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?

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.
 

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
 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'd say forget it.   It's over.   

Well, you asked.

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.

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".

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


Truthfully?  Don't do it.

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.

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...

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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 

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!!!

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]

My advice:

"Don't"

MicroStock Photography has so far had some positive effects on me:

• I end up organizing my picture folders (systemize, delete bad pictures, categorize, rate and keyword them
• I became more attentive to what marketing agencies and companies want (understanding of marketing and consumer behaviour)
• I learnt about resolution, how to avoid noise in images, image composition and more tips and tricks on how to make good images
• There is a certain "feel good factor" when uploaded pictures are being approved, but this satisfaction may not last long without an extrinsic motivation (getting paid first $ for the uploaded images. So far it is $0)

Few thoughts on the economics of Microstocks:

• So far it has been very time consuming to add keywords, descriptions and upload images (even just a few)
• There seem to be "super professional" stock agencies out there (e.g. Yuri Arcurs having a staff of 100+ people in South Africa) - they have made good money and are now diversifying (e.g. audio production, owning their own image distribution platforms etc.)
• It seems to be a 4% / 96% industry, where 4% of the Photographers make 96% of the sales. Based on Pareto's 80/20 Rule.
• It is probably not worth your time unless you can go full time, invest in a studio, models, assistants, equipment so that you can break into the 4% of top performers to reap a chunk of the 96% sales.

If I am wrong and there are hobby photographers out there who started recently and are making few hundred bucks a month (and have fun doing it), please let me know. I still like the idea of submitting some 200-300 images a year and reaching some point where the images can finance new photography gear (I am not expecting a full time income).

Thanks for all the great comments and feedbacks so far! This forum has been really helpful!

To me microstock is just a hobby and I enjoy doing it. I do footage only and find stills photography way too tedious but thats a biased opinion seeing as I work in post production for video and film anyway.

My advice - Don't do it for the money. Do it as a hobby (something other than playing video games or slouching on the couch watching TV). To me its a motivator to learn more, achieve something tangible with my free time. I treat the money as a bonus not a goal...