Author Topic: Does my stock portfolio stand a chance? (Read 8579 times)

jools · « **on:** February 03, 2012, 03:37 »

Morning all!

I'm new to the forum after being recommended to check the place out by a photographer friend.

Before I go any further, I hope that this is being posted in the right place!

Photography is all I do and since I started out down the self-employment route back in November 2010 I've managed to get signed up with a few agencies.

One of those was PhotoLibrary which has since been purchased by Getty. Macrostock wise I'm also with Arcaid, Robert Harding (images waiting) and Alamy. Microstock it's Dreamstime, IStockPhoto and Fotolia.

This year has been when sales have slowly started trickling through.

My macrostock work:

Getty: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&artist=Julian+Elliott. There should be more on here but my work hasn't yet been migrated over from PL.
Arcaid: http://www.tinyurl.com/6d3rcoc
Alamy: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/19BC4189-F7B0-4C87-B52C-9376C277D756/Julian+Elliott.html

Microstock is here:

Dreamstime: http://www.dreamstime.com/Julianelliott_info
Fotolia: http://en.fotolia.com/p/203024744
IStockPhoto: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/5297315/?facets=%7B%2225%22%3A%226%22%7D#53601cd

Be interested in any feedback

Thanks

Jools!

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2012, 03:51 »

You certainly have respectable images. Landscapes are rarely big sellers, but once in a while a landscape can sell very well if it happens to turn up high in the search results (those with crappy landscapes never get 'lucky'

Have you tried submitting to Shutterstock? I might also add DepositPhotos to your list. I think you are probably the best one to judge your earnings though. It looks like you have a bit of content to test with, so submit a few hundred to varies microstock agencies and compare it to the macrostock earnings you are seeing. Your landscapes should garner a reasonable amount of sales in either market.

jools · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2012, 05:10 »

Thanks for the comments Leaf!

I'm lucky that I have access to some nice scenics around here that are always commercially viable for things such as travel guides etc. Living in the Loire Valley does have some benefits.

Shutterstock has been tried but I failed the initial submission test. I'm not too worried about that due to some of the other agencies I'm with.

I hadn't heard of depositphotos until you mentioned them. I'll give them a look to see the lay of the land.

Right now, I'd like to make enough cash to get out there once a month to keep things fresh.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2012, 05:24 »

nice shots. I think it is best to enjoy the shooting. If you are shooting anyway put them up for sale. Starting out in stock is hard compared to the past.. Getting a buzz out of sales is important. Shutterstock is my biggest seller. Istock was second. I do not upload there anymore because I do not believe new files will be seen. Some of the people do it full time. For me it would be hard to be motivated or for that matter to be commercially creative enough.

michealo · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2012, 05:48 »

I looked at your IS portfolio

Nice work, if they were a little punchier I think they would be more saleable.

Other than that just upload a lot more

mtkang · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2012, 06:03 »

how are you doing in macro stock? are you selling RM? if you are earning something from there, try harder to get more different kind of images to get more sales..

your style make me think you are better fit in macro in order to sell your images for better returns. Sometimes a visually good images may only earn a few bucks in microstock..

jools · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2012, 07:51 »

Thanks for all the replies and comments folks.

So far, my macrostock work is just about dripping through. It didn't help that my images with PhotoLibrary that should be on the big G haven't migrated over. When they were there, I had a decent sale within the first month. It was just after that the takeover happened.

The images are spread according to the library. The microstock tends to be images from my old digital SLR plus the rejects from the bigger libraries.

Thankfully, I get magazine work to help supplement things.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2012, 08:01 »

A lot of people do landscapes. A lot. Only the really good ones will get the sales.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2012, 08:27 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 03, 2012, 08:01

A lot of people do landscapes. A lot. Only the really good ones will get the sales.

True.
A lot of people do people in studios. A lot. Only the really good ones will get the sales.

michealo · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2012, 08:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 03, 2012, 08:01

A lot of people do landscapes. A lot. Only the really good ones will get the sales.

FYI Sjlocke is the intelligent software assistant and knowledge navigator functioning as a personal assistant application here, it parses your posts and tries to provide a meaningful response, currently it's acerbic level is jammed at 11 ...

jools · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:24 »

So, I'm guessing that having a thick skin around these parts is necessary!

As I said, I get magazine work so I must be doing something right

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:27 »

Ok, y'all... There are people that shoot nice landscapes. There are a lot of people that like to do this as a hobby. So, to start, there are an excess of generic, nice landscapes in micro. And to be honest, there isn't a lot of commercial call for generic nice landscapes. So, supply is high, need is low. So, you really need to stand out. I'd say yours are better than average, but there are just a ton of stunning ones out there.

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #12 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:42 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 03, 2012, 08:01

A lot of people do landscapes. A lot. Only the really good ones will get the sales.

The biggest problem with IS is the "noise" on the site. Way too many low sellers are allowed to throw images against the wall and see if they stick. This buries the best producers images and gives the customers headaches in finding quality images. Not promoting Sean more than a person with 9000 images and 5000 sales happens because of the mass uploading by average producers are not penalized outside of low sales. The sales per image ratio should be a factor in how many one can upload. Low selling artist should be dropped just like any other creative business. New talent should be promoted based on sales.

One of the weirdest getty/istock merger events was getty scouring flicker for new artist which I saw on the national news to put on getty. So they spent 50 mil on istock and weren't looking for artist that were not getting good exposure on istock.

jools · « **Reply #13 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:43 »

I know that with my landscape work I'm fighting quite a tough battle. However, landscape photography here in France doesn't seem to be as huge as it is over in the UK. Well, not from I've seen anyway.

Is my work average? Depends who you ask. There is the potential that I'm going to be sent off to Morocco in a couple of weeks in order to illustrate a book by a major publisher. They liked my work enough to consider me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:48 »

Quote from: jools on February 03, 2012, 09:43

I know that with my landscape work I'm fighting quite a tough battle. However, landscape photography here in France doesn't seem to be as huge as it is over in the UK. Well, not from I've seen anyway.

Is my work average? Depends who you ask. There is the potential that I'm going to be sent off to Morocco in a couple of weeks in order to illustrate a book by a major publisher. They liked my work enough to consider me.

Your work is above average; that doesn't mean it will or won't do well on micro. Micro is a totally different market than 'illustrating a book'.
You just have to suck it and see how it works for you.

jools · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2012, 09:51 »

I think that I am now going to leave this conversation where it is.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2012, 10:00 »

I'd say all the comments on this page are pretty spot-on.

But as for the quality of your work, just looking through thumbnails I'd say your work is quite stunning. Really fantastic stuff. Kudos!

However, as has been pointed out, there just aren't that many buyers at any given moment who need what you're offering. You really have to ask yourself every time you post an image, Who will buy this and How will it be used? It's all about helping the buyer communicate a concept he/she is trying to convey. Quality aside, the more potential applications you can envision for your image, the greater chance it has to generate real sales. Your pics, as great as they are, just don't scream any particular concepts aside from Peace, Beauty, Nature, etc, and in the modern world of blogs, advertising, etc., it takes an image with a really powerful "message" to excite buyers.

Best of luck on your upcoming trip... it sounds like those kinds of assignments are where your talents will truly shine. I believe you'll ultimately find that Microstock is a business where photographic talent matters far less than business savvy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2012, 10:08 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on February 03, 2012, 10:00

Best of luck on your upcoming trip... it sounds like those kinds of assignments are where your talents will truly shine. I believe you'll ultimately find that Microstock is a business where photographic talent matters far less than business savvy.

+1

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2012, 10:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 03, 2012, 09:27

Ok, y'all... There are people that shoot nice landscapes. There are a lot of people that like to do this as a hobby. So, to start, there are an excess of generic, nice landscapes in micro. And to be honest, there isn't a lot of commercial call for generic nice landscapes. So, supply is high, need is low. So, you really need to stand out. I'd say yours are better than average, but there are just a ton of stunning ones out there.

You might be surprised Sean. Only yesterday I sold 5 EL's at SS, 4 of which were landscapes and none of which were anything special. Nowadays I wouldn't go out of my way to shoot landscapes for stock, as it is probably the most difficult subject to get a return on, but if they already exist then given enough time they will certainly generate some money.

Good work btw Jools. I particularly like your treatment of the beech trees at Kingston Lacy. They're a surprisingly difficult subject to frame well.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2012, 10:45 »

I stand corrected.

jools · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2012, 11:19 »

Thank you for your comments on my work at Kingston Lacy. It is an area that I know particularly well and have shot numerous times.

Just managed to have a batch of them approved on Getty as RM.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:39 »

Quote from: jools on February 03, 2012, 11:19

Thank you for your comments on my work at Kingston Lacy. It is an area that I know particularly well and have shot numerous times.

Just managed to have a batch of them approved on Getty as RM.

That's great, but being with Getty is not necessarily a mark of excellence though imo. I've often visited their site in recent years and there is a lot of average looking shots there, a lot of really poor shots too. Go to Getty, take off the Editorial filter and type landscape, then type landscape in Dreamstime. Micro often wins, Getty knows that microstock is extremely competitive, they even bought a microstock company not so long back.

Your shots are nice, but nice is the most appropriate adjective for them. They don't blow me away and many other ports do and they are the ones which get lots of sales in microstock. And yes u have to be thick skinned in this forum as well as in the industry in general. I would never ask for an appraisal in a forum and expect only good things said about it. If that were the case I'd be in the wrong forum.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:43 »

I looked at your Getty portfolio as well as iStock and DT. The thing that struck me was that it looked like you'd done exactly what you said - sent the RM rejects to microstock.

I wouldn't argue with trying to make the most out of your work, but I would suggest that you won't see much return from the microstock agencies with that approach. I found your Getty portfolio visually appealing and the microstock images not so much. You might find that some other work that doesn't suit the RM agencies might be a better microstock option for you - perhaps you have access to a location or some gear that might give you useful images for the micros.

jools · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2012, 12:58 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 03, 2012, 12:43

I looked at your Getty portfolio as well as iStock and DT. The thing that struck me was that it looked like you'd done exactly what you said - sent the RM rejects to microstock.

I wouldn't argue with trying to make the most out of your work, but I would suggest that you won't see much return from the microstock agencies with that approach. I found your Getty portfolio visually appealing and the microstock images not so much. You might find that some other work that doesn't suit the RM agencies might be a better microstock option for you - perhaps you have access to a location or some gear that might give you useful images for the micros.

Thanks jsnover.

Surely, what you have said is the name of the game. To make images that are visually appealing.

The stuff that I have with the microstock is really there because I would rather it was somewhere than just sat on my HD. If it happens to make some cash, great!

Location wise. It's odd you mention it. The first image I sold with PhotoLibrary sold because it is one of the better images out there of a particular location. Most everything else I have seen is quite ordinary.

rinderart · « **Reply #24 on:** February 04, 2012, 15:25 »

I think you have a very painterly Eye. Most don't. Shoot what turns YOU on. Thats the only way to be unique. Buyers will find you. Although I do think Variety and lots of it is the way to go. Use that great eye and do some people shots. Good Job.And get a few 1000 More then ask.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Does my stock portfolio stand a chance? (Read 8579 times)

jools

leaf

jools

markrhiggins

michealo

mtkang

jools

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

michealo

jools

Sean Locke Photography

pro@stockphotos

jools

ShadySue

jools

stockmarketer

ShadySue

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

jools

Microstock Posts

Jo Ann Snover

jools

rinderart

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors