42
I claim the $100 prize.

124

7, 636,000

or....

3

Quote from: fotografer on November 08, 2012, 09:26
How many you get is how many you should expect nothing more nothing less.

Was going to post the exact same answer..

My answer to the OP's question is "How many you get is how many you should expect"

I win.. 

Quote from: cidepix on November 09, 2012, 09:46

Quote from: fotografer on November 08, 2012, 09:26
How many you get is how many you should expect nothing more nothing less.

Was going to post the exact same answer..

My answer to the OP's question is "How many you get is how many you should expect"

I win.. 

No I win, I wrote it first

   PaulieWalnuts answered right 
   Now, I put the question cause I want to improve my port. The problem is that I'm stucked at a number. First 5 months, 30dlds/month. The port growth did nothing. 19, 29, 27, 31, 30. Port growing from 74 to 210. Note that my max dlds/day was 3 in all this period. In sept something happened and I jumped to 59, with 266 files. October 64 with 320 files. Weird thing, max number/day jumped to 6. Now I have 347, it,s 9 nov morning and for 8 days I have, ya, 16 dlds. So I don't know what to improve, as it seems that everything remains the same. I know that they are not commercial pictures, not in demand, but for a so little port it seems too steady. I want 75, then 42, then 112, then 5. But not like this...
   Maybe you can help, as I want to learn to make better pictures. My acceptance ratio has increased, so I hope I learn something as time passes. But dlds are so steady...
   Hope next jump will be to 120, not 90 

PS: Thanks a lot for the answers. Sad thing is that my number is lower than the average of answers. I'm slowly getting paranoid about the steady number of dlds.

Quote from: tavi on November 09, 2012, 10:08
<SNIP>
   Maybe you can help, as I want to learn to make better pictures. My acceptance ratio has increased, so I hope I learn something as time passes. But dlds are so steady...

Everybody has to start somewhere and it's pretty common for people starting out to shoot animals, nature and other stuff that is readily available and easy to shoot. The problem with this is because it's readily available a ton of other people are shooting it so there is a flood of those types of images available and yours can get easily lost. Plus there isn't huge demand for this category so oversupply plus so-so demand is a recipe for poor sales. If you're going to shoot these subjects and expect to make money yours must be unique in some way or so spectacular that they stand out and have more perceived value by potential buyers. 

Or you can change to shooting subjects that are in higher demand and lower supply. If you want to see what is selling check out magazines and websites to get an idea of what photos are being used. Good selling photos typically either convey a concept or can be used as part of another image to convey a concept.

So, the "best" photo would have a concept that is in extremely high demand but in low supply. This is a pretty difficult combo to do because there are so many stock photos available.  It's up to you to do the research and find an opportunity.

Quote from: fotografer on November 09, 2012, 09:53

Quote from: cidepix on November 09, 2012, 09:46

Quote from: fotografer on November 08, 2012, 09:26
How many you get is how many you should expect nothing more nothing less.

Was going to post the exact same answer..

My answer to the OP's question is "How many you get is how many you should expect"

I win.. 

No I win, I wrote it first

As noted above, you need to take pictures of different things, not take better pictures of the same things.

You don't have to shoot models to make this work; you don't need much gear. I'm not a superstar, but getting many more downloads relative to my portfolio size than you are. I would say if I can do it so can you. Perhaps the only other difference in my case is more post processing to get a bit more pizzaz into the finished product. But you can learn to do that too if you want to.

Quote from: tavi on November 09, 2012, 10:08
   PaulieWalnuts answered right 
   Now, I put the question cause I want to improve my port. The problem is that I'm stucked at a number. First 5 months, 30dlds/month. The port growth did nothing. 19, 29, 27, 31, 30. Port growing from 74 to 210. Note that my max dlds/day was 3 in all this period. In sept something happened and I jumped to 59, with 266 files. October 64 with 320 files. Weird thing, max number/day jumped to 6. Now I have 347, it,s 9 nov morning and for 8 days I have, ya, 16 dlds. So I don't know what to improve, as it seems that everything remains the same. I know that they are not commercial pictures, not in demand, but for a so little port it seems too steady. I want 75, then 42, then 112, then 5. But not like this...
   Maybe you can help, as I want to learn to make better pictures. My acceptance ratio has increased, so I hope I learn something as time passes. But dlds are so steady...
   Hope next jump will be to 120, not 90 

PS: Thanks a lot for the answers. Sad thing is that my number is lower than the average of answers. I'm slowly getting paranoid about the steady number of dlds.

no reason to be disappointed or paranoid -- you're over analyzing your stats - your portfolio & downloads are far too small to make the conclusions you're looking for - most of the variation you're seeing is probably just noise from weekends, holidays, good/bad search results, random ELs, etc, etc

at this point your main concern should be whether a moving average of your sales shows an upward trend.  individual fluctuations are going to occur even with a  portfolio 10x larger

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 09, 2012, 10:46
If you want to see what is selling check out magazines and websites to get an idea of what photos are being used. Good selling photos typically either convey a concept or can be used as part of another image to convey a concept.

I see this advice so often that I'm sure it must be valid - in some countries. Not so in the UK. For non-stock related reasons, I must have seen more physical magazines and especially newspapers in the past month than for years. Of course, I'm not seeing every mag and paper. But not once have I seen a stock photo (other than news photos e.g. from Reuters, AP or Getty) . The photos have all been taken specially for the articles.
Maybe people could suggest newspapers and magazines which routinely use general stock images. (Some UK newspaper web pages use Alamy, the Beeb sometimes uses TS on its website, but we're talking about paper publications, I guess.)

It might be more useful to do a web search for various agency names, then look up credited photos which aren't on the actual agency websites: but as commercial use usually doesn't credit the author/agency and editorial seldom does (even though required by e.g. iStock's T&C) even that is limited.

You could also look at the agencies which let you know what's selling to see high selling images, but that could be over a long time and you don't know that these pics are selling so regularly now.

Or maybe people could list magazines and newspapers which regularly feature micro photos. As I've said before, the only two I've seen here (UK) were fairly downmarket and I only saw one edition of each of them, ever.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 10, 2012, 00:58

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 09, 2012, 10:46
If you want to see what is selling check out magazines and websites to get an idea of what photos are being used. Good selling photos typically either convey a concept or can be used as part of another image to convey a concept.

I see this advice so often that I'm sure it must be valid - in some countries. Not so in the UK. For non-stock related reasons, I must have seen more physical magazines and especially newspapers in the past month than for years. Of course, I'm not seeing every mag and paper. But not once have I seen a stock photo (other than news photos e.g. from Reuters, AP or Getty) . The photos have all been taken specially for the articles.
Maybe people could suggest newspapers and magazines which routinely use general stock images. (Some UK newspaper web pages use Alamy, the Beeb sometimes uses TS on its website, but we're talking about paper publications, I guess.)

It might be more useful to do a web search for various agency names, then look up credited photos which aren't on the actual agency websites: but as commercial use usually doesn't credit the author/agency and editorial seldom does (even though required by e.g. iStock's T&C) even that is limited.

You could also look at the agencies which let you know what's selling to see high selling images, but that could be over a long time and you don't know that these pics are selling so regularly now.

Or maybe people could list magazines and newspapers which regularly feature micro photos. As I've said before, the only two I've seen here (UK) were fairly downmarket and I only saw one edition of each of them, ever.

So are you suggesting UK magazines do photo shoots for all photos? Maybe photo shoots are making a comeback.

Well, I really don't read magazines much anymore so websites it is. If you search for "credit Shutterstock"or pick your favorite stock agency I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples.

I see lots of stock photos in print, but the magazines are smaller, niche or freebie items, not the big newstand items.

Examples that come to mind from things I've found: Magazine for our town; magazine from the water district; when away, the "what to do magazines" that are given away in restaurants and hotels. The Teaching Company (they sell courses) catalogs. The giveaways on airplanes, trade rags circulated within an industry (insurance, dentistry, etc.). Magazine-like work from local marine protection agencies. Giveaway home decorating ideas magazines - decorating the small apartment sort of thing. I have seen stock images in Science magazine, Scientific American, the New York Times.

Tavi...
Your sales are determined by several factors:
1...Impact of your images. I say impact and not quality though they are related. You could also say stockworthiness. Impact in thumbnail size plays a bigger role than we like to think.
2...The relevance of your pictures in the market. Pictures of ducks in ponds are not very relevant + they are also over supplied.
3.. Keyword relevancy and simplicity. The less distractions from the main keyword the better.

If you want more sales you have to both upload more pictures and upload better pictures and to even maintain a steady stream of downloads as your port grows it becomes more and more important that your quality improves.
ONE good picture of a fallow deer is better than 30 mediocre.

And then let me give you an example from your port: You have these hats and binoculars. Now, what has hats and binoculars to do with eachother? Bavarian hunter concept? Well, where is the gun and the hunter? The pictures are fine, BUT the market is limited. Only Germans would buy them, and by putting both binoculars and hat in the same frame you have greatly limited the use of that picture to only hunting relevancy, and it is still not a strong "German hunter picture".  Had you photographed the binoculars alone, the image would have targeted the global market  and the hats alone would have been usefull in travel brochures.

I suggest you take a closer look at your port and see which pictures have a certain amount of downloads. And then look at those that hasnt. They are the photos your should not take and not upload. Every time you upload a photo that cannot earn its living, you degrade yourself.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 10, 2012, 03:26
So are you suggesting UK magazines do photo shoots for all photos? Maybe photo shoots are making a comeback.

IME, they always have. I'm talking about newstand magazines, and high street freebies like Stylist and the male one that is more recent. Also newsletters put out by companies etc here feature their own staff (maybe shot by a keen amateur on the staff?) never generic business stock shots. (How stupid would that be?) I see a lot of our localish companies' stuff as my husband is in an environmental monitoring group so is on the mailing list of most of them.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 09, 2012, 01:51
42
I claim the $100 prize.

Oh you ruined it, I just got that book on tape and converted it to CD for the long trip at Thanksgiving. 

PS: Thanks a lot for the answers. Sad thing is that my number is lower than the average of answers.

Then the average answer is wrong, not you.

Tavi,

Out of curiosity, which are selling better -- your isolated shots or your non-isolated shots?  For the non-isolated, I notice that you typically center your subject rather than using the "rule of thirds".  Have you looked at your stats and seen if there is a difference in sales for both ways of composing? As JPSDK said, "Impact in thumbnail size plays a bigger role than we like to think."  Most people find images that use the rule of thirds more interesting and eye-catching.  Your mileage on this may vary, but it might be worth looking at your stats to see if there is a pattern.  Again, this is only for non-isolated shots.

   Cypher, my best seller, if I can call it like this, is an isolation. But then, lots of animals and textures until the next isolation.
   I have lots to learn about photography, I find your coments very helpful, but here the problem is the steadiness of dlds. This month I'm going again to 60, maybe some more, max 70. This is a problem in other sites as well. 123-2or3 a month even though my port is 4x that 6 months ago. PD 2 or 3 as well. DP is going DOWN for me, FT and DT are growing slowly, and IS , after a good growth, it's very steady for the last 3 months. PP dlds are going down, despite of port growth at TS. Did I hit the wall after 8 months?
   I know you are saying that the pictures must be better, I admit it, that's why I discuss here and show my port, but growing 4 times the no of pics in 5-6 months, and so many agencies with the same dlds number scares me.
Excuse my english, I'm not a native speaker. And thanks.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 10, 2012, 00:58

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 09, 2012, 10:46
If you want to see what is selling check out magazines and websites to get an idea of what photos are being used. Good selling photos typically either convey a concept or can be used as part of another image to convey a concept.

I see this advice so often that I'm sure it must be valid - in some countries. Not so in the UK. For non-stock related reasons, I must have seen more physical magazines and especially newspapers in the past month than for years. Of course, I'm not seeing every mag and paper. But not once have I seen a stock photo (other than news photos e.g. from Reuters, AP or Getty) . The photos have all been taken specially for the articles.

I believe the advertising layouts are more useful as stock concepts than the pictures accompanying the articles.  I look at media around me all the time for ideas, but it is the ads that are most helpful.  Got a great idea from a TV commercial the other day.  It wasn't to copy what they did, but what they did gave me a different (better IMO) idea. 

   Sunday I made a payment request at IS. By now, I have more $ at IS than at SS the entire month. And this when everybody is complaining about IS. I really don't know if it's not a problem with my account at SS. Only 0.25, 0.25, 0.25. And no of dlds not increasing. Very frustrating...

Quote from: tavi on November 15, 2012, 17:40
   Sunday I made a payment request at IS. By now, I have more $ at IS than at SS the entire month. And this when everybody is complaining about IS. I really don't know if it's not a problem with my account at SS. Only 0.25, 0.25, 0.25. And no of dlds not increasing. Very frustrating...

you have started in March 2012 (only 8 months so far) and managed to get 354 pictures approved which for a start is nice, looking at my stats I had around 994 pictures by that time and have made on that month around 75$ (261 downloads) and reached the 500$ on the 9th month

what I am trying to say is that donwloads and earnings don't show up without dedication and patience, best of luck!

Based on SS quarterly report (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-third-quarter-2012-211100388.html), for the third quarter the average contributor should have gotten about 86 downloads for every 100 images (based on the reported 18.7 millions downloads with 21.7 million images on-line) in their portfolio for the 3 months ending September 30th.

The SS report does not break down the downloads for different media types, but it does give some insight as to how many downloads an "average" contributor might see.

I'd say maybe about 90 downloads a month based on what I know so far being about 2 years into microstock myself.