Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: trevarthan on July 28, 2014, 02:18:45 pm
-
I've been on a couple of microstock sites for years, but my photography has never sold well. I think a number of factors contributed to this poor performance in the past, like my preference for subject material and my preference for f1.4 and low light. This was all part of my exploration of what was possible and what I enjoyed shooting, as well as my exploration of what the market wants. I've always wanted to make a decent income from photography and I'm currently evaluating what I can change on my end to accomplish that goal. As such, I've started shooting landscapes on a tripod, mostly using f16 and the hyperfocal length to keep everything in focus. As opposed to f1.4, I think this will generate more marketable images, and frankly I'm really enjoying the results. Sometimes I miss the bokeh, but seeing all that detail is a reward of it's own.
Similarly, my people photos destined for stock will now be at f2.8 or above. However, I mostly want to talk about landscapes and cityscapes in this thread, because I'm more interested in that genre as a photographer.
For landscapes, the general consensus out there seems to be that they don't sell well on microstock sites. However, I think there must be exceptions to this rule. I've heard of people with huge landscape portfolios (5000 images) bringing in four figures or more, monthly, on microstock sites.
So here are my questions:
As I shoot landscapes, should I submit them to microstock sites? Or should I just print them and pursue wall space in galleries?
In particular, should I worry about microstock sales of an image cannibalizing gallery sales? Or should I simply treat them as separate markets entirely and not worry about it?
Should I segregate my work and post the B grade landscapes on microstock sites, while placing the A grade work in galleries? Or should I put the A grade work up for sale wherever it is accepted?
Am I asking the right questions?
-
I think the problem is more likely to be that your images are lost in the vast ocean of pictures now available on stock sites.
-
Very true, especially with landscapes and other nature categories. Nowadays, many agencies offer 30-50 million images, adding 10M per year.
Landscape images do sell, but just on Shutterstock, there are currently 2.5M landscape entries.
In other words, if you have a portfolio of 1,000 images, each of your images competes with 50,000 other images.
In practical terms, if the agency search function shows 100 images per page and your images are of average quality, a prospective buyer would have to look at 500 such pages to find one of your images (only 250 pages if your image is smack in the middle of those 50,000 images).
Unless you can grow you portfolio faster than the agency (impossible after the first few years), the odds get worse every year.
EDIT: To make it even harder for stock photographers, Flickr has just announced their Image Licensing marketplace:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/flickr-rolls-out-a-new-commercial-licensing-program-to-compete-with-500px-and-others/ (http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/flickr-rolls-out-a-new-commercial-licensing-program-to-compete-with-500px-and-others/)
-
Very true, especially with landscapes and other nature categories. Nowadays, many agencies offer 30-50 million images, adding 10M per year.
Landscape images do sell, but just on Shutterstock, there are currently 2.5M landscape entries.
In other words, if you have a portfolio of 1,000 images, each of your images competes with 50,000 other images.
In practical terms, if the agency search function shows 100 images per page and your images are of average quality, a prospective buyer would have to look at 500 such pages to find one of your images (only 250 pages if your image is smack in the middle of those 50,000 images).
Unless you can grow you portfolio faster than the agency (impossible after the first few years), the odds get worse every year.
EDIT: To make it even harder for stock photographers, Flickr has just announced their Image Licensing marketplace:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/flickr-rolls-out-a-new-commercial-licensing-program-to-compete-with-500px-and-others/ (http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/flickr-rolls-out-a-new-commercial-licensing-program-to-compete-with-500px-and-others/)
Time for a bit of DIY I reckon.
The web is awash with images that are available for use and I rather pity those who have to wade through it all looking for pictures, indeed, one wonders just how big this group of photo purchasers is, vastly outnumbered by those trying to sell photos I should imagine. So rather than just put my images up anywhere and hope for the best I've started to create my own stock gallery and will be able to target those who are likely to be wanting them. Early days yet but I have made a start here -
http://inkplusimages.com/zenstock/Contemporary-Agriculture/Tractors-and-machinery/ (http://inkplusimages.com/zenstock/Contemporary-Agriculture/Tractors-and-machinery/)
-
I've updated my blog with a piece upon this very subject - http://inkplusimages.com/wp/ (http://inkplusimages.com/wp/)
-
You probably will be able to make it if, a big if, you understand the business, know what sells, know what subjects haven't been covered to death, and know how to market images for stock. Microstock is a really bad idea because you won't be able to make a living out of it. RM is a better option; however, generally speaking, you're fifteen years late to the party.
-
... you're fifteen years late to the party.
But just in time for the funeral ;)
-
But just in time for the funeral ;)
that's right and it seems even Yuri Acurs hasn't made much from it recently.
-
that's right and it seems even Yuri Acurs hasn't made much from it recently.
I've never been under the impression that riches are to be be from stock, quite the opposite in fact as I mention in the blog. But what I am looking at is directing what I have to offer straight at potential purchasers rather than hoping they'll trip over them some day. I was also quite surprised at how many of those agencies listed in the 12 year old handbook were still around although they may be tied in with a microstock site. Of the dozen or so I looked at only 3 had left no trace on the web. Not a very scientific survey I know, but interesting all the same.
-
You all seem very pessimistic about stock. Are you as pessimistic about gallery sales?
-
You all seem very pessimistic about stock. Are you as pessimistic about gallery sales?
These are very broad generalizations.
There have always been people making money in stock, as there have been people making money in galleries (or art fairs). Just as there are people winning in Las Vegas everyday. It is just that statistics does not work in our favor, i.e., average Joe submitting to stock or galleries is not going to make much money today, as opposed to yesterday. Or, in other words, most people today would be worse than most people were yesterday.
It all boils down to how exceptionally good you are to make it in galleries. Sure, there are millionaires like Peter Lik or Tom Mangelsen who sell through their own galleries, as well as several others who make a decent living, if not millions. But on average, our chances today are not as good as theirs yesterday.
-
These are very broad generalizations.
There have always been people making money in stock, as there have been people making money in galleries (or art fairs). Just as there are people winning in Las Vegas everyday. It is just that statistics does not work in our favor, i.e., average Joe submitting to stock or galleries is not going to make much money today, as opposed to yesterday. Or, in other words, most people today would be worse than most people were yesterday.
It all boils down to how exceptionally good you are to make it in galleries. Sure, there are millionaires like Peter Lik or Tom Mangelsen who sell through their own galleries, as well as several others who make a decent living, if not millions. But on average, our chances today are not as good as theirs yesterday.
I think that applies to most, if not all pro photography. You also need to add to the mix that there are probably many more people who have ambitions of being pro photographers as well (many of them reasonably good at it) and the situation is not helped by the lack of opportunities in other fields at present.
-
I've never been under the impression that riches are to be be from stock, quite the opposite in fact as I mention in the blog. But what I am looking at is directing what I have to offer straight at potential purchasers rather than hoping they'll trip over them some day. I was also quite surprised at how many of those agencies listed in the 12 year old handbook were still around although they may be tied in with a microstock site. Of the dozen or so I looked at only 3 had left no trace on the web. Not a very scientific survey I know, but interesting all the same.
Andy Anderson does it all by himself online. Perhaps you can do even better.
-
Andy Anderson does it all by himself online. Perhaps you can do even better.
Why should you assume that?
-
Why should you assume that?
at least that's what he said when the whole thing got started. you know something he doesn't?
-
at least that's what he said when the whole thing got started. you know something he doesn't?
I haven't a clue who you are talking about to be honest.
-
I haven't a clue who you are talking about to be honest.
I thought Google was available.
-
I thought Google was available.
When trying to make a point it is often considered advantageous to actually explain what it is.
-
here is what I wrote:
"Andy Anderson does it all by himself online. Perhaps you can do even better."
-
here is what I wrote:
"Andy Anderson does it all by himself online. Perhaps you can do even better."
Sigh, but who the hell is this Anderson fellow?
-
Sigh, but who the hell is this Anderson fellow?
Justin, Andy Anderson is a famous drummer. He played with The Cure. I looked it up on Google. :D
-
Sigh, but who the hell is this Anderson fellow?
it seems you need to better your Google skill. let me spell it out for you: http://www.andyandersonstock.com/home.php
-
But why should I look it upon Google? If a fellow mentions somebody who may well not be widely known is not not wise to provide a little explanation rather than expect others to go scurrying off to look him up, sorry, but I find that an unattractive attitude and, as proven here, can only lead to confusion.
So just who is this Andy Anderson chap and just what has he said that demands our attention?
-
Justin, Andy Anderson is a famous drummer. He played with The Cure. I looked it up on Google. :D
And there are at least ten pages of Andy Anderson's on Linkedin!
-
To be successful, it all comes down to four things:
1. Do you have a unique style or vision that sells?
2. Are you willing to shoot what the market demands?
3. Can you afford to put up the money ahead of time to hire models and props and have them on location when the lighting is ideal? (BTW this is where the real money in stock comes - not from pretty nature scenes)
4. Are you willing to do this day-in and day-out, foregoing much of the rest of your daily existence (for the first 5 years or so) to succeed?
If you can honestly answer yes to these questions, then go for it. In many respects, you really need to be a business person first and a photographer second.
But, remember, you are not seeing the thousands who start out in gallery sales and stock photography. You are only seeing the decidedly few who have made it - less because of great photographs (not that they aren't great photographers, but there are hundreds of them), but more because of their dogged determination and ability to be ahead of the curve with respect to style and content.
-
But why should I look it upon Google? If a fellow mentions somebody who may well not be widely known is not not wise to provide a little explanation rather than expect others to go scurrying off to look him up, sorry, but I find that an unattractive attitude and, as proven here, can only lead to confusion.
So just who is this Andy Anderson chap and just what has he said that demands our attention?
Why did you come here asking opinions from strangers in the first place on the Internet? Does anyone here on this site pull in six-figure USD income from stock photography alone as Anderson, a well-known American commercial shooter, has done year after year? You stated you would exchange your landscape images for money in the market, didn't you? But you don't even know what sells. Anderson does tons of landscape stock. Who is in any better position to guide you? Your response shows an extremely closed mind. I aint wasting my energy any further here.
-
To be successful, it all comes down to four things:
1. Do you have a unique style or vision that sells?
2. Are you willing to shoot what the market demands?
3. Can you afford to put up the money ahead of time to hire models and props and have them on location when the lighting is ideal? (BTW this is where the real money in stock comes - not from pretty nature scenes)
4. Are you willing to do this day-in and day-out, foregoing much of the rest of your daily existence (for the first 5 years or so) to succeed?
If you can honestly answer yes to these questions, then go for it. In many respects, you really need to be a business person first and a photographer second.
But, remember, you are not seeing the thousands who start out in gallery sales and stock photography. You are only seeing the decidedly few who have made it - less because of great photographs (not that they aren't great photographers, but there are hundreds of them), but more because of their dogged determination and ability to be ahead of the curve with respect to style and content.
No 5. Do you have the sort of photos that the publications you deal with use?
No 6. Do you take photo's when on assignment and then have the companies concerned expect you to give all the surplus stuff away for free?
Numbers five and six are where I'm coming from and even if I don't sell a single image to the companies I've covered for an article I've made the point that I'm not going to spend my days preparing images for release with no reward (other than those already submitted for use in the publication).
-
Why did you come here asking opinions from strangers in the first place on the Internet? Does anyone here on this site pull in six-figure USD income from stock photography alone as Anderson, a well-known American commercial shooter, has done year after year? You stated you would exchange your landscape images for money in the market, didn't you? But you don't even know what sells. Anderson does tons of landscape stock. Who is in any better position to guide you? Your response shows an extremely closed mind. I aint wasting my energy any further here.
Because I'm not from America.
Because I'm not selling landscapes.
Because I said in the blog that I linked to that I am not expecting to get rich, photography is now something I supply along with articles, it's not the main income stream, that's just a pipe dream as much for me as it is the millions of other hopefuls out there.
-
Why did you come here asking opinions from strangers in the first place on the Internet? Does anyone here on this site pull in six-figure USD income from stock photography alone as Anderson, a well-known American commercial shooter, has done year after year? You stated you would exchange your landscape images for money in the market, didn't you? But you don't even know what sells. Anderson does tons of landscape stock. Who is in any better position to guide you? Your response shows an extremely closed mind. I aint wasting my energy any further here.
Dear Mr. Gulag (quite a puzzling choice of handle, btw),
You must have mistaken the OP with Justin. But more importantly, who the hell is "Andy Anderson"? And why should I, or anyone else, use Google to figure out what you meant? Had you stated outright what you said above about him, that would make anyone's life easier.
However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I did bing the name (yes, there are other search engines out there, mine is by default set to Bing). Guess what? No entry on the first page of results seemed to have anything to do with photography. Only when I typed "Andy Anderson Photography" did his stock page appear. And guess what? Nothing on that page (the same one you later linked to) indicates how "well known" he is, nor how much he is making from stock. I have decades of experience in photography, the last one here in the States, and I have never heard of him.
So, in conclusion, Sir, a little bit more humility and helpful behavior, and little bit less patronizing and, frankly, jirk-ish one would go a long way in our forums.
-
Dear Mr. Gulag (quite a puzzling choice of handle, btw),
You must have mistaken the OP with Justin. But more importantly, who the hell is "Andy Anderson"? And why should I, or anyone else, use Google to figure out what you meant? Had you stated outright what you said above about him, that would make anyone's life easier.
However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, I did bing the name (yes, there are other search engines out there, mine is by default set to Bing). Guess what? No entry on the first page of results seemed to have anything to do with photography. Only when I typed "Andy Anderson Photography" did his stock page appear. And guess what? Nothing on that page (the same one you later linked to) indicates how "well known" he is, nor how much he is making from stock. I have decades of experience in photography, the last one here in the States, and I have never heard of him.
So, in conclusion, Sir, a little bit more humility and helpful behavior, and little bit less patronizing and, frankly, jirk-ish one would go a long way in our forums.
Just need to refine your search then.
-
Just need to refine your search then.
Another passes over the head.
-
I've been on a couple of microstock sites for years, but my photography has never sold well.
I mostly want to talk about landscapes and cityscapes in this thread, because I'm more interested in that genre as a photographer.
As I shoot landscapes, should I submit them to microstock sites? Or should I just print them and pursue wall space in galleries?
In particular, should I worry about microstock sales of an image cannibalizing gallery sales? Or should I simply treat them as separate markets entirely and not worry about it?
Should I segregate my work and post the B grade landscapes on microstock sites, while placing the A grade work in galleries? Or should I put the A grade work up for sale wherever it is accepted?
Am I asking the right questions?
People have various opinions about all of this. However, I think most people will agree that if you are going to shoot landscapes you should mainly shoot whatever is near the gallery you choose. If the gallery is near the Golden Gate Bridge then shoot the Golden Gate Bridge and every interesting thing near it. As for microstock, my advice would be to set up your own website and sell from there. SEO is critical to get on the first few pages of google, but when you do you separate your images from the millions on the microstock sites. Keep prices consistent between the gallery(s) and your website. The B Grade landscapes should never see the light of day unless you don't mind people judging you by your B Grade images.
-
if you plug "andy anderson interview" into google, you get --->>> http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/02/06/andy-anderson-interview/
plug in "andy anderson stock", you get ---->>> http://www.andyandersonstock.com/home.php
-
if you plug "andy anderson interview" into google, you get --->>> http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/02/06/andy-anderson-interview/
plug in "andy anderson stock", you get ---->>> http://www.andyandersonstock.com/home.php
I have a suggestion. The OP asked 7 questions. Why don't we try to answer them?
-
For about the last 40 years, more photographers have gone "pro" than the market can support. As equipment has gotten easier to use, and more women have joined the hordes of "pros", the harder and harder it has become to make it as a "pro". Being a gifted photographer is in itself almost irrelevant as regards success as a pro.
Try dentistry.
-
if you plug "andy anderson interview" into google, you get --->>> http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/02/06/andy-anderson-interview/
plug in "andy anderson stock", you get ---->>> http://www.andyandersonstock.com/home.php
I don't shoot stock but I just clicked on the link above to andyandersonstock and the first thing that struck me is of a highly polished business selling pictures that have a very high quality and distinctive style. I've no idea how much this guy earns from his photography but I think it would not be an easy act to follow. You cannot look at the top person in an industry and think "Oh - if I do that I will be just as successful" - otherwise every musician would be as rich as Paul McCartney and every painter as sought after as Van Gough.
From what I can see the world is awash with very good landscape photographers so it seems like the last subject to try and make a living from. Try shooting three year old kids - their parents pay good money - if you can keep up with the little devils....!
Jim
-
... You cannot look at the top person in an industry and think "Oh - if I do that I will be just as successful" - otherwise every musician would be as rich as Paul McCartney and every painter as sought after as Van Gough...
And every writer as rich as J.K. Rowling, rolling in billions. It is more likely you would indeed be as successful as Van Gough. You know, they say he did not sell a single painting in his life (or maybe one, accounts differ) ;)
-
And every writer as rich as J.K. Rowling, rolling in billions. It is more likely you would indeed be as successful as Van Gough. You know, they say he did not sell a single painting in his life (or maybe one, accounts differ) ;)
Yes - I would rather earn a crust now than be rich when I'm long gone! ;D
-
Yes - I would rather earn a crust now than be rich when I'm long gone! ;D
If making $$$ is your purpose, you should look elsewhere instead.
-
If making $$$ is your purpose, you should look elsewhere instead.
Why?
-
Why?
Because very few people make good money at it. If you want to try, then come up with a plan and implement it.
-
Why?
Have you ever heard of a guy called Karl Marx? Because he showed you the only way to the $$$.
-
Have you ever heard of a guy called Karl Marx? Because he showed you the only way to the $$$.
Photography won't make money because of Karl Marx. Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind.
-
Photography won't make money because of Karl Marx. Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind.
What you mean by "make money" is to make a living, perhaps? What I said was that you need to look elsewhere if the purpose of your life is making big money. How to make big money is what Karl Marx revealed to the world in his book titled Das Kapital.
-
If you want to make a small fortune in photography, start with a large fortune ;D
-
Joke - Insert name of industry here - Aviation, Horse Racing, Farming. I first heard this joke in reference to aviation; How do you make a small fortune in aviation? etc.