As another relative newbie (microstocking just under 1.5 years) my experience matches joingate's.   About 8 to 10 hours a week, due to family and the full time job, and microstock is now about 1/3 of my income.  Having the same difficulty building up a decent iStock port due to the upload limits and their strictness.  But in answer to the question in the title of this thread, count me in the YES column.

I know it doesn't seem much does it!... I do however plan thoroughly and know exactly what Im going to do before jumping on the mac or behind the camera. I have a big sketchbook stuffed full of projects and ideas I want to do and follow it quite strictly.

In addition with vectors there is the infinite possibility that many elements can be re-used, an obvious example is button types or backgrounds, so for one original file I can probably get about 3 or 4 iterations from that time spent (though not at the same time or even the same project, so I wouldn't for instance do a black version and a coloured version!)

I am hoping to double my time from this summer as I want to prepare a portfolio for submission to getty or one of the other midstock/macro guys as some of the more conceptual/original ideas i have in my sketchbook will be a heavy investment in time and I just don't see microstock ever returning that investment, though i'm happy to be proved wrong!

Earning enough here, after several years and a consistent portfolio. But some friends of mine that were spirited by my success have, one or two years after, red numbers, after investing in cameras, lenses and strobes, and not selling enough.

For me in the microstock industry it's been an uphill battle.  I've been wondering to myself all week what do buyers want?  I apparently haven't hit on the right thing yet.  I'm still a relative newbie with a small port and being offline for 8 months when the computer had a coronary didn't help either.  I started with my first site back in April/May 2009 but have only really been doing this for maybe 4 months due to the computer problem.

I myself am not looking to get rich with this just enough to pay our internet bill every month would make me happy.  I do vectors only at the moment and am still learning Illustrator but I've been consistently creating an average of about 10 new images per week (it probably would be more if I wasn't running our business at the same time while the bf works his full time job .

You definitely have to stay focused on what you're doing.  I too have a list of images in a notebook that I'd like to create (it stands right now with a list of 58) and have been trying to stick too it although I'll get distracted and make other things that aren't on my list.  I do hear from a lot of people that your port should be varied and cover a wide range of subjects but I also hear from others that if you find something that sells well, stick with that.  So who really knows which is right...my guess probably both.

I also believe that your only competition is really just with yourself.  I fight with my inner me all the time going "Man!  My stuff must suck badly because it's not selling at all" as well as..."Man!  Why can't I create something like that!  I must suck at this royally!"  And I'm probably not the only one that this happens to either.  I have sales at all but 1 of the agencies that I belong to and hope that this year I can actually build a decent port and make payout.  That would be nice

And I realize that I don't think my post has a point but I felt the need to say something even if it was nothing at all

Anita Potter: I read someone who said that it is like climbing a mountain, not doing a sprint.
When first climbing a mountain the only thing you need is good shoes. Then start training yourself. All the other things comes later eventually.
So in Microstock. When starting: don't set your goals to high. Don't get crazy about the stories of others. Don't invest to much in equipment. Having red numbers is not a good idea. Don't expect too much in the beginning. Try uploading to different stocksites. There's  a lot of difference between them. Read and learn and let it grow. And go forward. Step by step. See how high you can climb over time. One day you will turn around, look back and see a nice view to the landscape below!
Seeing this as an uphill battle next to doing a fulltime job seems bringing too much stress! Not a good idea!
Over time it will pay you more than your monthly internet bill and in this way you love what you do and that is worth the most!

I also believe that your only competition is really just with yourself. 

Yourself, and the 300,000 other contributors that would prefer buyers license from them.

I totally agree with the mountain analogy too.  I'd say several mountains actually (as - at least in the early stages - things like changes in agency acceptance criteria sometimes create a whole new mountain, just when you thought you'd reached the apex).

The most important mountain to climb though, is the learning mountain... I never stop climbing that one

But let's face it, stock is and always remain a numbers' game.
Claiming that all you need is quality is BS as that's only a small part of the game
and not even the most important factor if we really look at the full scenario.

Slow photographers should just leave any hope in stock and microstock, of course there are exceptions,
but without a couple thousand good photos you're simply going nowhere nor in RF and certainly less
in RM, there's people in RM with a portfolio of 70K images and yet they're not making millions, others
with 500 pics on iStock making a living, one thing is sure nobody will teach you their "magic recipe"
to live with stock.

I've lost count just how many times you have contradicted yourself in the above.

Microstock nowadays is almost entirely about quality and is most definitely not a numbers game anymore. If your images are below par then they simply won't sell in the volumes required to make it worthwhile, irrespective of how many images you have. I can show you plenty of portfolios of 5000+ images with absurdly few sales (and of course small portfolios that do generate a good income). Quantity without quality is already a pointless exercise and the bar will continue to be raised ever higher as the 100K+ new images are added each week.

It's definitely a balance of quality, quantity and usefulness. I'm sure everyone has their sweet spot for those 3 qualities. I know I have a set of guidelines that I try to follow when making images, but some of my more successful images come when I break all those rules.  

This is one of the few industries where success depends on what  you know, and not who.

Yeah, I think that annoys some people .

Quantity vs. quality?  I think you're missing the point (but cthoman gets it as usual).

A keen understanding of the principles of marketing will get you further in microstock than either professional training as a photographer/artist... or endless hours of "feeding the beast" nonsense.  

Adequate skills + the ability to study a market, figure out what sells or doesn't, areas being underserved or oversaturated, and a unique selling proposition (what will make you stand out?) = the formula for success.  

There are far, far more talented artists in this business than me, but one of the first things I did was accept my limitations, and focus my efforts in areas where I saw opportunity and where my limited skills were good enough to do the job.  So far I'm more than happy with the results.

Quote from: gostwyck on March 29, 2010, 11:50

Yes __ by 'quality' I mean a combination of composition, usefulness, subject matter, etc (technical quality issues are filtered out via the inspection process and anyway are not much of a hurdle for anyone doing microstock for a living).

Yes, and by "what you know" I don't mean blogging, Facebook, or Twitter. Those are a complete waste of time in advancing your career in stock photography.

Let 'em waste their time .

Eight hours a week __ are you sure? You must be knocking out your illustrations (and uploading them to several sites) at the rate of 3 per hour which is amazing. I do basic photography but even so I reckon each image, from the planning, preparation, shooting, processing and uploading averages out at least one hour per image.

based on that analyss i find it difficult to believe ms could ever be profitable -- at 1 image per hour you'd need an RPI of $10 for EVERY image just to make minimum wage!


sounds more like your workflow could use some streamlinng - for me currently, captioning & keywording is the most labor intensive, but i still can do 50-100 per hour; all other aspects [other than shooting itself] are highly automated - eg upl to all agencies takes only a few minutes

s