|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - hqimages
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
101
« on: September 10, 2009, 17:37 »
Where did she go wrong?
It sounds like she assumed everything. She didn't set any upfront agreement about what she expected in return for doing the shoot. And now she's mad that the outcome didn't match her assumptions.
Yeah, I'm really divided about it, I think because she did it for free, the credits became too important.. and then when the credits and other things went wrong, she hit the roof. I'm in two minds about blogging about it though.. I wonder if she contacted them first before blogging, or will the blog be the first they hear of it.. so yeah I'm not sure a blog rant is the way to go here, and I think if people had been paid it would have been a non-issue!
102
« on: September 10, 2009, 17:33 »
That article was too long. What was the point?
Something about people that love to crap all over other people's efforts.
103
« on: September 10, 2009, 17:07 »
http://fashionphotographyblog.com/2009/09/ultrahip-magazine-flaunt/Interesting article and experience, and many questions! 1. Where did she go wrong? (I think I know, it involves the word free) 2. Is it professional to blog about these things? 3. Should this treatment be expected in this industry? What if the magazine was suddenly given exclusive images of Angelina Jolie (or someone!) and had to make a cut-throat decision, should we the photographer be told in advance? What about the credits? It's a really good link you should go read, and GORGEOUS pictures.. just, stunning.
104
« on: September 10, 2009, 13:18 »
I'm guessing the OP is a small contributor.. you can't really compare a small contributors experience against a pro's..
105
« on: September 10, 2009, 11:17 »
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.
More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision. That sort of worked because there were (if you were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.
But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes". The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk. The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5 a pair.
I left without buying anything.
You obviously didn't really need a pair of shoes. 
Or like most men, you need to grab the absolute first thing you see and RUN AWAY!
I take ages to choose a pair of shoes and then I wear them until they fall apart.
Not the ideal customer for the shoe shop 
106
« on: September 10, 2009, 10:57 »
In the old days, you went to a shoe store and were met by a salesman who knew every shoe in the store.
More recently, you could go to a discount shoe store where you just looked at what was on the racks and made your own decision. That sort of worked because there were (if you were a guy) only a few dozen shoes in your size.
But yesterday I went to a gigantic new MicroShoe store. They had a big sign in front saying "choose from 16 million pairs of shoes". The employees had no idea what was in stock; but they had a cool self-service search kiosk. The shoes were indexed by keywords supplied by the manufacturers - like "black, "brown", "cool", "fashionable", "hot", "executive", "gambler", "athletic". The were all the same fixed price, only $5 a pair.
I left without buying anything.
You obviously didn't really need a pair of shoes.
Or like most men, you need to grab the absolute first thing you see and RUN AWAY!
107
« on: September 10, 2009, 10:18 »
This makes me sick.
Even in an industrialized country such as the USA (although i a bit behind...) I'm sitting here on a 6 MB/s DSL connection which is the fastest I can get in the 2 Million people metropolitan area where I reside (downtown btw).
My mom who lives in a tiny village (1.500 inhabitatns) in central Europe has 25 MB/s as of now with the option to upgrade to 100 MB/s for 49 Euros a month. I'm paying the same for a 6 MB/s connection. I'm pissed.
Ireland has a maximum of 15mb country wide. Some companies offer 20mb (impossible to achieve), we have one of the highest costs of living in the world.. I feel your pain, especially being a photographer/web designer, disaster!
108
« on: September 10, 2009, 09:58 »
Ok - so the trained, eagle-like eyes of microstock buyers can take in 160 businesmen at a glance, and spot the one that truly conveys their message, and they'll still be able to do that next year when there are 1600. There are still some crucial limitations to what the search functions on the microstock sites can do.
The microstocks aren't searching images, just a database of keywords, which in many cases are junk. They can't improve that situation without paying reviewers to re-keyword millions of images, which is never going to happen. The search engines can't apply any 'quality' standards to the image because that's all pretty subjective. They can't even determine what's in the image.
I doubt if each stock agency will be carrying 80 million images each this time next year. I think the agencies also realise that image keywording and search functionality are critical for their success, especially as their collections grown even bigger. Even if there were 1600 results for a specific search query, it still isn't going to take that long to find the suitable/perfect image.
But if you're image number 1599, you really don't have much hope. In the same way that you could upload 5-10 really high quality images of 'business man on white', until Yuri and Co decide it's a great idea, and upload 200 of the same the following week.. your offering has SERIOUS competition!
109
« on: September 10, 2009, 07:44 »
7 pages of isolated business men sitting on chairs.. lol!!!!! I guess, I mean maybe if you shot an isolated business man sitting on a chair once a week so that you're always on the first page.. but really, 7 pages of just isolated business men sitting on chairs, you really think a person looking for that photo is even going to look at page 2? They just got EXACTLY what they wanted on the first page.. so you gotta keep shooting over and over to serve that fresh image if that's the market you want.
As I said, 200 images. Actually 160 of just photos. My pages are set to 100 images a page. It is not very difficult to scan through two pages to find exactly what you want. I would also say that most of them would be useful in different situations - ie. they are not exactly the same. Different expressions, character types, ethnicities, etc.
The point is that your comment about "obscure" searches being the only thing to return small amounts is incorrect. I know this may invalidate whatever point you were trying to make, but there you go.
7 pages of results for an incredibly specific search, ie, Must be male, must have a suit on, must be isolated on white, must be sitting on a chair, just proves, even the most specific of searches are over represented.
110
« on: September 10, 2009, 07:22 »
Right, because buyers use unique search phrases such as 'business man on white' Maybe you have a point though, there must be an obscure search or two that only return a few 100 results regardless of age or downloads..
Right. Because the entire universe revolves around "businessman on white".
A search doesn't have to be that obscure to return a reasonable subset.
For example, an isolated businessman sitting in a chair. Now, I know that's crazy obscure and no one would ever use that , but it returns less than 200 images:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=businessman+isolated+sitting+chair
7 pages of isolated business men sitting on chairs.. lol!!!!! I guess, I mean maybe if you shot an isolated business man sitting on a chair once a week so that you're always on the first page.. but really, 7 pages of just isolated business men sitting on chairs, you really think a person looking for that photo is even going to look at page 2? They just got EXACTLY what they wanted on the first page.. so you gotta keep shooting over and over to serve that fresh image if that's the market you want.
111
« on: September 10, 2009, 06:48 »
teeheehee!
"birdseed must not have any performance-enhancing seeds within"
I SOOOOO want to use this method on my clients, lol!
112
« on: September 10, 2009, 06:47 »
5000 a day, 35000 a week, 150000 a month.. how is someone even adding 100 a month meant to get found, at this point even the pro adding 1000 a month will suffer, but definitely has a better chance, but they will have to go from adding 1000 a month, to 2000 a month if these kinds of numbers keep going through the roof!
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that everyone is uploading "apples on white" or essentially the exact same subject matter. One would assume that good images on varying subject matter that can be found using specific keywords will be found.
I have to agree. I don't think the size of the collection is the problem, I think it's about how good your images are, how effective the search engine is and how the buyer enters their search query. Google being a case in point, I don't have too much trouble finding the info I want from tens of millions of pages, if I enter a logical search query.
Right, because buyers use unique search phrases such as 'business man on white' Maybe you have a point though, there must be an obscure search or two that only return a few 100 results regardless of age or downloads..
114
« on: September 10, 2009, 04:47 »
If you've heard of Pavlov's dog salivating at the sound of a bell because it's been trained to link the sound with food--that's what shooting stock is like to me.
I like to get some recognition for my work and my gallery sales and Microstock payments satisfy that need for me.
Pavlov called the training method with the dogs "intermittent rewards" because he knew that by rewarding the dog with food with every ring of the bell wasn't as effective as ringing the bell only some of the time. So when I get a sale, or not, I can't wait to upload some more.
Arf.
115
« on: September 10, 2009, 04:42 »
Case in point, Clusterstock, which I really like actually..
"We are about to hit 280,000 images. Since we hit 275,000 last night it seems we're growing by about 5,000 per day."
5000 a day, 35000 a week, 150000 a month.. how is someone even adding 100 a month meant to get found, at this point even the pro adding 1000 a month will suffer, but definitely has a better chance, but they will have to go from adding 1000 a month, to 2000 a month if these kinds of numbers keep going through the roof!
Now Clusterstock is kind of different in that, you have your own page, and it's essentially your own shop, so perhaps you can market locally to some success.. but this kind of growth in microstock sites that depend on search results to get downloads for people.. well.. the small contributor is screwed really!!! And by small I mean dedicated part-time with good equipment.
116
« on: September 09, 2009, 13:23 »
I just want a place where small contributors can play. I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.
I upload less than 60 a month now, quantity doesn't matter as long as enough buyers want what you upload. Alamy has over 16 million images and I get sales there with a portfolio of 250. The micros are easier than alamy.
You know, I should bite the bullet this year and give it a go! The up-sizing thing is scary it always puts me off, I should try it tho!
117
« on: September 09, 2009, 13:13 »
I just want a place where small contributors can play. I can compete on quality, but not on quantity.
Me too! A web site with a cap would be great, set a cap of 1k images per person, and if you want to add more, then delete some first.. if supply was restricted, the price would go up.. never going to happen tho, the web sites just want to say 'we have the biggest database of images in the world', there's nothing in it for them to control supply unless EVERYONE does it, which also will never happen.. It has to implode at some point though.. if the pro's can't sustain the work it currently takes to make it full-time, it will implode.
118
« on: September 09, 2009, 12:47 »
Just don't forget that the next 100 or 1000 new people will never reach payout, ever.
This is what I keep coming back to - sort of. Sure there are people "making money" today, depending on how you look at it. But it seems like the whole thing is just losing steam. You used to need 100 new photos a month, now you need 1,000, next year I calculate you will have to upload 1,000,000 new images a month to succeed . Ok I made that all up, but you get the point. This thing is steadily ceasing to make sense.
So true.. and the image libraries started out with 40k images, then 80k, then 1 million, then 1.2 million, it's crazy.. plus what started out as the big six, will slowly become the big seven, the big eight, the big nine.. we can't ALL make money with market saturation at these levels!
119
« on: September 09, 2009, 10:33 »
Wow. Your wisdom has convinced me of what an utter failure I am. I'll earn $2,000 this month, but your calculations have shown me how it will all evaporate before I can touch it. I guess I should throw out my computer and shut off my electricity and internet, since I don't want those "costs" lingering. And I certainly don't want my portfolio to continue to be downloaded after I've given up and saddle me with a mountain of more costs, so I should just delete them as well. Count me as another worthless hamster slain by the mighty dingo.
lol! 
120
« on: September 09, 2009, 04:11 »
Neat hypothesis PowerDroid, but how about some factual numbers, not cheerleading.
It's going on two years now, 100-200 images on the big six, when do I start making that 10c a day per photo?
As I look, BS, FT, StockXpert and DT are running about 5c a day per photo. IS slightly better and SS is almost 20c a day.
In a couple of years, maybe three, I'll be able to cash out for the first time on BS, FT, DT and StockXpert for my big paycheck which won't even cover props and light bulbs. Maybe you should re-check your math against reality and the real world. It may work for you and there may be someone with 300 photos, selling thousands on IS, but lets be fair and look at honest numbers. The IS survey site tells the story of how many people never reach payout! Look at how many people start and drop out with under 10 photos.
Of the referrals I've been fortunate enough to have at all, one of them is uploading and making some money. Best wishes. The rest, which I've followed, have never been accepted on IS or never uploaded even one photo. On the other sites, I'm still waiting for the first one to sell a single photo. The exception is the one who I'm thankful for making money because it gave me $1.17 last month.
In support of micro, I don't depend on the income, nor do I have any delusions that I'll ever make more than it takes to edit and upload the photos. But I already had the camera and computer and equipment (except some lights and props) so it's a hobby that I play with over the Winter months. Some people do work very hard and build a collection of 1000 photos and do get monthly returns. Micro has made me more critical and a better photographer for what I do shoot, that will never see a microstock site. It fills my idle time and sometimes I see a shot and say "Hey that would be good for Micro."
Your example of 2 hours a day comes out to making about 50c an hour for the first year and $1 an hour after the second year. Be honest, if someone said they would pay you $1 an hour and all you had to do was work for them for two years, would you say that's a good job or interesting. Did you include uploading. keywording, shooting, editing and all the time you spend on each photo? Or are you making one illustration a day, which will honestly make more than photos.
Here's the answer, ten photos a week uploaded to the top six, don't forget to account for rejections, and you'll have over 1000 photos in two years, (many less on IS and SS) which will make you possibly, in the real world, $500 a year in returns. I think I could make that picking cans out of the trash or scouting drive-throughs and parking lots, for dropped change. Of course it lacks the glamor and integrity of being a microstock photographer, but considering the investment side, picking up change or re-cycling is more profitable! Get a job and work two weeks a year, or one month a year, part time and you'll have the same $500. LOL
Where else could you be promised that if you work for two years, you can make $2 a day! Oh wow, I can see the unemployed just clamoring for cameras so they can get into Microstock.
It's not profitable, it's not going to make 98% of the people who try it, any significant income. It's not easy and there are no promises. But as a hobby or something enjoyable to do with spare time or as an artistic outlet, there's nothing wrong with Microstock. Are we having fun yet? If so, then keep on going. If not then quit.
I just can't tell people honestly that for the average person, there's money, or a profit, to be made in Micro.
Great post!!!! I have to agree too.. if you have a few 100 shots, and you aren't adding at least 100 to that per month over a period of 1-2 years (consistently), then you won't make much.. especially when competing against pro's on the same web sites adding 1000 a month, your images get lost in the mix unless you want to produce at that level.. which I believe cannot be done if you have a 'day job'.. but these people don't, they have made microstock their living, and you have to compete against the person with all the time in the world to give to it, with whatever you have left after making a living. I really think they will have to do something to keep the small contributor happy, with all the pro level people entering and producing massive volume of images, they will monopolise it, and then they will only compete with each other, but they have saturated the market to a huge extreme.. it makes it harder for anyone to sell any image, and it drives the price down. It will be interesting to see what happens though that's for sure!!
121
« on: September 08, 2009, 09:41 »
- Those who actually do make money at microstock after properly accounting for their expenses and labor but who are too dumb, too naive, or too arrogant to realize they could be earning much more outside of the microstock realm.
In other words, these bozos lose money just for being involved in microstock when other avenues would reward them more handsomely.
Out of interest how do you account for the pro's who have spent years within the stock industry, like Iophoto or Monkey Business Images for example, but who now have several thousand images on micro? Why don't they put their images on the 'other avenues' you speak of instead?
MBI sold Banana Stock to Jupiter for $20M a few years ago so she probably knows a bit about the industry. Anyway she's been uploading nearly 1000 images a month to micro for the last 18 months. From her sales in her first year on micro it would appear that she made about $200K, not bad from a standing start, and that will most likely be doubled or trebled in the second year.
Right, but when the small contributor (small being, has a day job) is competing against that well.. they don't have a hope really do they?
122
« on: September 07, 2009, 11:58 »
Unless he didn't get paid for the work he did, it sounded like they were meant to do a job together, and it fell through.. so there's a chance they maybe covered his expenses for the trip he made, but didn't pay him for the work, as the shoot had fallen through.. otherwise he wouldn't have a case really.. I think he's getting in there before she declares bankruptcy, it certainly seems to be heading that way 
123
« on: September 07, 2009, 11:55 »
There was a discussion in another thread about what constitutes a FT "pro" income in photography. Some seemed to think it was upwards of a million, while most stats indicate it is in the mid 5 figure income range.
Personally, I considered myself earning a FT income when I began to approach the income my husband makes as a FT teacher. Yeah, I know it is two completely different professions, and he is working for someone else and I work for myself, etc. But still, if there are people working FT at middle-class jobs (not flipping burgers or parking cars) and making what I make, then to me that is a FT income.
And FWIW I only do a couple of shoots a month - although I cram as many different concepts and setups in there as I can. By submitting around 100 pics a month, give or take, I have managed to rack up around 5k images on each site.
For the amount of effort I put in I am satisfied at this level. Not everyone needs to be making six or seven figures to consider themselves "pro" and be happy with their level of success.
BTW, I live in the US and the median income here is still around 50k or so.
You add 100 a month.. that's really good for the money you're getting back.. and 5k roughly in total.. that's good value for work produced, your images are TOP class though, they really are!!
124
« on: September 07, 2009, 05:06 »
Hi Steve thanks for that info!! Can I ask you if you don't mind, how many images do you have in your gallery, and how many do you add to that on a monthly basis? Just curious!
it really varies - if i'm home i work steadily on editing, tagging & uploading. most months i add 500-1000 images to my MS portfolios. last month it was 3000, but that's because i signed up at 3d Studio and snapixel & they take most submissions.
i've got somewhere around 3500 images in my work area, including about 800 from last year's peru trip - but many of these are similar to images already submitted, so they won't all get processed and submitted. my total archive is about 5500 digital images, plus about 1000 images scanned from slides.
we're heading to India in nov for 5 weeks, and i expect i'll gather about 15K images plus video - about 1/2 of that can be reviewed and discarded quickly [often over beer and papadams in the hotel bar] - near dupes, bad comp, camera moved, etc, but it will still keep me busy thru ski season.
Wow, that's dedicated production for the amount you're adding per month.. I'll have to stick you in the 'pro' bracket for microstock! Well done, that's a lot of hard work!!
125
« on: September 06, 2009, 14:42 »
i not only pay for my mortgage, but pay for several tax deductible foreign trips each year mostly from MS earnings.
too much of the discussion here seems t assume an either-or zero sum situation; even if all the participants in this forum withdrew all their portfolios from subscriptions, the world wouldnt even notice. instead, this is a huge field, and 'dancing among the elephants' is a profitable niche to aim for.
similarly, many seem to assume that by contributing to a subscription site you're hurting sales elsewhere - but that assumes buyers search by photographer, AND that they search multiple sites.
finally, too many focus on the big $ that images sell for on some sites, ignoring the number of users that would/could never consider those prices. 'different horses, different courses' -- it's up to the individual to analyze their portfoo and decide where it will perform best.
steve
Hi Steve thanks for that info!! Can I ask you if you don't mind, how many images do you have in your gallery, and how many do you add to that on a monthly basis? Just curious!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
