| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2006 02:59:50 PM · #51 |
I started a forum thread once titled
Macro VS Micro stock, a civalized discussion.. you should check it out for more opinions
Thread Link
|
|
|
|
02/28/2006 04:24:26 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
This is not an attack or rant, but merely a question for all.
|
I for one appreciate the spirit of your question, for what that's worth. Although I signed up with istock a little over a year ago, I didn't put any additional effort into uploading until this past August. Currently my daily average earning is just under $5 per day on about 8 downloads per day, so roughly $150 per month. I see no reason why I can't triple that or more by the end of this year. If I never upload another image after 2006, I expect to earn $400-500 per month from now forward thanks to microstock, and I'm by no means anywhere near being in the league of melking, nico_blue, and many others. All I can say is, it works for me.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2006 04:55:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by leaf:
For me I look at the income I make from an image at the end of the year, not at the end of an individual sale. From this standpoint, my images are apparently worth more on the micros. |
That's the real heart of the matter and for me it pretty much kills any "you're selling yourself short" arguments against microstock. If it's "just" commercial shots that you don't view as art then you sell it in the way that generates the most money over the year - NOT over individual sales.
I have my foot in both camps; images I love and work at go to Alamy (where hopefully they make me hundreds of dollars, albeit very slowly!) and images I don't care too much about, took in a big "stock-shooting" frenzy and spent little time processing go to Micro where they make me multiple penny-sales day after day.
If you view all your photography as high art then micro isn't for you. If you view it as a commodity then it's a mistake to disregard such sites out of hand. |
|
|
|
02/28/2006 06:23:05 PM · #54 |
I think I'm doing great so far with what I have to work with and being that I just started. I'm happy it is now spring and I can go outside. My goal should be to take as many stock pictures as I Took in January. I did not take full advantage of the Feb upload thing they did at Fotolia... But now I'm to the point where I make some money everyday... and I hope to soon be where I make $5 even $10 a day! That would be great!
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 11:59:24 AM · #55 |
[quote=leaf] Firstly an image is only worth what people will pay for it. If the going rate is $.20 then that is what it is worth.
its only worth .20 if you make it readily available for .20. If people had to pay $3.00 for a stock photo they would. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 01:13:42 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
its only worth .20 if you make it readily available for .20. If people had to pay $3.00 for a stock photo they would. |
I suspect that it if was so simplistic that charging $3 for microstock instead of $1 would make NO difference to sales, that most microstock sites would do so.
Low end stock is extremely price-aware; the micro model works on low prices and high volume. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 01:44:22 PM · #57 |
I haven't been proactive with my stock photography as of late. No motivation and I'm still looking to get a new and better camera so I can attempt macro-stock sites.
That said, here are my stats:
I have accumulated a little over $51.00 for 17 files on istock over 1year and 10months.
I have 19 files on shutterstock and have made about $71.00 over the course of 1 year and 5months.
I haven't uploaded to istock for about 1 year and 8 months.
I haven't uploaded to shutterstock for about 7 months.
I noticed that recently someone used my reference link for shutterstock and I am starting to make more money through that, than my own images.
Take it for what you will. :)
- Sia
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 02:21:59 PM · #58 |
Well, I managed to get 100 photos uploaded to Fotolia, and up till now 53 have been reviewed:
26 Accepted
15 Rejected/Technical issues
12 Rejected/Similar or overabundant image
If those last 12 were considered technically competent, I feel pretty good about having around 70% considered "good enough" -- especially since they seem to be accepting all of my Native American basket photos so far, and I have almost 200 more of those to process and upload : )
 |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 02:29:58 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
[quote=leaf] Firstly an image is only worth what people will pay for it. If the going rate is $.20 then that is what it is worth.
its only worth .20 if you make it readily available for .20. If people had to pay $3.00 for a stock photo they would. |
Of course someone can just copy another persons' stock photo and then use it. That the reason I think people pictures and other unique pictures should be saved for higher dollar stock sites.
Notice that some of the folks here are not submitting high pixel images also. Most people are submitting only 3 megapixel imagess.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 03:22:53 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Notice that some of the folks here are not submitting high pixel images also. Most people are submitting only 3 megapixel imagess. |
... or 2MP images, which is the only camera I have right now. |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 08:15:25 PM · #61 |
The going rate at istock is $1.00 for a small file, $3.00 medium, $5.00 large, $10 x-large, and between $20-40 for the xx-large (at the seller's discretion). At 8.2 megapixels, my Canon 20D only supports small through large file sizes (there is no upsizing allowed). My cut is 25% of each upload, or .25 (small), .75 (med), or $1.25 (large).
|
|
|
|
03/02/2006 02:22:37 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
[quote=leaf] Firstly an image is only worth what people will pay for it. If the going rate is $.20 then that is what it is worth.
its only worth .20 if you make it readily available for .20. If people had to pay $3.00 for a stock photo they would. |
Of course someone can just copy another persons' stock photo and then use it. That the reason I think people pictures and other unique pictures should be saved for higher dollar stock sites.
Notice that some of the folks here are not submitting high pixel images also. Most people are submitting only 3 megapixel imagess. |
I upload 6.4Mp files.
If the image is on a macro site, people can copy it just as easy as if it was on the micro site.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 09:11:15 PM · #63 |
I am pissed at ShutterStock as well. I am just happy to know I am not the only one having a problem with them. They were the first stock photo site I submitted my work to and they rejected me. So I thought maybe I am crazy and my photos are not good and I submit to fotolia and they take 2 out of 3 photos there. I was floored when they rejected me because my background is in art and photography. They gave me a bunch of bogus excuses for why they rejected me.
Shutterstock asked me for ID or a credit card when I registered which sounds kind of shady to me as well.
Have uploaded many photos to Fotolia, no sales yet. I just began with this stuff the beginning of February.
Another thing about shutterstock. I read on some photographers website that he was rejected and a woman posted a message on his blog that she met the people who run shutterstock at a christmas party and they are really nice people. This woman sounded like she knew them so of course they put her photos up there. There is a guy on fotolia besides me who was also rejected by shutterstock.
As far as the photo business goes. For me it is a way to break into it. I do agree that it takes alot of effort for little reward. At the moment I am unemployed so anything goes. My first camera was a chinnon that broke, long story, my second camera is an AE-1 and it is still my baby. It takes great photos except in the cold weather when the mechanism seems to freeze. I just recently got a digital SONY DSC-S90 and I am afraid to adjust it for fear it won't go back to the default settings. It used to be you had to learn how to use an analog SLR and now they have Digital SLR's.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 03:21:02 PM EDT.
