 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)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I'm glad to hear you're doing well, Robyn! Thanks for the update! I've submitted a few to Shutterstock and have been accepted myself. It is slow getting started. I keep wondering how much I'd be making by now if I'd spent as much time preparing images for microstock as I have BP??? Not that I'm going to be slowing down on entering photos at BP. I still enjoy BP a lot, but it's fun to make a little money on images that are otherwise just sitting idle on the HD. Oh yeah, to those that make the big money and hate those of us using microstock then I apologize, but if the gal featured in Popular Photography magazine can do it so can the rest of us! Check this out!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Not sure what went wrong with the link so here's the web address for anyone interested in Popphoto.com's article on microstock. http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/2837/25-cent-fortunes.html
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Great news, Sharon, that you are up and running on Shutterstock! With your creativity and skill, I'm sure you'll do well. Have you explored www.photosofplants.com to sell some of your gorgeous flower images? Great article, BTW - encouraging to newbies like us!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thank you, Robin! I'll check in to photosofplants! Thanks for the headsup!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Melanie Snowhite |
Have yu guys thought about this? What if you sell your photo for 50 cents and then by chance a commercialbuyer sees it on your site and wants to buy exlcusive usage for one year. You have to say no becuase you sold it for 50 cents. You just lost a couple grand. It happens if you are a good photographer. Personally I think these microstock places are a disaster for the profession. If you feel you are an amateur...wait until you are good enough to get real money. You will understand what I'm talking about the first time you get totally undercut. (though it's hard to be undercut by 50 cents.....I guess free would be undercutting ;)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Well Melanie, I've had my gallery for two years now and no one is knocking down my door ;)!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Ah, I just thought of something. I will often take half a dozen or more photos of the same thing. A different file name is a different photo isn't it? I watched a video once of a professional wildlife photographer that mentioned he took several photos of the same bird in case more than one client wanted one. In his video he had a power winder (old video) and fired off a whole succession of shots of the same bird doing what birds do. All the photos were nearly identical. I seriously doubt I've uploaded any potential mother loads to Shutterstock :o)!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Melanie Snowhite |
Hi Sharon, in the industry they are called "similiars" and when you sell stock at the bigger agencies you can't license them rights managed becuase most clients that pay that amount for exclusivity don't want to see a very similar photo out there....which is why they pay you bigger dollars. Sharon it never hurts to think bigger. If you have quality photos they are worth money so don't undersale yourself! If that wildlife photographer was doing as you say he was probably selling his iages royalty free for little money. This business is hard an you are right...no one will come knocking on your door unless you get your work out there....hutle hustle hustle...dream big...and it will happen.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thanks, Melanie! IF I ever start taking the kinds of photos that would sell for big money I'd hang on to them. In the meantime I don't see the odd zoo shot or flower shot really going anywhere. I'm probably short sighted, but the stuff I've been submitting isn't something that's likely to attract the big guys or hurt the business of the pros.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
I guess when it comes to microstock, the train's already left the station, and there's no stopping it! I'm in the same situation as Sharon ~ what I'm submitting isn't likely to hurt the pros, AND if I ever take any fantastic images that would be marketable elsewhere, I will not submit them for stock. Also, microstock agencies generally are *not* interested in the more "artsy" creative photos - they prefer mostly clean, unfiltered images. So there's room for all, I believe. It'll be interesting to see where the industry heads over the next few years.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deb James |
Robyn and Sharon, First let me say I don't have any issues with microstock. I have yet to jump in and give it a try, but I'm definitely intrigued by the concept. However, I think you guys are underestimating your skills! I've checked out your galleries and I can see many, many of your images hanging on my wall. Of course, I also see images that are definitely more suited to stock, but I think you have quite a few that certainly qualify as fine art. Just my two cents! :) deb
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks very much for your kind words, Deb! I love Sharon's work, so for me especially what you say is a compliment! :0) Robyn
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wayne L |
To All, Does anyone know how much $ these agencies are charging for your photos that they give you 25-50¢ for? To whom and for what they are being sold? How do you know your children's photos aren't being used in some peverted way? Wayne
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Wayne, If you just look at the individual microstock agency's websites, it will be very clear how much the agency is charging for the photos... It's no secret, and every photographer who signs on with the various stock agencies knows the information, so I'm not sure what your point is. Just look it up. There are user agreements as to how the photos can be used or can't be used. If a photo is used illigitimately, you can't blame the stock agency any more than you could blame WalMart for selling Tylenol that someone decides to use for harmful purposes (like overdosing)... I do agree with you that there is the possibility for misuse, but buying from a trad stock agency doesn't protect from this either...The trads also recognize this as an INDUSTRY WIDE possible danger/problem and are working on ways to make stock photography better. Here is what came of a recent PACA (Picture Agency Counsil of America)meeting: Tomorrow afternoon you’ll be hearing more about the great strides PLUS has made over the past few weeks. You’ll finally see the fruits of their efforts in the form of actual metadata panels that will soon be integrated into digital image files. Going forward, we must consistently use embedded metadata to make sure clients remember the terms of their licenses. In today's marketplace, with licensing models proliferating, imagine how hard it must be for clients to keep track of which rights packages go with which images. If we want our customers to comply with the terms of sale, we must make it manageable; embedded metadata is the key. We also must make extensive use of advanced technological services that help us find infringements. We must pursue infringers in the courts when necessary. We must support the creation of sophisticated digital image registries so that image users can find lawful copyright holders whenever they need to. Note well, that Fotolia and Shutterstock, two microstock agencies, are members of PACA and I expect that more will be joining in the future. I do see your point,though, and that is one reason why the vast majority of my stock shots are NOT people oriented... For photographers here who want to check out Shutterstock, one of the earliest pioneers in microstock and the biggest single earner for me, http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 To date (starting with just 3 photos in April 2005, now only ~ 245 photos)I have earned over $6274.17 and counting. Kind regards,
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
I thought I'd share a milestone - just hit my first US$1,000 in microstock earnings, after starting out with 50 cents in July... :o) More than half of this was in October alone. It's been a fair bit of work, but it's starting to pay off. It's surprising how quickly that 25 cents per download adds up! Like Carolina, my biggest earner is Shutterstock (50%). My second is iStockphoto (30%), followed by Stockxpert and Dreamstime. If you want to check it out, please see: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=60694 If anyone out there has been thinking of giving microstock a try, just go for it! Cheers! PS: I'm off to shoot my lunch before I eat it. :o)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
That's awesome, Robyn!!! I've been submitting to 3 but SS is the only site I'm making any money with. I reached $100 today and started in September. My biggest problem is keeping track of what I submit, what is accepted and what is rejected. I wish they would all just accept or reject the same photos LOL. Since Shutterstock allows you to change your keywords I was just giving 7 keywords only then adding more if they are accepted. I'm finding it's best to add them to the file instead. It's a bit more time consuming, but once they're embedded in the file I don't have to worry about it again and they're ready for the next site. Congrats!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Oh, Robyn, how wonderful! Congratulations! I get my first check this month from Shutterstock...$125.00! I haven't submitted much for the past couple of month, and really need to get going on that. I've only made $5.50 with BigStockPhoto and nothing with Stockxpert.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks very much, Sharon and Margie! I don't think November will be such a good month, with your Thanksgiving interrupting the flow of sales. :o) Sharon, you're right that it's tricky to keep track! I use an Excel spreadsheet, with a different worksheet for each image subject, and columns for each of the stock sites. I copy a thumbnail of each image into the first column, then shade each cell depending on status of the image with each site - orange for pending, green for accepted, red for rejected. It works pretty well as a visual system. A relational database would be better, but for the time being Excel is simple. I agree that embedding the keywords, etc. into the file info is the best way to go. Well done, Margie, on your first cheque! You're right to keep up with the submissions - earnings always seem to go up a bit after you've added new images to your portfolio. Cheers!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deb James |
Big congrats, Robyn! I keep hearing how ShutterStock is the biggest money maker for each of you. Two more weeks and counting before I can try with them again! I've made a whopping $2.00 in two weeks so far on DT and SXP...lol. But I continue to upload and build my portfolios. All of these success stories keep me motivated so keep 'em coming! :)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Robyn, you must be very disciplined. I just can't force myself to go to all that work. I'm thinking I'll probably just stick with Shutterstock to avoid so much paperwork. Does anyone know if it's necessary to keep track of which photos sell for income tax purposes? If that's necessary then I guess I'd better get busy.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jeff Dadey |
Congratulations on your success so far with the Stock photos!! I would love to get into the Stock Photography but I hear it takes alot of time and discipline. BTW, what is that "Neat Image" you were talking about earlier in this thread? Jeff
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deb James |
Jeff, Neat Image, Noise Ninja and Noiseware are all examples of noise reduction software. Most (if not all) of the microstock sites insist you use some type of noise reduction.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jeff Dadey |
Thank you for you quick response Deb!! Where would be the best place to get this software? Can you find it at any computer store?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Jeff, most of these softwares can be found online. Neat Image has a free trial and you can download a copy here.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Deb James |
Yep, Sharon is right. They're all online. Just "google" the names to find them. They're all relatively inexpensive too.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Jeff Dadey |
Thank You Sharon and Deb! I appreciate your help. Jeff
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Jeff and Deb, for your kind words! Jeff, Neat Image is a great package, but just a word of warning - if you're submitting images for stock, you are just as likely to get rejections for "overuse" of noise reduction software as you are for noise. Images can lose detail and look plastic. There are interesting threads in the forums of the microstock agency sites on avoiding noise in the first place, and on different noise reduction techniques. Have fun! Sharon: I'd recommend you persist with iStockphoto. My earnings there were poor for the first couple of months, but then they started changing the algorithm for their default search. It now gives newer photographers a better chance of having their images come up in the first few pages of a search, rather than buried at about page 100... Hence my earnings took a leap in October. It was too good to last, however, as they had so many complaints from more established photographers about the drop in *their* incomes, that they changed the algorithm again. Sigh! However, earnings are still better now than before the first change. Anyway, they are certainly worth persisting with. Cheers!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thanks, Robyn! As soon as I get a system I will try to branch out. I really like the way SS is setup for searching. Their clients can search by older photos, newer photos or most popular. I think that helps the newbies get established. I've heard the designers like to search the new images as well. Be nice if they all did that.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert N. Valine |
Hi Robyn, Congratulations on your success with Shutterstock. There was an article in Photo District News recently about microstock and it seems that some of the better photographers on the sites are doing very well. Some were said to be making 3,000.00/week plus. Of course this is a numbers game and the more images you have, the more money you will make. I've been watching several sites and will be uploading to some of them soon. One you might want to check out is www.Blish.com This is a new site that lets you set your own prices. They haven't had the success of shutterstock. But, I think this site will grow very fast. Like it or not I think this is the direction that stock photography is going to take. There will always be rights managed. But, Microstock is definately going to be taking a bite of the pie. Your gallery looks great !
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Howard Sandler |
I've been able to make enough to pay for my photography equipment, from a portfolio of about 200 images. I would suggest placing images on more than one site to diversify, in particular shutterstock plus at least istockphoto and then maybe dreamstime, bigstockphoto and/or fotolia. My referral code for shutterstock is: My portfolio on dreamstime:
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Yes, 2006 was a very good year for me too in microstock photography. There were three months when I couldn't add any additional photos due to intense concentration on another personal project, but the money kept rolling in at about the same rate as if I had been uploading all along. It showed to me that you don't have to keep uploading photos to keep your portfolio in the limelight, as many believe. I believe that if you can take good shots, especially if they are a bit different than the rest, that your photos will sell. In 2007, my goal is to upload a modest one photo per week average. I love all types of photography and hope to explore astrophotography this year as well. I started with only three photos in April 2005, now have only about 252 photos online with the microstock agencies, and closed out 2006 with $7,460.27 in earnings. If you want more information, I still believe that Shutterstock is the best microagency to start out with... you can copy and paste this referral link: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 Good shooting to all in 2007 :)
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Just thought I'd share another milestone ~ I've hit my first USD$5,000 in microstock earnings, after starting with 50 cents back in July, 2006. This has been a lot of work, but it's something I love to do! I've neglected other aspects of my life, trying to upload stockworthy images AND hold down a full-time job is pretty time-consuming. However, my earnings have just paid for a new PC and 24" widescreen monitor, and will also pay for a holiday to Bali in June. I'm at the stage of life (mid-50's) where I'm looking forward to retirement, and would love to keep doing this work to add to my retirement income. So far, so good! Anyway, for anyone thinking of giving stock a try, just go for it! Robyn
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Margie Hurwich |
Congratulations, Robyn!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
WTG, Robyn!!! Big congratulations!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Darlene Christensen |
Great thread! Check out www.newdarkroom.com. They sit somewhere in the middle...between microstock and the big guys. They're getting a lot of press and seem to be an up and coming force in the stock arena. Click on Forum "NewDarkRoom Discussion" and then on "Just a few questions" to read about the direction NDR intends to go in the industry. If you don't want to go with "microstock" but aren't quite "good" enough (YET) for the big leagues, this might be the place for you. No, I don't get any kickbacks...I just think it's another alternative for us! :) Darlene
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks very much, Margie, Sharon, for your kind words. Darlene, I'll check out this site. :o) Robyn
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert N. Valine |
Congratulations Robyn ! Another new site that I think is worth a look is www.Blish.com They allow you to set your own prices. This is interesting. I may give them a try.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Steve Reffey |
To All, I just wanted to say thanks for the fascinating read. Congratulations for the sales! Steve
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Rob and Steve!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Ruth S. Ueland |
Hello Robyn and All I see some of you submit to Shutterstock. Another micro stock you should and could submit your images to is: Buy & Sell Photos at CanStockPhoto.com Hope you all try it out. Robyn maybe you can make another 50 cents out of your 10 images. :) Ruth
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robyn Mackenzie |
Thanks, Ruth. I'll check them out. I'm happy that microstock income has enabled me to drop my working hours in my day job. My grand plan (which would not have been feasible even 12 months ago) is to "retire" to microstock altogether within a year or two. My kids have stopped expressing disgust at the notion that I would sell my photos for 30 cents a download... It's also great that I can claim a tax deduction for all my equipment, etc. - a 5D is not that far away! For anyone interested in microstock, just give it a go, and be prepared to put in some work! It can be very worthwhile. For anyone interested, the sites I submit to in order of income are: Shutterstock
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Wow, Robyn, Your portfolio has grown by leaps and bounds since I checked it last... it's no wonder that you are increasing your success to the point where you can cut back on your 'other' job. Congrats. My plan too, is to eventually retire to microstock, but that will truly be years away for me. Still, I am chipping away at building my portfolio, because photography is such a relieving and gratifying outlet for me, and the microstock business model has proven itself very viable. Last year, I had to stop photographic activity for a few months because I had to concentrate hard on a personal project. I was really surprised when the money just kept rolling in, since many believe that you have to keep submitting photos to keep your portfolio 'in front'. But my experience showed otherwise, and I think supports my own theory that if you take high quality photos and keyword them well, and fulfill a need (versus just copying what's already out there), then you can/will do well. I again have to give up photography for a few months to concentrate hard on a personal project... but I am more hopeful/confident that I will continue to see downloads. My portfolio has only ~ 268 photos, but from them, I have currently earned $11,065.06 and counting. It used to pretty much be a slam dunk to become a microstock contributor. But as more and more traditional professionals are testing the waters and joining microstock, the bar has clearly risen. Still, Shutterstock is probably the best to try and start with... they still are my top earner. If you want more information, click on the referral link below:
Carolina
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
I am nearing a milestone...my first year. I'm always happy to see the progress everyone is making. It really is inspiring, however, I can not say this for myself. I had my first batch accepted September 6th 2006. To date I have made $1523.84. I have 737 photos online with my best selling site and submit to a couple of other sites as well. By now I should be doing better than I am considering the amount of photos I have out there. I attribute my lack of success to the fact I shoot primarily nature. Nature shots do not seem to sell as well as food and/or people. For anyone interested in microstock I can say it is nice to make a little money from photos just sitting around on my hard drive doing nothing. I don't think I can say I would not do this knowing what I know now. It does pay for the extras, however if you are not a versatile photographer just don't expect awesome results.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Robert N. Valine |
In response to Sharon D., I'm sorry to hear about your results with microstock. I think nature is a difficult market and probably not the best thing to try to market as microstock. I would think the more commercial stuff would probably do better. Have you tried to contact any calendar companies ? I would get a copy of "The Photographers Market" and try to contact some stock agencies that specialize in nature photos and maybe some calendar companies. Good Luck !
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Thanks, Rob! I have considered calendars but I really like the easy way it is to sell on the micros. I am trying to learn food, and I recently got a lead on a caterer that needs pics of the food and setups for weddings. They don't want to pay so maybe that would be a good place to practice. There's just so many awesome success stories in this thread that I thought I'd give my less than wonderful experience so anyone considering jumping in to microstock won't be surprised to learn it's not all a bed of roses.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Log in to respond or ask your own question. | |||||||||||
