Thanks for both your comments. Sean is right - I have a habit of teaching people to take over my job. Maybe I am better at writing than photography! I did have earlier posts about using Google Ads to draw people to our referral links, which was successful in the sense that a lot of people clicked my referral links, but I think I have made about $2 from their images!

On the pricing, I did go backward and forwards in my mind about the price. My original idea was $4.99 but friends persuaded me that $9.99 for all that fantastic information was the minimum I should charge.

As an unknown author, I need to start somewhere to build an audience, and maybe $4.99 is that starting point!

On the hits, a lot of them come from this great site, which is perhaps not a typical audience for a step by step guide. After all, you all know how to do this better than me, because I learned a lot from your posts!

Steve

Shutterstock was always famous for delivering a bump in downloads when a new set of images had been uploaded and approved, which was mainly put down to the option for Buyers to sort images by "most recent" as well as "most popular." I could usually rely on getting a flurry of downloads on my new photos each time I uploaded something new.

Over the past month or two, that pattern seems to have disappeared, at least for me. I am still getting sales of my good popular images, and earnings are about where they were, but new images seem to just vanish into the black hole of their database.

I uploaded a couple of unusual images of carpenter ants, which I thought would be interesting at this time of year, but zero interest in them.

Anyone else notice this on Shutterstock, or is it just my images that are losing their interest!

Steve

Yes, that was the big debate a year or two back. I recall that we reviewed the terms and conditions for Alamy, and the conclusion was that although the files were "Licensed" as opposed to being Royalty Free, there were no other implications with that term. So it wasn't a rights managed file where the history of the image could be tracked. It was also claimed at the time that Alamy were perfectly OK with this, although I don't recall how we knew that! Thinking back, I believe there was an expectation that you would get more money from a Licensed image on Alamy compared to an RF one, although I am not sure that this was shown to be correct.

Does anyone have any evidence of lower prices if the image is RF on Alamy compared to the old "L" category?

Steve

At the time I uploaded this, I don't think Alamy had their Royalty Free license option - they just had Rights Managed, but that basically meant, as I understand their approach, that the buyer licensed the image for a particular purpose. There was no implication that it was exclusive to Alamy, or that Alamy could describe where or when the image had been used before, or that I, as the photographer, had to explain where it had been used - it was just a way of licensing to that buyer for that purpose. So this image went in as a RM image on Alamy. Now that they have RF, I would put this one as RF if I uploaded it today.

Steve

I currently get this error on the tool:

Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_CONSTANT_ENCAPSED_STRING, expecting ',' or ';' in /home/microsto/public_html/tools/keyword.php on line 507

Steve

Not a bad month, and pretty much in line with the general upward trend. I was overwhelmed by two great months in March and April where I seemed to get a large number of enhanced downloads that really pushed up the earnings. Normal levels in May, but still upward. I only managed to get another 70 images online as I focused more time on writing my step by step guide to Stock Photography...
Interesting stat - I got another $4.50 from Photocase this month, on my grand total of three (!!) images online. If only I could have such a return per image on the other sites! As usual, more details on my blog.
{edit} - the second image is files on line, not earnings on each site, in case anyone was having a heart attack.

Steve

Leaf - another great tool. I was just in the closing stages of completing a comprehensive step by step guidebook to stock photography where I had described Yuri's tool and how to use it. I've just amended that section to now point to your version as it is easier to use and those larger images make a difference!

I only hope you don't keep doing this as I will have to keep going back to update my book!! 

Steve

The first one with the interstate sign is not sharp - looks like there was some camera motion which shows up as ghosts around the letters on the sign. The second one of Route 66 is much better - there are some sensor spots in the blue sky above the sign. Not sure about the girl picture. The movement of the hair is a little distracting to me, but that is an artistic choice rather than a technical one.

Steve

There may be a few people out there who want a copy of Adobe Lightroom, but don't yet have it (I suppose!). I noticed that Amazon have a one day sale on Lightroom 3 for $119 instead of the more normal $199.



Steve

I'm having trouble pasting the link - for some reason, the post won't allow the full link. Here is one that works: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2011/05/adobe-lightroom-on-sale-at-amazon/

It also depends on the original size of the files, I guess. I really should put the effort into seeing what the maximum size of a file could be, above which, there is not benefit from higher priced sales. Perhaps someone knows of a table that shows what the different sites pay for each file size? If not, I'll add it to my list of things to do.

I shoot with the Canon 5D Mk2, and I always reduce files so that the longest edge is around 4000 pixels. I don't know why I chose that number - something in the past about reducing the size of the image helping with iStock acceptance rate,  I think. I then use Lightburner to distribute the files and I reduce the Shutterstock ones to about 6M overall size using their file reduction option.

Steve

And not all of them are $3000+ - here is a nice one for $20... http://destinywormlight.purephoto.com/#/image/1502/14615

Steve

I saw an article in Professional Photographer last month about a new site that is aimed at creating a community of artists displaying and selling their works of art. The team behind it is quite new � it launched in January � but it appears to be very professionally created and organized. The initial membership is free and you can upload and share 1GB of files. The images are �Right-click� protected, and the terms of the site appear fair. For $29 for the first year and $49 for future years, you can have unlimited storage and the ability to put forward individual files for sale. To keep the standards high, the suggested images are curated by a team of artists/agents and if they are chosen, the site does the marketing of the images. Some of the ones already for sale are very good (and expensive at $3900!): http://eastway.purephoto.com/#/image/1466/13606

The site lets you create your own collections, share individual images into one of the many groups that have been put in place, look at images individually or as part of a slide show � in fact a wide range of professional features. Here is mine (just a starter set as the big downside is that the uploads don't recognize metadata in the files) http://steveheap.purephoto.com/#/collections

The big question � will any images sell? Too early for me yet � especially as I have only activated the free membership � but I will see what interest I get in my images over the next week or so before I decide to shell out $29!

Anyone got any experience or knowledge of the site and its prospects?

Steve