I did a search, but couldn't find a very good answer to this - if my model has tattoos that are in focus, do I need a property release from the tattoo artist in addition to a model release? What if the tattoo is a flash design - would I need a release from whoever the tattoo parlor bought the design from?

TIA.

I had problems with 1&1 also - they use a bait and switch tactic, after your initial period is over (1 yr. maybe?), they hike up the price, and if you don't go with them, they hold your domain hostage for at least 6 months. I will never use them again!

I just used Wix to design my new site - VERY user friendly. I haven't published it yet, but I'm very happy with the way it turned out. There are options for selling, adding a cart, etc. I need to shoot one more image for the front page, and then I will publish - looking into the 'upgrade' options from the free site (which isn't bad at all), using my own domain (I haven't looked to see if they sell domains or not) and removing ads. They also have a way to create mobile (for smartphones and such) versions of your site.

So I recommend: NOT using 1&1, yes on Wix, also had decent experiences in the past with GoDaddy and Yahoo for domains. I built sites initially coding by hand, then using Netscape Gold (if that dates me at all!), then Dreamweaver (which I had to take a class on in order to figure it out), then using 1&1's templates, then Photoshelter (I liked the idea, but never really figured out the system), used Shutterfly to sell prints (was surprised at the high quality and customer service from what I initially thought was a consumer grade service), and finally using Wix's templates/editor. Wix is by far the easiest, and comes close to the power and options of Dreamweaver! (FYI, I'm not an affiliate or anything, I just have had a really good experience with Wix, if you can't tell).

My goal for my new site is to use the site I built on Wix to add the option to buy prints using either shutterfly again, or hopefully photoshelter. I like the idea that people can buy prints and the host prints and mails them, the expense is def. worth it (the prints are pretty cheap), over just having a cart and having to print and mail myself.

I've always thought that a co-op microstock site would be the best thing for the industry. It would require some really motivated folks, though, and most of those folks are already building their own individual stock photo sites it seems. The closest thing to this that I've found is Photoshelter - photographers controlling their own prices and sales, but with a single portal that searches all of them.

Perhaps the way to get past the need for a group of people dedicated to organizing the thing is for everyone interested in this idea to agree to use photoshelter, and only promote photoshelter from personal sites, etc., and pull out of the other sites (at least the ones that continue be too greedy) - this last thing not likely to happen. Too many people making too much money still, and the sites tend to protect the main earners.

Alternatively, we would need to find some people dedicated to setting up a stock agency and run it a bit like a credit union or electric co-op: with 'member owners'. But it would need all of the things that other stock sites have to be successful - officers, reviewers, advertising budget, etc. It seems like anyone with the energy/time to do that would, or has already, make some form of their own stock site wherein they are the main profiteer. This level of organization and motivation is rare, but it could be done. I'll say what others have said: you build it, I will join. Hell, I'll even participate as some kind of organizer/worker/whatever in addition to being a contributor.

The third alternative to combating lower commissions (after a union or co-op), would be to go exclusive on one of the big sites and build your portfolio to thousands of images, or tens of thousands. Then, you can earn a 40-60% commission (which is fair), and have a tiny bit of negotiating power when the site tries to pull something you don't like.

But like I said, if enough people will actually get involved, we could start a co-op and see where it goes. I was secretary/treasurer of a co-op art gallery for a few years - it was interesting and fun at times, but in the end a lot of work and not very profitable (but art galleries rarely are).

Message me if you want to do the co-op. If so, we can start a new thread and use it as a home base in the beginning.

Almost all of the creative imagery I have ever tried to upload got rejected for 'not suitable for stock' or something similar (of course much of my artwork gets funny looks from the art geeks, as well).

I don't really want to sell it for $2 a pop, anyway.

Maybe some of those photographers you are talking about shoot the more formulaic stuff for microstock and make artwork solely for galleries or personal work or whatever. That is certainly what I decided to do almost right away (but I came from a fine art background first then stock, not vice-versa). Like I said, I don't want to almost give away stuff that comes from the heart, but also can't afford to spend a ton of time on images that have very little use for 99% of microstock customers. And, it just plain keeps me sane to separate the two (commercial & art) portfolios.

I haven't looked enough at other photographers' work (or googled them) enough to tell anything more than if they can make a decent stock image, so maybe they do, and maybe they don't have other styles in different worlds. But the fact that the people you named are so prolific in the stock world makes me wonder if they have time for anything other than stock photography (eating, sleeping, long walks in the park, etc.).

I have seen a few microstockers who have impressed me with more artistic commercial work. It makes me think that there may be a place for more creative work in MS. Because it really does get boring making photos that look like an example in Kodak's old "Taking Better Pictures" guide.

IDK, food for thought. I found the path this thread deviated onto interesting.

I feel it is important to figure out what you are returning per hour/per year. Start tracking your time, including setup, shooting, uploading, keywording, research, etc. After your port has been online for six months or so, start doing the math. If you spend 10 hours/week for three months, and after all those images have been up for another three months, divide your earnings by 130 (10 hours x 13 weeks), multiply that x 4 (to give you a full year). This will give you $ per hour per year that you earned. It is important to consider that your images only yield returns after they are uploaded and accepted (duh.) - that is why you track the 3 months post instead of the 3 months during which you produced them. As months/years go by, you can get a better feel for how much you are making per hour of work as the ups and downs average out.

Because there are various strategies to microstock (mainly either focusing on quality or quantity - assuming that a better image takes longer to produce on average), the number of files you need to get $1000/mo. could be anywhere from 20 to 10,000. But if you calculate the $/hour/year, you can get a good idea of how well you are spending your time. After you get this initial baseline reading, keep up with what you are making per hour per year - the idea is to make that # go up. So if you find that in the beginning each hour of your work returns you $8/year, then work on getting it up to $10/year and so on. $10/hour doesn't seem like much, but remember that those returns keep coming year after year - the additive and passive income potential over years is what make stock photography so financially rewarding - it is like a retirement plan (kind of).

But in answer to your question, a very rough average for microstock image returns is $2-5/image/year. More calculating, refined photographers will make more per image, "shooters" may make less. So to make $1000/month, you probably need a portfolio of at least 3000 images to make that kind of money, probably more. The more sites you upload those images to, the more you will earn, obviously. But the same image will usually make much more on SS or IS than it will at one of the smaller sites. So you have to decide which sites are worth your time. Uploading and keywording is a not-negligible part of your time working, especially if you lean more towards being a "quantity" contributor.

As you go, you'll get more efficient at shooting, selecting better subjects and style, keywording, etc. - which will make you more efficient overall, and give you higher returns in the long run for each hour you spend working.

But before you worry too much about all this, if you are just beginning then just start learning, shooting, and uploading. See how much you like it. MS certainly isn't a get-rich-quick method. But it can be a get-rich-slow method if you hammer away for years (I have regrettably missed out on a lot by hardly working on my portfolio over the 6 years or so I've been doing this. Some years I only uploaded a few images). You can focus on maxing out the upload limits each week for whatever sites you are using (like IS is 24 photos/week for non-exclusives I think) - that way you know that you are doing as much as you can. As you continue, make those 24 images/week (or whatever # it is) better and better, or take less time - you can increase your yield per hour of work either way: get more done in an hour or get more money for the work you do. But focusing on filling those queue limits can give you a good goal. That kind of assumes that you are going to go at it full force.

One way to maximize your efficiency is to go exclusive with a site. You probably can make more money being independent overall than being an exclusive, but being exclusive is a LOT less work - so you can probably make more money per hour of work being exclusive than being independent (results may vary). But being exclusive carries more risk - what if, say, your exclusive site decides to cut commissions in half? Or, if they go under? Being independent is like having a diversified investment portfolio. Also, each site has their particular pros and cons, and 'types' of images that sell well, etc. I'm sure that IS exclusives make the most money out of the microstock site-exclusive contributors, but you may decide that the benefits of another site work better for you - or that being independent is a better fit. I do several sites just out of principle and so that all my eggs aren't in one basket. But I only upload to 5 sites, so I would probably do better by going to IS exclusively - but I don't like their practices so I won't.

It is good that you are thinking about these issues and asking questions, but the best way to learn is to just browse the collections and get an idea of what kind of images are needed, and start making and uploading those types of images ASAP. You will naturally figure out what works for you as you go - and keep asking questions and reading forums!

Also, take note that this advice is coming from someone who has just a few small ports - so take it with a grain of salt. This is just the way I think about microstock. People doing it full-time have a lot more at stake, and so may have thought harder about these issues. 

Yeah, things have changed a little at SS. They seem to be accepting more of a certain type of files, and rejecting all of other types. For example, I can't seem to get them to accept any 'texture' photos anymore.

I meant the T2i - there's no reason for me to pay more for the T3i, in relation to what I use a camera for, if I go that route.

But I'm pretty sure that I'm going to wait a little while and see what the 5D MKIII looks like. I'll either buy that or the MKII after the III comes out, depending on prices. Thanks for all the valuable input!

Thanks for the words, tubed. I am thinking the same. I grew up on film, and always owned a Hasselblad, Mamiya, or Sinar - it's been difficult going from that aesthetic to the teensy-tiny viewfinder in these DSLR's. That is one of the reasons I want a new camera - I find it much nicer to compose images with the live-view on the display than through a itty bitty viewfinder. I've been a professional photographer for years, but have avoided putting the money into a real digital camera because of the resell factor. DSLR's just haven't seemed like lasting investments until recently. But I am beginning to realize that a few grand is a small investment compared to the time I spend cleaning up files. Probably should go ahead and bite the bullet - but still would love to hear more input.

FT photographer.

Most of mine are around a week, but I have three images that have been waiting over 2 months to be reviewed.

It does seem like the IS forum admins are very eager to censor anything less than "Istock is #1, I love Istock, or (name top ten exclusive here) is the best EVAR!"

In the posts I have read, it seems like there are two groups of people who talk on those forums a lot: IS exclusives with lots of images on the site who think that makes them them important, and newbie photographers who kiss their butts.

I don't care - I just don't hang out on that forum. It is more entertaining and useful to talk places where proving you are a big shot isn't the point.

But pieman is right. I'm still more than happy to take their money.

Quote from: Gizeh on July 15, 2008, 09:54

You might have a point regarding the term 'indoors' but shouldn't 'school' and 'education' be essential keywords for a textbook shot?

No.  "textbook" would be an essential keyword.  The rest are spam.

They aren't spam. They are relevant conceptual keywords. Just like "new year's" is relevant to your picture of a cake with 2009 on it. Things don't have to be physically present in an image to be relevant. Otherwise, "white", "cake", and "2009" would be the only keywords you could use for that image, and * near no one would find the image because they probably weren't searching specifically for a cake - they just were searching for something relevant to the new year. A lot of searches are done with that frame of mind - a general search term, hoping to find a good idea to use in a design.

Depending on the actual photo of the textbook, they may be very relevant. Since Istock turned Draconian in their keyword rejections for non-exclusives, it would have been nice to make their expectations a little clearer. I know there was an article written about it that I only found after a long search. If they just said what they are looking

IStockphoto.com is losing a lot of great images due to the silliness of their reviewers, who seem to both try to find any reason to reject an image yet often do not seem to understand some really obvious things about stock, microstock, and photography in general. Istock only hurts itself by trying to muscle photographers into exclusivity by doing things like myopic keyword rejections for non-exclusives. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to dedicate themselves to an agency that openly disrespects their contributors so badly. Things like purposefully making the upload process inefficient, rejecting images outright, just for keywords that really are relevant,  and setting ridiculous upload limits in the hopes that then people will only contribute their best images - these things just make it harder to earn money as a contributor. There are better ways to encourage quality - ways that don't punish the contributors that are the basis for every cent that the company has made, but Istock chooses the short term gain over building a good relationship with their contributors. That is why so many of us refuse to go exclusive, and never will. Too bad for them.

Frankly, if we as contributors did not put up with Istock, they wouldn't get away with this crap. I personally don't put much effort into my portfolio at that site, because I can make lots more money quicker at other sites more efficiently. Istock's loss, the other sites' gains.

Although a lot of the keyword rejections are BS, the guy above was right - just keyword the stupidly obvious things and add the rest later. If it isn't giant and centered, the reviewers can't understand it, but your image will not get rejected if you add some conceptual ones after approval.