MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: eugenef on March 29, 2008, 18:50
-
Hi my name is Eugene. I am a professional photographer but I am having so many issues with stock. I am barely making a dollar a month. Please help! Anything, I really appreciate it. All my links are below for where I have uploaded images.
Links:
BigStockPhoto.com - 3 sales
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/search.php?q[uid]=eugenef&q[ao]=1
Dreamstime.com - 1 sale
http://www.dreamstime.com/eugenef_info
Istockphoto.com - 52 Sales - 169 uploads
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=324006
LuckyOliver.com - 6 Sales - 325 uploads
http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/eugenef
Canstockphoto - 2 sales - 60 uploads
http://www.canstockphoto.com/profile.php?id=31985
Alamy.com
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/09338C41-8AF6-4E54-A5D8-A30CA5E17936/Eugene+Feygin.html
Please help me somehow. College student and am trying to figure this all out. :'(
-
They saw madness is repeating the same action while expecting a different outcome ...
If you sort your istock portfolio by downloads the top 3 all have colour in them. If a designer wants a b& w image they can desaturate it in PS. I would suggest uploading alot more colour images.
And I would suggest looking at the portfolios of the top sellers and see what sells best for inspiration.
-
I don't think but a very few are making much in these micro stock sites. A few dollars here and there.
-
Eugene, brace yourself for the news. As a photographer you are utterly a failure. Give it up.
Sell your equipment now while you can still get a sufficient amount of cash for it.
This is a fact: You will starve as a stock photographer. Don't under any circumstances quit
you regular job if you have one. Take up a more satisfying hobby like raising gold fish, or knitting.
The MIZ
-
thats what I did sold all my dslr equipment.got a compact I just fart around with it a little
-
Eugene, brace yourself for the news. As a photographer you are utterly a failure. Give it up.
The MIZ
I think you're being a bit hasty, take a look at the guys website.
http://www.eugenefeygin.com/ (http://www.eugenefeygin.com/)
-
MIZ!!! Shame on you. Okay, maybe you don't know the Miz's humour (yet) but I think this is a twisted form of compliment.
The biggest part of being a stock photographer is knowing what stock is. You can be the most brilliant photographer, but still only make a couple of bucks a month at micro because you simply don't know what the buyers want. There is a huge difference between art, photography and stock photography.
1. Most of your port on IS is black and white. Big sellers are overly saturated colours that POP and entice the buyers to click on the thumbnails.
2. Copy space!
3. Isolated people and obects are the best sellers. Not the most exciting to shoot, but great sellers.
4. People in action: at work, working out, knitting (hey Miz?), at church, doing something in a "category" sell extremely well.
Find your niche, exploit it. Move on to the next subject.
When I started I would send over any old photos to stock agencies and hope that some would stick. Have they sold? Not really. At some point I realized that there is a difference beteen photos and stock photos and now I either take a photo and say "Hey this is stock!" or I shoot with stock in mind.
Look at the best sellers of any site and you will likely find isolate business people, or background textures. Look at the top photographers and say "hey, what does this guy have that I don't?"
You've got nice work and obviously the skills, you just need to study a little more!
-
Hey, a fellow Chicagoan. Your website has some great images.
I agree with the color and copyspace suggestions. Also, stock buyers seem to like images of people doing something - eating, working, talking, etc. The main question to ask is... how would a designer use the image to help communicate their concept? If you can't answer that, this may be part of the problem.
You also may want to check out Photoshelter which might be a better fit for your current work but they're just ramping up marketing so I'm not sure about the sales.
-
I wouldn't call yourself a professional photographer if you are not making a full time living by doing it.
I agree with the Black and white comment. BW is pretty much useless as a stock since color image is ALWAYS better (because I can make a better BW out of it in channel mixer in PS if I desire to).
So shoot more and upload more (in color).
-
Though you make more than me and my pitiful little port, we do have very similar styles when it comes to "what picture do you love.", at least I think so. Lately my real personal faves of my own work have all been square crop, B&W, architectural abstracts, but I have basically two classes of shots, shots that I take because it is a darn cool picture, and shots that I have an advertising or general concept in mind with. I'm still really working out the execution of those, but I have seen my work improve drastically in that area, but when it comes to shorts that I like that are just cool pictures, I still take as many of those as ever. However I am not submitting all of those to stock sites, just the really premier ones. Some day I would like to be known as that guy that makes the awesome architectural abstracts, nowadays I know that is where my eye works the best (though I can see the principles applied to other shot types easily, it just is intuitive to me with abstract architecture, it just comes so easy), I just need to shoot a lot and build my port in that area, but I am only introducing the best of the best to stock for those, but I also know that until that name is made and people seek out my work, I don't have too much of a market and have to take and upload shots of things that are more appealing to the market. I hope to make my own market, but until that time comes I'm playing to what the market wants in general as well.
-
Nice portfolio. But it's art, not stock. None of that black and white stuff is going to sell as stock. Frame it, put it in a gallery.
-
The biggest part of being a stock photographer is knowing what stock is. You can be the most brilliant photographer, but still only make a couple of bucks a month at micro because you simply don't know what the buyers want. There is a huge difference between art, photography and stock photography.
When I started I would send over any old photos to stock agencies and hope that some would stick. Have they sold? Not really. At some point I realized that there is a difference beteen photos and stock photos and now I either take a photo and say "Hey this is stock!" or I shoot with stock in mind.
Look at the best sellers of any site and you will likely find isolate business people, or background textures. Look at the top photographers and say "hey, what does this guy have that I don't?"
You've got nice work and obviously the skills, you just need to study a little more!
hatman ...very direct but i take it you are being sincere and truthful , like pixart .
so, to you both , i want you to
know that what you two said is just about the best advice i've read this far?
like eugenef
i am also a photographer, but more truly pro if you wish, a working one, and have always been an artistic or creative photographer.
but i am contemplating on reducing my time as a working one for stock, so i can perharps, take more time off for enjoying life ::)
i've been on this forum checking out what all you guys (eg: leaf, lisfx, flemishdreams,etc) are saying ..
all very good advices.
but pixart you answer my very own feelings of what i need to realise, if i am to move into stock. it's a big change in shooting style.
and sounds like a lot of work too.
i hear many of you complaining about lowering of limits to UL.
sounds like this is all you do , shooting for stock.
for a working photographer, i don't think that's possible, even if i am able to shoot specially for stock.
what percentage of your time do you shoot for stock ? 90%
it's impossible to keep up the UL if you are only working 50% of the time.
am i right in this? pixart, others??? ???
-
Hello!
Keep your camera!
Your sport photos are 1class.
In these photos you master colour, composition, action and lighthandling.
Your models are very nice, but as some other mentioned before don't post bws.
About your nature, try to leave you wideangel at home, go harder on cutting edges and try to be different from the average nature photographers.
But please, don't quit i see a lot of knowhow in your photos and truly love some of your sportaction. Bring it on!
-
I am always sincere and always truthful fotokmyst. And sometimes I am blunt when the occasion demands.
Stock is a different world; it needs a different mindset and a different approach to 'business'.
One of the most difficult things to grasp is the concept of 'income' and 'asset'. In a normal job people work for a week and get paid for a week. Nice and simple. In stock the week's work generates a portfolio of pictures which become an income producing 'asset'; those pictures might sell and sell over a period of three, five or even ten years. In terms of 'asset value' the week's work is worthwhile, but in terms of 'income' (by which I mean immediate cashflow) the result is of course uncertain.
Over time and as the 'assets' grow, income becomes almost self fulfilling, but to get to that stage is a difficult road that requires hard work and commitment. And each photographer will hit that target over a different time span depending on portfolio style and image production.
For a professional, entering the stock market (pun intended) should be after careful consideration and a detailed business plan.
Like the stock market, stock photography is about building a portfolio of assets that pay dividends over the longer term - if managed competently the dividends should grow into a sustainable income.
-
well said hatman12
-
Very inspiring Hatman..thank you for giving us newcomer words of wisdom. :)
-
We've commented on your keywording in the iStock forums before. Watch your over use of "sex, sexual activity, etc." in images like:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4147753_gorgeous_nikki.php?id=4147753
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/3965838_stacia_in_the_forest.php?id=3965838
-
Eugene, brace yourself for the news. As a photographer you are utterly a failure. Give it up.
Sell your equipment now while you can still get a sufficient amount of cash for it.
This is a fact: You will starve as a stock photographer. Don't under any circumstances quit
you regular job if you have one. Take up a more satisfying hobby like raising gold fish, or knitting.
The MIZ
hahaha! Bravo! :D ;D
-
... or making tutorials.
-
....jealousy, and envy.
-
Well, youve got some great stuff- like the bench with the green spot, or the woman with the butterfly, and also (Ill be blunt too) some crap. The random buildings arent going to sell just because anyone can take photos of buildings with minimal effort. I agree with the BW comments- why would you desaturate a picture of a woman on the beach? The colours would have been the best part! A beach without colour is just mud n water. And yeah when I see the pictures of your models there, maybe I think "sex" too, but that doesnt mean they should be in the keywords!!! To make shots which need that keyword youll need heh heh more expensive models :) ... And you dont need to put the names of the models there either- it looks a bit amateurish. I also dont know why the chick in that big black dress is on the beach... Her clothes arent really suitable... She looks more like shes at a funeral.
And those chicks in the water- yeah that couldve been great. First, you need colour with a blue blue sea and sky and strong green trees. Second, you need to get rid of that white industrial machinery in the background. I dont know what thats doing there... That white thing makes it go from thailand to a crappy beach in england. Just a tad to the right... And while we re at it- the chicks in the forest? Why black and white?! The best thing wouldve been the green colours.
Yup, youve gotta rethink the clothes, the background, the colours... Youve got work to do.
-
Also, Ive gotta say... If you have a model and you shout "POSE!!! POSEPOSEPOSE!!!" Then her hands will immediately go up behind her head to the standard "Im a model and Im posing" pose. You have a surprisingly large number of these poses. You really should try a different tactic- maybe "Here, have an ice cream. Let's sit down here, chat for a while, and later maybe you could tell me all about your childhood?" might work. Most of these photos just scream "Im a model and Im posing". Which is both the most unusable pose, and the most common pose.
-
Nice portfolio. But it's art, not stock. None of that black and white stuff is going to sell as stock. Frame it, put it in a gallery.
ugh :( guess I need to change my style :(
-
Hello!
Keep your camera!
Your sport photos are 1class.
In these photos you master colour, composition, action and lighthandling.
Your models are very nice, but as some other mentioned before don't post bws.
About your nature, try to leave you wideangel at home, go harder on cutting edges and try to be different from the average nature photographers.
But please, don't quit i see a lot of knowhow in your photos and truly love some of your sportaction. Bring it on!
thank you for your kind words, will keep thinking about copy space as some have mentioned, just tough when I am only used to thinking about the model. But does anyone know if I am keywording things correctly?
-
DItch the B&W buildings - big waste of time. Ditch the 6 versions of a building - bigger waste of time. If no one buys version 1, it is likely that sales will be non existent or paltry on versions 2 thru 6.
You need desperate help on keywording. Putting "beautiful" or Beautiful Alyssa in the title is useless. And in this one here, you don't even have WOMAN in the keywords. You have "women". There is only one in the pic so an immediate toss on the part of the buyer.
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6901817/beautiful (http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6901817/beautiful)
The search engines key on titles, ever for LO. Get the subject into the title instead of the models names. Also in the above link you have Evanston. Who cares. The beach is nondescript and does not depict Evanston IL. Stay with what is specific to the photo.
You have access to lovely ladies, but have no eye for microstock. Put one of these girls on the beach when it warms up in jeans and a Tshirt using a laptop. Sitting, laying down on stomach, even carry laptop walking down the beach. Shoot morning for cool blues instead of late in day warm tones. These will sell.
You have a decent eye for the models, but even so you need to back it off and compose differently for stock to give some more copyspace. Some of what you posted would be better for Getty that for micro, but even then, need to back off and keep the hands out of the hair. Hands in hair too 1950s cliche unlese the setting and intent of the photo absolutely calls for it.
More color overall. Although I agree that some (a few) BW can only truly be processed by the photograper to bring about the full intent of the photo, really, leave it to the editors and graphic artists.
Well just a few things. I could go on but this should give you a start.
If you really want to make some microstock money, start shootng everyday objects on white seamless, or food. Boring yes, but if you keep going the way you are, you'll continue to languish.
3 sales on Shutterstock for me today and it's a Sunday and it's early (plus I only have a gallery of 18 so far - just got accepted Fri)- one is a real estate for sale sign with blank placard and clipping path, one is a chocolate splash, and one is a plain cube gift box an white with a gold loopy bow. That's the kind of stuff that sells. These have done well on other micro sites as well.
People sell, especially women. Just shoot it differently for micros. Pretty Plain Jane, happy mom with shopping bag, stuff like that. Better yet, happy blond mom jeasns and T shirt with canvas bag with recycle logo on it, If this offends all of your photographic sensibilities, well, that's the way it goes.
Alamy - kind of hard to say what goes there, but I would really check your keywording there. The Alamy Rank these days is kind of fickle. I have had a few sales there but believe it or not they have been fractal art.
On the Getty comment - did I say you were good enough? Not really. A couple of the shots are. On PhotoShelter - a few of these may go, not many though. PS is kind of brutal in their editing. The BW buildings probably won't fly there.
-
Which site likes what better?
-
Which site likes what better?
Upload and find out.
No-one can tell you which sites YOUR photos will sell on. It is a mystery which shots sell and why half of the time!
-
Which site likes what better?
That is a hard assessment for me to make, since I have been only been doing micro since January. I am an RM refugee because there ave been a few slowdowns for me, and styles for the high end stuff are changing. I gravitated to Micro for a little bit of income insurance after losing a $20K per year contract shooting and doing catalogs for a hardware company. The owner of the company decided his 21 year old daughter, a recent art school graduate with a pocket cam, could do it just as good ;-) THey are now finding out as the hardware in all of their catalogs are coming out brown istead of silver ha ha.
All I can say is, I tried Sutterstock first time I think 2 years ago - tried the usual assortment of landscapes, buldings, etc, and was rejected time and time again. So let it go for a year. On Thurs nite on a whim, sent them all "microstocky stuff" - objects on white, some with clipping paths, some holiday stuff. All went through.
On DT, everything I send gets accepted. I do have some weird sales there. One pic of a lock isolated on white has something like 6 views and 3 sales. Insane, yeah. You have to cater to buyer needs. They are not going to buy what is not needed. On DT I have about 70 sales I think in 3 months - not too awful for a start.
Since I don't have the timeframe to have developed a proper overview, cannot offer too much more at this time. I also do illustration which helps sales.
But really, do an analysis of what is selling, and follow that lead. DT is good for this research because you can flip to "most downloads" as a selector and you will see the best sellers. That is where I did some of my initial research.
Also see if you can access the Top 50 on SHutterstock, and I think there may be a similar list on Istock. Analyze what sells, and do it better. In general, mundane and sterile stuff you may have never thought of can fit the bill.
Since you have access to the models though and have releases, I would really utlize them in more every day situations - using computer, eating ice cream, shopping. In studio, use white seamless and overexpose the background a bit. No ugly shadows etc.
If it's "stocky enough", they will really fly anywhere, but some services may do better than others. Usually I think they will fall in with the site rankings here on the board.
-
I notice on DT I don't do as well since most of my port is illustrations and graphics...not that they don't sell, but they do much better on other sites like fotolia, shutterstock, istock.
Like was said, you just have to upload to each one and see what works. If stuff isn't selling, change your approach - shoot different subject. LOOK at the top selling images. Many are very simple, people in simple settings. Think business, marketing, medical, sports, objects, and textures. Surprisingly, things shot with a camera that can be used as textures or backgrounds sell great.
-
eugenef, I sent you a personal message
-
Look at what eugenf just did :o
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt46241.html
-
He submited 750+ images in one batch at SS, and got 190 aproved? Dont you get a warning for such things (5 warnings - ban on 3 months). ?
Aproval rate less than 30%, it is waste of time to me. He had to click categories for each image. OMG.
It is ridiculous. No wonder we dont have sales these days, this guy overwhelmed search with new images. lol.
-
Hi my name is Eugene. I am a professional photographer but I am having so many issues with stock.
...
Please help me somehow. College student and am trying to figure this all out. :'(
He submited 750+ images in one batch at SS, and got 190 aproved?...
I don't think there's much hope for you, eugenef, if you thought doing something like that would help your situation. Given that you're not a pro and therefore have a lot of self-competing imagery (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ueugenef1.html), uploading 750 at once was very foolish. Even a batch of 50 of that stuff would have been too much.
On the bright side, your horrible approval rate on the batch (25% !!!) should give you the clear message that you need to rethink your approach to stock photography.
-
Eugene,
You could have picked a NUMBER of sites to mass upload to. The issue is, you did it with the #1 subscription site.
The problem? Had all your images gone thru, your entire portfolio would be timed out in about 3 weeks. Shutterstock is the beast which constantly hungers. Best way to approach SS, from what I've done and what i've read others doing, is to feed them a bit at a time, every time images get reviewed, pop another small batch in there. And diversify the batches, so you get different subjects up. Worst thing in the world is to search for New Submissions, and see three pages of the same model *or apple* in various poses, different angles... :: yawn ::
You get much more mileage out of a shoot if you upload it over a few weeks or months.
Feeding the beast that many images was BOUND to make it barf 70% back up....
-
It should not matter how many pictures are in queue, it should not matter how many are in batch. Reviewer should see pictures as end-user does, randomly from different contributors and judge them one at the time. This how it should be in ideal world but I agree that in reality large batches or series are disadvantageous.
-
It should not matter how many pictures are in queue, it should not matter how many are in batch. Reviewer should see pictures as end-user does, randomly from different contributors and judge them one at the time. This how it should be in ideal world but I agree that in reality large batches or series are disadvantageous.
Yes, I really appreciate sites like DT and IS that (supposedly) review photos on a first come first serve basis.
-
I totally agree.
All images should be taken at face value.
Where they are coming from should have no bearing.
The trouble is reviewers can see who a certain batch belongs to.
It should not matter how many pictures are in queue, it should not matter how many are in batch. Reviewer should see pictures as end-user does, randomly from different contributors and judge them one at the time. This how it should be in ideal world but I agree that in reality large batches or series are disadvantageous.
-
I am on SS for a three months...
I have about 120 photos there, isn't to many , I think that will be more for a three months when I start....
But my batches have cca 5 images, never more and my approval rate is about 90 %...
Sales are good for start.
Greed is your enemy, even for pro photographers.