Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2014, 19:01

Quote from: cascoly on October 30, 2014, 18:45

the whole quantity vs quality argument would be simpler if anyone KNEW what would sell -- the agencies certainly don't.  in biology there are 2 basic strategies for survival -- invest energy in intensive care of the young (mammals)  or spread your genome over thousands or millions of offspring and hope a few survive (viruses, insects, mushrooms) (some insects carry this  to the extreme that newly hatched larva are born pregnant so popluations can explode when scarce resources are discovered)

the 'concentrate efforts on a few quality images' approach will only work if you know what will sell.  otherwise you're spending too much time creating images no one will buy.

serendipity is everything -- the best selling image from my Antarctica cruise is a traffic jam picture I grabbed from a hotel rooftop in Buenos aires  (and, as a 'travel' picture it's usually not used in context of location)

Has the trip made back the money you spent taking it?  I don't have much confidence that I could make back the money from an Antarctica trip, those are pretty expensive even if you try to do it on the cheap (a quick price check looks like it could cost easily $10,000-$20,000 for one person to go on a two week cruise, taking into account hotels and flights and gear, etc..).  Also Shutterstock's search by popular is strange that image shows up on the 30th page of your portfolio, kind of surprising for a best seller.

you obviously don't know how to find travel bargains - 2 of us traveled to antarctica for 20 days to Antarctica for < $10,000.  I can find similar trips right now for not much more

but the point was never that I expected to make back the costs - this was one of the best trips we've ever taken. the point was that no one can predict which images will sell

as far as numbers, I don't discuss details with trolls who refuse to identify their portfolios

Quote from: tickstock on October 30, 2014, 16:03

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 30, 2014, 16:01

You mean this is all about sales?

I thought it was.

but it should be about return vs. cost (and cost = time and effort as well as money).

That is where a local skyline shot on the morning commute with perfect light can have a better return vs effort than traveling a long distance to a destination in the hope of hitting the potentially much more lucrative jackpot.

So the claim that I haven't every sold a travel photo, isn't quite accurate. Right?

Good that you could prove my point Tick. Thanks

42,482 and 1700 DLs = 4%

21 and 8 DLs = 38%

Which is better? 1700 DLs out of 42,000 similar files of a subject that well covered, and has a low DL percentage from the total population (meaning 40,000+ images have no downloads?)  or one that will get you a 38% chance of getting sold? This is where a well produced and shot image will shine, not lost in a morass of 42,000 others.

There are McDonald's stores that go out of business. It's not an automatic. Shooting Paris doesn't seem like a good idea to me, it's been done and overdone.

True, If you want to do a good job, it's not a vacation it's work. But some people have answered that they mix the two, which makes sense. My point which seems to have been lost in, how to go on the cheap, stay with a friend, or who knows what else... was this:

You already live someplace. We don't have to travel, vacation, or spend great amounts to take "travel" photos. Sometimes places that are near, have a better chance of making a sale than going to somewhere which is out of the way or over covered.

Here's one of the flaws in Microstock. People think that the way to make money is copy or imitate what's popular. In other words, make more of what's already been over done. Instead we should look for things that need more representation and shoot that. Like small towns and out of the way places, which might not have the high volume, but you'll have the better exposure than going where every man has gone before.

Didn't anyone watch Star Trek? "boldly go where no man has gone before"  or at the least get away from the crowd, the over produced and common? Far From the madding crowd's ignoble strife

Quote from: tickstock on October 29, 2014, 11:22

Quote from: chromaco on October 29, 2014, 11:21

I totally get why Istock wants to do this. I don't understand why a contributor would do all of this work for them when the results are just as likely to drive customers to the contributors personal website or even another agency that pays a higher percentage.

Lightrecorder - It is a ton of work but why do it for 15%? If you are going to do it at least you should make a higher percentage.

If you are selling the same work on your personal site and on the stock sites you are already competing against yourself.  I guess people that are already doing it have determined that they are are ok with it.

Not if your SEO is better (and isn't that what is being discussed here?), also not if you upload to your own site first or are particular about which images go to which agencies.

It's interesting that Istock is going after organic customers now. I thought one of the major arguments against self hosting was that serious customers went directly to the agencies and wouldn't bother with the search engines. If google truly is a viable source for customers and you need to redo all of your descriptions anyway, why not do this on your own site, price the images the same price as istock and keep the other 85%? I don't understand why anyone would go to all of this effort for only 15-20%. Especially when super specific search terms like they are describing are as likely to be found on your own site as they are istock, shutterstock or any other agency.

Quote from: tickstock on October 29, 2014, 10:15

Quote from: Lightrecorder on October 29, 2014, 10:10

LMAO ! If I search for an adorable little boy and dog in the sand I get this as first hit http://www.shutterstock.com/s/beach+cute+dog+little/search.html

That is just too funny. Well done IS... hahahaha

Not me the first stock image result (3rd overall) is the one from istock.  I'm not sure what your link is supposed to show, it's a Shutterstock search using different keywords and the first image is of a little girl with a dog.

You are a bit slow, no? When I search for an Istock image title on Google, the first hit is a link to Shutterstock. Irony. Get it?

I just wish they would focus on what's important, especially keyword spamming.

The fact that another image shows the sandcastle thing better is totally irrelevant to that particular image.

Quote from: tickstock on October 28, 2014, 21:30

Cutting costs is only one part of the equation.  In order to make money you have to work hard.  You won't be successful if you look at travel photography as something you do on the way to doing something else.  That's a terrible approach and if you're going to do that you might as well stay at home.

Taking a trip to do travel photography is a terrible business approach. You'll never recover your expenses.

AFTO of course. 

Pay $5000 to fly to Paris, rent a room and a car, and spend a week shooting things that have been covered for 10 years back to film scans. And then expect to make up those expenses 25c at a time... right. You're right.

I can stop my car, where I live, with the equipment I already own, on the way somewhere I was already passing, and make a shot that will cover the minimal expense, in one sale.

Which one earns more money?

Quote from: tickstock on October 28, 2014, 11:32

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 28, 2014, 11:11

Better yet, the popular places and sites have been covered and shot to death. If you find something different, there's a good chance of having a ready image and making a sale. Maybe less demand, but there's certainly less competition.

Yep, take average images of low demand subjects and you have a good chance of getting a sale.  Hopefully your sale covers your time, gas, gear etc...  The formula is simple, take great shots of high demand topics.  You aren't going to make any money shooting things that might get you a sale one day.