Amateur Bird Photographer: Help Selling Photos With Microstock?

[Catfishres]

Greetings! I am an amateur bird photographer who currently has a lot of photos sitting on a harddrive not making money! I am not a professional photographer and have no wish to be, yet I would like to get some payment for my photographs. Recently I identified microstock as the easiest and most likely method selling, yet I still have some reservations.

For one thing, I've viewed the bird photos on several microstock sites and they don't seem to be in much demand. Any bird photographers know a site thats good for our area of photography? The royalty-free policy concerns me too, as photo theft is something that bothers me alot. I suppose I could refrain from posting the best shots, but those would be the most likely to get downloaded. Even though I don't want to be a professional photographer now, there's nothing to say I can't change my mind in the future and I want the best pictures kept safe. However, I've heard that professional photos need to be as big as possible, and all my current pictures were taken with the 10 MP 40D (plus many will need cropping). Should I go with microstock or try something else? Also, any microstock users find their photos stolen later?

Any advice or shared experience would be greatly appreciated!

[BradM]

IMO micro stock is one of the most foolish way to try to recoup money from your hobby. What is paid is ridicoulous, from $0.19 to maybe $4.00.

There are a million people just like yourself that has built the microstocks to be what they are today, someone that doesn't "care" enough for their work to actually put any real value on it.

As mentioned these are not rights manged so that is it for income unless someone else buys the shot and woo hoo another $0.19! But if you are willing to sell it for next to nothing why worry about it being "stolen" more than likely the person would just buy for the nominal fee anyway.

Wildlife doesn't sell well in any stock agency, even in the premier sites but when it does you seeing a check in the hundreds of dollars and occasionally more. I would suggest if you have a decent portfolio that you ignore micro and look to the better agencies like Getty or Corbis.

If you can get accepted with them you can maybe make a bit of real money on your images. But understand even you are accepted they will not accept just any shot you submit, the standards are high to get in and stay there.

[sandpiper]

The royalty-free policy concerns me too, as photo theft is something that bothers me alot.

Like Brad, I can't see why you are so bothered about somebody stealing the photo, when you are happy for someone to pay you a few cents, and then use it for whatever they want. They can publish it, use it as the basis for a major advertising campaign, alter it, whatever. You get a few cents. Surely somebody stealing it and doing that and not giving you a few cents isn't that big an issue.

There was a case I read recently where somebody had been using a microstock site for selling his shots, but moved up to a proper stock site later (as you plan to). He had negotiated a license with someone to use a few of his photographs for around $800 and was naturally happy about this. Well, he was happy until he got the e-mail from them saying they had found his shots on the microstock site, so were buying the RF rights from there for about $10 instead.

He lost more income in losing that deal than he had received from the microstock site, in nearly 2 years, from all of his images combined.

Another photo forum I am on has been discussing microstock and the income is pitifully small unless you specifically shoot large numbers of the very generic images that sell well (teenage girl on mobile phone etc.) because they can illustrate all kinds of news stories. One chap has been with one for over a year and has only earned $82 so far, but they don't pay out until you have a $100 to come, so he has so far received nothing.

I am not with any stock agencies, but I was asked permission to use one of my shots a couple of weeks ago, I got £50 (about $100) and a free meal for two for it (it was a restaurant that wanted to use it). So in that one sale, I made more than he has from microstock in over a year.

If you have anything that is genuinely saleable, don't sell it for a few cents - unless you really feel that is all your work is worth.

[Uhland]

agree.
I use microstock to sell my P&S photos =)

I got like 10 random photos up now.
I had about 50 but took all the ones that dont sell often down.
Made under $50 in a year I think.
Most of it came from just one photo (just a flower) that seems to sell a lot.

So unless you put thousands of photos on 10+ microstock sites it wont even pay for one lens.

[Scuff]

I'll offer another view from those above.

You probably won't earn a living from Microstock, but you can earn.

I have a few wildlife pictures, they do sell, but are not the best sellers.

If you want to have a go, you can learn what the market needs and what sells. On any level, it is great to see your images selling and earning some cash instead of sitting on your hard drive. Don't be put off by the 'nay-sayers', you choose what you want to do with your images, not them.

If you need any other info, you can PM me if you wish.

[azpix]

I'll offer another view from those above.

You probably won't earn a living from Microstock, but you can earn.

I have a few wildlife pictures, they do sell, but are not the best sellers.

If you want to have a go, you can learn what the market needs and what sells. On any level, it is great to see your images selling and earning some cash instead of sitting on your hard drive. Don't be put off by the 'nay-sayers', you choose what you want to do with your images, not them.

If you need any other info, you can PM me if you wish.

i don't think it's a matter of people trying to tell him what to do. i think they are trying to elevate what's going on the industry.

[photoguy6405]

There was a case I read recently where somebody had been using a microstock site for selling his shots, but moved up to a proper stock site later (as you plan to). He had negotiated a license with someone to use a few of his photographs for around $800 and was naturally happy about this. Well, he was happy until he got the e-mail from them saying they had found his shots on the microstock site, so were buying the RF rights from there for about $10 instead.

He lost more income in losing that deal than he had received from the microstock site, in nearly 2 years, from all of his images combined.

Ouch!

[Scuff]

i don't think it's a matter of people trying to tell him what to do. i think they are trying to elevate what's going on the industry.

This was the poor guys first post. He asked a question and got told that:

'There are a million people just like yourself that has built the microstocks to be what they are today, someone that doesn't "care" enough for their work to actually put any real value on it.'

No wonder he hasn't come back yet!!!

[sandpiper]

This was the poor guys first post. He asked a question and got told that:

'There are a million people just like yourself that has built the microstocks to be what they are today, someone that doesn't "care" enough for their work to actually put any real value on it.'

No wonder he hasn't come back yet!!!

Yes, I know and I am sure that nobody is actually having a go at the poster. Unfortunately, his question was about a subject that a lot of photographers feel very strongly about. Microstock sites are killing the photography business, not just for professionals but also the keen amateurs who put shots with conventional stock agencies. Such amateurs form a fair sized proportion of the membership of a site like this. Sure, the photographers who put images with the microstock agencies make a few bucks, but they would make more from conventional agencies, IF THE MICROSTOCK SITES WEREN'T PROVIDING DIRT CHEAP IMAGES. It's catch 22, the image producers are actually killing their own market. So more feel that they have to do the same to get by.

[BradM]

This was the poor guys first post. He asked a question and got told that:

'There are a million people just like yourself that has built the microstocks to be what they are today, someone that doesn't "care" enough for their work to actually put any real value on it.'

No wonder he hasn't come back yet!!!

Pointing out that a persons work has more value than they first assumed is a bad thing? Pointing out that they will be taken advantage of by using these sites is also a bad thing?

Gosh to me it sounds like you would advocate hanging outside funeral parlours looking for dates with the widows. I mean it really doesn't hurt anyone does it? But of course it is really only in the best interest of one of the parties.

The same is true for micro stocks, the lack of fair and equitable treatment is obscured by a dollar sign and that is all the better to let the submitter believe they are following the right path.

That is just pile of


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/crap.jpg

[Scuff]

Yes, I know and I am sure that nobody is actually having a go at the poster. Unfortunately, his question was about a subject that a lot of photographers feel very strongly about. Microstock sites are killing the photography business, not just for professionals but also the keen amateurs who put shots with conventional stock agencies. Such amateurs form a fair sized proportion of the membership of a site like this. Sure, the photographers who put images with the microstock agencies make a few bucks, but they would make more from conventional agencies, IF THE MICROSTOCK SITES WEREN'T PROVIDING DIRT CHEAP IMAGES. It's catch 22, the image producers are actually killing their own market. So more feel that they have to do the same to get by.

I don't think that we are going to agree much here, fair enough. Everybody is entitled to their say.

So what part of your photography business is Microstock killing. Weddings, portrature, studio, commercial etc? No, I think you mean Stock and Macrostock photography. It does no harm at all to my business. Selfish you may think, well I'm sure that most other togs do not give a $~#* about me or my business, and nor should they.

Time has moved on and we find ourselves in the situation where small companies, organisations and individuals have access to images where they couldn't afford before.

It also gives amateurs an outlet and an incentive to get out and produce some shots that will not sit on the hard drive.

I also submit to the main agencies, some of them require 50mb tiff files. I see loads of photographers up sizing their images to be accepted where I will only submit native files. A macrostock ploy to ensure that they don't get 'hobby' photographers submitting images. Some of the stuff wouldn't be accepted on microstock - it's pretty 'average'.

If the other pro's cant adjust to the way it is, then tough - diversify. It is a competitive world and no-one owes us a living.

As I stated before, you are not going to make a living out of stock, Micro or Macro. But it can bring in a few $'s. As an example, The last year with around 100 images in Macro and the same images in Micro, the Microstock turned over $850 and the Macro $350. Better than nothing. I'm not going to turn that down through a sense of guilt. Got a family to feed and a mortgage to pay!

Right, I'll just duck behind the sofa ;)

[Scuff]

Pointing out that a persons work has more value than they first assumed is a bad thing? Pointing out that they will be taken advantage of by using these sites is also a bad thing?

Gosh to me it sounds like you would advocate hanging outside funeral parlours looking for dates with the widows. I mean it really doesn't hurt anyone does it? But of course it is really only in the best interest of one of the parties.

The same is true for micro stocks, the lack of fair and equitable treatment is obscured by a dollar sign and that is all the better to let the submitter believe they are following the right path.

That is just pile of


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/crap.jpg

I tell you what, that image would sell well on microstock!!!

[sandpiper]

As an example, The last year with around 100 images in Macro and the same images in Micro, the Microstock turned over $850 and the Macro $350. Better than nothing. I'm not going to turn that down through a sense of guilt. Got a family to feed and a mortgage to pay!

Right, I'll just duck behind the sofa ;)

Oh, I'm not suggesting you should seriously consider your business model due to a sense of guilt, and naturally you want to maximise income to feed the family. I have no problem with that.

What I am suggesting you consider, is that maybe you aren't maximising your income that way. Did you read my post above, about the guy who had an $800 sale in the bag, until the buyer spotted the images also available on a microstock site so bought them for a few bucks instead.

You say those sales figures are for the same images, so make a great example. The $350 from macro sales shows that they are worth paying a sensible price for, as a few people have been willing to do so. The $850 from micro sales seems to say that it is the bigger earner, but is it?

To reach that amount, hundreds of people must have bought the images at a couple of bucks each or whatever. Have you never wondered how many of those might have been willing to pay the full price, if they hadn't been able to get them for virtually nothing?

If only ten, of all those hundreds of buyers, wanted the image enough to pay the going rate, and hadn't had the option of getting it through the microstock site, you would have actually earned more money in total.

Many image buyers now, often working for big companies looking for advertising images, search both macro and micro sites. Naturally, this means that many of your buyers will have seen your images both at the full price and the dirt cheap price, naturally they paid the cheap one. Those who paid the full price, simply didn't find the cheaper one so were happy to pay what was being asked.

Contrary to what you stated on your post, many photographers do make a living out of purely stock work, or a combination of stock agencies and submitting work to magazines. However, I don't know of any who use microstock sites to do this, they simply cannot afford to give images away that cheaply, it costs them too many real sales. It is getting harder to make a living this way though, magazines that once were willing to pay a fair price for each image they used, now get a lot for essentially nothing so there is much less money going out to photographers.

Of course photographers can adapt to the way things are changing, but that doesn't mean that they won't have feelings about microstock sites that are not only costing them sales, they are actually reducing the potential income of the people who sell through them as well.

Competition is fine, but sales strategies like yours mean that you are actually competing with yourself, as your cheap images take sales from your full price ones.

I just can't see the logic in why anybody sells through microstock.

[Scuff]

Oh, I'm not suggesting you should seriously consider your business model due to a sense of guilt, and naturally you want to maximise income to feed the family. I have no problem with that.

What I am suggesting you consider, is that maybe you aren't maximising your income that way. Did you read my post above, about the guy who had an $800 sale in the bag, until the buyer spotted the images also available on a microstock site so bought them for a few bucks instead.

You say those sales figures are for the same images, so make a great example. The $350 from macro sales shows that they are worth paying a sensible price for, as a few people have been willing to do so. The $850 from micro sales seems to say that it is the bigger earner, but is it?

To reach that amount, hundreds of people must have bought the images at a couple of bucks each or whatever. Have you never wondered how many of those might have been willing to pay the full price, if they hadn't been able to get them for virtually nothing?

If only ten, of all those hundreds of buyers, wanted the image enough to pay the going rate, and hadn't had the option of getting it through the microstock site, you would have actually earned more money in total.

Many image buyers now, often working for big companies looking for advertising images, search both macro and micro sites. Naturally, this means that many of your buyers will have seen your images both at the full price and the dirt cheap price, naturally they paid the cheap one. Those who paid the full price, simply didn't find the cheaper one so were happy to pay what was being asked.

Contrary to what you stated on your post, many photographers do make a living out of purely stock work, or a combination of stock agencies and submitting work to magazines. However, I don't know of any who use microstock sites to do this, they simply cannot afford to give images away that cheaply, it costs them too many real sales. It is getting harder to make a living this way though, magazines that once were willing to pay a fair price for each image they used, now get a lot for essentially nothing so there is much less money going out to photographers.

Of course photographers can adapt to the way things are changing, but that doesn't mean that they won't have feelings about microstock sites that are not only costing them sales, they are actually reducing the potential income of the people who sell through them as well.

Competition is fine, but sales strategies like yours mean that you are actually competing with yourself, as your cheap images take sales from your full price ones.

I just can't see the logic in why anybody sells through microstock.

Thanks for your reply.

I will not debate your views, you may be right, and I respect your right to voice your considered opinion.

But, they are my images and I do what I want with them. If I wish to give them away, I will. They are not by any stretch my main source of income. I doubt if any proficient full time stock pro's will find me or any other microstock dabblers threat.

There is no way at this time microstock will go away. When it eats itself, I will move on (having put a few $ in my pocket).

Anyway, thanks again for your opinion. We'll leave it there on this thread.

[Box Brownie]

As someone who has never (yet) used/applied/gotten on with uploading images to stock sites the one thing that strikes me about the "merits" of each 'stock' business model is that if you have images worthy of selling then it does not make sense as remarked by Sandpiper to have the same subject/image uploaded to both the Micro & Macro sites i.e. a prospective purchaser will not see an image say at Alamy and then see & buy the very same image at a Micro stock site. To me that is stating the blindingly obvious and sorry if I missed it being said earlier in the thread.

The logic as I see it is that if 'you' intend to use both types of stock sites then you need to separate your images as you see fit into each "class" of site potential.

OK guys enough pontificating from me who knows nothing about any of this from experience ;)

[photoguy6405]

Yes, I know and I am sure that nobody is actually having a go at the poster. Unfortunately, his question was about a subject that a lot of photographers feel very strongly about. Microstock sites are killing the photography business, not just for professionals but also the keen amateurs who put shots with conventional stock agencies. Such amateurs form a fair sized proportion of the membership of a site like this. Sure, the photographers who put images with the microstock agencies make a few bucks, but they would make more from conventional agencies, IF THE MICROSTOCK SITES WEREN'T PROVIDING DIRT CHEAP IMAGES. It's catch 22, the image producers are actually killing their own market. So more feel that they have to do the same to get by.

I have yet to try selling stock photos of any kind, so I don't have first-hand experience at this, but the common impression has always been a catch-22 of another sort... you can't get into an established stock agency without an established reputation/portfolio and you can build a good reputation/portfolio withouit getting in... hence microstock agencies came along to fill the void.

The most common retort to that is "if you're good enough you'll get in", but is/was it really that simple?

[thesupe87]

If I didn't have a full time dayjob, I'd be making a living off of microstock. Currently, I devote maybe 3 or 4 hours a week to it, and it isn't uncommon to pull in 4 figures. Imagine what I could do with an entire 40 hour workweek....it makes me very curious to take the plunge and go full time with it possibly someday.

Here is a link to a gallery with some of the images that I sell:
http://www.freewebs.com/micropaymentphotography/mystockphotos.htm

Don't knock it til you've tried it guys. I've even had one image pull in over 2 grand over the last 2 years. If it continues to follow the same pattern it has been, it will continue to sell, and rack up more earnings.

I am also getting into Alamy which has RM and RF models, and am hoping to get my portfoliio uploaded there very soon. That site is more of a "midstock" as opposed to "microstock". The images cost a lot more to purchase, and yield you a lot more money when you make a sale. 70% I think they pay, similar to feature pics - the links to all the sites I sell on are on my website.

Thanks

[BSBXTi]

OP I am a bird photographer as well! Strictly a hobby, but since anyone can get on microstock here is my opinion on it! This has said before, but here is my take: I spend alot of time photography birds, trying to get the perfect exposurse, compositions and all of the like. In the field as you know this takes alot of time and dedication. I could never sell one of my pictures for pennies. We work so hard to get them why do it? Just a thought! I'm not saying my pictures are absolutly stellar, but they have alot of value to me because of what they repersent on my part.

[amfoto1]

Greetings! I am an amateur bird photographer who currently has a lot of photos sitting on a harddrive not making money! I am not a professional photographer and have no wish to be, yet I would like to get some payment for my photographs.

By definition, once you begin receiving payment for your work you are a professional, or at least a semi-professional until it generates more than 50% of your annual income.

Recently I identified microstock as the easiest and most likely method selling, yet I still have some reservations. You should have some reservations. Many reservations!

Microstock is basically designed to appeal to amateurs who get a big thrill out of seeing a few of their photos published, and have a good paying day job to actually pay the bills and allow them buy the latest D-SLR. They do not ever plan to make much of any income from their photos. Just the thrill that it was printed in such and such magazine Oct. 2008 issue or on such and such website's home page for 15 minutes is all the reward they need.

Anyone with, say, 100 to 1000 good photos already on file, and able to produce perhaps another 100 to 500 fresh ones each year is a candidate for a traditional stock agency. That person would be doing themselves and their hard work and creativity a huge disservice taking the "easiest and most likely method", since it pays pennies on the dollar and opens up your work to widespread theft, with little or no way to stop it after the fact.

The royalty-free policy concerns me too, as photo theft is something that bothers me alot. I suppose I could refrain from posting the best shots,As it should concern you. But, if you refrain from posting the best shots, how do you expect to get sales, at least enough to make it worthwhile? Isn't the point to get your best, most likely to sell work out for people to see and buy?

Should I go with microstock or try something else?I'd vote for "something else". It may not ever again be an option, if you go MS and/or RF now. Each time someone signs up with MS/RF, they are strengthening it and weakening the traditional business model just a little bit more. Worse, once their work is out there on MS/RF, they will have a hard time ever converting to the traditional stock model. Why should anyone sign with them, their work is already all over the place at bargain prices? ("Just sign the bankruptcy papers now and we'll keep them on file so we have that little detail out of the way when the time comes.")

Also, any microstock users find their photos stolen later?Might be easier to ask if there are any who haven't?

I don't and won't use MS. I have had pictures stolen. I have recourses if I want to pursue them.

If I were on MS and offering RF, I wouldn't have any recourse but to accept it and move on.

I suspect that most serious photographers who sign up with MS/RF mostly do so because they are a bit unsure of themselves and fear rejection. (The ones who sign up with MS/RF just for fun are another story.)

MS/RF will take anybody's work, no questions asked. Just upload it.

With the traditional stock business model you have to work at getting someone to like and accept you and your stuff, to take a bit of a risk on you. It may mean sending samples of your work to 25 places, and hearing "No" a lot of times before someone finally accepts you for who you are and your work on it's own merit.

Scary stuff! No wonder so many folks happily sign up with MS/RF and accept pennies on the dollar... Even brag about their sales on blogs.

("I sold my first four photos!" "Great! How?" "Microstock." "Oh, I'm sorry.")

Please, before you decide, go buy a $24 copy of Photographers Market 2008. There are 60+ pages of stock photo agencies in there, most of which are not microstock or royalty free, and pay around 50% of sales on the more traditional pricing structure. If they're listed in PM, they are actively seeking new photographers to handle and represent. You can go to their websites and look around, see whose work they handle now. Plus, PM has lists of books about selling stock, professional organizations concerned with stock, copyrighting guidelines, and more.

Just be sure all the birdies sign their modeling releases! :cool: