|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ttart
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
76
« on: February 24, 2022, 12:36 »
His content is in ADOBE too now.
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/210716081/peopleimages-com?as_campaign=ftmigration2&as_channel=dpcft&as_campclass=brand&as_source=ft_web&as_camptype=acquisition&as_audience=users&as_content=closure_contributor-page
I wonder what his reasoning was for abandoning exclusivity:
1- Did not reach for the first time the 45% target
2- Sees no future for Getty. A company with a huge debt. Going to the stock market might give them a break but their financial health is really bad
3- sees that with the demise of SS and Oringer selling everyday his stock Adobe is beggining to look as the main player in 3-5 years. Getty and SS will be very far behind
Whatever the reason, there was a time he gave his explanations to the stock community. i wonder if this will be again the case or if he will remain silent. I wonder if we will see his portfolio at Shutterstock?
I wonder about that too, he misses not only iStock-sales but Getty's too which still can be very good.
That would be great if he doesn't join SS again, but I think he will.
I don't think he can make up the loss he is facing in leaving iStock-exclusivity. But we will never know only if he is back at IS exclusivity in a year so. Lol:)
I have been exclusive at istock. Earned more before becoming exclusive, and more after quitting exclusivity. Istock exclusivity saves your time, thats all. And being exclusive at istock, you cannot submit RF images to other agencies.
77
« on: February 23, 2022, 04:49 »
Probably Nikon has also stopped developing new lenses for the F Mount.
Maybe i will get the Zeiss Milvus 100/2 macro lens. But its seems there is sometimes a problem with bokeh and CAs.
78
« on: February 22, 2022, 04:32 »
It seems that there are better macro lenses for mirrorless cameras available. Owning a Nikon D700, D810, D850. It seems there is no new Nikon 105 macro for DSLR on the way. The new Nikon 105 macro for mirrorless seems to be a great lens.
So Nikon where is the new AFS 105 macro for DSLR?
My other Equipment.
Nikon afs 20/1,8 (great lens), Nikon 24/1,8 (great lens), Nikon 50/1,4( useable above 2,8, great above 5,6) Nikon AFS 70-200/2,8 FL(usable at 4.0, great at 5,6 to 11) Nikon AFS 105/2,8 macro ( great on the D700 but to less resolution for D810, D850), Nikon AFI 300/2,8 (great but to heavy)
Some Tripods, some Elinchrome Flashes, some Softboxes, etc,...
79
« on: February 21, 2022, 12:28 »
I canceled exclusivity at istock about nine years ago. After canceling exclusivity my images still sold for exclusive prices but i only got non exclusive 16%. Istock wasn't able to fix this. So i canceled my account and uploaded from zero.
Weren't you getting 16% of the 3 credit price?
And now you're getting 16% of the 1 credit price?
Looks like you were shooting yourself in the foot, UNLESS you get more than 3x sales when the prices are lower, which is perfectly possible; though like many things hard to prove, as your reuploads would get new best match positioning.
Income at istock was going down. At macrostock I could only sell RM because of istock exclusivity.
So it was an easy decision.
I wasn't questioning your decision to become indie.
I was questioning your decision to voluntarily reduce your income by 2/3rds, and waste some time and effort in so doing.
My income was higher becoming indie than being exclusive at istock. As it has been higher before becoming exclusive at istock. But not very much. Exclusivity just saves some time.
80
« on: February 21, 2022, 04:39 »
I canceled exclusivity at istock about nine years ago. After canceling exclusivity my images still sold for exclusive prices but i only got non exclusive 16%. Istock wasn't able to fix this. So i canceled my account and uploaded from zero.
Weren't you getting 16% of the 3 credit price?
And now you're getting 16% of the 1 credit price?
Looks like you were shooting yourself in the foot, UNLESS you get more than 3x sales when the prices are lower, which is perfectly possible; though like many things hard to prove, as your reuploads would get new best match positioning.
Income at istock was going down. At macrostock I could only sell RM because of istock exclusivity. So it was an easy decision.
81
« on: February 20, 2022, 04:02 »
I canceled exclusivity at istock about nine years ago. After canceling exclusivity my images still sold for exclusive prices but i only got non exclusive 16%. Istock wasn't able to fix this. So i canceled my account and uploaded from zero.
I guess there have been some problems with the database at istock. Maybe there have been two different databases running at istock and Getty Images in 2013. But they should have fixed this now.
83
« on: January 23, 2022, 12:09 »
In 2020 after closing my account i got paid every month, even $0.54. I wrote them thats annoying and they should make a donation for social purposes. So they spend my earnings every month.
84
« on: January 23, 2022, 09:53 »
I closed my account at istock nearly two years ago. There are still some connect sales.
December 21, two sales at Australia - licensee fee $9,32 each, one sale in China $0,14 and one sale at New York $0,55.
Net earnings at istock $2,9.
85
« on: January 15, 2022, 08:26 »
But for this exercise, I would suggest basing it just on 2021 total sales figures for SS. To keep it simple and easy to gather data for. And collecting RPIs (total 2021 sales divided by total number of files) for each of the different categories that we shoot for.
The bottom line for all of this, is that we can then decide whether to keep shooting a particular type of subject - or not. Or whether we can try other types of subjects to maximise our income. Then we have choices and thats much more proactive than just looking back and complaining or feeling downhearted about the whole situation. It may not be the complete solution but it can help.
i like the idea, but (of course?) see some problems:
unfortunately, past sales aren't a good predictor of future sales, and with a very limited dataset
Being exclusive at istock years ago, i used to use an excel sheet to calculate future sales. I also used an analysys tool , i think it was named something like pomato. I analyzed uploads of one quarter with the sales of the following 8 quarters.There has been a clear trend. It was relative precise to calculate the sales of uploads in quarter1 of year XXXX with the sales the following 2 years. There is a need of a database including data of at least 4 years. But even with only 500 - 800 uploads a year it was relative precise to calculate the trend of sales.
86
« on: January 11, 2022, 12:15 »
The only real numbers would be, 2018 December, 17877 artists had over 1,000 assets. And in 2016 there were 164,949 contributors with 1 or more assets. Oh and in April 2017, 100 accounts had 100,000 images or more which represented 15% of the entire collection.
Interesting, were did you get this numbers? I sometimes look at https://microstockrank.com/shutterstock/photos-rankDatas are from June 2019. There have been 116.024 Contributors with at least 2 images in Portfolio. In June 2019,Number 116.024 was DeeDee Lowe with 2 images. If you look at shuterstock nowadays, she still have 2 images in her portfolio - https://www.shutterstock.com/de/g/DeeDee%20LoweShutterstock is far away from 1.000.000 active contributors.
87
« on: January 09, 2022, 05:07 »
I can't say how many contributors at shutterstock are active uploading. But i guess not more than 100.000 active photographers. Maybe there are much more contributor accounts, but not very active.
And i doubt that the number of active contributors will increase at a high level.
There is much more time to invest to earn some money than 10 years ago.
If i search at shutterstock photos with keyword "Steak" i get 1.093.244 results.
There is no niche to find. Every possible photo about a steak is online.
If i search jogging photos there are 547821 results. A better chance than steak but my wife is not very sporty. An amateur model for 2 hours jogging probably costs about $80. But one model is not enough so better 3 models.
Wow, $240 for some jogging photos that maybe even make lower sale revenue than production costs.
What if one of this models break her foot at shooting???
If i would start now as a new contributor at shutterstock i probably give up after 3 months - an inactive account within a few months.
Actually my account is inactive since 2021.But starting 2008 i have been active at shutterstock fo years.
88
« on: January 08, 2022, 03:24 »
I started at shutterstock June 2008. Never focused to start a stock photographer career, just upload a few images every month.
Shutterstock still worked for me. In 2020 earning at shutterstock have been about the same than 2008, but with a much larger portfolio. Its like to go to work every day. Same hours work, same income. Portfolio growth is just to keep the level of income.
Nowadays i have no images at shutterstock active. Just uploading a few images every month to a macrostock agency.
(edit Jan 9th) and some images to Adobe stock.
89
« on: January 07, 2022, 11:15 »
There is a declining trend in downloads per file on shutterstock every year. Portfolio size is growing faster than downloads.
2014 there have been 48 million files on shutterstock. 4 DL per second = 126 million DL /year = 2,6 DL per file /year
2017 there have been 125 million files on shutterstock. 5,5 DL per second = 173 million DL /year = 1,38 DL per file /year
2021 there have been 413 million files on shutterstock. 6 DL per second = 217 million DL /year = 0,46 DL per file /year.
Even 6+ DL per second means 6,9 DL per second = 0,52 DL per file /year.
90
« on: January 02, 2022, 04:49 »
The more I think about it and as hard as learning the charts are I have to try, this industry is going from bad to worse, look at the Alamy 7 cents thread, it's one thing after another. All my editorial video ended up with a "trusted Global partner" in China known as Bytedance, same company that owns TikTok.
So there's that plus the recession, worst recession since the depression, COVID is getting much worse and fast, not as lethal with omicron but most are since in bed for 7 days and the economy will shut down again due to massive numbers of people to sick to come in to work. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/01/health/us-coronavirus-saturday/index.html
But I wonder what effect this will all have on the stock markets both stock video/photo and the stock exchange, how long can this economy continue like this?
There is an inflation on the way. The Fed is still at a position to act against inflation. In the EU there are some countries with high levels of dept. The EZB was financing this countries with low interest rate and buying government bonds. This countries still did not recover. Raising interest rate by the EZB are not possible for a long time. So is guess we will see high inflation maybe even hyperinflation in the Eurozone area soon. It ist not a bad idea to achieve a second income in USD like microstock. The microstock income will probably continue to decrease. But it is a worldwide market paid in USD. So my goal for 2022 - continuing microstock, even it is getting harder every year. Even if there is an economic crisis coming, micrsotock will not be hit so hard than macro stock. Because it is cheaper and economy has to save money at crisis.
91
« on: December 22, 2021, 08:36 »
It depends on the size of your portfolio.
Upload 1000 images and about 100 images will sell at least once in the next 2 years.
92
« on: December 18, 2021, 04:42 »
I Voted "Don't do it, find something else."
Most of the microstock photographers don't earn much money but investing lots of time.
So if earning $4000 a year, there are some costs and taxes. After costs an tax there are maybe $1500 left /year - $125 month.
If i am just canceling my two coffees to go a day i will save about the same amount that hundreds of hours work a year for microsstock will bring.
93
« on: December 17, 2021, 09:44 »
Adobe is doing well for me. Better than Shutterstock or istock.
94
« on: December 05, 2021, 05:39 »
I get about 98% of my images accepted at Adobe.
Dont upload to much variations and don't over process your images.
Hope it helps.
95
« on: October 31, 2021, 09:32 »
My biggest fear is that whether the photos will indeed be given away for free in the long run or worse (such as forum, blogs, guestbook on my website, photo sites similar to Flickr) Shutterstock or Adobe will suddenly be completely discontinued. So that everything is gone. Although I think/hope it will take some time. 
I don't think it will happen because a stock photo is a product like any other product in any industry. There are costs, time and knowledge invested. There are hobbyists, but there contribution to overall market revenue is small.
I guess most of the microstock photographers are hobbyists or semi pro photographers, producing 50 to 200 images a month. Some contributors are production teams that produce a huge amount every month. Guess 60% of earnings in microstock is made by production teams located in eastern Europe. Professional photographers are not typical for microstock. If you are running a small photography business without employees there are some costs. Your earnings before tax - about $3000, studio rent - about 800 (small studio), equipment, insurance, energy, software, etc,.. for a small photography business there are about $4500 income a month to calculate at least. This is easier to made with contract work. "My biggest fear is that whether the photos will indeed be given away for free in the long run" If you calculate the cost for running a photography business right, they are already given away nearly for free. You can't compete with east Europe stock production teams. Taking in account to have about $4500 costs and 170 hours a month. Every hour invested should make at least $27 an hour, without model costs. Wich will take another $25 into account per model and hour. Simple productions with one model don't sell anymore. So you will need about 4 to 5 models, and a small team. For an 1/2 day shooting you must account at least about $600 of costs. This is just a half day shooting for stock.
96
« on: October 31, 2021, 04:30 »
There are a few others. Adobe premium, Offset, Pond5 setting your prices (basically for video),FilmSupply, plainpicture,...
Everest, 'As suggested I think it is much wiser move to medium or macro stock'
I am only aware of Stocksy, Arcangel and Trevillion which I assume are 'macro' stock.
Do you know of any others, and which ones are 'medium' stock?
Thanks.
There is no anecdotal data on these sites. Yes, they charge more for images, but how much do contributors make compared to:
- the "glory days of stock" say 25 years ago?
- the "glory days of microstock" say 10+ years ago?
they don't. Just think the new folks today will look back at 2021 and say those were the glory days getting almost $.10 per image and $.50 per 4K video on SS!
I have heard from some old stock photographer - "the glory days of stock" - before RF :-)
97
« on: October 30, 2021, 06:20 »
On the other hand, the people who started before us were used to easy street. Back in the beginning when a good stock pic went to the top of the search - it stayed there (forever) depending solely on how many dls it had.
No it wasn't. It startet going downwards early. Beginning 2008 at the 3 big agencies RPI was good. A few years latter going exclusive with istock my RPI was even getting better. But actually it was going downwards from the beginning. It was easy to see at a simple excel sheet. Just compare how older monthly uploads performs against newer uploads in the first months and years after upload. The newer uploads mostly didn't get the sale volume like older uploads and did not sell that long. Mostly there is even a continuing trend over the years. At 2020 my RPI (year) at Adobe Stock was $0,7. At 2008 at FT my RPI (year) was about $2. This trend was clear since about 2010. My RPI (year) at istock exclusivity was about $9 at 2012. I guess it would be around $3 nowadays. Nowadays the situation is like this - average images at microstock still sell at lower RPI compared to 10 years ago. Averages images at istock exclusive probably don't sell well. Premium images at istock exclusive probably will sell well. If you want to keep your income level. Produce more images at micro, or produce better images for mid stock, macro. Producing at the same level your income will be lower than now in a few years. Still the same game as it was the last 10 years. If you are just starting, your income will grow for about 3 years. Now matter how good or bad your are. After the first 3 years it depends on your 3 years upload volume and quality. Just keeping the level means lower income year after year.
98
« on: September 15, 2021, 13:05 »
Hm i guess i never reached ROI.
99
« on: September 13, 2021, 11:54 »
In some years maybe the goal will be to make $3 to $10 a day
100
« on: August 21, 2021, 07:46 »
WME
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
