Yea production cost might be out of control. I always wondered how some people were able to bookmark that many models and have that much equipment, while I can hardly validate the purchase of a new lens. Now I may have a part of an answer.

There's photographers that might hunt numbers instead profits IMO. I know I do microstock to pay myself things I couldn't afford normally, like restaurant, cinema, some electronic devices and a little fun each weeks.

I have small expectations doing this, but I do hope that the big players keep being successful, it's them who attract all the designers in microstock. I'm sure that Yuri will find the way to stay on track. Actually, why not stopping the production and just let the money come in for the next 6 months or year. That would be 100% profits

But a bad news for all the employees...

well if we look at the net gain of many big companies (ie : google) it's usually in the 10-15% range.

if Yuri says he can still pay the bills with a 3$ RPI it means when he had a 9$ RPI
he was making huge profits !

But hey, maybe he's just downplaying his real earnings in order to pay less taxes and trying to demotivate his competitors ? Makes sense to me.

check this out :

http://www.ellenboughn.com/shannon-fagan-asks-whats-your-position-on-global-positioning


in the comments Yuri says :

"I will bring some numbers to the table. Lookstat. It�s not just as simple as adapting to new waters.

I still shot, but it is not a good market situation we are in. RPI for microstock non-exclusive has dropped from 9.8USD per image per month two years back to 4.5USD per image per month today. I am expecting it to drop to less than 3 USD per image per month this year, at which point it does not make much sense to be producing. I could produce and make money at this RPI, but that would be at a stabile RPI of 3USD per month, not if it keeps going down. Right now I have to produce 11000 images per year to �maintain� my income.
My production is very streamlined and probably uses every technology known to man on how to produce great stock images. We go a long way to optimize for 5% more/better output. That�s 5%, not 50% and still we can�t really make sensible money from it in one-two years from now. It�s not about adapting and changing, it�s about accepting that what we could once make a living from, will be a hobby for the crowd. A crowd that does not care about RPI�s, model fees, overheads�.it�s their hobby."

I uploaded for one months and have Online Files - 511 and Rejected Files - 34. Received payment (100$) for 2 days after request, using Paypal. No problems!



-------------------------------------------------------------

My  refferal link from Deposit Affiliate Program  is http://submit.depositphotos.com?ref=1003952

troll.

I kind of give up on Alamy cause whole process takes to long. In order to have 5000 images there it will take years (I do not even have 5K on SS). I do not have enough experience to figure where each image would be accepted so all agencies get the same stuff. This probably reason why I am failing on Alamy cause they want something else. I also started with Agesfotostock but so far I got just few images accepted and I am not spending much time on them. Looked at Masterfile and exclusivity is no go for me. Funny thing year after starting with micros Getty wanted some of my images from Flickr and I had to say no cause they are all over the internet with micros :-)

100 pics a day == 3650 pics/year.

i uploaded 120 today for instance.

problem is, if ONE image is bad, the whole batch gets rejected and they make you wait a few days too.

as for Getty RF i can't see where's the big deal about it ... the only reason to join getty is for their RM
sales, their RF collection is nothing special nor they sell more than the Alamy and the gang.

no offence guys, but where are you going ?

if you're crap feel free to deal with these guys like 123RF and other agencies i've never heard before.

but for anything else, if you're serious about stock make yourself a good edited portfolio and apply with Getty.

if getty dislikes you there's still Alamy, AGE, Masterfile, and at least the option of being istock exclusive.

why wasting yout time and dealing with such fly by night operations like 123Rf and the gang of low earners ?



microstock == iStockphoto & Shutterstock

I just want to clarify things that I should have done when I originally posted and I apologize for that. The bashing that was going on, was not directed at me, but some others on the forum. As most of you have pointed out, this is the best forum to partake in and that is very true thanks to Leaf. He has done a great job. I have also been to the other forums and know what it is like there. They are not the friendliest places. That was the point I was trying to make. I just don�t want this forum to turn out like those and that is my main concern. The majority of people on here are considerate. Like I said before I�m not going to single out people and point fingers here. That is a lot of the problem that I was referring to. I didn�t post to provoke people....even though it seems like that is what I  have done. I just felt these problems need to be addressed and I hope you understand that.

this forum is good because we can see top-sellers in action, we can read their views and sales.

if it wasn't like this no one would write here.

A 2Mpix image - good enough for greeting cards - costs about US$5-6.  Still very affordable.

even too much affordable.

i still see prices as too low compared to the production costs.

the owner "getting mad" at exclusive prices ?
hahaha tell him to go with Getty RM and see what happens...

in the history of photography images have NEVER been so cheap as today !
how can these dorks complain about prices ?

you can buy an entry level DSLR for 400$ ... why they don't go out and shoot
wasting a whole afternoon and realizing how much time and energy it takes
to make a decent image..

they really think it's all about pressing buttons...
do they think the camera makes the composition as well ?

crazy !

Canon and Nikon are also to blame for their stupid marketing and the many BS like
"you press the button, we do the rest", yeah right !

making good pictures and making tons of them is HARD.
either buyers realize the cost involved or they'll have to realize it the hard way.

i'm browsing in this moment images of Tibet on Istock.
many shots of the usual Potala palace, doors, monks, etc
same crap as elsewhere.
not a single image of Barkhor, of indoors, or real people, nothing.

but there's a good reason, that stuff is selling at high prices on RM agencies
exactly because it's harder to shoot than walking in the central square
and shoot at the most touristic temple and the pilgrims around as any
other tourist with a camera would do.

and there's plenty of even cheaper alternatives than istock if the issue
is just about price.

but they also want quality and quality costs !
weren't they the ones telling us to adapt or die and yadda yadda ?

and so we did.
good pics on RM, the others on RF.
there you have it.

c'mon guys.

when a company doesn't even reply emails anymore it can only mean one thing ...
leave the boat before it sinks ! 

well it's always about supply and demand.

you can't expect to get rich shooting apples and bananas.

maybe if you shoot 100.000 apples and bananas in an endless different ways
you can earn some money but otherwise your chance of flooding the market
with easy-peasy photos is very low.

microstock is usually made of edited collection, and they only care about few categories of images.
that's a very small perimeter compared to RM.

and being so small it will be harder and harder to make sales in the long run.

i can't see why designers should pay more than 1$ for a photo of apples and oranges,
but they sure have good reasons to pay 200$ for a hard-to-find image they badly need
in their design.

but this factor alone won't lower design standards unless their customers realize the pictures
are worth pennies.

i've seen some calendars recently sent me by my local bank, all the pictures were clearly
from microstock, how cheap !

we should't see this as a single picture but as a set of 5-10 picture with the same kid in different compositions.

in my opinion, this shoot is very average, nothing special nor anything you can't even shoot yourself
at home.

therefore it belongs to the micros and even there i'm not sure it will make you rich.

Quote from: macrosaur on February 18, 2010, 14:37

They also banned me in the Alamy forum, such a pain in the ass.

What did you do wrong at Alamy forum? Criticized the macrostock agencies?

I don't know exactly, today i argued that Nikon was better than Canon and their admin
closed the thread and banned me.

For a sum of 150 euro (or 3 regular photos), anybody could leech the site dry in a month.
With unlimited download, there is also no way they can project a guaranteed income per photo for anybody.
The same flawed approach as Vivozoom.

Next!

Next ?

Next is iStock i'm afraid.
What else can be the next step for Thinkstock ?

"all you can eat for xxx $/month, unlimited this and that " ...  just give them some time...