Author Topic: What is needed to make $3K from 500-800 images? (Read 28485 times)

Mantis · « **Reply #100 on:** March 31, 2014, 07:45 »

Quote from: Red Dove on March 31, 2014, 04:34

I've read all four pages and I'm none the bloody wiser. Therefore, I intend to forget all about the notion of earning three large from just 500 - 800 images and aim for 5,000 - 8,000.

The reality is....well, this is the reality. Most micro stockers need 5000-8000 images to make any decent money. For 500-800 you would need:

1. A style that is VERY HARD TO COPY
2. An art for which your skills to create are hard to copy
3. A market niche (there is demand for your concepts).

The lions share of micro stockers, including me, are not in this category. And if this level of artistry was so special why would you sell it on micro stock?

mike ledray · « **Reply #101 on:** March 31, 2014, 11:43 »

Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

topol · « **Reply #102 on:** March 31, 2014, 13:18 »

Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43

Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....

Mantis · « **Reply #103 on:** March 31, 2014, 13:51 »

Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18

Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....

Your stupid posts make me laugh.

topol · « **Reply #104 on:** March 31, 2014, 14:23 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 13:51

Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18
Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....

Your stupid posts make me laugh.

I see I hit the nail on the head with that post...

wordplanet · « **Reply #105 on:** March 31, 2014, 14:24 »

... slightly off topic here but I was in Russia a couple of years ago and saw this on a bunch of billboards in St. Petersburg. Adorable image. Wish it was one of mine

...and back on topic - whoever has the answer is probably busy making images ...

which is what I should go back to doing. Happy spring!

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #106 on:** March 31, 2014, 16:17 »

Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18

Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art,

And you believe this?

Mantis · « **Reply #107 on:** March 31, 2014, 17:08 »

Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 14:23

Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 13:51
Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18
Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....

Your stupid posts make me laugh.

I see I hit the nail on the head with that post...

Oh you silly boy.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #108 on:** March 31, 2014, 17:19 »

Oh wait, I came up with another answer. "What is needed to make $3K from 500-800 images?" Another 5000 to 8000 images!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 28, 2014, 12:11

But I did come up with an answer for the original question. "What is needed to make $3K from 500-800 images?" Start with $2,900.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #109 on:** April 01, 2014, 02:03 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 07:45

And if this level of artistry was so special why would you sell it on micro stock?

exactly.
they would sell a dozen prints in art galleries for 50K $

but trust me, you don't really need such artistry for art galleries, yesterday i stumbled upon a gallery and among dozens of other weird images they were selling the photo o a tree for 800 bucks, i asked the owner and he started raving about esotheric symbology, conceptualism, hidden meanings, wheel of life, death and rebirth, poetry, bla bla bla bla bla bla and finally "if you really like it i can make a fat discount" !

topol · « **Reply #110 on:** April 01, 2014, 02:04 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on March 31, 2014, 16:17

Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18
Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art,
And you believe this?

It's hardly a question of belief. Not everyone comes to microstock photography from burger flippin' you know. I know this will inevitably sound snobbish but to clear things up: my father is painter and I'v been an art director for a decade, art major from a pretty elite university. When I'v been browsing stock as a buyer for years I don't think I ever seen anything original with some rare exception, which was usually something pretty nonsensical. Read a few (many) art/art history books, ad awards publications, annuals & get a clue.

topol · « **Reply #111 on:** April 01, 2014, 02:07 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 17:08

Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 14:23
Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 13:51
Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18
Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....

Your stupid posts make me laugh.

I see I hit the nail on the head with that post...

Oh you silly boy.

It was such a perfectly unnecessary (=butthurt) reply by you, I just couldn't resist pointing out...

Red Dove · « **Reply #112 on:** April 01, 2014, 03:30 »

Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43

Bobs Your Uncle!

I don't know about that - one of my aunties had a beard so we were never quite sure.

On the art thing, put a headset on the Mona Lisa.

Mantis · « **Reply #113 on:** April 01, 2014, 07:07 »

Quote from: topol on April 01, 2014, 02:07

Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 17:08
Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 14:23
Quote from: Mantis on March 31, 2014, 13:51
Quote from: topol on March 31, 2014, 13:18
Quote from: mike ledray on March 31, 2014, 11:43
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!

do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!

That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....

Your stupid posts make me laugh.

I see I hit the nail on the head with that post...

Oh you silly boy.

It was such a perfectly unnecessary (=butthurt) reply by you, I just couldn't resist pointing out...

You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

topol · « **Reply #114 on:** April 01, 2014, 07:45 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07

You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07

. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

Ron · « **Reply #115 on:** April 01, 2014, 09:10 »

I think there is a difference in a copied idea and a copied work. In the SS forums they dont claim the idea is theirs that often, they just point out someone copied their image. Which is a different case. Imo

Me · « **Reply #116 on:** April 01, 2014, 10:30 »

Quote from: topol on April 01, 2014, 07:45

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

Hands up those of you that did this then lowered yourself to microstock?

JPSDK · « **Reply #117 on:** April 01, 2014, 12:14 »

Quote from: topol on April 01, 2014, 07:45

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

I have (answer to the above bold text)

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #118 on:** April 02, 2014, 09:45 »

Koss Stereophones 1979

Quote from: Red Dove on April 01, 2014, 03:30

On the art thing, put a headset on the Mona Lisa.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #119 on:** April 02, 2014, 14:49 »

Microstock is not art it is about commercial images

topol · « **Reply #120 on:** April 02, 2014, 16:39 »

Quote from: Me on April 01, 2014, 10:30

Quote from: topol on April 01, 2014, 07:45
Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

Hands up those of you that did this then lowered yourself to microstock?

Believe me whoring away at ad agencies is not a classy thing at all. Especially nowadays with this disgustingly bad taste all over everything. Last time art director, graphic artist was a 'noble occupation' was about 20 years ago at best.

topol · « **Reply #121 on:** April 02, 2014, 16:45 »

Quote from: JPSDK on April 01, 2014, 12:14

Quote from: topol on April 01, 2014, 07:45
Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07
. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

I have (answer to the above bold text)

Well that makes 2, and I'm quite confident that's about it here.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #122 on:** April 02, 2014, 20:56 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on March 28, 2014, 12:11

But I did come up with an answer for the original question. "What is needed to make $3K from 500-800 images?" Start with $2,900.

If there is an MSG Hall of Fame, this answer needs to be entered

Gino · « **Reply #123 on:** April 03, 2014, 03:48 »

Quote

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

This does not make you a better stock photographer. 'Art director' sounds very nice and also art classes etc... but I know many so called artists and art directors that create stuff that looks like crap. (I am in advertising for over 15 years and working 10 years as self employed also working for big company's like Peugeot and Audi) I am not saying you make crap but stating you are an art director or artist does not mean you are very good and better in judging work. And if you were you would be able to outsell the others here since you have commercial and art skills. One of my friends is trying to get a job teaching art and painting. She thinks she is really skilled but her work looks like my 9 year old son made it. But she did 'art classes' and all that and thinks she is really great. A good art director would know what to create and would know the marked and should be able to translate this into commercial images. But again... I am NOT saying your work is crap. But I also think that it sound a little bit like you are trying to look important. If your sales numbers could back this up you would have a point.

topol · « **Reply #124 on:** April 03, 2014, 05:54 »

Quote from: Gino on April 03, 2014, 03:48

This does not make you a better stock photographer.

Did I say it does? You need to recheck, the conversation was about something else...
But now that you mentioned it, it does. Coming form a graphic artist background obviously gives you a head start at producing graphic artist compatible images.

Quote from: Gino on April 03, 2014, 03:48

'Art director' sounds very nice and also art classes etc... but I know many so called artists and art directors that create stuff that looks like crap. (I am in advertising for over 15 years and working 10 years as self employed also working for big company's like Peugeot and Audi) I am not saying you make crap but stating you are an art director or artist does not mean you are very good and better in judging work. And if you were you would be able to outsell the others here since you have commercial and art skills. One of my friends is trying to get a job teaching art and painting. She thinks she is really skilled but her work looks like my 9 year old son made it. But she did 'art classes' and all that and thinks she is really great.

I didn't do 'art classes'. I went to the applied graphics department of an art university. The output of the the ad industry is mostly crap. that's not new. The marketing people clients employ are usually so thick light bends around them, and their taste in visuals is of a back alley pimp.

Quote from: Gino on April 03, 2014, 03:48

A good art director would know what to create and would know the marked and should be able to translate this into commercial images. But again... I am NOT saying your work is crap. But I also think that it sound a little bit like you are trying to look important. If your sales numbers could back this up you would have a point.

You just wrote few sentences ago it doesn't make you a better stock photographer. Bit of a self contradiction.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What is needed to make $3K from 500-800 images? (Read 28485 times)

Mantis

mike ledray

topol

Mantis

topol

wordplanet

ruxpriencdiam

Mantis

Uncle Pete

Hobostocker

topol

topol

Red Dove

Mantis

topol

Ron

Me

JPSDK

Uncle Pete

Pauws99

topol

topol

PaulieWalnuts

Gino

topol

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors