 Sharon Day |
Do YOU???? - microstock Recently I confessed to submitting some photos to microstock. While it's slow going and I don't have big expectations AND my interest is rapidly fading due to the amount of work for just pennies, I just wondered how many here are involved in submitting to microstock? Does anyone here make more than $200 a month? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I'd be interested in the same information, Sharon. I want to jump into the microstock arena soon myself and I have lots of questions. So any advice from those who have succeeded making money at it would be very appreciated. I'd like to know: 1) What types of images seem to be accepted more than others? Thank you!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Hi Deb, Since I'm just starting out myself I can not offer much help as to what subject matter sells best. From my own observations I would have to say photos of people is what sells best. I can tell you that with Shutterstock the images must be free of noise. They'll turn you down faster for that than anything. I found Shutterstock to be the best place to get started because they'll give you an idea of what they don't like about your images where some of the companies just tell you the image is rejected. You need to submit ten images to begin with and you need to vary the subject matter. Be sure and run them through a program such as Neat Image prior to submitting to reduce the noise. I was rejected the first time I submitted and most were rejected due to noise. Look at your photos in PS at full size so you can see the noise. If they reject your submissions you have to wait 30 days to submit again but they'll send you a reminder when your 30 days are up. I was accepted the 2nd time around and now most of my shots are accepted. Shutterstock will allow you to edit your keywords after the images have been accepted. Most other companies will not. You need to add your keywords to your photos in PS before submitting. This just makes it easier. The whole microstock thing is very time consuming. I asked this question in part because I wonder if anyone here is actually making a decent amount of money from it. It is totally not worth the work for maybe $30 a month which is about what I'm up to so far.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Another thing to consider is if your photography is good enough to sell you quite possibly will not be able to submit the same images to microstock as you would to a higher paying stock company (or anyone). They do not want their contributors submitting the same photos to them as you would to microstock with good reason. Why would anyone pay over $200 for a photo they can get at a microstock company for a couple of bucks? I basically only submit images to microstock that will likely not work with a higher paying company and save my best work for better paying possibilities.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
"decent amount of money from it" That's relative, but it's not set up for that. There's a link in one of the microstock threads around here to an interview with a woman who has involved herself with microstock. The mood of the interview is to portray the soccer-mom makes a career from her house. She talks about 600 downloads a month and using the money to buy a new house and car. But you have to keep in mind that while it is extra money to use for things, 600 times .25 cents dosen't add up to the kind of money to buy a house and car.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Hi Gregory, I probably posted that link. The woman was featured in a Popular Photography magazine article. It was stated she gets 600 downloads a DAY which would come to $150 if she was only getting .25 cents each, but if she's getting a minimum of $1.00 like some sites pays she could be making pretty good money, however, not everyone makes that kind of money and it takes a long time as well as thousands of photos on a site to make that kind of money, not to mention variety. I'm pretty limited in what I shoot as well as what I'm interested in. Realistically I don't see myself getting rich from microstock. Here's the link (if I can remember the code) so you can looksee if your curious.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks, Sharon. You've provided some valuable information. You answered one question I had that I forgot to ask and that was about submitting the same image to more than one agency. So I now know that if I have an image that I think could pass muster as "fine art" and I might even be able to sell giclee prints from it, then I don't want to submit it as stock. I was also wondering what it takes to keep organized and keep track of everything you've submitted, to where it was submitted, rejected or accepted, etc. That sounds like it's probably a huge nightmare. I'm already having trouble just getting my raw images converted, backed up and organized in a logical manner. It's sooooo time-consuming! Thanks again for the info and advice! deb
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Deb, I have been mostly submitting images to microstock that were taken with my Nikon 5700. It's good enough for Shutterstock but not good enough for a higher paying company. Definitely save back anything you think could sell for value. I would not even submit similiar photos to microstock that I might to a good paying stock company such as landscapes that are very alike. As for the microstock companies, most people submit to one then the same images to the rest they are involved with. Organization is a nightmare. What I'm doing is keeping a spreadsheet and I name my photos and number them. I've assigned numbers to the different sites where I've submitted photos. Shutterstock being #1, Big Stock Photo #2 and so on. A filename might look like this: colorado1a2r3p which translates, Shutterstock accepted, BigStockPhoto rejected, and Fotolia pending. I wouldn't even mess with the pending one but a couple of my images didn't seem to get acknowledged at a couple of those sites. I used the pending part to remind myself they weren't acknowledged, but were submitted.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
If that's $1 per download regardless of file size, that's still not enough to do what the interviewed tried to portray. Extra shopping money, bills. But still a definite thing on the side. At this point, the novelty of having your pictures used somewhere still seems to be the strong point.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks, Sharon, for the additional information. What are some examples of a "good paying stock company?" Is that like Getty, Corbis, etc? Do you have any images with those types of agencies?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Gregory, IF the person featured was making $1.00 a download (and I'm sure that's not true) and IF they actually sold 600 photos for that much it would be more income than I'd ever need :o)! I think that's unlikely though. Microstock is so time consuming I don't see how the photographer featured even has time to shoot, much less keyword and all the other things involved. I've been trying this for about 3 weeks now and it's very time consuming. One of the reasons I don't expect much. I'm just not willing to pour hours and hours into microstock with such a small return. Deb, I don't have any images submitted with either of those sites. Alamy was suggested to me as well and I do not have images with them either.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks again, Sharon. You've been very helpful. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Sharon and Deb, I currently am with Shutterstock, Big Stock Photo and StockXpetr. I'll tell you my experiences with each... I submitted to Shutterstock back in November and was excepted. I only had about 15 shots uploaded, but truly felt horrible only getting $.20 per upload, so I de-activated my account.
I currently have 51 shots approved at Shutterstock and get about 20-30 uploads each day. They are now giving $.25 per upload. So, my income from them is now at a whopping $43.65. Definetly nothing to write home about. HOWEVER, this is more than I would have made if those same shots just sat on my computer. As for the other two companies I am wiht, Big Stock Photo has also approved about 50 of my shots. They give $.50 per upload, but to date, I've only had 2 uploads, so I've only made $1.00. I probably wouldn't recommend them because of the non-traffic. StockXpert approved my first 10 images, but then I found out that I would have to re-enter them into my lightbox as well as re-key everything. I do save all of my keywords in a spreadsheet and could copy and paste, but their site is somewhat hard to navigate...so I didn't bother going back. As for Alamy, the one big thing that I have learned from Bryan Peterson's stock photography (which I started about 4 weeks ago) is that your camera needs to be set to Adobe 1998 or Adobe RGB. They will not accept you, nor will traditional stock agencies like Getty or Corbis, if you are shooting in Adobe sRGB. Unfortunetly I learned that AFTER I mailed them my CD of my initial 10 shots. Needless to say, I was rejected...just for that reason. I now exclusively shoot in Adobe RGB and know that all of my previous work that I have shot over the past year will only receive income from the microstock companies. I have held off some of the "personal" shots or ones that I see as fine art. Examples would be the Forever Family series of shots in my gallery. Deb, to answer some of your questions... Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Margie, I have experience the same thing with BSP and Fotolia. Nothing I uploaded to them has sold and it's been several weeks now. I may submit some of my web sized photos to BSP but I doubt it. I hate all the keywording with nothing to show for the time. Just a quick question...if you shoot in sRGB (which is my camera's default I think, and I didn't realize this until recently as well) can't you convert them to RGB in Adobe? I thought you could do that??? I know you can go to Image>Mode>Convert to profile to change it. Doesn't it change then?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
From what I've been told you can convert from RGB to sRGB, but not the other way around...which makes all of my older shot worthless to the bigger stock agencies.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Thanks, Margie! That makes sense. I need to change my camera settings too.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
I started submitting to Shutterstock back in mid-July, and to Dreamstime, iStockphoto, Fotolia and BigStockPhoto in August. Shutterstock rejected me at first earlier in the year. I now have 198 images up on Shutterstock, and my rejection rates are going down, thank goodness! My earnings to date since 18th July are US$321.53 from that site - includes one enhanced license ($20) sale, and one referred photo buyer ($30) - the rest is .25 downloads - over 1100 so far. This makes me happy! With the other sites, my earnings in total have been $74.75. BigStockPhoto is not good for me (big raspberry to them...), and Fotolia is not much better. Dreamstime is promising, and they have pretty quick review times. iStockphoto currently has an upload limit of 20 images per week, quite long review times, and have rejected heaps of mine which are already selling well on Shutterstock. Their keywording system is certainly not user friendly, either! One reason why Shutterstock performs better I think is that they have recently changed their criteria for searching "most popular" image - it used to bring up the most downloaded images, which may have been on the site for years. Now it brings up the images which are most downloaded taking into account the duration since upload. This gives relative newcomers a better shot at having their images found by subscribers. And Shutterstock's subscription model encourages downloads compared to sites which charge by image. Microstock certainly IS time consuming, but also very satisfying to reach personal milestones, and start to see some significant income. I organise my images on an Excel spreadsheet, with a different worksheet per image subject, and columns for each agency. After I upload to Shutterstock, I copy a thumbnail of each image from their website onto the sheet, and then just colour code "pending", "accepted" or "rejected" against each agency. That way I can see at a glance where I'm at. I also have various folders on my hard drive to organise submissions by status. Like everything else, I suppose - you just need a system that works for you. I noticed that there's a guy on the forums at Shutterstock who has designed software specifically for managing images uploaded to multiple agencies. Not sure how much he charges, but so far I'm happy with my spreadsheet. As far as keywording is concerned, that's a royal pain! I'm just getting into a routine of naming and keywording images in Photoshop (under file info), which makes it easier. I didn't know that stuff about RGB/sRGB! Thanks for the tip! Anyway, so far I'm encouraged by my experience with Shutterstock, and I would certainly recommend that site over the others I've tried, for anyone wanting a good start to their mirostock experience. Good luck to anyone who wants to try it!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Robyn, I agree with Shutterstock being the one to try first. It's the only one I've really had any downloads from. In just 3 weeks time one image of mine has sold 35 times and is already on the 4th page of the Abstract category. Considering there are 1729 pages I don't think that's too bad :o)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Exc-e-ll-ent, Sharon! 35 in 3 weeks is a terrific result. Hey, I have one currently on the front page of "sunsets" (20 downloads in 3 days), which I think is pretty amazing, considering the gazillions they have on file! We have to take pleasure in these achievements!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Congratulations, Robyn!!! That's an awesome image so I'm not surprised it's doing so well! Simply gorgeous!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Sharon! One other point regarding getting sales on Shutterstock: I have a website (started on smugmug before I joined BP). I link from the front page of my BP gallery to my smugmug site, and from there I link directly to my portfolios at each of the microstock agencies. I also have stock agency site badges at the bottom of my smugmug home page. The circle is complete as I list my smugmug gallery on a couple of the stock agencies (which have provision for this - not all of them do, it seems), and BP. I'm not sure what works, but the traffic on my smugmug site has almost doubled in a couple of months. I've just about given up hope of selling images directly from smugmug, in favour of encouraging traffic to my portfolios at the stock agencies. Cheers! Hey, it's springtime where I am, and there's a tulip festival on which I'll go to on Saturday. I wonder if Shutterstock has a limit on how many tulip images I can upload.... :o)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
The links sound like a great idea. IF I get established I'll do that too. I dunno about how many of the same subject you can upload. I was told to vary my initial submissions, but after that I thought you could do what you wanted in that area. Good luck with the tulips! (no breeze :o))
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks so much, Margie, Robyn and Sharon for the valuable information! I was getting a bit worried that maybe microstock wasn't going to be worthwhile, but my enthusiasm has been renewed. If you get bored, feel free to view my gallery and critique anything there. I'm open to all suggestions! Thanks again! deb
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
I think I'm gonna be in the minority on this thread, but I have to think you people enjoy working hard for nothing. I can't imagine doing that kind of work for such little reward. I think I'll just keep on shooting for myself and leave the hard labor to you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Carolyn, the topic of micro stock always brings personal preference to the table. You are not in the minority. I too struggled with the idea of micro stock for a long time. However, in the end, I realized my photos were making nothing sitting on my computer, so I put them out on micro stock sites. As of this morning, I've made a whole $47.05, which pays a phone bill for the month. Will I make a fortune on this...no way...that wasn't why I chose to join micro stock. I simply joined to make something.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
I'm not arguing with the concept, just seems like way too much work with all that keywording, etc etc etc...Of course I'm way lazier than most of you, too, so that's probably it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nobu Nagase |
Well, I've been trying to stay away from this subject and been successful for a couple of years now, ... But the subject comes back too often and catches my eye each time... I have always thought, I would rather donate my work to charity organizations and other volunteer groups (such as cultural exchange organizations, especially international cultural and educational exchange orgs) than selling out for .25c to .50c. However, if I can make average over $100-$200 a month at microstock sites, that would certainly beat auctioning. I can donate a part of the income and keep some part of it to myself, etc. Now, to make $100 a month, I will have to have 400 downloads at .25c, 200 downloads at .50c. I wonder if it's doable? Perhaps, too much work for too little money and lots of discouragment and disappointment later???
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Margie, One more question and I'll try to stop buggin' you! :) You mentioned needing to have your images shot in Adobe RGB to get into Alamy. Do you know if there's a limitation on megapixels? I'm just curious if my 6mp D70 is enough to pass muster. I plan to upgrade at some point next year to the D200 which is 10.2 mp, but I'm not ready to do that just yet. thanks again
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
You know, Deb, I wasn't sure as I figured my 8.0 megapixels would be enough. I went to the Alamy website and found this... http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-digital-cameras.php You need a 6-megapixel camera. Hope this helps. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
You know, Deb, I wasn't sure as I figured my 8.0 megapixels would be enough. I went to the Alamy website and found this... http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-digital-cameras.php You need a 6-megapixel camera. Hope this helps. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks for checking that out for me, Margie.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andy Kerr |
Hi there. I'm with Shutterstock, Bigstockphoto, Dreamstime, iStockphoto and 123RF. Been with Shutterstock for about 9 months, and the others for more like 6 months. I think microstock gets a bad reputation because people think of the 25c per d/l and that they can't ever make any money at that kind of payout. Ever built a website? Ever thought about the thousands (if not millions) of people around the world who are small-time web designers, building their own sites, or part-time for others? They're never gonna pay a 'proper' license fee ($100 or more) to simply brighten up their sites. Not gonna happen. But with microstock, they get their hands on decent photos for peanuts. This, to me, expands the market hugely. It's a different market, though. From a photographer's point of view, microstock is a starting point, and a fantastic way of finding out what sells (often surprising - my best seller for months was my photo of my marble kitchen floor!) and what kind of shots to take. If you then get to the level where you start taking photos that are too good for mirostock, DON'T upload them to a microstock site! Sell them on Alamy or somewhere else that'll both pay you decent money for its quality, AND keep the best photos in a market that'll pay for them! I make about $80 a month from microstock just now, from a gallery of around 100-250 photos (depending on the site). I have very few 'people' photos in my gallery - which generally sell best - but up to now have concentrated on interesting backgrounds/textures, and details of famous landmarks around the world. Time to start persuading my friends/family to pose for me...! There's certainly plenty of scope to make $400+ a month from microstock alone once your gallery gets up to 800 or more good-quality photos. More info at www.sellmyphotos.co.uk for anyone who wants to know more.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks, Andy for the information. So is microstock primarily for use on the web and "regular" stock more for advertising, text books, etc.?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andy Kerr |
Hi Deb. No, I think microstock is used for more varied purposes. To be honest, I'm not sure there are hard and fast rules on the matter. Each microstock site has usage rights that the standard 'rights-free' license allows for. As far as my own understanding goes, microstock photos (generally) can be used in advertising and design for web and print use. The main thing that a standard (ie 25c - $1) license does not seem to allow is to directly make money from the use of your image. ie someone can't take my photo and put it on mousemats, t-shirts etc and sell them. Different sites have different rules though. Dreamstime has more relaxed rules, for example, and their standard usage agreement does allow some element of sales of the image - up to a limit of 50,000 units, I think. Within the past year, most sites have introduced 'extended usage licenses', paying photographers around $25 per image, which allow designers much more latitude and/or more units. To me, rights-managed stock sites (ie 'proper' ones, not microstock) tend to focus on 'unique' shots, either through their quality, imaginative composition or unusual subject. Whereas microstock generally tends to be of a more generic style. That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm sure someone will come along shortly and disagree with me...!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks, Andy!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
$3,000 for a course??? Yikes! What kind of a degree do you get after taking a course like that??? Does anyone know? That would be a LOT of money to walk away from without a degree and somehow I have a feeling the only thing you get is bragging rights that you took a nice long course with a name brand photographer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I thought at first that it was way too much too. But considering it's an 8 month course, it doesn't cost much more than a typical BP course. It seems that any kind of education regarding photography is very expensive from classes to workshops and seminars. Most weekend seminars are around $1000 and that does not include travel, lodging or meals! It's frustrating when you really want to learn, but the cost is so high.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
I love microstock! I've only just begun but it's a place where a prolific shooter, like myself, can utilize their images. I've taken pictures of "things" my entire life and I'm 55 years old. I'm not in the stock business for the short haul. I am in it for the long haul. I have nothing to lose but some time on my end and I don't find it a pain to do all the work (organization, keywords, etc). It is very very time consuming. I only submit to one stock agency at this time and that is Lucky Oliver. LO is a start up stock agency and I like the fact that I am growing up with them. My sales there are low but I have a lot of views on my images. I was turned down by stockxpert because "not what we are looking for right now".
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
One other thing! The cool thing about stock agencies is that they have affiliate programs. You refer in a photographer, they sell their images, you get some $$, but the photographer doesn't pay you, the agency does! Now how cool is that!?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
I submit to microstock agencies. I started with just 3 photos in April 2005, adding a few a week, now only adding a few a month due to my full time career and just having moved across the country. The checks (or PayPal deposits) just keep rolling in. I only have ~ 245 photos online, but have made $5,604.17 to date. The most common rejection I see other's complain about is NOISE. People shots reportedly do well, but I have only a few in my portfolio. You should shoot what interests you. Yes, it can be a LOT of work to post process one photo (especially isolations), but once it's done, it's done, and I consider that photo now 'in the bank' to be repeatedly downloaded for however long (months... years??). I love photography, so it is a joy to me to share my work with others and see it used through microstock. The money is now paying for camera equipment and another hobby. I do not feel demeaned at all. If anyone wants to check out ShutterStock, my referral link is http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 Kind regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
"I do not feel demeaned at all." Carolina, there is nothing demeaning about selling your photos for pennies!! One way to look at it is I've been shooting and spending huge amounts of time with contests and now I have a stockpile of photos going no where and doing nothing but sitting on the HD. Like you have pointed out those pennies add up. Yes, the keywording is a pain and time consuming. I even question daily if it's even worth it, but I do kinda enjoy it as another outlet similiar to BP only I'm actually making a little here and there. Actually I daily argue with myself whether it's a waste of time or not :o)! I'm basically wondering how many people here at BP actually do the microstock thing and are willing to own up to it?? :D.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I see that most everyone so far uses a spreadsheet to track their submissions. Does anyone know of any software that's been written specifically for this type of tracking? If there isn't any, sure sounds like a good opportunity for some energetic programmer! :) Does anyone know if the new Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (still in beta) will handle submission tracking?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
What noise software program(s) do y'all use? I use Neat Image, but, am still getting rejections based on noise, even with shooting my Nikon D200 at iso100!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
I use Noiseware, but I've used Neat Image as well. I don't think I've gotten a rejection due to noise since running everything through either of those. You should not get rejections for noise if you do that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I found the thread below helpful although I have not yet purchased a noise reduction application. After reading the thread below I'm going to try Noiseware. http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/QnAdetail.php?threadID=25705
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
I use PhotoKit Sharpener by Pixel Genius. I've tried Noise Ninja, and some freeware, but found PhotoKit the best for me. Why?, Because it is great at letting you do selective sharpening or selective noise reduction. So you don't end up with plasticky looking photos because you only address the needed areas. It is a Photoshop plugin program. It is very rare for me to get any noise rejections unless I have shot at a high ISO.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
Carolina, do you sharpen your images prior to submission? I don't..I use to but I don't any longer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
I do selective sharpening, but no in camera sharpening. BTW, congrats, Laura, on your new camera (Nikon) I read about in the microstock forums! Carolina
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
Thanks, Carolina! I love it .. it's such a fancy little computer, uh, I mean camera!! LOL I am still learning how to use it but having fun in the process!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
This is a great thread. I checked out the Alamay site,(I'm not interested in Microstock) They state that images msut be submitted without any sharpening. They explain it that their customers may require different degrees of sharpening
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
I thought the reviewers at the various sites expect non-sharp images? Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about out of focus images, just images not sharpened?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
The microstock sites will accept sharpened images. However the more traditional sites will not.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
So, that's how it is! That settles a lot of confusion for me. Some microstockers selective sharpen and others say leave 'em alone with no sharpening. I knew there had to be something that differentiated it all. Thanks for the info, Margie! Oh! one other thing! Is there an advantage to selective sharpening at the non-traditional sites?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Would one of you mind explaining "selective sharpening?" I've just been applying sharpening to the entire image. Is this not a good practice?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Deb, Photoshop has a tool called the sharpen tool. You can use that to sharpen selected areas of a photo.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Thanks, Sharon. I have been using the "smart sharpen" filter, but always on the entire image. I never considered only sharpening certain parts of the image. I guess that makes a lot of sense! I learn something new everyday here. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
Well, I am probably a few days late here, but I did want to comment on the whole microstock arena. I did take Bryans stock class, only back when it was offered here at BP! Still pricy, if I remember it was around 2k. But, after reading many articles in NAPP and Shutterbug and the like, I have come to my own conclusion: Micro is here to stay. I did join DT, SS, iStockphoto/and Pro as well as some smaller ones like 123RF and Image Vortex ( a more traditional stock group). When I see NAPP, and people like Oprah, various business' using images from microstock for thier ads, it speaks loudly. Why would these people who could easily hire someone to take a photo choose to purchase a ms image? Price! Does that mean they will never hire someone to shoot, naaa! But it does mean they are being more resourceful. I've had my images dl'd for college education posters, websites, prints, etc.... And no, I am not making house payments selling my images in ms. But it is very rewarding! I still know that my bread and butter is with the live client doing portraits! But, ms is a fun and friendly environment and the people that submit are incredibly supportive to ALL newcomers!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Tracy, I have tried several times to submit to iStockphoto and each time I go through the entire training tutorial where at the end you're supposed to be able to apply but it dumps me right back at the beginning again. Do you by any chance know why it does that?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
I just had some great news with Shutterstock. One of my images sold for an Enhanced License Sale, which is used for greeting cards, t-shirts, etc. It sold for $20! So much better than $.25! Still won't let me retire, but I was thrilled!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
Sharon, not sure why it would do that. If you post in the forum, tons of their screeners answer questions there, I am sure they could help. I have not had that happen. Make sure all your popup blockers are turned off when you start the process. Margie! Congrats on the sale! That's awesome. You might go into Target one day and see your work! How cool would that be? Again, Congrats!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Congrats, Margie on the Extended Licence sale! I know how exciting those are when they come through. Sharon, you might try calling iStock support directly. It's quick, and the two times I have called them, things were taken care of immediately. Another thought is to try from a different computer,either another one in your home or maybe from one at work or a friend's home, if you can, as there may be something in your security sytem/software setting that is blocking the final entry to a particular website. I have 3 internet enabled computers (hubby's, mine, and a portable laptop) and sometimes I find that one allows me to get through to all of a site's layers, and sometimes mine doesn't. This can be one quick temporary workaround. $6,144.84 from the microstock agencies and counting... http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 Kind regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Sharon, I agree with Tracy...try a different computer. I just went through the process with iStockphoto earlier this week without any trouble. I'm still waiting to hear from them though. They said it could take up to 2 weeks! Margie, congrats on the sale!! I'm still looking for that first quarter, but it's only been a week so I'm sure it will be coming soon. Carolyn, great sales total!! How long have you been "microstocking?"
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andy Kerr |
Congrats, Margie on the EL sale at Shutterstock. Something I haven't managed to achieve there yet. Haven't seen your stuff at SS, but I'll try and check it out. The flower shots on your own site are great, though. It's true what you say - people shots sell best on microstock (and rights managed from what I can see), but with shots like yours, I'm sure you're doing just fine anyway. For what it's worth, I NEVER sharpen my images these days - selectively or not. I find it only increases the likelihood of rejection for noise/hazing, and in microstock the aim for me is < 5 minutes retouching in Photoshop, and > 90% acceptance ratio. Anything else just doesn't make commercial sense to me. Getting it right in the camera first is the key.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I completely agree, Andy. Getting it right is the camera in the first place is sooooo much easier! I find editing in PS very tedious when I'm trying to prepare numerous images for uploading to various agencies. Five minutes is about all I spend too and that includes keywording!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Thanks for the responses on the iStockphoto problems. I emailed them at iStock and they told me it was likely my firewall causing the problems. I will try my laptop tomorrow. BTW, I am up to $70 today and have been submitting for about 8 weeks now. Anyone have some tips on isolation? Am I going to need to get studio lights to accomplish this?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
I'm new at stock and started out on the wrong foot! LOL But, now things are looking up. I bought a new camera (Nikon D200), am doing NO sharpening of any kind (in photoshop and my camera setting), bought some lights (haven't worked with them yet), and most importantly, I had an eye examination and am working on seeing better. I literally could NOT see the noise which I thought I had removed! REALLY! My new contacts should be in any day now and I'm hoping I'm on the right road! BTW...I've made $6.70 with stock and am affiliated with Lucky Oliver (a start up agency). I will branch out to other stock agencies once I get this vision issue squared away. My eyes are really bad and I didn't realize they had changed. Go figure that one! LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
Laura, well I am sorry to hear about your eyes! I need to check out Lucky Oliver...! Sharon, I might could help with your questions concerning isolation if you could be a bit more specific. Isolation could be done with Aperture too. What type of shots are you looking to shoot? You can do white knockout shots if you have two heads w/softboxes. Anyways.....give me a few examples of the type shots you want.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Tracy, I'm looking to do household items or flowers with a totally white background. From what I've read in the forums many people take the shot and get it as white as they can then do levels in PS or select the background and delete it. I am not good at getting the background white with PS. Shouldn't anyone be able to do this in camera without doing PS? I need to upgrade my camera worse than getting strobes so if it's something I would need strobes for I'll have to wait a while. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Sharon, I usually use a white foam (display) board that you can get at Target or any craft store. I then usually overexpose the shot by +1. If the item is mostly white, I overexpose by +1.5 or even +2. That will give you the whitest background possible. Depending on your lighting, you may get shadows. Sometimes the shadows look great, but if you don't like them, you can always clone them out.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
Hi Sharon~ You can achieve this set up by using strobes and soft boxes. You set them up so they literally point down towards each other. Then you take a piece of matte plexi glass, which I found very hard to find. My solution was to place 3 sheets of vellum on top, creating that opaque look. You then want to test each light individually, make sure each is putting out the same amount of light. Once they read the same, they knock out each other. I have these instructions somewhere I could email them to ya if you want? With this method, you do minimal clean up in ps. Just evening out the white a bit.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Thank you, Margie & Tracy! Margie, do you use artificial light or window light? Tracy, I can not afford lights right now, but I would still like to have the instructions for later if it wouldn't be any trouble. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Sharon, I use both...whatever is available at the time I am shooting. Many of my shots are taken in my kitchen whereas I have a northern/western exposure. If I want additional light, I may turn on the kitchen lights, as long as I don't get a hot spot on what I am shooting.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Thanks again, Margie! I have had some success putting a sheet of white plexi glass I removed from my lightbox and placing it in the window where the sun will shine through it. I use white reflectors to bounce the light back on to the subject. That's working on days the sun shines LOL.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
super information. I'll be setting up "the white shooting" real soon. What would really help me is a diagram. Can anyone shoot their basic setup and email me and/or anyone else who might like it?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Just my 2 cents..or is it 20 cents. ;) I looked at micro stocks some time back and declined to participate for the following reasons. 1) Loss of copyrights 2) Really low rates 3) The micro stock people are getting rich, not the photographers. I think micros are great for people who want some extra $$$ rather than market their work professionally. While true stock agencies are (extremely) competitive, they do two things well...They test the metal of a professional and pay a whole lot more..and in many cases, the photographer retains control of the photo..in other words, if XYZ company wants it, they get to use it..and no one else. You may hear some pro's bemoaning the idea that micro stocks hurt pro stock submissions. Nothing can be further from the truth. When "Clairol", "Ford Motor Co", "Microsoft", "Arizona Highways" etc..etc..When they need a shot, they don't look to micro stocks. Again, I think they are great for people who dont want to market their work or don't have the time or experience to do so. Just my .20 cents, ;) Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Pete, unless I missed something in the fine print I'm pretty sure the photographer retains their copyright. Can't argue with the rest of it :o)!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Laura Clay-Ballard |
I agree with Sharon. Unless I missed something??? We always retain the copyright unless we purposely say otherwise. Some of us don't have time to market in a big way or get involved with the big agencies. Usually, they do require bigger badder cameras with mega-megapixels and such (lots of $$). Microstock is a great niche for some of us who don't have the time or means to do it in a really big way for microsoft and ibm or whoever. I love microstock! I am a prolific shooter, and where else can I put all my pictures that would otherwise go on a burned dvd? I think it is really cool when I wake up and discover someone bought 2 of my picutres and I made a couple of dollars!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
Well...it's never a shock to hear this discussion. I have read and participated in many. I think if you put photography and it's advances all in perspective, you will see the broad picture here. Several years back, when you shot with film, the tedious expense and tasks involved in shooting specifically for stock were HUGE! Then, the likelihood of getting your work into one of the big boy agencies was slim to none! Ask Bryan himself. He has a story about that as well! Now, ANYONE can grab a digital camera, shoot what they love and have the great reward of seeing their work on the web and/or in print in a variety of ways. Keeping it all in perspective...the web. I mean the vastness of the WWW is overwhelming. Why should a company pay prime money for a web image? Chances are that image will be rotated/replaced within a short perioud. It just makes sense to use a microstock image. I have had my images used for Cancer sites, College Advertising posters and prints. ANd no I did not get rich from it. I still read AmPhoto articles about the big wigs and their assistants. About the countless hours, the humiliating duties and the zero respect they get. How many of us are willing to drop our lives, move to NY, market our work, spend countless hours being a "do boy/girl" for the Named photographer just to have our big break? I am not. I really enjoy being able to shoot when I want, as much as I want and what I want! It's freedom. And, I too Sharon, still get a thrill when one of my pictures has been downloaded! Long live MicroStock!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Well said, Tracy. "Again, I think they are great for people who dont want to market their work or don't have the time or experience to do so. " While this may be true, please don't think Pete that microstock doesn't take any time or effort. Quite the opposite is true. While I don't need to market my work, I do have to spend hours preparing images, keywording, uploading, etc. not to mention shooting! Then you get the joy of having your hard work rejected for a variety of reasons. :) But in the end, it's definitely rewarding to make a lttle money from images that would otherwise never be seen by anyone but me. I don't expect to ever get rich, but there are some people who do quite well. I intend to be one of those! :D Like Tracy said, "It's FREEDOM!"
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
"All Images on the Shutterstock website are protected by United States and international copyright laws and treaties. Shutterstock and/or the various artists who provide content and/or Images to Shutterstock ("Submitters") own all rights, including the copyrights in and to the Images. Shutterstock and/or its Submitters reserve all rights in and to the Images not granted to you by the terms of this license." The above was taken from Shutterstocks web site. So who actually owns the rights to the photos? You..Shutterstock, or you AND shutterstock? Oh, to be fair, some traditional stock agencies have poor "terms" for photographers...so one has to be careful. I have several photos located at three different stock agencies. Each time a photo is requested, I receive a phone call or a letter from the agency requesting permission to use the photo, as well as a pricing structure. If however, as more than once occured, the requesting customer was a large commercial entitity who will no doubt profit from the shot by way of advertising, my fee was structured MUCH higher. These fees are also calculated on circulation numbers and position if the photo will appear in a magazine. I have no problem with anyone using microstock companies, more power to ya..I simply chose not to go that route. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Very interesting, Pete! Do you mind sharing some of the names of a few of the "established stock agencies" and what the criteria is for submitting or being accepted by them? As an example, I know of one site that states in their site that their submitting photographers have to be professionals. That would let me out.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ross Throndson |
WOW, This is my first time to BP Forums...what a Great discussion you guys are having! I've never done any microstock, very interesting though.The Copyright issue would bother me. Sounds like you guys are doing pretty Good though. Would like to hear some more responses on the Copyright issue. Maybe someone could ask Bryan Peterson about that.... Great Thread!! :^)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
As far as the Copy Right issue... from what I understand it to be in "real people" terms is this...You still own the right to your image. Under that , you own the right to sell it on other sites, display it on your site, and sell it on your site. On some sites, if you decide to go "Exclusive", than you give up more rights..but get a higher pay. I am careful not to submit to agencies that do not allow images to be on other sites. B/c after all they are still my images and I can display/sell anywhere I wish. Now, for those of you who have chosen to do the "extended license" thing, it's a diff story. From the way I understand that to be is this....if you sell an image as EL, then you agree to remove it from other sites, and not sell it for use that way. Basically, someone has purchased the rights to resell that image on something else, ie: mousepad, cup, poster etc....This EL agreement that I am familiar with is on DT. So, I don't want to speak for the other agencies. Bryan is not real familiar with the Microstock world and I doubt would comment on the contract of any of the MS agencies as he works only with the Macro guys! As I stated earlier, it's a great market place for those photographers that have "great" work and want their work out there, but for what ever reason do not have the means/time/ability to market to the Macro guys. One more thought.... there will always be some people/ companies out there that hire Art Directors to conceptualize a shoot and for those photographers lucky enough to be hired/solicited for those shoots, my hat's off to ya! But for the majority of us that are very talented and have a true love of photography selling our work in the MS world is fullfilling! Anyone catch the article in, POPphoto, I think it was.....about the MS photographer? She was making quite a bit of money doing this and probably has more images with MS agencies than ***** himself has with the big wigs. Thousands upon thousands of images with numerous MS companies equals $$! I will look for that article and see about posting the link....Or maybe it was already mentioned..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
I've read the article in Popular Photography about the 25 cent fortunes. It was an interesting article. I also read in the forum at Shutterstock where a member told a photographer that was sharing their first image of food that if they had 200 more images of food such as that one in their gallery they could expect to make $500 a month. That was pretty mind blowing as well. Here's the link to the Popular Photography article if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Would some of you mind sharing which microstock sites you do best at? I'm looking to branch out. So far I've only been submitting to Shutterstock, Fotolia and BigStockPhoto with Shutterstock doing better by far. I'm not asking for $$ figures, just which sites seem to do best for you. It's very time consuming uploading them and submitting even if the keywords are embedded in the file. I'd just as soon avoid messing with sites where a photographer starting out isn't likely to be noticed until they have a stockpile of images in their gallery. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ross Throndson |
Sharon, your images are too Good for microstock. In my humble opinion you would be selling yourself short. You've got some Great Stuff!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hi Sharon, One of the more established stock agencies is "Robertstock" ..and yes, I know there are some agencies that only accept images from established pros. This is a two edged sword. On one hand, some argue it maintains consistency in quality. Personally I do not agree with that premise, as the final selection is made by editors and/or fine arts directors; they too are subjective in their choices, and there is a lot of rear end kissing going on. I once did a shoot for a Vodka company...the political and social schmoozing was far more difficult than the photo shoot itself, but still well worth it. I think amateur submissions should be allowed. Without it, they are probably missing some good images in the talent pool. Many of these editors/ art directors just don't have the time to wade through thousands of unsolicited photos. ..and if you really want to get nit picky, many agencies don't even accept digital images, period!
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tracy S. Moore |
Pete- I remember you from some advice you gave to a great friend of mine, Donna..You give really good advice. Actually, it may be the delivery style I like- almost like an advice column with a little humor~ :) Do you still shoot film? How do you see the medium format digital cameras fitting into this field? ( stock photography that is) BTW- RobertStock looks pretty neat. Tracy
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
Sharon, I'm currently on Stockxpert, Dreamstime and LuckyOliver. I'm waiting to hear from iStockPhoto. I was rejected the first time out with ShutterStock, but I'm confident I'll get in on the second try. I haven't had much success regarding sales so far, but I can offer a few observations. LuckyOliver is brand new (online since June) so it's hard to say where that will go. Their site is a little offbeat compared to the other established sites. Dreamstime seems to be the easiest to get into and my rejection rate is very low. Their review times are very slow. Lately they've been taking more than a week and they don't review after regular business hours including weekends. Once your image is review it still takes a day or two before it's actually online. Therefore, it really takes some time to create a presence on DT. Views of my images so far are very low. They have useful forums and the photogs out there seem to be helpful so far. iStockPhoto takes a long time just to approve you to be on their site. Two weeks is typical. I'm still waiting. Stockxpert is very, very particular in what they will accept. My rejection rate is more than 50%, but I'm starting to learn what they won't accept. Most of my rejections are because they're not looking for that type of image at this time. I expect the rejection rate to go down as I learn more about what they want. SXP reviews very quickly sometimes. I've noticed that in the evening and on weekends, they sometimes review your uploads within minutes. I haven't found their forums useful thus far. I've posted several questions with no responses. I get lots of views on SXP, but not many sales yet. However, you do get $1 per download compared to 50 cents on DT and 25 cents on ShutterStock. Well that's what I know so far. It's been very time consuming with all the uploading and record keeping, but I'm going to stick with it. I know I need to increase my portfolio with more typical "stock" images before I'll be successful. I mostly have nature and wildlife which will not get me very far in microstock. Hope that helps! Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Tracy, Thankyou for your kind words. Sometimes I am diplomatic in my responses, at other times I'm probably downright mean! LOL Just depends how late I've been up when reading the BP forums. Yes, I still shoot med format, but alas, not nearly as much as I once did. I still shoot some large format agency work, where they demand only med format or better. I can't say with any degree of certainty if Med format will ever fall to the wayside..it is however losing ground to digital for many reasons. 1) "Almost instant turnaround"..This is becoming more and more important in our fast paced world. A photo journalist can now shoot in China and have the images in N.Y in an instant! Amazing. 2) "Post processing." What many of us now do to our photos, touchup, color correct, blemish removal, exposure comps, etc..etc..would cost a fortune if done by artistic photo finishers working with neg or print. 3) "Live Client Viewing" I love this one. With my laptop, I can show a client what I just shot. The editor can recommend changes and Voilla', I do it right then and there! I believe in the old adage that there are two business models when time is money; "The quick and the dead" I still love film, but I can no longer justify the cost unless a client requires it. All the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Yay, I just sold my first enhanced license! In a little over 8 weeks I'm up to $96.50.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Someone suggested to me I start a microstock Q&A so I thought I'd just resurrect an old one. Do we have anyone who wants to come out of the closet since the last time this thread was posted to?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
LOL! Glad to see this coming to the surface again. I had started the Stock Club here at BP, but without getting notified of any posts, it was very difficult to manage...so it has gone by the wayside. The Q&A will be great.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pat Harry |
I started micro stock in June, I think it was. In November, I made my first sell - two photos to the same buyer. Yippee! I've earned 50 cents. Only $99.50 more to go, and they'll cut me a check. :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Pat, what sites are you submitting to? Get online with Shutterstock. The downloads start rolling in about as soon as you get accepted. If you need any help just email me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Hi Margie, I didn't know that you started a Stock Club. I remember getting an invite to one but I never could find my way around the clubs too well and didn't fully explore them. Sorry about that!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margie Hurwich |
LOL!!! Sharon, you joined my group. LOL!!! That just goes to show that it isn't being utilized! Pat, Shutterstock (SS) is a great site to start at...microstock wise. Like Sharon mentioned, the sales will start coming in as soon as you are accepted and start uploading photos. I've been involved with microstock for just over two years, but never really put alot of time into like Sharon and others have. This year my goal is to get more involved and to make more money. Earnings aren't even a part time check, but I can't complain about the checks that I've gotten.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pat Harry |
Thanks Margie & Sharon. I'll try Shutterstock again. I have images at iStockPhoto, CanStockPhoto, and BigStockPhoto. When I first submitted to ShutterStock, they rejected all ten of my images. How embarrassing! Most of those same images were accepted at iStockPhoto, which in my experience has been the next toughest to get by. But I think my skills are improving as time goes on, so I'll try Shutterstock again. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Pat, email me off list and I'll send you some pointers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Greetings to all in 2008. I continue to 'microstock', strive to grow as a photographer, and am as excited as ever about stock photography. I have only ~ 308 images online and have to date (Jan 2008) earned $15,409.39 from those images. Shutterstock has always been my number 1 earner. It has been interesting to see the microstock industry change. I intend to go with the flow, and just concentrate on taking the best photos I can. What I like most about microstock is the freedom to shoot what I want, when I want, and not have to really do any footwork regarding marketing. I do not feel cheated, rather, I have really enjoyed seeing my work used in venues such as text books, web advertising, brochures, even a pastor's sermon. Good luck to all this year in your photography ventures and dreams. There is still room to earn $$ in microstock.
Carolina
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Well said, Carolina! I'm way ahead of you in the size of portfolio (1,057 at SS) but way behind you in earnings, still it's nice to make a little money from photos that were just sitting on my hard drive doing nothing. Best wishes for 2008!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||