Are microstock sites worthwhile?
- Thread starter garry71
- Start date
- Messages
- 7,645
- Name
- Lewis
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have you considered something like Alamy, still millions of images, but if you do make a sale it will at least be a decent amount.
Microstock sites are a complete waste of time - unless you OWN the site! Photographers earn nothing or next to nothing. This has been discussed before on the forum at length.
I have my pictures placed with five libraries including Alamy.
I have my pictures placed with five libraries including Alamy.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
There are plenty of photographers making money from Microstock that don't own the sites, but you have to shoot images that your potential market wants.
Rights Managed agencies and Microstock sites have very different audiences a lot of the time, but they know what they want. Some companies (Dell and Gateway, for example) go the Microstock route, and then switch to rights managed.
Yuri Arcurs doesn't own Crestock, iStockphoto or any other microstock site, but apparently in Jan 2008 he pulled in approx US$64,000 from Microstock and another $16,000 or so from rights managed "traditional" stock selling methods, and he "Sells over 400,000 microstock photos per year" according to one interview (which even at a quid an image is a lot of money).
Some earn more from rights managed, some earn more from microstock. Whichever way you go, you have to make sure you shoot what people actually want to buy.
Rights Managed agencies and Microstock sites have very different audiences a lot of the time, but they know what they want. Some companies (Dell and Gateway, for example) go the Microstock route, and then switch to rights managed.
Yuri Arcurs doesn't own Crestock, iStockphoto or any other microstock site, but apparently in Jan 2008 he pulled in approx US$64,000 from Microstock and another $16,000 or so from rights managed "traditional" stock selling methods, and he "Sells over 400,000 microstock photos per year" according to one interview (which even at a quid an image is a lot of money).
Some earn more from rights managed, some earn more from microstock. Whichever way you go, you have to make sure you shoot what people actually want to buy.
yes he's the one everyone quotes - but he is ONE photographer - who has spent a fortune to produce the images for microstock - yes he makes money but he really is one in a million. You show me one 'ordinary' photographer who makes money from microstock.
You have a far better chance with libraries like Alamy or Photographers Direct for example.
Kaouthia - have you made money from microstock? How many images do you have out there for sale - how many do you sell?
- Messages
- 451
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I make a steady income from microstock.
- Messages
- 451
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Who knows? When starting out I learnt through the school of hard knocks and it was istock that taught me about rejections and how to get a photography technically correct for acceptance. Since contributing there I am now able to contribute to Getty too. I'm very happy with the way things are going.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
I used to when I was living in the USA. It didn't replace a full time income, but I wasn't treating it as a full time job either. It did, however, cover my NAS addiction and credit card bills each month.
Most of the images I sold then are no longer relevant in today's society (they're a bit dated now), so rather than have myself labelled as out-of-date I took them offline.
Yup, Yuri is the one everybody quotes, but the only reason he put so much money into it was because he noticed that he was getting a decent chunk out of it. Once he was an "ordinary photographer", but made enough from it to take it to the next level. He shot (and still shoots) what potential clients are actively searching for, and on many of the microstock sites there are areas for people to post seeking very specific images (most of these areas you only get to see if you're a contributing member). If you see the same subjects coming up often enough, there's some clues.
Whether you'd make more on traditional libraries really depends on the image & customer base, and I think analysis has to be done on a per-image (or per-set if it's a range of images shot in a single session) basis to really maximise potential. A specific image might sell a couple of thousand times at $2, or it may never sell priced at $1000 even with an exclusive license. Inversely, some images may only be saleable with an exclusive license (if you guys scroll up and read the Dell/Gateway link I posted and read why some companies now only go the rights managed route) that might not sell at all as microstock.
There are merits to both forms of image sales, and I'm not attempting to argue that one is better than the other as I believe it's very situational.
Examples like Yuri do show that it's at least possible to make a comfortable living from Microstock (and bear in mind, he DOES do things the "traditional" way too). What we, as photographers, have to do is to attempt to figure out why he's been more successful than the rest (aside from the fact that he has hundreds of thousands of quality images), and attempt to emulate aspects of that to some degree if we want to follow in a similar path. Which really is no different than any other business in the world comparing itself to its competitors and seeing what they're up to.
Edit : Yes, I'm a member on Alamy too
OP
- Messages
- 402
- Name
- Garry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for all the replies.
I've since done a search here on microstock, and found plenty of threads to read.
I found loads of arguments for and against charging a fair rate for photos. Can't believe Time paid $30 for a cover pic, and yet sell the inside page for $1000,000 to advertisers.
I liked the story about the egg timer, I think that thread should be made a sticky as an example of how to avoid getting ripped off.
I've since done a search here on microstock, and found plenty of threads to read.
I found loads of arguments for and against charging a fair rate for photos. Can't believe Time paid $30 for a cover pic, and yet sell the inside page for $1000,000 to advertisers.
I liked the story about the egg timer, I think that thread should be made a sticky as an example of how to avoid getting ripped off.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with the exception of Photographers Direct - www.photographersdirect.com - where you only upload low res images and then the client deals directly with the photographer. PD take only a 20% commission on sales - lowest I have found - and I sell a lot through them.
Every library I now of deals in files - not prints - as the final use is for web or reproduction.
with the exception of Photographers Direct - www.photographersdirect.com - where you only upload low res images and then the client deals directly with the photographer. PD take only a 20% commission on sales - lowest I have found - and I sell a lot through them.
Every library I now of deals in files - not prints - as the final use is for web or reproduction.
- Messages
- 2,188
- Name
- Angi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I started using a couple of microstock agencies around a month ago and now have over 150 images on each site. On one Ive sold 6 images and 2 on the other. But I have a good friend who has been making around £400 per month for a good while now with her images on 4 microstock sites, she has just over 400 images and shoots what people want. Whilst I have been shooting more specialist subjects which many are not covered very well. She tells me that it takes a little time to start bringing in an income and that it is key to photograph things that are "current" when possible.
I was thinking of trying photographers direct too, but will give it a little time on these sites first.
But it has helped me with reviewing the quality of my images and in learning more about lighting. I like to shoot more arty images at times and microstock are not particularly a good place for that. I have made more selling my images independantly in the last 6 weeks than on microstock.
I was thinking of trying photographers direct too, but will give it a little time on these sites first.
But it has helped me with reviewing the quality of my images and in learning more about lighting. I like to shoot more arty images at times and microstock are not particularly a good place for that. I have made more selling my images independantly in the last 6 weeks than on microstock.
Photographers Direct works well for me but I have approx 2,500 images with them. They won't accept your work if you have pictures with microstock sites though.
- Messages
- 12,584
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Online galleries that sell images for, what, $1 a hit?
Is that good value for the photographer, I ask?
They're one of the reasons the monetary value of photographs has plummetted in recent years.
I don't think Getty or alamy would qualify as microstock, although their repro fees are heading that way, so I hear.....
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John Aldred
- Edit My Images
- No
Depends on your perspective. Selling it 500 times on a microstock site and making say $300 is better than selling it once and getting $200.
Like I said above, you've got to shoot for your market. Some images simply don't sell on Microstock sites, but do on more "traditional" rights managed agencies. Some won't sell on rights managed agencies, but will sell all day long on Microstock sites.