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

If you can produce 100 images per hour how come you only have 700 images on Istock after 4 years? Did you just work for 7 hours then?

RPI over what period anyway? Your statement doesn't make sense as it is. It's like saying "my car can do 40 miles" __ per hour, per gallon, per apple?

Probably the most productive individual microstocker in the early days was Hidesy. In an interview she admitted to busting a gut for pretty much 12 hours a day, 7 days per week. That enabled her to average just under 7 new images per day accepted on IS during her first 3 years. That was way ahead of anyone else at the time and, despite starting a family, she still has the 4th largest portfolio on IS. Even if she only really averaged 60 hours per week it still meant that each image took her well over an hour to produce. I guess on your figures you should be able to exceed Hidesy's last 6 years work inside of a month if you pulled your finger out!

I "work full time" at MicroStock (50-60 hours a week), but I definitely do not make a full time living from it... yet.  I do keep drawing closer.  If my numbers are consistent, I'll be there by the end of the year, but just barely enough to cover all my bills (mortgage, 2 car payments, children, etc...).  And I live in Kansas, so my cost of living is not as high as someone in New York or California.

Actually, I'd be there now if I could just blow off the IRS... the taxes for being self-employed are so * high.

The most funniest thing on this mountain analogy is - if reaching the top of the everest would be paid by monthly living costs....tibet would be full of barefooted, frostbitten idiots.

I would think $10 per image would be about right over the course of a year, say 2000 images online (across the top sites) should make $20,000 a year without too much stress (aslong as you're not just uploading your holiday pics) and I would say those who are researching and producing 'stocky' images would easily beat that, this is more about the longer term view than an instant money back at the end of the month.... I think gostwyck is right you have to put it into context.

I wish! But my personal targets are a little more amitious!

Just to clarify my statement but heres a reasonably educated guess, I think its time to but some figures to this thread...

1. Someone shooting photographs only as a good hobbyist with no stock research, approx 2000 images online, 8/16 hrs a week  �20k
2. Someone shooting photos, or/and creating 3d/vectors as a good hobbyist and researching and creating saleable images, approx 2000 images online, 8/16 hrs a week  �40k
3. A full timer, either a good photographer with good lights and probably a full frame camera and good lenses (or a longer time spent in photoshop!). Or a good 3d/vector artist fulltimer, 80k plus a year.

Just to clarify my statement but heres a reasonably educated guess, I think its time to but some figures to this thread...

1. Someone shooting photographs only as a good hobbyist with no stock research, approx 2000 images online, 8/16 hrs a week  �20k
2. Someone shooting photos, or/and creating 3d/vectors as a good hobbyist and researching and creating saleable images, approx 2000 images online, 8/16 hrs a week  �40k
3. A full timer, either a good photographer with good lights and probably a full frame camera and good lenses (or a longer time spent in photoshop!). Or a good 3d/vector artist fulltimer, 80k plus a year.

anyone with 4-5000 pics on iStock alone can make a living in western europe.

same for anyone having 20-30.000 unedited pics on Alamy RM or 3-4000 on Getty RM.

Just to clarify my statement but heres a reasonably educated guess, I think its time to but some figures to this thread...

1. Someone shooting photographs only as a good hobbyist with no stock research, approx 2000 images online, 8/16 hrs a week  �20k
2. Someone shooting photos, or/and creating 3d/vectors as a good hobbyist and researching and creating saleable images, approx 2000 images online, 8/16 hrs a week  �40k
3. A full timer, either a good photographer with good lights and probably a full frame camera and good lenses (or a longer time spent in photoshop!). Or a good 3d/vector artist fulltimer, 80k plus a year.

I think your figure for a good  3d/vector artist fulltimer at �80k is totally pie in the sky. You are probably extrapolating from a small not very old portfolio and not taking into account the level out that will come way before you reach that figure. At some point your % increase in new images per month is going to be way too small to offset the growth in competition from new contributors or new images from existing contributors. You'd be lucky to peak at $80 let alone �80k

I think your figure for a good  3d/vector artist fulltimer at �80k is totally pie in the sky.

I'd say it depends on the artist's ability to read the market and create images that are in demand... creating a unique style and consistently staying a few steps ahead of the competition.  If the artist is doing rainbows and flowers, 10k is probably a stretch... but if the artist focuses on things with real commercial value, something several multiples of that should be very doable.

Sorry no if you read the post the salient issue isnt so much the vector/illustration issue so much as the researching the market and creating saleable images scenario, that is when you can make a dramatic jump in income. I only know 3 other people doing this bar myself and that scenario pans out for us all, albeit I am at the bottom right now!

I think there is less competition with vectors, a lot of the very good vector artists are exclusive at istock, I would say there are far more good photographers than good illustrators and thus competition is less. If you look through the vector collections on all sites other than istock I firmly believe that this is the case.

As for 80k full time, no sweat, I'll get back to you on that when I get there. I can only speak for myself but when i read all these posts that a full time income is impossible I find it truly unbelievable. My 3 full timemicrostock friends are all vector artists exclusive to istock and have been full time for quite some years, though 2 have slowed down now as they have young babies.

I believe you. There's always an opportunity where others believe there are none. I worked in sales for nearly eight years and there were four of us in the department who were always "parachuted" in to so-called dead markets and turned them around. Hoping I can bring that ethos to microstock...having just started out though, the only place I could probably live on my income is somewhere in Papua New Guinea.

I'm not looking to buy a Ferrari, just earn enough to be comfortable and not be a number on some bean counter's spreadsheet.

very realistic view  and well written article.
same goes for some of the comments made here , without naming them,
eg. the points made re:
- knowing where to promote your portfolio (quote: not facebook,twitter,etc.. as they're a waste of time)
- being objective to acknowledge that you may be a hotshot shooting weddings, commercial work, sell tons of art gallery ..(whisper: with fully framed images with noise rhe size of golf balls... not a comment, but my own observations from my visits to the locals for their exhibitions, lol)..
yet you may be a total dud to the extreme and perharps overly high standards of micro stock reviewers.
- be able  to separate your subjective photography school and artistic idea
as to what is an awesome work and what the micro buyers are looking for.
as the two do not necessarily coincide, and most times do not.

finally a question, in ref to "knowing where to promote your portfolio"..
Question:
Do COLLECTIONS and LIGHTBOXES , like those created by other contributors of IS and DT,etc.. really make a diff to increase sales?
or is this just another way for contributors to that ..."you scratch my back and i scratch yours. i rate and review you 5 times, when are you going to come back to give me a good review?"   ... syndrome.
i suppose the same applies to writing blogs eg. on DT, as they seem to be the same dudes being selected as :most informative blogs:  although that may not always seem :informative:.

appreciate a full blown objective insight from any of you .

If you can produce 100 images per hour how come you only have 700 images on Istock after 4 years? Did you just work for 7 hours then?

please READ my comment before replying, and tone down your personal remarks and insults...

i said i can CAPTION & TAG 100/hr, not produce them - not that it's really your business, but istock has never been a good earner for me, so i rarely bother to go thru their submission process. thus it's no inidcator for me

Oh, and to answer the original thread, yes you can, but it is beyond most one man mortal bands in Western countries without significant additional revenue from macro.

Oldhand (who should really have paid more attention at school and got a proper job where you wear a suit for work)