I'm sorry but you completely over-estimate the difficulty in earning 'a living' at this.

You don't need a studio (other than a corner of a room in your house), you don't need any models or assistants, you don't need 5-10,000 images in your port and you don't need to be uploading 1000 new images a month.

You do need to have a bit of talent in photography (but nothing special), you do need a $1000 camera and lens, you do need to find your niche of what you can shoot well and economically, you probably need an existing portfolio of 2500+ images and to be uploading 50-100 new images a month depending on the saleability. If you keep your overheads low then that should generate at least the average wage in most of the developed world (ok, maybe not Norway or Switzerland!).

I know several microstockers who are doing precisely this or sometimes much, much better. You do need to work reasonably hard at it, keep yourself motivated and keep thinking up new ideas for shoots __ but it's not that difficult.

NB: Off topic but being as you mentioned the cost of living in Ireland - I toured Ireland a couple of years ago and one thing that really struck me was the extraordinary property market, both the bizarrely high prices and also the scale of new-builds of (often massive) houses in progress. Apart from the 'silicon valley' of the Dublin area I couldn't see any evidence of where the money to sustain this market was coming from __ there was precious little industry, large-scale agriculture or anything obvious at all. When I discussed it with a local man (in Cork) he said "Oh, they're all on 35-40 year mortgages around here. You don't leave your house to the kids any more __ you leave them the mortgage!". That was about 18 months before 'the crunch'. It'll be interesting to see where Irish property prices are in 5-10 years time.

I'd accept some number of dirt-cheap subscription sales. Last month, at SS, that's all I got.  100% 25-cent subscription sales and nothing else.

Granted my portofolio is very small and mostly off-beat stuff.  Maybe there are reasons why I only sold through subscriptions. But for me, SS is a drag. At FT, DT and IS, at least I get the wild thrill of an occasional sale for $2, $3.  

Your mileage may vary. Fortunately my house is paid for  

Quote from: stockastic on September 05, 2009, 09:33

Quote from: elvinstar on September 04, 2009, 23:44

My question is if you have already produced the images and are selling them elsewhere, why would you throw ANY money away by not submitting to SS?

2 reasons I guess:
  1. I feel like I'm helping SS undercut my own sales at other sites that pay more.
  2. The 25 cent sales tick me off.  

  3. I don't want to support a model that is based on providing extremely cheap images. Microstock is already cheap enough, let's make people pay.

Posting on any forum should be a privilege not a right.

Quote from: hqimages on August 24, 2009, 09:15

So, I just got sick of all the competition on these microstock sites, and I set up my own web site (www.photosfordesigns.com).

So that's the story, just thought I would let you guys know that, it is possible to do other things, maybe even to sell directly to the buyer on your own, although it remains to be seen, but if it is a disaster I'll let you know It'll be an interesting experiment either way!!

Hey, it worked for me.  I'm still subbing to micro, but I make a bunch more free lancing either by selling something already done to a specific buyer or contracting to shoot what the customer wants.

In the legal sense,  all of the people I deal with have their own terms and so far,  ALL have my interest at the forefront.  My work is always mine, there is a limit agreed to upfront on usage, usually one time only and limited to 'x' printings (magazines/books/etc),  the only extra to them is use of an image in advertising the product.  I have a signed contract with each as a free lance photog all terms understood...   and so far in 3 plus years, I have never had a problem.

I tell my local photog friends to get out there and sell themselves.  4 digit paydays always beat 30 cent subscriptions.  Selling direct as your own agent and in need of legal foundations... thats a little tougher.   I would reccomend, looking to publishes, art directors, editors and such.... and make sales there.  They have legal to protect themselves, which in turn, protects your intellectual property and rights.   =tom

What I am seeing is just a steadily deteriorating market.  The microstocks announce higher prices and commissions, which are more than cancelled out by the increasing volume of subscription sales.  New images now have less exposure, which combined with popularity-based ranking means they have little chance.  

A few months ago, images I put on SS would get a small burst of sales in the first few days; those images continue to sell now and then today, because they acquired enough popularity ranking while new.  Images I submitted a month ago have done nothing - they're DOA.

Meanwhile, huge numbers of new images are being added every week.

Show me one positive trend here, for contributors. Just one.


  

As I said, I'm curious why some people can put a link and it isn't blocked. It seems like Flickr specifically allows them to do it and that doesn't seem very fair. Either block it for all or allow it for everyone, no?

If you said "small player" instead of "true hobbyist", I'd agree.  A small player (like me) does this as a sideline, but would like to get a reasonable price for his effort.   Today I think it's next to impossible for a small player to get a worthwhile return and many will drop out.  It's fun for a while because the sales validate your work, telling you other people like it enough to buy it; and ultimately that's what frustrates you, because you get the sense they'd be willing to pay more than 25 cents, but  you have no control over your prices.  

On the buying side, small design shops and individuals can't afford the subscription plans, which is what the microstocks will be pushing more and more.

If microstock becomes just the latest way to market the output of a few full-time pro shops, I've no doubt something will be lost - variety, originality - but the price, on the subscription plans, is so low that big buyers won't care. In the end, microstock may become just conduit connecting large-scale professional image buyers with large-scale professional photographers.  What's "micro" about that?

Small players - buyers and sellers - may find  new ways to connect with each other.

Quote from: gostwyck on August 26, 2009, 07:02

Do you reckon you generate additional sales for your stuff by having it on Flickr? It strikes me as a lot of time & effort for a difficult to measure benefit.

Very good question.  If they have the same stuff on Flickr as on the micros it is probably counterproductive. 

Lots of people seem to use Flickr as a resource for free photography instead of paying for it on the micros.