 Robyn Mackenzie |
Just made my first 50 cents! Earlier this year I submitted my first batch of images to Shutterstock, which were rejected mainly because of noise. I was pretty peeved, as I shoot most of my images at ISO100, and have a DSLR – I wasn’t aware that noise was a problem! I almost decided to take my bat and ball and go home. But, I started using Neat Image, and decided to try again. This time they accepted me. My first batch of 10 images went up yesterday, and I have now made my first 50 cents! Just thought I’d share… :o) Does 50 cents make me a pro photographer??? Actually, make that 75 cents...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Patricia J. Mesanko |
I had the same problem, until I used neat image. It does make a difference! Congrats, Patricia
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Don't think so, just an hour of parking.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Patricia. Gregory: Where I live, parking costs more like US$1.50 an hour... :o)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
In a parking meter?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I bombed out at Shutterstock. Of the 10 I submitted only 4 were rejected due to noise so I guess that makes me a lousy photographer :o)! Oh well, time to find a real job I guess LOL.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Give it another go, Sharon! You're obviously NOT a lousy photographer! Gregory: In the city centre of Melbourne, parking at a parking meter usually costs A$2 per hour (A$1=US$.75). Petrol (gas) is due to hit A$1.50 per litre this weekend. Ouch! Hey, I'm up to $1.75 in two days from my original 10 shot submission to Shutterstock...at this rate it'll only take me 5 years to pay for the new lens I bought this week! :o) Robyn
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Good luck, Robyn! There is a cool article in the August issue of Popular Photography about microstock. One of the photographers they featured claimed to sell 600 images a day. If they're doing that at Shutterstock for .25 each they're making some nice pocket change :o)! They said some photographers make up to $4,000 a month. Hard to believe! I'm from Missouri. I wanna see the check :D.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Sharon! I'll check out the article, if I can find that magazine locally. I agree that $4,000 a month seems hard to believe! It would be very interesting to know average download rates (e.g. how many downloads per month per 100 images), to give a submitter something to benchmark against. Cheers! Robyn
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
The article quoted Jon Oringer, president and founder of Shutterstock that the "sweet spot" for his site's shooters is $500 to $1,000 a month. I even have trouble believing that. If you check out popphoto.com next month you should be able to find the article online. If I'm not mistaken most members here at BP that have shared what they're making seem to be more in the $1,000 to $1,500 range a year. That would buy a new lens or camera :)!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Did he say how many images the shooter's typically have in their galleries, to earn this $500-$1,000 per month?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
One of the photographers they featured was Jamie Duplass. Here's a link to her portfolio. She was the one who claimed to sell 600 images a day but it didn't say all her sales came from Shutterstock. Looks like she has over 3,000 images at Shutterstock if my math is right. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-p1.html?gallery_id=18
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Sharon - I see that the vast majority of her images are people, isolated with white background. She does great work! :o) Robyn
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Robyn, just from studying the site some I noticed the vector images do quite well. I don't have a clue how to create a vector image, but it's something that might be worth learning and they couldn't complain about noise with those!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Give the high end of the bell curve, like on weight loss commercials. I had referenced an article about the pay scale of a popular microstock in another thread. Percentage wise, you get a bigger cut with the small file/image sizes. With large files, you get more, but it's like for your every .50 cents, the microstock gets like $100. Never the less, regardless of the numbers, the profit margin is ridiculously high. And you have to keep in mind, it is royalty free, and the market area is world wide. So with unlimited use for web page or print, and a world wide market, I can see hundreds of downloads if you have usable, multidexterous images. Vector art can be drawn free hand, or come from a photo. Knowing how it's done when it comes from a photo takes some of the ooh&aah out of it, because you really are just tracing over a photo or piece of a photo. But I still like the way the good ones look. The shading for the skin tones and textures can be difficult.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
I'm like Sharon - haven't ventured into vectors! So much to learn, so little time... :o) I'm encouraged that one of my images on Shutterstock has been downloaded four times in less than two days. Also, the majority of the 10 images in my initial submission have been downloaded at least once in that time. I have no idea whether or not this is "good", but I'll take it! Thanks for your info, Gregory.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Gregory, when I decided I might actually try microstock I thought any image I had submitted to BP would work. I don't know why I thought they only needed small size images for the web. I didn't realize I'd have to submit my full size files until I got ready to upload my first batch. That definitely took a lot of the enthusiasm out of it for me. I figured .25 for each download is more than I'm getting now, but the part I really HATE is they won't pay you until you earn $75. So, if you aren't making much money they're basically using your photos completely free. I knew Vector images could be drawn free hand or come from a photo, but that's all I know about it. Care to give me a tutorial on how it's done? I guess if I do get into that I'm going to have to learn how to use the pen tool.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I can give a summary for the ones that come from a photo. You choose your photo, and basically do the same thing as you did as a kid with tracing paper, you trace over the photo to copy the part you want, and color in. If you ever get to see the finished product and the photo that it came from, you'll see what I mean. And you might say "is that all they did?". Especially with the two dimensional styled ones. Some are done with more highlight and shading detail to them, and that's where the difficulty lies. But with a Wacom tablet and Photoshop Illustrator, that's the choice of how most seem to be do it. Or you trace a photo on to paper, and scan the paper. Like this one is more involved with blending highlight areas with the base color skin tone (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36319059/). You trace the outline of the face, the lips, eyes, eye brows. Start with filling in a base color for the skin, and add highlights and shadows for dimension. Do the hair seperate in muc the same way. Something like this is a flat style(http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/36608903/) But when you see how directly it comes from a photo, it takes some of the thrill out of it. This is a link to what the second one came from (http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/31228557/) Illustrator has something called a gradient mesh tool that I get the impression is what gets used to give such good dimensional blending to highlights.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thank you, Gregory! The first example was excellent to my untrained eyes! I guess I need to see someone create one to really grasp how it's done, but from your explanation I do understand the principal now.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Aah, fond micro pay scale reference. The pay was based on a per down load, credit combination. It was that the micro stock charged $200 to download a large res file, and the photographer gets a credit for the download. But when it comes to paying the photographer, it wasn't until after 10 credits that they get paid $2. So after the microstock brings in $2000, the photog gets their $2. So the ratio is .50 cents for $500.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jason A. Woodcock |
why would you use this service its out landish .25 cent for a royalty free stock photo stop!! what!! you are being robbed and killing stock for the rest of us. for .25 cents your willing to let someone use one of your photos over and over agian as many times as they want. are you kiding me what a ripe off. I get $70.00 for one time right and that is cheap. I would charge $1000.00 or more for unlimited royalty free use. Stop!!!!!stop!!!!stop!!!! JAW
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jason A. Woodcock |
sorry I meant to say between $30.00 and $70.00 for one time rights
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Jason, I can see where you're coming from! I guess this is a long-running debate about the merits or otherwise of microstock. For me, it's simply an outlet for my images, to try to bring in a little money where otherwise I wouldn't be earning it. I'm strictly amateur, and haven't explored any other marketing opportunities for my images, as I work full time doing other things! At this stage, it's an experiment, and I have a "nothing ventured, nothing gained" view of it. The first batches of images I submitted to Shutterstock (after initial acceptance) had a pretty high rejection rate. Equally split between too much noise and too much use of noise reduction software, mostly! Currently I have 24 images in my gallery (with more that have been approved but do not yet appear) and as at right now I've made a whopping $7.75 ... :o) ...in six days. But hey, those images are now uploaded, and some of them may continue to be downloaded for years (wishful thinking on my part...) For me, I'm already learning to see with a more critical eye, and am appreciating the feedback from the reviewers (even if I don't like some of it!) I'll also start to "think stock" when I'm shooting. I've found that a lot of my favourite images aren't suitable for stock as I've cropped them, or filtered them too much. A couple of BP'ers emailed me to say that they too had been rejected by Shutterstock, and were encouraged to read about someone who had persisted and got accepted. So I'll post every so often about how I'm going with it. Cheers from a chilly Down Under - hope you all Up Over are keeping cool!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
The asmp web site had an article or commentary in their archive section, I think, about how micro stock is a flawed business model and how it can have some bad things not just for how it can affect the market value and earning potential for photographers, but also how it can be a bad thing for the busninesses who pay to use the photos. I understand the enthusiasim for those who look to microstocks as a career starter, but there were things mentioned in the article that those that are enthusiastic don't think about, long term and short term. Very good and valid points too. Although the article has been moved out by more recent ones.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
First, Congratulations, Robyn, on persevering and getting in to SS. You have a nice growing portfolio and a good starting grip on what sells. I don't know where Gregory is getting his numbers, but I can tell you FIRST hand, as a submitter to ~ 8 agencies that the lowest pay is 20% for non-exclusives (iStock). Shutterstock pays .25 per download, but I've also made a few $20 sales on the same photos for extended licenses. Many microstock agencies pay 33%, and some .50 minumum. I shoot with a Nikon D2x (12MP) and many of my downloads are regularly for $1 or $2 for the same pictures because of the larger file size... It does add up quickly. Aside from Lise Gagne who is exclusive to iStock, the big earners ARE submitting to multiple sites, as far as I know, like Andresr and Duplass I now have only ~ 250 images, and have currently earned $4,660.69, starting with only 3 photos back in April 2005. This is not just pin money anymore. I just bought another lens (Nikkor 70-200 VR) and my photos are now paying for photography equipment. A couple of the agencies have branched out into video footage, and vectors do well (I bet Gregory would do great), it does seem like they are more popular than photos, but this may be due to fewer vectors being submitted because fewer folks know how to do it. It is getting seemingly 'harder' to enter even the microstock agencies (witness the increased rejection rates), but I think this just underscores the fact that many people think that just because you have a dSLR and great equipment, that that makes you a photographer... well, it doesn't. So photography starts and ends with the PHOTOGRAPHER, not the equipment (although of course you want great equipment), and I believe that those who take the time to learn composition, their techniques, etc will excell and prevail, AND be able to earn money through the microsites. From what I've been reading through the Yahoo microgroups forum and others, the vast majority of those who submit to the traditional agencies do not make as much money per image per year as the microstockers do. Even so, there is plenty of room and reason for both, and Getty (who bought iStock) said there was only an 8% overlap of users in both types of agencies (I read their latest quarter report). Congrats again, Robyn! Here is my link to Shutterstock for those who want to learn more about starting out with them. $4,660.69 and counting by a photographer who started out with a CoolPix (yes those images are still selling too), and works fulltime in a different field) says it CAN be done if you are dedicated and love photography and are willing to grow in your art/craft... http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Carolyn, thank you for the update. I tried shutterstock a few weeks ago and had all 10 images rejected. Several due to noise. I'm happy for those who are doing well and making money with this. I realize many people are negative about microstock, but my perspective was that my photos were just sitting on the HD doing nothing anyway. Guess they still will be LOL. I'm glad for you and others who are making it work though! Congrats!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks Carolina, for that information, and for your encouragement! I've been active with Shutterstock since 18 July, and now have 66 images approved (whoo-hoo). That's been quite an effort, as my rejection rate remained pretty high at first. I'm learning to see with a more critical eye. Also, I've gathered some great tips from their forums on things like different techniques for noise reduction, getting rid of color aberrations/fringes, isolating on white backgrounds, etc. etc. So far, I've made $43.25. So far, so good. Not the lottery, but heading towards my initial target of $50-75 per month. I'm in the process of signing up with a couple of other agencies, now that I have a bunch of images which got past Shutterstock's pretty tough reviewers! My philosophy at the moment is to continue to shoot what I enjoy shooting, and if it sells as stock that's a bonus. Just occasionally I'm starting to shoot intentionally for stock. (e.g. I took a macro of some pencil tips, which has been downloaded 10 times in a week.) I notice that some agencies don't accept florals. Shutterstock does, and I'm happy that a few of my florals are among my "most popular" to date. For anyone who is put off trying stock because they don't have a DSLR, I've also submitted a few images taken with my "point and shoot" - a Panasonic FZ20, 5mp. It took quite a bit of work to clean up noise levels, without overdoing it, but those images which have been accepted (mostly Australian Outback shots) are doing pretty well. So it's not all agencies which limit submissions to 12mp plus cameras. Sharon: Obviously you are a superb photographer, so if you are interested in stock then don't give up! They only make you wait a month now until you can "try again." Persistence pays off! Carolina, I'd be interested to know WHICH eight agencies you submit to. Thanks again for your kind words. http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=60694
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Hi Robyn, Hey, if you've made that much in a couple of weeks, you are definitely on your way! Congrats. I submit to: Shutterstock (best earner) (well I guess that makes 9). I also tried Gimmestock (virtually dead/dying...) TotallyPhotos (I may upload there more in the future) ImageVortex (not one sale there in over a year... a loser for me/not worth my time). You would think the micromarket is saturated with many of the bigger players nearing or already passing the 1 million files mark... but my downloads across the board tell me that they must have penetrated different markets to some degree. Also, in response to Jason, his remarks are pretty old now (yawn) and not really pertinent to the microstock market. Getty bought iStock, Jupiter Images bought Stockxpert, and Getty's last quarter report show that there is plenty of work for both models (trad and micro) with little overlap (only 8% by Getty's research)in buyers. Getty is committed to growing iStock...it's a different flavor to offer. So it is useless, fruitless, and untrue to tirade about 'robbing and killing stock for the rest of us'. This simply shows ignorance of market forces and market DIFFERENCES. Adapt or die... the best and photographers that work to hone their skills (artistic/business/equipment)will always have a market. Many of us choose microstock and the trads are taking note by buying the microstock agencies so they don't lose out on the trend. Also, there is a big move by Getty to totally own the images... they are making a BIG BIG push to pay photographers on a 'work for hire' basis, the photographer gets paid for time or possibly also expenses, but Getty will own the images forever... Now tell me, Jason, isn't THAT what photographers should be most afraid of? to lose the 'copyright' and future earnings power of THEIR photos? I would think so. First, Congratulations, Robyn, on persevering and getting in to SS. You have a nice growing portfolio and a good starting grip on what sells. I don't know where Gregory is getting his numbers, but I can tell you FIRST hand, as a submitter to ~ 8 agencies that the lowest pay is 20% for non-exclusives (iStock). Shutterstock pays .25 per download, but I've also made a few $20 sales on the same photos for extended licenses. Many microstock agencies pay 33%, and some .50 minumum. I shoot with a Nikon D2x (12MP) and many of my downloads are regularly for $1 or $2 for the same pictures because of the larger file size... It does add up quickly. Aside from Lise Gagne who is exclusive to iStock, the big earners ARE submitting to multiple sites, as far as I know, like Andresr and Duplass I now have only ~ 250 images, and have currently earned $4,660.69, starting with only 3 photos back in April 2005. This is not just pin money anymore. I just bought another lens (Nikkor 70-200 VR) and my photos are now paying for photography equipment. A couple of the agencies have branched out into video footage, and vectors do well (I bet Gregory would do great), it does seem like they are more popular than photos, but this may be due to fewer vectors being submitted because fewer folks know how to do it. It is getting seemingly 'harder' to enter even the microstock agencies (witness the increased rejection rates), but I think this just underscores the fact that many people think that just because you have a dSLR and great equipment, that that makes you a photographer... well, it doesn't. So photography starts and ends with the PHOTOGRAPHER, not the equipment (although of course you want great equipment), and I believe that those who take the time to learn composition, their techniques, etc will excell and prevail, AND be able to earn money through the microsites. From what I've been reading through the Yahoo microgroups forum and others, the vast majority of those who submit to the traditional agencies do not make as much money per image per year as the microstockers do. Even so, there is plenty of room and reason for both, and Getty (who bought iStock) said there was only an 8% overlap of users in both types of agencies (I read their latest quarter report). Congrats again, Robyn! Here is my link to Shutterstock for those who want to learn more about starting out with them. $4,660.69 and counting by a photographer who started out with a CoolPix (yes those images are still selling too), and works fulltime in a different field) says it CAN be done if you are dedicated and love photography and are willing to grow in your art/craft... http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks for that info, Carolina! As I write this I'm in the process of uploading to Dreamstime and Bigstockphoto. Cheers!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
That's wasn't a surprise when Getty bought istock. And I expect them to buy more when others show enough hits for them to consider it. Getty seeks to have a strong hold on just about all visual media sales and business. But despite the enthusiasm, it still is a model that follows the vein of having things manufactured in Mexico, China, etc...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jason A. Woodcock |
first of all caroline I put my soul into my art and my soul is worth more than 25 cent a pop. do you think art wolfe is adapting or dying how about marc adamus or mike fry do you think any of these artist would sell their work for 25 cent I think not. microstock works for the microstock co. and photographers lose... gregory is right plenty of garabge is made in mexico. $4000.00 is a lot to make but how much did shutterstock make? $20,000 $30,000 all I know is I would rather die then sell my soul.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
How melodramatic, Jason! But I can appreciate where you're coming from - if I could take shots like Marc Adamus I wouldn't be selling them as stock, either! But I'm obviously NOT so talented! So I'm just trying to earn a little from my hobby, and learn as I go, with the intention of perhaps marketing my images in other (more profitable) ways in the future. For the non-professional like me, submitting to a stock agency is a great learning experience. I now have about 95 images on Shutterstock, and have clicked over $75 in earnings in a little under a month. So I've already met the initial target I set myself. :o) Still waiting on approvals from other agencies. Retirement is creeping up on me quicker than I would like (maybe 5 years or so), so I hope that the work I'm doing now will lead to a small regular income in the future that will help meet the costs of this very expensive hobby!! Cheers!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Just an update for any of you out there who are thinking about getting into microstock: I'm happy to say that I've just clicked over $200 earnings on Shutterstock, since mid-July. I now have ~140 images with them. Shutterstock was the first agency I joined. I now submit to several other agencies: iStockphoto, Dreamstime, Bigstockphoto and Fotolia. So far, SS is generating 90% of my total earnings. (Earnings on other sites have been under $20 each - woo hoo....) iStockphoto has a long approval queue, and seem to be the pickiest of the reviewers ~ they've rejected 10 out of my top 20 sellers on Shutterstock (and I thought Shutterstock were picky!) So, I'm enjoying the experience so far, even though it has been pretty time consuming to get set up. I'm improving my systems to make it quicker and easier in future. So far, so good. This is my top seller so far. :o)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
|||||||||||
