| |
|---|
Microstock photography involves uploading photos to various sites where they are for sale, with a portion of the proceeds being returned to you. The micro is because the sales prices are usually low, but hopefully there are enough sales to make a decent return anyway. The pitch is you can make money off of photos just sitting on your hard drive collecting electronic dust. The reality is a little different - it is possible to make some money, but it does take some time and effort to get the photos on your hard drive into saleable form, and taking new ones for sale takes some work too. It is highly educational though, and there is potential for some good money if you either put in a lot of work or get extremely lucky. I suppose some talent and decent equipment wouldn't hurt either.
I have been participating with microstock photography since mid 2006, although I didn't really do much until the end of that year. Since then I have taken and uploaded a lot of photos, and actually made enough money to pay for a new point and shoot and a new dslr camera plus some lenses and a few other things. My username on a number of sites is "pancaketom". Many of the links below are referral links - that means I get a small amount from the sites if you use the link and sign up, it would not decrease your return at all.
Presently I am on 5 microstock sites, although really only the top 3 are regular sellers.
I will list them in the order of decreasing sales and revenue
Shutterstock (SS) is a subscription only site, and pays very little per download, but they can add up fast, especially with recently uploaded images. They are my top earning site by a large margin. I also have a few video files for sale here.
the link to my portfolio on Shutterstock is :
Pancaketom's portfolio on Shutterstock
The link for photographers is:
Shutterstock for photographers
(these are referral links)
Istockphoto (IS) is the original microstock site, and it has the largest traffic as well as some of the worst royalty percentages and the most restrictive rules on uploading etc. It can be very frustrating, but a "superstar" image here can really rake it in.
My portfolio link on Istockphoto is:
my istock portfolio
Dreamstime (DT) was my first microstock site, and there are many things about it I really like, and a few I don't. As images are sold more, they increase in "levels", and the return increases as well.
My portfolio on Dreamstime.
Pancaketom's portfolio on Dreamstime
If you are interested in checking out Dreamstime as a whole, here is a link....
Dreamstime microstock page
If you feel like joining up, let their cookie stand on your computer, or type in code res181321 when you sign up. That won't cost you at all, and will have some tiny benefit to me. Thanks.
I joined Stockxpert (SXP) in the end of 2007, and it didn't lived up to its early promise. I keep hoping it will kick into gear for me, although it has slowly increased now that I have many of my images up there.
Here is a link to my Stockxpert portfolio:
my photos for sale on Stockxpert
Featurepics (FP) is different in many ways, you can set your own prices, and they have the highest percentage return. Unfortunately, they don't have very many sales for me.
The link to my images on Featurepics is:
my photos for sale on FeaturePics
I joined 123 Royalty Free (123RF or just 123) in July of 2008. They require 10 test images so I sent 10 varied images that had been accepted everywhere else and all passed. The uploading is relatively painless, but sales are lower than the top 4 for me.
To see my 123 RF portfolio, look here:
my photos for sale on 123 RF
There has been some controversy about microstocks devaluing photographer's works, and there is some merit to that argument, although they are also providing an entrance to many people (such as myself) who don't have the time, equipment, connections, or portfolio to get in any other way. In any case, I think digital shook up things more than microstocks did, and the cat is fully out of the bag. My little contribution won't make much difference in any way. There are heaps of people with nice digital cameras and internet connections. It also appears that at least some of the old school professional photographers are starting to sell microstock.
Hopefully the sites know what sells and will accept images accordingly, but ultimately, the buyers are what matters. I haven't noticed any great trends on one site selling one particular type of image more than others.
Shutterstock does seem to favor recent submissions for a week or two. After that sales seem to decrease to some slower steady state. I haven't had a long enough stretch without submitting there to see how low the final steady state might be though, but they held up ok for about a month, but then started dropping a bit in the second month before I started uploading again. Very popular images manage to stay at the top of the searches, and very obscure images don't have to compete with many images, but don't get very many sales. It seems that DT slowly increases sales and returns as images climb up in levels. IS seems to increase over the long run, until they change the best match criteria, then things change drastically.
As I might have said earlier, the jury is still out if this is worth my effort monetarily. Since I would be spending a lot of time taking and messing with pictures anyway, it wouldn't be fair to use all of the time I have spent with my camera and computer against the income. I think there also might be some sort of critical mass for the number of photos up where your own photos start attracting buyers to your portfolio. In any case, what will really make the difference is how well sales hold up over time. If so, it will be worth it, if not, then it will have been a learning experience. If I can upload the photos I would be taking anyway when I have some free time and a decent connection and make some money off of them, that would be nice. If I end up spending a lot of time taking photos I wouldn't bother with on my own and processing and uploading them only for a small return, then it isn't worth it.
 |
|---|
My impressions of the 5 are:
SS - best earner, most predictable and fastest review times, but it seems like you need to keep uploading to maintain sales unless you have top-notch or very obscure photos. only .25 per download, but by far the most downloads (I averaged double digits per day last month). Starting in May, 2007 photographers with over $500 in income there get .30 per download. I hit this mark in June 2007. They upped the payout again in 2008 to a tiered system, .25, .33, .36, and .38 per download depending on how much you have made there.
IS - Second best earner for me. Lowest % commision for the photographer (something like 80-20 if you aren't exclusive), most cumbersome, limiting, and annoying upload process, possibly best earner with a bigger portfolio, sales are less likely to drop off without fresh uploads (but if they tweak the search engine, it could really change sales). They seem to be very picky with reviews, often with correct (but nitpicky) rejection reasons. They don't seem to have the same definition of artifacting that I have though. Their search seems to be the weirdest, as their "controlled vocabulary" is rather arbitrary, and doesn't necessarily default correctly. They are coming out with a new subscription model in May 2008. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.
DT - 3rd best earner of the 5 at this time, Slowest review times, possibly the pickiest, might be picking up some steam though. They seem to have the search that results in the lowest number of completely bogus responses. Subscriptions sales at least move images up to higher levels. As more popular images get to higher levels, the average return per sale goes up.
SXP - irregular review timing, often very long waits before a lot get reviewed, but sometimes very fast reviews. Rather poor sales, with frustrating low return subscription sales of the largest sizes. They seemed to start out ok for me, but haven't increased much despite a lot of new images there.
FP - they take pretty much everything, and you can set your own prices. The search seems rather random in how it sorts images. Slow sales (0 to a few a month).
It is interesting to watch this business progress. I think the macrostocks in a way brought this on by denying access to most amateur photographers with technical and other hurdles. Then when microstock started, they denigrated it (possibly with good reason, some of the earliest uploads are pretty sad). Now they are trying to get a piece of it (Getty bought IS), Corbis says they will start or buy up a microstock (Snapvillage). I also think that the microstocks are getting a lot pickier and in many cases the quality of the photography is quite similar to much of what is on the macros (but not even close to the cream of the crop). Hopefully the microstocks will continue to increase their prices and payouts for the larger better photos and someone like Flickr won't start giving stuff away for free to cut the bottom out completely. I think the proliferation of decent reasonably cheap digital cameras has done more to change the old school way photographers made money. Microstocks are more of a byproduct of talented amateurs trying to make a buck rather than the cause.
To continue with the experiments, in January 2008 I applied to Alamy, which is a macrostock site that allows internet uploading. You have to upsize the images according to a rather confusing archaic system - upsize based on the size of an 8 bit TIFF file, then save as .jpg. (a much easier way to describe this process is resize to over about 16.8 megapixels). Anyway, I got in, but with only a few images, I haven't gotten any sales yet, and very few "zooms". Check out the links below...
Stock photography by Tom Grundy at Alamy
While some of these definitions are simplistic and by no means complete, it gives you a clue.
If you are really bored, my original microstock page is here:
my old microstock page