MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Can I really earn a full time income from microstock?  (Read 45944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #175 on: April 01, 2010, 15:26 »
0

I used to assume that adverts/websites that feature a pretty girl wearing a headset , usually with the tagline "Phone us on ... " was actually who I was going to speak to.


LOL!  So who you thought you were talking to was this:



But who you were actually talking to was this:  



  :-*   :o  ;D


« Reply #176 on: April 01, 2010, 16:35 »
0
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

« Reply #177 on: April 01, 2010, 20:06 »
0
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

voila, I rest my case, Mr. Locke !
not everyone will turn to the back of the page to read the fine print who took the image. the general perception will be the author is the photographer of all the images . thus, same perception at a seminar of how to make $$$ selling stock photos.

« Reply #178 on: April 01, 2010, 20:30 »
0
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

One of my images was on the front cover of a 'how to improve your snaps in Photoshop' magazine as the "after correction image". The before image was a desaturated/contrast reduced version of the uploaded one (which did in fact look scarily like my out of the camera image!)

« Reply #179 on: April 02, 2010, 07:33 »
0
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

One of my images was on the front cover of a 'how to improve your snaps in Photoshop' magazine as the "after correction image". The before image was a desaturated/contrast reduced version of the uploaded one (which did in fact look scarily like my out of the camera image!)

slightly OT,
Sean, Sue,..
would such a usage be considered Editorial?
eg. if you have a shot of a wedding or a bride , but you were not able to get a MR ...
because the bride is a foreign bride or whatever the reasons.

and say you give it to stock as Editorial. and someone used it on the cover of his book like this .
Is it possible?

My asking is, actually , are book covers also considered Editorials?
Do such images have sale potential ?

lagereek

« Reply #180 on: April 02, 2010, 08:37 »
0
Funny this!  back in the 80s,  with agencies like Tony-Stone and The-Image-Bank ( nowdays owned by Getty), there used to be a whole heap of photographers earning well over 100K per year. That was regarded as "pretty good"  because there were som top names that even clocking up earnings of betwwen 300-400K per year.  Not bad, hey?

This was in the Trad-agencies hey-day,  good old days.

« Reply #181 on: April 02, 2010, 08:46 »
0
Funny this!  back in the 80s,  with agencies like Tony-Stone and The-Image-Bank ( nowdays owned by Getty), there used to be a whole heap of photographers earning well over 100K per year. That was regarded as "pretty good"  because there were som top names that even clocking up earnings of betwwen 300-400K per year.  Not bad, hey?

This was in the Trad-agencies hey-day,  good old days.

ah yes, lagereek, but those were the good ole days.
in those days, I was a bloody green horn beginning, new to the business, yet I was earning far more than I am earning now as a retired.
I remember my first photo essay earning me $150 per page of 5 photos and a short essay. Today, the editors offer a tearsheet and credit...
not even a danish and coffee.
in those days, not everyone can afford a view camera, or  a Nikon F, and even if they did, not everyone knows how to use anything
other than the Instamatic.
Today, a chimp could take better images with any DSLR if you give them enough bananas to eat.  :D

« Reply #182 on: April 03, 2010, 19:53 »
0
Quote
Can I really earn a full time income from microstock?

I think its possible but not very easy.

« Reply #183 on: April 03, 2010, 22:22 »
0
i've always been skeptic about workshops : why someone would teach you his secrets instead of being in the field shooting
more photos ?

Those who can't do, "teach" (or blog).

Completely agree, and thanks for separating "teach *or* blog".  Not all blogs pretend to teach.  ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #184 on: April 04, 2010, 03:03 »
0

My asking is, actually , are book covers also considered Editorials?
Do such images have sale potential ?

Book covers apparently are not necessarily considered Editorial.
I had one on the cover of a biography with no credit, and when I asked (only on the forums, mind), the consensus was that this is not editorial use. Whereas I tend to think that editorial is sort-of equivalent to non-fiction, not just confined to the opinion column of a newspaper.
If only interpreted in the latter narrow way, what sense does it make for e.g. iStock to insist on credits only in editorial usage?
(Maybe everyone should be required to give credits, which would help transparency in advertising. Double whammy.  ;D

« Reply #185 on: April 04, 2010, 08:30 »
0
So you are saying you are not good photographer?
I know you are. Just joking.
Well I'm a bad poster here since Leaf keeps censoring me all the time.  ;D

« Reply #186 on: April 04, 2010, 13:48 »
0

My asking is, actually , are book covers also considered Editorials?
Do such images have sale potential ?

Book covers apparently are not necessarily considered Editorial.
I had one on the cover of a biography with no credit, and when I asked (only on the forums, mind), the consensus was that this is not editorial use. Whereas I tend to think that editorial is sort-of equivalent to non-fiction, not just confined to the opinion column of a newspaper.
If only interpreted in the latter narrow way, what sense does it make for e.g. iStock to insist on credits only in editorial usage?
(Maybe everyone should be required to give credits, which would help transparency in advertising. Double whammy.  ;D

it's more a question of whether the use is on a commercial product [selling a book], or used to illustrate an editorial position [textbook,magazine article.  thus you'd need to license a picture of a movie star to put on a book cover, but not for an artice in a newspaper

steve

« Reply #187 on: April 04, 2010, 14:00 »
0
I wouldn't mind betting that there are quite a few earning these figures just with micro stock. 
Funny this!  back in the 80s,  with agencies like Tony-Stone and The-Image-Bank ( nowdays owned by Getty), there used to be a whole heap of photographers earning well over 100K per year. That was regarded as "pretty good"  because there were som top names that even clocking up earnings of betwwen 300-400K per year.  Not bad, hey?

This was in the Trad-agencies hey-day,  good old days.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #188 on: April 07, 2010, 18:27 »
0


Agreed^^

I never realized how naive a lot of people are until I started selling stock.  Apparently the vast majority believe the people in advertisements they see actually USE the products!  They are shocked to learn what stock is and that it is in so many advertisements.

it should be mandatory to teach in schools how advertisement works and i would add also cinema
and music to top it off.

but i learnt the hard way that people eats anything they see on TV exactly because they lack
the minimum required skepticism and analytical skills needed to "reverse engineer" the crap
they see on ADS and propaganda of any sort.

they simply have no f... clue of how this world works nor they're the least interested
in reading a user's manual or whatever technical or anything that takes more than
their average attention span of 3-4 seconds.

« Reply #189 on: April 07, 2010, 20:55 »
0
Funny this!  back in the 80s,  with agencies like Tony-Stone and The-Image-Bank ( nowdays owned by Getty), there used to be a whole heap of photographers earning well over 100K per year. That was regarded as "pretty good"  because there were som top names that even clocking up earnings of betwwen 300-400K per year.  Not bad, hey?

This was in the Trad-agencies hey-day,  good old days.

I should think that should equate to $300k in todays money

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #190 on: April 08, 2010, 00:51 »
0
it should be mandatory to teach in schools how advertisement works and i would add also cinema
and music to top it off.

but i learnt the hard way that people eats anything they see on TV exactly because they lack
the minimum required skepticism and analytical skills needed to "reverse engineer" the crap
they see on ADS and propaganda of any sort.

ads are the best thing on TV - so bad they are interrupted by stupid shows

I particularly like the good old ads of the 60s which were promoting an irrealistic way of life full of parties and pretty girls and alcohol; nowadays unfortunately ads are talking about cheap products and special offers, and adjusted their style accordingly, way less cool - so I stopped watching TV
« Last Edit: April 08, 2010, 00:55 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #191 on: November 10, 2010, 14:51 »
0
Great Reading! Thanks for the link :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
10490 Views
Last post March 05, 2007, 17:20
by madelaide
8 Replies
3969 Views
Last post August 30, 2007, 03:02
by leaf
49 Replies
10292 Views
Last post January 30, 2011, 09:15
by iahulbak
34 Replies
4510 Views
Last post July 04, 2013, 22:23
by tickstock
49 Replies
10730 Views
Last post March 01, 2016, 03:45
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results