The data collected is from january each year.

AlessandraRC · « **Reply #43 on:** January 19, 2016, 09:27 »

I am a beginner also and I don't have an advice per se but I have, since started on stock, lost most of my pleasure taking photos. I used to love photography and now I am obsessed with focus, noise, commercial value and sensor spots. I also have lost some of the enjoyment I had looking at pictures, mine included, since all I see are their technical problems.

So I don't know. I have also gained a new appreciation for my real job.

Karen · « **Reply #44 on:** January 19, 2016, 09:44 »

Quote from: AlessandraRC on January 19, 2016, 09:27

I am a beginner also and I don't have an advice per se but I have, since started on stock, lost most of my pleasure taking photos. I used to love photography and now I am obsessed with focus, noise, commercial value and sensor spots. I also have lost some of the enjoyment I had looking at pictures, mine included, since all I see are their technical problems.

So I don't know. I have also gained a new appreciation for my real job.

Some agencies has a random review process
Even if you are obsessed with focus or noise they
will accept or reject regardless

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #45 on:** January 19, 2016, 10:16 »

Quote from: AlessandraRC on January 19, 2016, 09:27

I am a beginner also and I don't have an advice per se but I have, since started on stock, lost most of my pleasure taking photos. I used to love photography and now I am obsessed with focus, noise, commercial value and sensor spots. I also have lost some of the enjoyment I had looking at pictures, mine included, since all I see are their technical problems.

That was quick.

Ronnie · « **Reply #46 on:** January 19, 2016, 21:25 »

1. Keep uploading
2. rejected? be strong, and Keep uploading
3. rejected by the reason you don't expect? be strong, and keep uploading
4. as a full time how many images can you uploading per month? I recommend at least 400~800 images per month<= this is my own reference, so keep uploading
5. don't be disappointed about rejection of your image, my approval % was only 30%~40%, and now increase to 85%~95%, so keep uploading
6. remember to learn something from rejected reason, and keep uploading
7. Portfolio exposure % is very important, and it depends on how many files do you have? so keep uploading
8.
9.
.
.
.
100. still keep uploading

this is my recommend, maybe not hlepful, but it is all true!!!

AlessandraRC · « **Reply #47 on:** January 19, 2016, 22:25 »

Quote from: PR Image Factory on January 19, 2016, 21:25

4. as a full time how many images can you uploading per month? I recommend at least 400~800 images per month<= this is my own reference, so keep uploading

this is my recommend, maybe not hlepful, but it is all true!!!

Isn't this a little excessive? Do you have a day job other than stock?

AlessandraRC · « **Reply #48 on:** January 19, 2016, 22:27 »

It is possible. The worst though is Zoonar with the "branches and random people" rejection excuse. $:-\$

[/quote]

Some agencies has a random review process
Even if you are obsessed with focus or noise they
will accept or reject regardless

[/quote]

Ronnie · « **Reply #49 on:** January 19, 2016, 22:38 »

Quote from: AlessandraRC on January 19, 2016, 22:25

Quote from: PR Image Factory on January 19, 2016, 21:25

4. as a full time how many images can you uploading per month? I recommend at least 400~800 images per month<= this is my own reference, so keep uploading

this is my recommend, maybe not hlepful, but it is all true!!!

Isn't this a little excessive? Do you have a day job other than stock?

I don't have any day job, but I do shoot wedding and Commercial photography too~!
sorry I mean " as a full time Stock photographer"

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What's your advice to somebody new to Stock Photography? (Read 10918 times)

charged

BikeTourist

Difydave

seawhisper

Mantis

Monty-m-gue

noodle

cathyslife

stock-will-eat-itself

Anyka

Monty-m-gue

petersmall

cascoly

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

StanRohrer

Harvepino

seawhisper

AlessandraRC

Karen

Sean Locke Photography

Ronnie

AlessandraRC

AlessandraRC

Ronnie

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors