Author Topic: Can I really earn a full time income from microstock? (Read 64154 times)

Microbius · « **Reply #125 on:** March 30, 2010, 16:20 »

@joingate
Could I just check what you mean by "that scenario pans out for us all" That you are all making 80,000 UK pounds per year or that from your experience you deduce that that is where your income is heading?

I also have to disagree that there are only three other people bar you “researching the market and creating saleable images". The reason there are so many derivative images out there on the stock sites is that most micro vector artists spend a lot of time "researching" what sells then copying it (don’t make me go through your folio pointing out the best selling IStock icon sets that most resemble your SS top sellers

)

macrosaur · « **Reply #126 on:** March 30, 2010, 16:36 »

Bayern vs Manchester United : 2-1

macrosaur · « **Reply #127 on:** March 30, 2010, 16:40 »

Sorry, couldn't resist

After all this discussion is a bit improductive : there's a physical limit on how many images you can produce, upload, and keyword in a day or a week or a month.

The bottleneck in microstock is certainly the upload limit, correct me if i'm wrong but it's ridicolous that an exclusive on iStock is limited to 50 files/week.

It's a dirty trick to avoid being flooded by contributors and to avoid letting them realize that the life of a RF photo in microstock is much more short than in RM.

No wonder it takes years for people to make a 5000 pics portfolio on iStock when you can do it in a month on Alamy or Getty RM (well, not really).

willie · « **Reply #128 on:** March 30, 2010, 16:59 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 30, 2010, 16:20

@joingate
Could I just check what you mean by "that scenario pans out for us all" That you are all making 80,000 UK pounds per year or that from your experience you deduce that that is where your income is heading?

I also have to disagree that there are only three other people bar you “researching the market and creating saleable images". The reason there are so many derivative images out there on the stock sites is that most micro vector artists spend a lot of time "researching" what sells then copying it (don’t make me go through your folio pointing out the best selling IStock icon sets that most resemble your SS top sellers )

sorry for interrupting Microbius and @joingate.

re: blocked letter.
when you say derivative, does that mean that it's "legal" to creat vectors from IS photographs and creating 3D from IS photographs,etc..
and the reviewers do not reject you, or ask for verification as they do us when we do a silhouette photograph to ask us to prove we used our own copyright image to create that silhouette.

i am not good at these legalese stuff, but i too tend to agree that i see a lot of "derivatives" in the illustration, vector, 3d section
many of which i too as a lame brain old bugger could recognize the originals it "ripped off".

@joingate, this is not implying nothing that you do this.
that's strictly between you and Microbius.

Ta

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #129 on:** March 30, 2010, 17:13 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 30, 2010, 16:40

No wonder it takes years for people to make a 5000 pics portfolio on iStock when you can do it in a month on Alamy or Getty RM (well, not really).

Maybe that's why Alamy contributors talk about earning an average of $1 per image per year where micro is closer to $1 per image per month. Because you can dump an entire series of hundreds of pretty much the same image on Alamy where on sites with restrictions you're forced to be more selective.

macrosaur · « **Reply #130 on:** March 30, 2010, 17:35 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 30, 2010, 17:13

Quote from: macrosaur on March 30, 2010, 16:40
No wonder it takes years for people to make a 5000 pics portfolio on iStock when you can do it in a month on Alamy or Getty RM (well, not really).

Maybe that's why Alamy contributors talk about earning an average of $1 per image per year where micro is closer to $1 per image per month. Because you can dump an entire series of hundreds of pretty much the same image on Alamy where on sites with restrictions you're forced to be more selective.

it depends.

yes, generic and crappy images will get a 1euro/year payout but you've the freedom of shooting even 100 saleable pics
a day if you want.

the problem is they'll never sell as it's so random today that you can't really know what's going to sell or not on RM.

the last i sold was complete rubbish, good luck trying to figure out what buyers need.

on the other side Getty RM is king of the hill but being edited they use to accept only 1/10th of what Alamy takes.

it's amazing what's selling on Alamy, it would be interesting to see a unedited RF microstock agency and see how it goes
as what Alamy is showing is that there's indeed demand for obscure and hard to find subjects, no matter if they don't
look as corny as microstock.

back on the subject, there's many on Alamy making a living out of these 10Ks generic and editorial images, every venue
should be valued for business, and nobody forbid us to sell on both RF and RM.

i think nowadays is easier to get into RM than microstock.
the issue is micro pays quickly while RM takes ages to warm up, so it's not surprising all the newbies go on iStock.

Noodles · « **Reply #131 on:** March 30, 2010, 17:39 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 30, 2010, 16:20

@joingate
Could I just check what you mean by "that scenario pans out for us all" That you are all making 80,000 UK pounds per year or that from your experience you deduce that that is where your income is heading?

I also have to disagree that there are only three other people bar you “researching the market and creating saleable images". The reason there are so many derivative images out there on the stock sites is that most micro vector artists spend a lot of time "researching" what sells then copying it (don’t make me go through your folio pointing out the best selling IStock icon sets that most resemble your SS top sellers )

I complained to both IS and SS recently about another contributor who had copied some of my vectors - his portfolio was removed from both sites but a week or so later they were back up but with out the copied work.

oh yes, back on topic, the vectors he copied were very high sellers so for those who do want to make a living out of this I think its worth protecting your product/profits!

lisafx · « **Reply #132 on:** March 30, 2010, 18:02 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on March 30, 2010, 15:18

Quote from: gostwyck on March 16, 2010, 05:57

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.

Dude you are under-productive... You should think about how to speed up your production. My average was 5-10 a day for macro... Nowdays it is 20-40 a day... But I am not producing so much lately... I am cracking my earnings on a bit of joy ;-)

I guess I am under-productive too. I average more like 30 images a week. I usually end up adding between 1,000 and 1,200 images a year to my port.

From Gostwycks post it appears he is quite rightly including the research and prep work in his estimate (cooking and presenting food, storyboarding concepts, buying buying props, scouting and preparing locations or creating studio "sets", hiring and posing models, etc.) as well as the shooting, editing and uploading time. If you treat this as a business you need to include those things in your calculations of time spent.

If you are doing mostly shots of found objects or landscapes and nature, then obviously you will have little to no prep work other than minor editing, keywording, and uploading.

However, if you are doing this for a FT job you need to produce consistently, week in and week out. I know a lot of people that will upload large bursts of hundreds of images one week, but then not upload anything else for weeks or months.

To each their own, but the workflow that has been best for me is one I can sustain week in, week out, over time. I am a lot more comfortable being the tortoise than the hare

Noodles · « **Reply #133 on:** March 30, 2010, 18:21 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 30, 2010, 18:02

To each their own, but the workflow that has been best for me is one I can sustain week in, week out, over time. I am a lot more comfortable being the tortoise than the hare

I'm not a fulltime microstocker but I am a graphic designer and I struggle to create 1 good quality vector a week

lisafx · « **Reply #134 on:** March 30, 2010, 18:26 »

Quote from: Noodles on March 30, 2010, 18:21

Quote from: lisafx on March 30, 2010, 18:02

To each their own, but the workflow that has been best for me is one I can sustain week in, week out, over time. I am a lot more comfortable being the tortoise than the hare

I'm not a fulltime microstocker but I am a graphic designer and I struggle to create 1 good quality vector a week

I bet those are some gorgeous vectors if you are taking your time like that!
(us slowpokes have to stick together

)

joingated · « **Reply #135 on:** March 30, 2010, 18:55 »

Hey microbius

I'm not copying anyone. And what do you mean only 3 people researching the Market. You obviously misread my post. I research what sells and create my own. When it comes to icons everything has been covered but I can still design my own set for that sector in my styles. What a silly comment to make who would I copy? You hide behind anonymity so I can't go trudging through your completely original and bespoke portfolio right? I have a life so wouldn't do so nor would I accuse people of plagiarism.

macrosaur · « **Reply #136 on:** March 30, 2010, 18:58 »

i always wondered the same thing ... everybody is saying vectors pay twice or thrice than photos but what if it takes a week to make a single vector ?

cthoman · « **Reply #137 on:** March 30, 2010, 19:06 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 30, 2010, 18:58

i always wondered the same thing ... everybody is saying vectors pay twice or thrice than photos but what if it takes a week to make a single vector ?

Then it better sell well.

Reef · « **Reply #138 on:** March 30, 2010, 19:20 »

.......

Reef · « **Reply #139 on:** March 30, 2010, 19:21 »

......

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #140 on:** March 30, 2010, 19:27 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 30, 2010, 17:35

the last i sold was complete rubbish, good luck trying to figure out what buyers need.

No, it's easy to see what "buyers" need. It's hard to know what "a buyer" will need. Eventually, every crappy image will sell at least once. It's just a question of whether you have the patience to wait 50 years for the right buyer to come along. If you're shooting for what a majority of buyers will want, you'll have better luck.

Reef · « **Reply #141 on:** March 30, 2010, 19:34 »

.......

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #142 on:** March 30, 2010, 20:09 »

Quote from: Reef on March 30, 2010, 19:34

.......

,,,,,,,

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #143 on:** March 31, 2010, 03:23 »

The End of Stock Photography: http://blog.johnlund.com/2010/03/jim-pickerell-interviewed-end-of-stock.html

Gannet77 · « **Reply #144 on:** March 31, 2010, 03:45 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 30, 2010, 16:40

Sorry, couldn't resist

After all this discussion is a bit improductive : there's a physical limit on how many images you can produce, upload, and keyword in a day or a week or a month.

The bottleneck in microstock is certainly the upload limit, correct me if i'm wrong but it's ridicolous that an exclusive on iStock is limited to 50 files/week.

It's a dirty trick to avoid being flooded by contributors and to avoid letting them realize that the life of a RF photo in microstock is much more short than in RM.

No wonder it takes years for people to make a 5000 pics portfolio on iStock when you can do it in a month on Alamy or Getty RM (well, not really).

You're wrong.

Current upload limits for Exclusives are:

Bronze: 50
Silver: 75
Gold: 100
Diamond: 125
Black Diamond: 150

macrosaur · « **Reply #145 on:** March 31, 2010, 04:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2010, 19:27

Quote from: macrosaur on March 30, 2010, 17:35
the last i sold was complete rubbish, good luck trying to figure out what buyers need.

No, it's easy to see what "buyers" need. It's hard to know what "a buyer" will need. Eventually, every crappy image will sell at least once. It's just a question of whether you have the patience to wait 50 years for the right buyer to come along. If you're shooting for what a majority of buyers will want, you'll have better luck.

Yes of course you can't know what the single buyer needs, but in general i can tell you what's selling or not, the problem
is it's a quite big perimeter if you generically say "pictures of London/Paris/NewYork" ... or "young female portraits".

What i'm saying is that it's pretty straightforward to analyze what's selling like hot cakes on iStock as the offering is
limited by categories and strict editing, but it's not that easy with unedited collections.

If i go on iStock i can see in few minutes what's selling about my city for instance, and get out of the door shooting
a set about the same locations, you just can't do that with RM unless we talk about Tour Eiffel and other overinflated
subjects.

I've the impression RM still exists only to provide the "hard to find" imagery because anything else is already
on the micros at discount price.

Are you still selling on Alamy ? How is it going ? RF or RM ?

macrosaur · « **Reply #146 on:** March 31, 2010, 04:46 »

Quote from: dnavarrojr on March 31, 2010, 03:23

The End of Stock Photography: http://blog.johnlund.com/2010/03/jim-pickerell-interviewed-end-of-stock.html

I completely disagree with that article, it's just a marketing spin to sell subscriptions to his "Selling Stock" website.
Not to mention he's more famous about what he writes about the stock industry rather than the photos he's
actually selling.

Would you trust an analyst who's not doing stock full time ?

It's complete rubbish, he also claims the iPad is the future and that "paper is dead".

I'll say again, anyone exclusive with 4-5000 images on iStock can make a living with it
in western countries.

Stock is dead only for those with small portfolios.

RT · « **Reply #147 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:29 »

Quote from: macrosaur on March 31, 2010, 04:46

I completely disagree with that article, it's just a marketing spin to sell subscriptions to his "Selling Stock" website.
Not to mention he's more famous about what he writes about the stock industry rather than the photos he's
actually selling.

Unfortunately there seems to be more and more people every day that are trying to make money by selling their "expertise" rather than actually doing it.

Microbius · « **Reply #148 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:38 »

Quote from: joingate on March 30, 2010, 18:55

Hey microbius

I'm not copying anyone. And what do you mean only 3 people researching the Market. You obviously misread my post. I research what sells and create my own. When it comes to icons everything has been covered but I can still design my own set for that sector in my styles. What a silly comment to make who would I copy? You hide behind anonymity so I can't go trudging through your completely original and bespoke portfolio right? I have a life so wouldn't do so nor would I accuse people of plagiarism.

With regards to the three people sorry if I misunderstood this section of your previous post:
"the salient issue isn't 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"

I notice that you haven't responded about the earnings please feel free to let me know if any of you are actually earning 80K £/year. I noticed that you didn't actually address this.

With regards to the "market research" section I was not saying you were actually uploading other people's work, but that your "market research" seems to have led to producing images that closely resemble best sellers from other contributors. If I have misunderstood this too, please feel free to let me know what form your market research takes. Again, I am not saying there is anything illegal about this, but if your work resembles the style of other people's work you're going to get called out for it, just like the top selling Yuri clone Photogs do. I will let your removal of any links to your portfolio speak for itself.

It is true that I am anonymous on this form like many other people. I am also not making outrageous claims about how much I earn or about being one of the only people out there that understands the Micro market.

RT · « **Reply #149 on:** March 31, 2010, 05:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 30, 2010, 18:02

Quote from: Albert Martin on March 30, 2010, 15:18
Quote from: gostwyck on March 16, 2010, 05:57

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.

Dude you are under-productive... You should think about how to speed up your production. My average was 5-10 a day for macro... Nowdays it is 20-40 a day... But I am not producing so much lately... I am cracking my earnings on a bit of joy ;-)

I guess I am under-productive too. I average more like 30 images a week. I usually end up adding between 1,000 and 1,200 images a year to my port.

From Gostwycks post it appears he is quite rightly including the research and prep work in his estimate (cooking and presenting food, storyboarding concepts, buying buying props, scouting and preparing locations or creating studio "sets", hiring and posing models, etc.) as well as the shooting, editing and uploading time. If you treat this as a business you need to include those things in your calculations of time spent.

If you are doing mostly shots of found objects or landscapes and nature, then obviously you will have little to no prep work other than minor editing, keywording, and uploading.

However, if you are doing this for a FT job you need to produce consistently, week in and week out. I know a lot of people that will upload large bursts of hundreds of images one week, but then not upload anything else for weeks or months.

To each their own, but the workflow that has been best for me is one I can sustain week in, week out, over time. I am a lot more comfortable being the tortoise than the hare

Taking all things into consideration I'd say a return of one image per hour based on an average single person 40hr working week is about the sort of production numbers most people who make a living in stock aim for, I'm averaging 25-30 and I work a lot longer than 40hrs per week. I do know of some on macro agencies that take the 'machine gun' approach to stock shooting, a lot of them have to shoot weddings and portraits at the weekend - wonder why!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Can I really earn a full time income from microstock? (Read 64154 times)

Microbius

macrosaur

macrosaur

willie

PaulieWalnuts

macrosaur

Noodles

lisafx

Noodles

lisafx

joingated

macrosaur

cthoman

Reef

Reef

Sean Locke Photography

Reef

PaulieWalnuts

dnavarrojr

Gannet77

macrosaur

macrosaur

RT

Microbius

RT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors