Not sure if you're just looking for a new host or a completely new platform but I'd suggest checking out Photodeck or Photoshelter.

Obviously, any company can leave you stranded but I think you're less likely to run into problems like this when using a service provider.

I tried using a Wordpress theme from Graph Paper Press on GoDaddy hosting but the problem I've found is that affordable hosting has crappy performance. They're budget slow. Buyers don't like slow. Google doesn't like slow. So if nobody can access your site and Google doesn't index it, what's the point? Fast hosting costs a lot.

Photodeck and Photoshelter I believe both have plans starting out at $10 per month. Photodeck I really like and any problems I've had they've been receptive to fixing. Photoshelter I also like but the experience has been a bit more bumpy.

Hope you find something good. Setting up a new site is a ton of work.

ETA: You may want to remove your Vector999 link which is advertising BlueHost 

Thanks for the valuable insights and tips!

I am a hobby photographer (with some DSLR shooting & Lightroom experience) and new to stock photography.

I think I am starting to understand the most important metrics (investment in gear, time needed per image and average payout per image).

I am however missing one of the key metrics: How many times is a stock photo (on average) purchased over its lifetime?

Is it safe to assume that for an enthusiast photographer the average number of downloads per image is 5?

Some may reach 50 or even 100+ downloads, but some or bulk of the photos will not sell at all or just 2-3 times.
 
Is 5 downloads on average per image as "lifetime" download too low or high?

I can see the benefit of becoming a better photographer when submitting stock photos to agencies.
But it would be nice to understand the possible income from stock photography and if the initial hard work and patience would ultimately also pay off financially (as a part time / side job).

There are so many variables it's almost impossible to answer an average. I've seen people just getting into stock who have exceptional work that could all sell 100 times per image. I've also seen people who will probably never sell anything so their answer is zero. It depends on the commercial saleability of your work. And it also depends on the quality of your keywords, how many sites you're on, search engine positioning, how lucky you are, and a bunch of other variables.

I've posted this a few times before and I think it applies here. I think the rejection rates have lightened up quite a bit though.

So, on average

    About 5% of the images you shot will be sellable
    You spend 30 minutes per image in an image editing program like Photoshop doing post-processing, keywording, etc
    You start with about a 20% acceptance rate, 80% rejected
    You earn .10 cents US per accepted photo per month per agency on average

So let's say...

    You spend about 16 hours over a week or two shooting 2000 images
    You select 100
    100 images x 30 minutes processing each = 50 hours
    Because of poor focus and other issues you find only 80 are usable
    You submit 80 images
    16 images get accepted (20% acceptance rate)

So for your 16 approved images�

    You�ve worked 66 hours that month and 16.5 hours per week
    You�ve earned $1.60 for the month and .40 cents for the week (.10 cents per accepted photo per month)
    Based on a 40 hour work week, you�ve earned .10 cents US per hour for your efforts

You'd probably need to get out an Excel spreadsheet and over a period of time calculate how many images you can grow per month and figure somewhere between 10 to 50 cents of revenue per image per month.

Since you're doing this part time and just starting out, if I had to guess I'd say it would probably take a year to earn a total of $1,000. Again, there are so many variables that number could also be $0 or it could be $5,000. Who knows.

The only way you'll know the answer is to give it a try and see if the results are, or aren't, what you expected.

It's their business and they can do what they want. Maybe they're tired of people complaining. If I had to guess why there's a limit it's probably because their hosting either costs too much to increase or is too much of a hassle to change.

But I'd agree the 25MB limit is behind the times. They can't expect to sell gigantic prints with a 25MB limit. And I'm done creating multiple files for for different companies. I used to do that way back when I first started. Now I create one set of files. Any company that has a limit that excludes certain files I'm not changing them to meet the requirement. I just don't have the time to create and manage multiple versions of thousands of images.

Many people have complained, on FAA's forum, about shipping costs and the official answer has always been - they are what they are, we have no control.  And they show comparisons with other retailers to prove their point.  I haven't tried to analyze this but apparently when you get into sizeable framed prints, the cost just skyrockets because the shipping boxes are so large.

I used to think that the answer would be to have local fulfilment via framing shops that sell prints.  But then FAA made some deals with print/poster retailers that required us to accept a 50% commission cut and I opted out.  So, FAA isn't going to be the answer and I really hope something better comes along.

Sorry if I hijacked a thread here.

I went to UPS a while ago to try and ship a boxed 40x60 canvas wrap. I forget what they quoted me but it was well over $100 for the shipping plus from what I remember they said they wouldn't ship it in the box it was in. I didn't bother asking for their box price but I'd guess the total would have been well over $200. For bigger stuff like that 84x23 might require freight shipping which $300 doesn't surprise me. One of the print vendors I use requires crates for certain larger prints like wood or metal and the create alone is $100.

Some print vendors roll the shipping cost into the price so the shipping doesn't look so crazy. Some larger print vendors probably have a major volume discount worked out with FedEx and UPS. Maybe FAA isn't in a position to do either.

Back to Alamy

Quote from: Copidosoma on December 09, 2015, 01:13

The problem is not that the bar is high or the bar is low. The biggest problem is that the bar (for image reviews) is changing constantly depending on which reviewer you get. You can get an entire batch 100% rejected, resubmit and get them 100% accepted. Something is wrong with that.

If anyone can explain to me how reducing the initial review requirements is going to improve the review process, go ahead. What I see is that more submitters who really have no idea how to use their camera will be accepted (along with some good contributors no doubt). This is going to result in even larger piles of crap for the reviewing staff to deal with. What are the odds that that is going to help them do a more consistent job? What are the odds that SS will be able to do real quality control on reviewers if they need to hire a bunch more just to wade through the garbage that gets submitted?

I don't think this is the end of the microstock world (700 thousand new images per week will do that eventually). I just don't see how it actually improves anything except the numbers that upper management can sell to shareholders.

It won't. What I do believe is that their proprietary auto inspection software has been vetted (in their eyes anyway) and they feel that now they can take on more images with a lower scalable number of inspectors. That means the number of images inspected per inspector, overall, goes down (in pure time).

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=8226787

"Each of our images has been vetted by a member of our review team for standards of quality and relevance. We also leverage proprietary review technology to pre-filter images and enhance the productivity of our reviewers. Less than 20% of contributor applicants who applied in 2011 were approved as contributors to shutterstock.com, and less than 60% of images uploaded by approved contributors in 2011 satisfied our rigorous acceptance requirements. "

What's funny is that they are touting how much they reject. If they maintain these rejection numbers as a differentiator then they would need to have a higher flood of images to grow their collection and still claim high image rejection. The contributor application metric is out the door though. That will definitely change.

Agree. Based on that automated review statement it seems they're lowering the entry standards and letting the pre-filter software take on a higher volume of individual image screening. This makes sense because I'm sure there are plenty of people who produce decent work but get wholesale rejected on the application review due to some images being questionable. These people will now be let in and the pre-screening software will handle the review at the image level.

The result will be that these new contributors will reject themselves. Meaning, if the pre-screening software constantly rejects a high percentage of someone's submissions they'll either improve their work or will stop submitting.

I think this change simply means that SS has become confident enough in the pre-screen software that the entry review is no longer relevant.

So the image quality requirements may not have changed but this definitely will cause a spike in new image volume.   

Quote from: Rinderart on December 05, 2015, 17:00

"It sends out a clear message that they are not interested in pro photographers at all. iStock seem to be coming to the same conclusion that pro's will migrate to Macro and the rest can be sold off cheap."

+1

Maybe that's the way it should be? In my opinion, microstock should never have been anything other than low to medium quality images. Using thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment to make pennies per sale has always been unsustainable for photographers. It's reality time.

I'd agree. Not only equipment. What about the shot with a room full of model surgeons in the rented operating room. It's only a matter of time before contributors give up on this kind of stuff because the returns aren't there.

And this even applies to macro in some cases. I see these subscription macro deals come in that pay me micro level money. So when I see the "needs list" mostly requesting content that would cost a fortune to produce I don't bother with it. Unless prices stabilize to where there's a reasonable return it's not financially justifiable.

Not totally clear on what this is or what it would be used for. Transfer to where? Would be nice to hear a usage scenario.

I can only guess this is like an FTP-ish portal concept where designers and clients can share large files that are too big for email.

Given the comments in the article, what is the point of the "apply to contribute" link then?

Maybe the article isn't accurate. Or more likely it's to give buyers the perception there's separation between cheap subscription amateurs and special premium photographers. And maybe also scarcity. Nothing makes people want something more than what they can't have. Ya know, like the elite VIP club where you're special.

yelo34 you win the "O.T.A. Goldrush Award" for reviving an oldie but a goodie from that magical year 2008. That's when reviewers were made of cotton candy, money fell from the sky, and each contributor received a real unicorn and rainbow for their contributions. Congratulations.

I just learned about Offset recently. Seems like a good move for the company known for cheap subscriptions to move upmarket into macro-level pricing. 

This will either be an opportunity for him to prove the person we saw at IS really wasn't him or it will just validate it really was him.

Or after seeing the negative responses and realizing they just bought a damaged product, 500px may decide to keep him out of the public eye and work as more of an operations role in the background so we never get to see what he has to say.

Quote from: wordplanet on November 07, 2015, 21:17

Photoshelter could be more user friendly but I have buyers willing to contact me directly, pay me via PayPal and I email them a file or a download link.  I've made more this year selling stock direct than from all the sites I'm on combined. I've also earned much more from Alamy this year than in the past and a bit from other small traditionally-priced agencies. My microstock income has increased too, but I think that direct licensing and traditionally priced agencies are the way to go.

Small boutique agencies are probably best. I'm with Alamy but their RPI isn't great.

I'd work on getting into places like Stocksy, Trevallion, and places like that. I'd also suggest licensing traditionally-priced images on your own. I'm happy with Photoshelter, despite any shortcomings in their customer interface, they bring in high-end editorial clients, I've licensed images to Smithsonian Magazine, Coastal Living, and many other advertisers and magazines who were searching Photoshelter and found my work, my images there are also found through google searches. 

I'd also suggest getting Photographer's Market - a good way to find direct clients to license your work to - and of course for assignments which pay better than stock, if that interests you.

How much is Photo Shelter to join? I was looking at their site but couldn't find anything specific. I am really looking for a new home for my underwater stuff.

It starts at $10 per month for the basic plan. http://www.photoshelter.com/tour/all-features/

I'd also suggest checking out Photodeck. I use both. They both offer trials. Neither do marketing. Photoshelter does have a buyer search but they don't promote it. I think it's leftover from back in the day when they tried to start a stock agency.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 07, 2015, 18:54

I also have a Photoshelter website which in my opinion isn't very user friendly and I just got a $250 RM license sale. It's the strategy behind the direct selling model that matters most.

Was that sale a direct result of your own promotion or a sale that came through their "Lattice" site (http://www.photoshelter.com/lattice/search/)?

Hard to say because I don't know if Photoshelter shows the source of a sale. I'd say it was probably from my own promotional efforts.