pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: $ 100 000 royalties?  (Read 17335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 03, 2010, 23:53 »
0
I was looking at this famous picture took by Istock exclusive photographer Eva Serrabassa, I guess she is pretty close to $100 000 commission in 4 years?
(picture downloaded more than 19 000 time)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1921014-wishes.php


vonkara

« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2010, 00:16 »
0
Omg not this picture again. It's everywhere. I will need a microstock positivism cliches therapy soon.

« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2010, 00:22 »
0
he he:) do you agree on the number by the way?

vonkara

« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2010, 00:34 »
0
Let see... I would say an average of 4$ per download. A little bit less than your estimation (80 000$). You should do a poll, then ask her who's winning

« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2010, 00:36 »
0
I gave a bit more since she is exclusive and EL boost $/dl but yes can be lower as well

« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2010, 05:12 »
0
My guessing is she's closer to 30,000 or maybe 40,000, but only she knows the exact amount...

« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 05:14 »
0
Look, mine alreay has one download,lolol
I hope for 80 000 as well  ;D


« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2010, 05:15 »
0
double post

« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2010, 05:53 »
0
No way.  Maybe $25k.

« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2010, 06:08 »
0
80k

« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2010, 06:09 »
0
Who knows how many extra small downloads the image had....

« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2010, 08:41 »
0
That shot has been there forever, so many of the DL were probably early on at the older lower payouts.

Certainly it has some ELs. I have seen it used on product packaging on a major brand electronics item just for starters. I can't count the number of times I have run across it on the web and in print.

We should all be so lucky as to have just ONE shot like this that really takes off  ;D
 

« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2010, 10:30 »
0
Anywhere from 60K to 120K

I'd say about 75K if I was guessing

« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2010, 10:44 »
0
Who knows how many extra small downloads the image had....

and the opposite :P

« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2010, 10:45 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 10:53 by cybernesco »

« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2010, 11:53 »
0
Thanks for your replies, I was a bit optimistic:) but still fantastic results even if 25k:)

« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2010, 13:05 »
0
Istock will probably have made nearly $100K from that image.

vonkara

« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2010, 13:22 »
0
 ^ Yes, true

« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2010, 13:40 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2010, 14:38 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!

I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2010, 15:01 »
0
$100K is a bit optimistic... however it's a good picture, I like colours - whatever she earned it's well deserved

« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2010, 15:07 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption?  Denis
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 15:14 by cybernesco »

« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2010, 15:29 »
0
Istock will probably have made nearly $100K from that image.

That is true.  Istock is certainly highly profitable for the owner(s)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 15:31 by cybernesco »

« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2010, 15:30 »
0
error

alias

« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2010, 16:19 »
0
I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

$20K-$35K depends on ELs. Probably < $30K. On pure stats I guess that ^SL is on the money.

« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2010, 17:52 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

You mustn't have been around back in the days when the earnings were:
Small - $.10
Medium - $.20
Large - $.30

« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2010, 17:57 »
0
Could this be it was the FIOW sometime? Sorry, I didn't know the free downloads are counted separately.


« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2010, 06:54 »
0
  Some day I'll crunch the numbers to find out. 


Unfortunate for you that FT does not provide those figures, although that has often been asked for... ::)

« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2010, 07:07 »
0
  Some day I'll crunch the numbers to find out. 


Unfortunate for you that FT does not provide those figures, although that has often been asked for... ::)

never thought in that.. it is true you cannot know how much a photo have earned there, really weird in fact!

Microbius

« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2010, 07:56 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet.  

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption?  Denis
Dennis, I think ichiro is an illustrator (or at least has some illustrations in his folio) so might be basing their calculations on this. I reckon you're very close to the mark with with your guesstimate

ETA sorry this is totally wrong, he's not an illustrator. I mixed him up with someone else, just realised who he is. It might just be an exclusive/ non exclusive thing.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 03:36 by Microbius »

« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2010, 14:53 »
0
  Some day I'll crunch the numbers to find out. 


Unfortunate for you that FT does not provide those figures, although that has often been asked for... ::)

never thought in that.. it is true you cannot know how much a photo have earned there, really weird in fact!

You can, you just have to manually add it up which is very time consuming.

Mat


« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2010, 16:53 »
0
To figure out your own sales stats in FT go to the Sold Files Tab and Click the ID link.  That will sort your pics in order but you then need to do the math manually.

-Mat

Yes, it's possible...
But too much effort, so I never ever did it...

« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2010, 19:16 »
0
To figure out your own sales stats in FT go to the Sold Files Tab and Click the ID link.  That will sort your pics in order but you then need to do the math manually.

-Mat
hmmmm nice :)

« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2010, 19:51 »
0
$100K is a bit optimistic... however it's a good picture, I like colours - whatever she earned it's well deserved

Is it joke or another glitch in they perfect fabulous "system"???
For me it is good snapshot with lets say good composition but wrong white balance at all, and if I am inspector I will refuse it. (I dont look image in full size but maybe there is some noise and all over an all over overprocessing problems which I gave from them form day to day)
Actually I see that author of image improve his skills and he also knows that he shoot image as snap and in his early days didnt know about Levels and Curves or other Photoshop tools, just for bad manipulation on color balance tool and thats it.
Allsoo I thing this image is in some kind of they dollar bin which survive month after month with downloads.
Lets compare this case in this way.
If there is half millions of buyers at iStock its means that 3.8% of them by this image.
Anyhow he/she/it is exclusives and for them iStock have another optics...

« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2010, 00:13 »
0
For me it is good snapshot with lets say good composition but wrong white balance at all, and if I am inspector I will refuse it.

...and that's why you're not an inspector.

« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2010, 06:39 »
0
Actually, I have to agree with him on this one ;).  I've always thought the color/wb was off on that image and can't figure out why it sells so much.

« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2010, 01:25 »
0
Actually, I have to agree with him on this one ;).  I've always thought the color/wb was off on that image and can't figure out why it sells so much.

Cos designers and bloggers don't care as much as iStock likes to pretend. A designer can always chuck a cooling filter over it and a blogger probably just thinks its a nice dreamy-looking picture. Micro quality control is probably about limiting the number of contributors and collection size, as much as it is about setting standards that are "right" for buyers. Look at how quality requirements have soared, in line with the way top contributors have driven up their quality to compete. If iStock had applied 2010 standards in 2004 it would probably still be struggling to get half-a-million images online (if nothing gets accepted, nobody bothers submitting). If it had maintained 2004 requirements up to now, it would probably have five times the number of images which would dilute the search and the earnings ultimately making it a less attractive outlet for sellers and not worth professional investment.

Bruce set the acceptance/rejection ratio at 50% and that has stayed pretty much constant despite users upgrading from digital rebels to Mark 1 Ds or Hasselblads.

That image accounts for about 6% of the contributors entire sales and 1% of his porfolio has produced 20% of his sales. It shows how much luck is involved in getting the handful of pictures that prop up a portfolio. Having a few big sellers might also boost the rest of the portfolio by attraction attention to it and - maybe - enhancing its search ranking.

 

« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2010, 03:51 »
0
Actually, I have to agree with him on this one ;).  I've always thought the color/wb was off on that image and can't figure out why it sells so much.

That's exactly what I thought, but I was afraid to tell. The face is too dark too ::)

« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2010, 04:10 »
0
may i know how to tell a white balance of a photo is wrong?

« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2010, 04:23 »
0
may i know how to tell a white balance of a photo is wrong?

If the image overall looks too brown or too blue then the WB is probably off. It's a bit subjective, since it is perfectly legitimate to shift the WB so far that a daytime scene turns blue, giving the impression that it is evening, or you might have a scene composed largely of shadows where you choose to set WB for sunlight, creating a cold light on the main subject. However, those are artistic decisions, this looks as if the WB simply  wasn't nailed properly to create an accurate impression of the scene. But with 19,000 sales, who would care?

« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2010, 23:48 »
+1
may i know how to tell a white balance of a photo is wrong?

If the image overall looks too brown or too blue then the WB is probably off. It's a bit subjective, since it is perfectly legitimate to shift the WB so far that a daytime scene turns blue, giving the impression that it is evening, or you might have a scene composed largely of shadows where you choose to set WB for sunlight, creating a cold light on the main subject. However, those are artistic decisions, this looks as if the WB simply  wasn't nailed properly to create an accurate impression of the scene. But with 19,000 sales, who would care?

I think the 19,000 sales proves she got the white balance exactly correct. Dead-true whites and skin tones are not necessarily what every single photo needs. A lot of shots with skin tones tend to lean towards the yellow/red to give them warmth. The correct white balance is the one that will produce the most sales, not the one that will even out the numbers in the curves dialog box.

« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2010, 01:38 »
0
I think the image looks ok to me, i guess off-WB will only be 'obvious' for some indoor studio shoot?

I will try different WB if indoor light is too yellow, but outdoor shot i always let it AWB, auto whitebalance..

i got one more question, is this WB less a problem for film photography? are those film users always will use color filter to offset white balance too?

rubyroo

« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2010, 03:17 »
0
I think the 19,000 sales proves she got the white balance exactly correct.

My thoughts exactly - if those sales are what you get when you get the white balance wrong, I'm going to start screwing up my white balance from this day onwards  ;)

« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2010, 03:46 »
0
I think the 19,000 sales proves she got the white balance exactly correct.

My thoughts exactly - if those sales are what you get when you get the white balance wrong, I'm going to start screwing up my white balance from this day onwards  ;)

The white balance is off and you can see it by the color of the skin (if your monitor is calibrated). And this image has so many downloads simply because it was one of the first decent looking (and maybe even the first) image with a child blowing a dandelion. After this image, you will see tons of similar images and some of them are much better. But the photographer of this image simply had a great idea. You can now make similar images, but they will never reach this number of downloads (well, maybe if your image is really great and you wait several years from now). :)

White balance which is slightly off is not so important for buyers anyway. Smaller number will buy the photo and really do some photo manipulation with it. Bigger number will simply buy the photo and stick it in the column of the magazine. They will simply trust the the stock agency, and just crop the photo in the way they like it.

rubyroo

« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2010, 04:06 »
0
DF... every time I think I've found the simple answer to instant riches, someone comes along and says something sensible and logical and spoils it.   OK... scrap the screwy white balance idea... I'll just have to go back in time instead. :D

« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2010, 06:33 »
0
DF... every time I think I've found the simple answer to instant riches, someone comes along and says something sensible and logical and spoils it.   OK... scrap the screwy white balance idea... I'll just have to go back in time instead. :D
lol, :D
that would be quite awesome.

« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2010, 07:39 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!

I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

You aren't following the simple math

Try again...

« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2010, 08:22 »
0
Actually, I have to agree with him on this one ;).  I've always thought the color/wb was off on that image and can't figure out why it sells so much.

I think it is largely down to the huge number of popular subjects it can be used for __ outdoors, summer, kids, playing, vacations, nature, happiness, etc, etc.

« Reply #50 on: August 12, 2010, 09:02 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!

I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

You aren't following the simple math

Try again...

Therefore, if you want to follow simple math, how about answering my original question?

My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption?  Denis

« Reply #51 on: August 12, 2010, 09:39 »
0
I'm basing my assumption on my one image that has half the downloads of that one image.  So, around $35k, probably.  Or whatever it was I said before.

« Reply #52 on: August 12, 2010, 09:53 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!

I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

You aren't following the simple math

Try again...

Therefore, if you want to follow simple math, how about answering my original question?

My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption?  Denis

Almost 10000, of which 6000 have been exclusive.  So, umm, ya...whatever. 

« Reply #53 on: August 12, 2010, 10:07 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!

I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

You aren't following the simple math

Try again...

Therefore, if you want to follow simple math, how about answering my original question?

My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption?  Denis

Almost 10000, of which 6000 have been exclusive.  So, umm, ya...whatever. 

Therefore...it appears that you are probably a bit more fortunate then the rest of us. Good for you. Denis

« Reply #54 on: August 12, 2010, 10:28 »
0
I'm basing my assumption on my one image that has half the downloads of that one image.  So, around $35k, probably.  Or whatever it was I said before.

In my case my best image, as a non-exclusive, with 2510 downloads, has an average of .99 per download.  My total downloads of all images bring it down to .93 per download. I guess the more downloads the more accurate you can be. Congradualtion on that one image sjlocke. Denis
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 10:40 by cybernesco »

cmcderm1

  • Chad McDermott - Elite Image Photography
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2010, 16:57 »
0
Whether it's $30K or $100K, I'd effing take half either way.  That's just an insanely great number.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
5503 Views
Last post November 26, 2006, 01:54
by yingyang0
7 Replies
3534 Views
Last post June 09, 2009, 22:26
by rene
59 Replies
13383 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 15:05
by djpadavona
10 Replies
2927 Views
Last post May 08, 2011, 19:34
by jamirae
84 Replies
15092 Views
Last post October 07, 2011, 07:32
by sam100

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results