MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs beginning  (Read 24953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 20, 2013, 13:11 »
+2
Makes sense.  Where do you envision the pros going?  Staying in micro, or migrating to RM and/or small boutique agencies?

It's hard to say. I think that is what is killing my theory is that not a lot exists to go to. It's all very Ayn Rand too.  ;D

The whole Stocksy and Offset popping up near each other was interesting. I like the idea of personal shops or Symbiostock type stuff being a factor. I'd love to see somebody like Dreamstime or Canstock just announce they no longer wanted to compete with Shutterstock anymore (since they really aren't anyway) and build micro 2.0. But, that seems like pure fantasy. It's probably easier to build a new site and experiment with it like Offset.


calcaneus10

« Reply #51 on: July 20, 2013, 13:27 »
+1
Wow, didn't think anyone would pull an Ayn Rand in here :)

From what I can see in Shutterstock at least, I believe microstock will be dominated by big microstock contributors.  How many contributors are contributing to the 150,000 pics that were accepted last week?  All I know is there are 40,000 contributors, 1 of those contributors had 10,000 pictures uploaded.

« Reply #52 on: July 20, 2013, 14:07 »
+1
Wow, didn't think anyone would pull an Ayn Rand in here :)

Yeah, I couldn't resist. Something about a bunch of capitalists moving to an island to start a utopian society free of regulations cracks me up every time I think about it. And, it always seems so appropriate for micro.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #53 on: July 20, 2013, 14:20 »
0
hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is  per definition non exclusive.

I'm not 100% I'm interpreting what you mean by 'rare earths', but I'm assuming you mean a geology specialist who has geological images which are rare in stock. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If these pics really have rarity value, it would be better for that person to sell through a specialist macro agency. However, as I've mentioned before, many (most?/all?) of these have high demands about numbers of introductory images, and particularly of the number to be added in certain periods of time, which may not be possible for someone who isn't working in the field full time.

So they'd have to consider either selling at Alamy or exclusively on iStock. Why on earth would you give away your rare images for cents on some other sites? Trouble is that while starting at iStock, you now are forced to give away your images for cents, both in the Main collection and in the PP. So until you have enough images to actually become exclusive, you are caught between a rock and a hard place, having to find enough buyers to let you become exclusive. Same on e.g. SS where you have to earn sales to get to higher levels. I'm guessing the demand on these images isn't very high, so any micro would be pointless, UNLESS this hobbyist is taking these photos anyway (because they are a professional or keen amateur geologist) and they take the photos to a high enough standard (what does that even mean on iStock nowadays?  ::))
Then at Alamy, the rock and hard place is that it's not the quality or rarity of the image which determines the price the image is sold for, but the discount the buyer has negotiated with Alamy. So the rarest of images can be sold for peanuts. Same on Getty.

« Reply #54 on: July 20, 2013, 14:58 »
-1

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck :)

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #55 on: July 20, 2013, 15:35 »
+2

Or profit is being made on people who does not make a profit. Isnt that called exploitation, like in the 16 tons a day song?

It can be compared to fishing an fishermen, when first the commercial fishermen have caught most of the fish, it does not pay to fish anymore and they stop.
The hobbyists continue to fish they are happy if just they catch something.
I can see its a brilliant setup for the agencies, very profitable. But in its nature it is exploitative.

this is true, and interesting to see how they treat us with such disrespect. It's not a race thing (which in the past the master/slave thing has boiled down to race or religion), this is just simple economics: we are expendable, from fledglings like me all the way up to Sean, and they treat us with open contempt.

« Reply #56 on: July 20, 2013, 15:37 »
-1
]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:05 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #57 on: July 20, 2013, 15:41 »
+1

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck :)

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.
Yes it should easily and without spending 2 to 3 thousand on a shoot.

Ron

« Reply #58 on: July 20, 2013, 16:32 »
0

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck :)

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.
How many images do you get from a 2000-3000 euro shoot? 100? 200?

25 x 100 = 2500 dollar, 2000 euro is 2700 dollar. Thats a loss over the life time of the image. If the shoot is 3000 dollar is not even sustainable.

I would never in a million years chuck 3000 euro into a shoot if break even is 2 years. That money is tied up way too long before it starts to return a profit. Its risky business in my opinion. But I could be wrong, maybe it works differently in stock photography.

« Reply #59 on: July 20, 2013, 16:54 »
0
http://www.shutterstock.com/g/belchonock/sets

Of the 150,000 some images added on SS this week, 10,000 was from the factory above.  I looked at this guy's port one month ago, and since that time he/she/they has/have added 40,000 images!!!!   Mind boggling.  Kudos to them--smart businesspeople.


274614 images.... plus 10K added in a week!  Gotta wonder... how many employees are needed to do that?

« Reply #60 on: July 20, 2013, 16:58 »
+1
I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot :)

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

« Reply #61 on: July 20, 2013, 17:20 »
+1

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck :)

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.

That sounds great because "life time" can mean whatever it takes I guess... so it's always true :D

« Reply #62 on: July 20, 2013, 17:25 »
0
I wonder what is included in the 2k euro shoot :)

- 100 eur per hour / model?
- how many people working on the pictures beside the photographer(s)?
- studio rent, electricity, water?
- lighting equipment?
- insurance?
- computer, monitors, photoshop?

You can easily get to 2K just by buying fancy clothes for a handful of models, but It's simply unecessary.

farbled

« Reply #63 on: July 20, 2013, 18:08 »
+1
hasnt it already happened? For the nische markets?

Fx it is not sustaibnable for a hobbyist in rare earths to be an istock exclutive. He needs all the downloads he can get from whatever source. And every agency has a few, that goes his way,

Meaning... such a hobyist must be and is  per definition non exclusive.

I'm not 100% I'm interpreting what you mean by 'rare earths', but I'm assuming you mean a geology specialist who has geological images which are rare in stock. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

If these pics really have rarity value, it would be better for that person to sell through a specialist macro agency. However, as I've mentioned before, many (most?/all?) of these have high demands about numbers of introductory images, and particularly of the number to be added in certain periods of time, which may not be possible for someone who isn't working in the field full time.

So they'd have to consider either selling at Alamy or exclusively on iStock. Why on earth would you give away your rare images for cents on some other sites? Trouble is that while starting at iStock, you now are forced to give away your images for cents, both in the Main collection and in the PP. So until you have enough images to actually become exclusive, you are caught between a rock and a hard place, having to find enough buyers to let you become exclusive. Same on e.g. SS where you have to earn sales to get to higher levels. I'm guessing the demand on these images isn't very high, so any micro would be pointless, UNLESS this hobbyist is taking these photos anyway (because they are a professional or keen amateur geologist) and they take the photos to a high enough standard (what does that even mean on iStock nowadays?  ::))
Then at Alamy, the rock and hard place is that it's not the quality or rarity of the image which determines the price the image is sold for, but the discount the buyer has negotiated with Alamy. So the rarest of images can be sold for peanuts. Same on Getty.

Thought I'd chime in now as a hobbyist AND one that specializes in rare earth minerals and geology (Since it came up.  I think there might be others, but I don't know of any). The really fun part about not being dependent on MS for my living is that I can try various avenues for my images, whether RM, speciality sites catering to only industrial, MS and self-hosting. I can tell you from doing this part-time for the last 6 years is that most of the suppositions made earlier are incorrect. I have researched and tried all available avenues that I've been able to find and I am pleased with the return on my time investment (my gear was bought and paid for by other photographic business, as was finding my subjects for my niche market).

For me, MS was, is and always will be a quick and easy way for me to make extra money on photos that otherwise would sit on my hard drive after they were paid for.

Yes, some are very rare. But you have to ask that if very few buyers want them, how many is very few? 10? 100? 1000?  What makes it worth it to a hobbyist? I strongly suspect you'd be shocked what one of my all time best sellers is (not gold), and who consistently buys it. I'm not exclusive but I am not on many sites anymore because I can't be bothered with low returning ones (including Alamy, they don't have buyers in my niche). I'm leaning more towards my Symbiostock site and if/once I generate enough sales through my marketing efforts, I'll move them there exclusively.

All that aside, it's a terrible niche, not worth anyone else trying it or giving it another thought. :)




« Reply #64 on: July 20, 2013, 21:05 »
-1
]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:05 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2013, 01:39 »
+2
Production cost is 2000-3000 euros per photo session. I do not know, maybe really.  I think in US or in western part of Europe fees for models are would be two-three times higher than in Estonia. Our overall income is simply 2-3 lower.

Next is out of topic already. I do assignments and a lot of architectural assignments. I send same images usually to macrostock too. But I have no costs. Only some euros for gas. And I am paid by customer already. Best solution. And an income from marcostock is bonus.

Today only some contibutors can live from stock only. Sure there are such people. But they started some time ago.  It is very important for  your ranking. A competition was not so high like today. If a contributor started in time and her/his images were very good then they sold lot of images. And all agencies loves a people whose images sells well. Searching system displaying their images usually at first. So if you have no good sale history it is very high to be on top.


http://goo.gl/Lv2HF

Ron

« Reply #66 on: July 21, 2013, 01:48 »
0

I tend to believe the second.  Honestly, Lev, do you believe you can continue to spend 2-3k per shoot and make a profit?

with 7 years of stock experience and 700+ stock shoots made so far - yes, i do.

Good luck :)

Let's just say I too have a reaaally hard time believing those numbers. Reminds of the SS bragathon threads : )
a portfolio of high quality images should easily be able to make $25 per image over a life time.
How many images do you get from a 2000-3000 euro shoot? 100? 200?

25 x 100 = 2500 dollar, 2000 euro is 2700 dollar. Thats a loss over the life time of the image. If the shoot is 3000 dollar is not even sustainable.

I would never in a million years chuck 3000 euro into a shoot if break even is 2 years. That money is tied up way too long before it starts to return a profit. Its risky business in my opinion. But I could be wrong, maybe it works differently in stock photography.
I was using dolgachevs port size divided by 700 shoots of $2000.  That comes out to needing to make $25 per shot.  Didn't yuri have a million istock sales on around 20000 images?  That's probably more than $50 or $100 per shot just on istock and they will continue to sell.
I missed it that he said he had done 700 photo shoots. I cant find that comment.


« Reply #67 on: July 21, 2013, 02:23 »
+3
"it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations."
.... that's the line I burning in my head. what is the point than?
I hope there are people doing ok that take vacations.

There are probably some pretty smart people with lower overheads taking time off and still making a living between macro, micro, and alamy.  I have to wonder what kind of profit is actually being made with that kind of overhead and workload. I hope a lot. I would need a few million to give up weekends for a year. 

There should be a new poll - how many make 80% or more if there living from stock and still take weekends off. 



Lev

« Reply #68 on: July 21, 2013, 04:49 »
+1
i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 06:50 by dolgachov »

farbled

« Reply #69 on: July 21, 2013, 09:39 »
+1
i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.

Not a waste at all. If it works for you and you enjoy it, then you're doing it right! All the best!

« Reply #70 on: July 21, 2013, 10:28 »
+2
"it's about fighting for market every single day, no days off, no vacations."
.... that's the line I burning in my head. what is the point than?
I hope there are people doing ok that take vacations.

There are probably some pretty smart people with lower overheads taking time off and still making a living between macro, micro, and alamy.  I have to wonder what kind of profit is actually being made with that kind of overhead and workload. I hope a lot. I would need a few million to give up weekends for a year. 

There should be a new poll - how many make 80% or more if there living from stock and still take weekends off.

If I worked the sort of hours suggested here I'd have made millions out of this.  I'm extremely lazy but I make enough to get by on  with very little effort just by sticking to the original idea of microstock and not getting involved in location expenses, model fees and all the rest of it. I feel I'm being a complete wastrel if I spend as much as $30 on a shoot. I'm about to embark on one now that cost me $8 - and I can tell you that I hummed and hawed over whether to invest that much!
It might sound stupid, but look at the implications for the figures. Within three of four years a really successful shoot can bring me in 100 times what it cost. To match that sort of return, Dolgachov would have to make $250,000 from one of his shoots in three years, or $80,000 a year - whereas he says that getting close to 5% of that would represent a highly successful shoot.
On the downside, he says that a shoot might completely flop, leaving him about $2,500 out of pocket. I have flops, too, that can leave me as much as $25 out of pocket. The $2,500 he can lose on one shoot is more than I would budget for an entire year of (lazy) stock shooting.
And it gets better (for me) because I am wildly over-estimating my costs. In fact they are less than zero because (you guessed it) most of my subjects end up getting eaten. It saves on eating out and means we almost completely avoid salty, processed foods, too.
What this boils down to is that while the professional studios incur very high costs and high risks for a fairly low margin and a limited upside, I have almost no costs, no downside risk, a large profit margin and a gigantic potential upside.
That's why he has to work hard and I don't.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 10:30 by BaldricksTrousers »

farbled

« Reply #71 on: July 21, 2013, 10:34 »
0
I'm extremely lazy but I make enough to get by on  with very little effort just by sticking to the original idea of microstock and not getting involved in location expenses, model fees and all the rest of it.
That sums it up completely for me as well. Nicely put.

Ron

« Reply #72 on: July 21, 2013, 10:35 »
+1
i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.
I thought the part you deleted was a good summary of a photoshoot. You really have it all thought out. THats good.

« Reply #73 on: July 21, 2013, 11:37 »
+1
i believe i told way too much and wasted way too much time here.

have a great success with sales, everybody.

I believe you haven't told/spent much time here looking at your 41 posts in over 6 years ;D

lisafx

« Reply #74 on: July 21, 2013, 14:25 »
0
What this boils down to is that while the professional studios incur very high costs and high risks for a fairly low margin and a limited upside, I have almost no costs, no downside risk, a large profit margin and a gigantic potential upside.
That's why he has to work hard and I don't.

^^Exactly!!

I can't say I have no expenses, but I will say my most expensive photo shoot ever cost me around $500, and most of them cost a couple hundred dollars or less.  And that's with models, props, locations, etc. Most locations I shoot will trade for photos, and so will some models. 

I DO take weekends off, and some weekdays too.  The whole reason I prefer working for myself is so that I can have free time to do other things that are important to me, such as volunteer work, spending time with family, and - yes- sitting on my a$s.  ;D

And I manage to make a living at this.  I'm not in the same league as the factories, but then my overhead is way lower and my lifestyle is exactly how I want it. 

I am sorry that the agencies have made it tougher to make a living in stock, but I think that applies across the board, whether you have 5k in your port, or 50k.

Even for those who bust hump to up their production to compensate for falling incomes, you can only do that so long.  You will, sooner or later, reach maximum capacity, and once that happens, it's time for the law of diminishing returns to kick in.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
18883 Views
Last post August 07, 2018, 13:05
by Pauws99
13 Replies
13467 Views
Last post October 08, 2020, 10:40
by Uncle Pete
59 Replies
14011 Views
Last post November 29, 2022, 06:40
by falantus
5 Replies
3000 Views
Last post March 29, 2022, 19:19
by OM
22 Replies
3196 Views
Last post January 30, 2024, 09:58
by SuperPhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors