| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2008 11:24:16 PM · #1 |
Hello all,
I've almost crossed the $1500 mark in my Shutterstock profits! Anyone can upload high quality stock shots of their own and make money as people download them. Here's the link:
//submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=2573
Here's a screenshot of my earnings!
Many people rag on the "penny" stock sites...but as you can see, there are profits to be made. Most of these images would be sitting on my hard drive...but instead they are making me some extra cash for my next lens :)
-Chris
Message edited by author 2008-03-05 00:45:20. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:28:19 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:29:54 PM · #3 |
How long did it take to make that much?
i see youve only made $4 last month or was it this month?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:34:35 PM · #4 |
| Why's that sad? I didn't post this to start a heated "Penny stock sites are ruining the industry" fight. Look, I work for Sony Pictures Stock Footage therefore I am deeply rooted in the footage/photography licensing industry. That being said, cheaper prices for intellectual property is the way the industry is going. You can sit back and be pissy, or you can join the inevitable and PROFIT from it. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:35:56 PM · #5 |
| I've been on Shutterstock for about 3 years...but I only have 141 images uploaded there! The $4 is how much I've made this month. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:46:31 PM · #6 |
| Monterry, dont take this as a personal attack against you, but many proffessionals do think that it IS wrecking the industry, and are insulted by it! The only reason that it is "the inevitable" is because people continue to sell their stuff for so little. Great, you made 1400 in a couple years on it... The other day I made 1000 in a couple hours from a client. What happens to my livelihood when they switch to you. Great, you made 2 bucks, but I have to shut my business down. Dont think thats fair? Help make the change |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:32:57 AM · #7 |
I think that to be successful you shouldn't be a professional martyr. Getty is a great example. Sure, they make most of their money selling content to high profile ad agencies and they do believe that their photographs are worth the money that clients spend on them. HOWEVER, Getty is also thinking about the way the industry is headed. Cheaper prosumer cameras, more photographers. That is why Getty bought iStockPhoto (another penny stock site). They weren't going to stand victim to the changing industry, they were going to change with it.
Go out and shoot weddings, events, graduations, etc for your main revenue stream... but don't expect the stock industry to hold its value. Content is cheap, fast, and digital. That's the way it is. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:49:50 AM · #8 |
I don't mean this as a shot at you at all, so please don't take it that way. I'm talking in general to all of the users of these penny stock agencies. Anyways..
Why would you sell yourself short when your work is easily good enough to sell through these higher end stock sites where you will get $350-$4000 per image/usage? Yes, more cameras do mean more "photographers", but it also means more Uncle Bob's who, because they own a camera, makes them a professional photographer because they made $4 selling stock. My buddy just bought a guitar last week, but I'll laugh in his face if he starts calling himself a musician or guitarist. What happens when I go to shoot a few images for a client's brochure and he doesn't understand why I'm charging him a talent fee or a day rate of $1000 plus my expenses and overhead to shoot these custom images that he could easily buy off of istock from joe schmoe who is perfectly happy with making a couple bucks?
What people don't understand is that this is also effecting the entire photo industry, not just stock. What happens when these Uncle Bob-type figures start doing weddings for $350? I personally don't shoot weddings unless it's a friend or family, but what happens when I go to shoot a wedding and they think that me charging $1500 is totally outrageous?
I'm all for sites like dpchallenge and fred miranda where we can all have a gathering place to come and learn. However, if we keep embracing the average person who owns a camera to go out and make a couple bucks off istock for their work instead of pursing a career in photography and making real money, then it's dragging the whole entire market down. To quote Andrew Keen in his book, The Cult of the Amateur, "If we are all amateurs, there are no experts." If there are no experts, then who is there to teach us?
Message edited by author 2008-03-05 00:58:35.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:53:27 AM · #9 |
Well, I'm not professionally involved in the photo industry, but I would like to say that $1500 over 3 years is NOT even making a profit, and is worlds away from "making a killing". It's getting a little back from something you enjoy doing and are happy to pay the costs yourself. If you consider the time you spend preparing the images for stock, and the time to maintain and promote your folio, you are probably getting pittance for your time and effort. Have you spent more than a couple of days total time? Your time would be better spent building a business for yourself rather than feeding the stock machine.
So, it's no skin off my nose, and I also believe that pennystocks serve a valid market, and is an inevitable shift in the stock business, regardless of who it puts out of work, but honestly, from a professional point of view, $1500 over 3 years is not worth the upload time, let alone editing time or the time taking the photos in the first place. For the pittance you get paid from these stock sites, any decent photographer's time is better spent elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2008-03-05 00:59:15. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:01:19 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by coryxmorton:
Why would you sell yourself short when your work is easily good enough to sell through these higher end stock sites where you will get $350-$4000 per image/usage? |
This is probably an unwarranted assumption ... many people, apparently myself included, are simply not "good enough" -- and/or do not have "good enough" equipment -- to sell our photos for hundreds, and there are plenty of small community and business publications which could never afford to use stock photos under the traditional model. If Corbis or Getty (or even Alamy) would take photos from my 2MP Olympus and sell them for $300 I'd jump at the opportunity, but they won't; so why not make a few bucks from someplace which will?
There are plenty of other things which were only available as the product of fine craftsmanship 50 or 100 years ago which are mass-produced today -- how many blacksmiths or cobblers does your town support these days? Yet I bet there's no shortage of wrought-iron fences or shoes ... |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:11:59 AM · #11 |
Photography has always been one of my hobbies. I probably would have taken the same pictures even if I didn't submit to Shutterstock. Throwing keywords and titles on 140 images probably took a total of 4 hours. So, 4 hours of work for $1,500...fine by me! I still enjoy photographing friend's weddings, entering challenges, and taking my own meaningful pictures.
Also, I'd just like to add that I DON'T like that the photography industry is cheapening. We just have to get more creative in the ways we can profit. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 01:14:38 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Well, I'm not professionally involved in the photo industry, but I would like to say that $1500 over 3 years is NOT even making a profit, |
THIS! I bet the OP has twice 1500 invested. And if you figure 3 bucks
an hour for time expended on the images, probably 4X 1500. So, maybe if
someone bought your camera, lenses, software, computer, for you it's possible that *YOU* may have made a profit. But far be it from me to stop you, or complain. Just remember when the shoe is on the other foot to remain calm. It' s inevitable. Nothing you can do about it. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:05:49 AM · #13 |
Congratulations Montereykiddo on your success. By the way, if you feel you are successful and you obviously do, then you are! Don't let the photo snobs try to tell you that you aren't doing well. As GeneralIE says, the world is changing. If you can step outside a take a photo or two and have them on the market in 10 minutes making money for you, then great. You're supposed to follow the cult rules and not take that avenue in a free economy because you might wreck some other person's definition of a career? Give me a break.
Oh....and the snobs are ragging on the micro stock sites. Then what about FREE stock photo sites? Sure, you may have to search a little in there (stock.xchng) but there are fine pictures available. Why would people upload to this site....can't they see they're going to drive people like Monterykiddo out of his stock business? Is he complaining about it? No. Get over it and find your niche in today's world. But posting trash directed at monterykiddo's success is just bad. I have used a micro stock site a few times because my small company can't afford pictures otherwise for some low level marketing. It works great....and there's a HUGE selection between the many micro stock sites and the free sites. Supply and demand, pricing pressures, the economic machine hard at work. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:18:04 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Well, I'm not professionally involved in the photo industry, but I would like to say that $1500 over 3 years is NOT even making a profit, |
THIS! I bet the OP has twice 1500 invested. And if you figure 3 bucks
an hour for time expended on the images, probably 4X 1500. So, maybe if
someone bought your camera, lenses, software, computer, for you it's possible that *YOU* may have made a profit. But far be it from me to stop you, or complain. Just remember when the shoe is on the other foot to remain calm. It' s inevitable. Nothing you can do about it. |
OR.....it takes him little time to upload a picture here and there while watching television. AND...on some photos he practices and refines his post processing skills. He could have practiced on an image and threw it on his hard drive, but he decided to put it on Shutterstock to make a little money. Did he ever say he was trying to generate ROI on his camera equipment? If he did, I missed that. There are millions of amateur photogs like the OP running around and not worrying about PROFIT, just leveraging their hobby for a little revenue generation. Yes, far be it for you or anyone to stop him....but it's not just him...it's an army of people with great cameras and improving abilities. Times, they are changing! |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 02:49:20 AM · #15 |
I don't make money from my photos but you can't artificially hold the market -- it's going to go where it's going to go. It's basic supply and demand.
In all industries from buggy whips to software the market seeks an equilibrium. As the cost of supplies needed to make a product goes down competition increases.
Like it or not digital technology has lowered the barrier to entry in huge ways...the market hasn't even begun to catch up. Hobby photographers can now learn in months what might have taken years before because you can now take pictures with no cost - AND you get instant feedback. Hmmm that aperture didn't quite work, let me try them all.
There will still be a place for professional photographers. High stakes photojournalism and event photography will still only be trusted to the pros. But stock photography is going to keep going down because a lucky shot is equal to a professionally composed shot.
I have a degree in economics and can tell you that this "you're ruining my industry" argument has been made over, and over, and over again. But Japanese cars are here to stay and so is Shutterstock. The market always wins.
BUT! One good thing that comes out of competition is creativity and invention. The pros figure out a way to stay on top so they get more creative and innovative. The better amateurs push the envelope. At the end of the day you have a new genre of photography or a new technique. I'm sure all the portrait photographers groaned with the first cameras for the masses appeared on the scene but you can still make a living at photography and probably in more ways now than ever before.
The main point that I think is salient is that no one should feel bad for selling their photos for whatever they believe they are worth to them. That is the most basic concept of a free market society. If I want to sell my photos for $1000 each and can find a buyer, good for me! If you want to sell your photo for 50 cents and can find a buyer good for you! No one has the right to tell you what price you should set unless you're a monopoly and even then...well that's a different topic. :)
Message edited by author 2008-03-05 02:49:58.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:02:01 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
Well, I'm not professionally involved in the photo industry, but I would like to say that $1500 over 3 years is NOT even making a profit, |
THIS! I bet the OP has twice 1500 invested. And if you figure 3 bucks
an hour for time expended on the images, probably 4X 1500. So, maybe if
someone bought your camera, lenses, software, computer, for you it's possible that *YOU* may have made a profit. But far be it from me to stop you, or complain. Just remember when the shoe is on the other foot to remain calm. It' s inevitable. Nothing you can do about it. |
Just to preface my comments, I do not currently submit to miro sites. Having said that, the OP did mention that even if he wasnt submitting to micros he would still have his camera gear and still be taking pictures. With that in mind the expenses for his hobby really arent considered in the equation of "profit" since he would have the gear and be taking pitures anyway.
Truth be told everyone values their time differently. Its great when you can get some compensation from your hobby, but even then eah person has to decide if the deal they make is "fair" to them. I currently submit to alamy but only have a handfull of images there. The long QC times having me waiting for their improved system to kick in before I start in ernest. I also want to collect a lot of images so I can submit them to the copyright office prior to uploading to alamy.
I have no sales on alamy yet, but very well have made a couple bucks on micro with the same handfull of images. With that being said a microstoker could say that my return on time invested is actually less than theirs and they would probably be right. At the end of the day I find that some of my images, due to composition, requir a crop to get the efct I am looking for. Doing that makes them less likely to pass alamy QC with the required interpolaion. However the same image could easily be marketed on another site be it macro ro micro.
I think the key is to find what stock sites fit your style and capabilities and persue them. The income posted by both types of stock contributors is as varied as can be so its next to impossible to compare but when its all said and done they do seem to yield roughly the same income per year per image.
Alamy is largely editorial, if you have great unique shots that can not be easily duplicated you would best be served selling them as RM where as if its just a bunch of bananas on a table that anyone can produce the chances of someone paying big bucks for the image are significantly lower so why not sell it as micro?
One thing I have learned is that professionals, regardless of industry, that have a good work ethic, generally do not have any problems feeding their families and putting a roof over their head. In any business thats heavily influenced by technology, change is inevitable and a good pro will always stay abreast of the latest technologies and make use of them to stay profitable.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:20:21 AM · #17 |
There are a couple of assumptions that get thrown around in these discussions that may not be completely accurate.
1. If You can make pennies on microstock, you can make thousands on "real" stock companies.
Not necessarily. I shoot with a Rebel 300D. Right now, our household finances simply don't allow for an upgrade. Even on Photographer's Direct, I am at the very minimum of "size" unless I "upsize," which most people don't want you to do.
I got out of microstock and tried some other avenues. I did this for one year. I can safely say that I made more on microstock (on pictures that Alamy, Photographer's Direct, etc. didn't want/need) than I did last year. (It should also be noted that I do not claim to make my living or feed my family based on photography)
2. Real Pros and photography professionals would never do microstock. OUTSIDE of dpc, I have found this NOT to be true. I've done a lot of reading over the past year. A lot. MOST of the articles I've read by pros state just the opposite. While they are not tickled pink by it, they recognize that there IS a market for it, and to completely ignore it is to ignore another avenue of income. There will always be a demand for high end pictures -- exclusivity and what not. Those are not the people that need/want microstock. I even read an article the other day where the photographer was stating that the arguments against microstock were almost verbatim to the arguments against royalty free 10 or 15 years ago.
3. Microstock is killing the industry and will put "real" photographers out of business. Excuse me? I don't mean to sound cruel, and hard-hearted, but I am to not make anything so that they can continue to make a lot? That doesn't wash with me. Maybe it's the capitalist in me. Change is coming. Embrace it and make it work for you, or continue to fight against it. The choice is yours. But, don't expect me to make nothing so that you can make thousands. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:32:54 AM · #18 |
If you have images suited for microstock, place them there.
If you have images suited for a better paying (on a per image basis) stock agency, place them there.
If you have images that could be either, you have to decide. While the micros won't mind you placing an identical (or nearly identical) image on both, most macro agencies and their customers will be very unhappy that the image that is being offered at $500 for exclusive rights is being offered without restriction for a $1 elsewhere.
If you're going to offer your work on stock sites and you don't take steps to maximize your revenue, you're doing yourself a disservice. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:58:47 AM · #19 |
| BINGO.....well said Karmat. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 09:59:34 AM · #20 |
I put a couple dozen of my best photos on a microstock site, and to me it just isn't worth the time to do the keywording and categorizing.
I'm not a pro, but have made well over $500 with less than two hours' work doing family portraits, not just once, but several times.
I spent about 8 hours going through the uploading and keywording of the 25-ish photos I have on a stock site, and in about two years of being there they have earned about $15. Sweat-dick-all.
So, in my experience, microstock is a bigass waste of time. I'll never get that eight hours back, at least I was on a train during it, so it's not that huge a loss.
:-(
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 10:04:04 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by karmat:
There will always be a demand for high end pictures -- exclusivity and what not. |
I think this is certainly true. The problem I see for people that made an average living at stock in the past is that it's true for a smaller proportion of the market. I know the company I work for uses cheap stock... I recognise the images sometimes from other places, and they are not a tiny company and I have no doubt in the past they would hire some photg's.
I also don't see the point of railing against the ocean with a tea-spoon... you are not going to stop it :-) I have been thru commoditisation (is that a word?) in the IT world and it's ain't pretty. There are a lot of ex-IT people out there... in fact more then a fair share drawn to photg for some reason from what I see. Those of us left had to change....
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 10:14:47 AM · #22 |
I have to chime in here, too. ALL my gear was paid with last years income from microstock, and there's still enough left to buy some more. Once you have the painful job of keywording done (you could also leave it to the people at dreamstime ), you are earning money. 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year. Period.
How much it is, just depends on the quality and subject of your shots. Besides that, half of my biggest sellers are shots I made for DPC or during vacations, so why let them collect dust on the HD? The others didn't take as much time, considered I shot them in large series. I'd rather take the approx. 18$ for the averaging 20 downloads/year of every image I have online than wait (maybe forever) for one download at 500$ |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 10:28:41 AM · #23 |
Wow...this thread really took off! I guess we were due for another micro stock discussion :)
Great points by all... |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 10:33:51 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Montereykiddo:
Wow...this thread really took off! I guess we were due for another micro stock discussion :)
Great points by all... |
Yeah, thanks for dragging the bag of horse bones out of the barn for another flogging. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 10:55:33 AM · #25 |
I thought it was sad to see another self promotional post like this and I'm surprised that people stepped in to defend the guy in some way. I thought it wasn't okay to post your ref to microstock sites like this here... but whatever, I really don't care, I just clicked on the link cause it was on front page at first.
Here: Support this guy!
More info: More info on this!
If you wanna make easy money: Easy money for everybody!
Get a hot chick tonight: Get a hot chick tonight
See Montereykiddo, you can even pass your ref link as another link of your choice to get more people to click on it!
Originally posted by Montereykiddo:
Hello all,
I've almost crossed the $1500 mark in my Shutterstock profits! Anyone can upload high quality stock shots of their own and make money as people download them. Here's the link:
//submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=2573
Here's a screenshot of my earnings!
Many people rag on the "penny" stock sites...but as you can see, there are profits to be made. Most of these images would be sitting on my hard drive...but instead they are making me some extra cash for my next lens :)
-Chris |
|
|
