Hey folks,
let us talk about the cheap side of photography. Some photographers claim they make a living with microstock. I admire them (if they tell the truth). My experience was short and disappointing.
Of course, the time I began photographing more seriously I necessarily had to think about a way to get my pictures sold.
I had quit my job and despite knowing of having the money to survive some months without (as well as earning a bit with my writing jobs beside) I could need some additional income. So why not sell them to a photo agency after weeks of internet research.
The first images I wanted to give a try were shot during a trip to the far north of Iceland, a small but great isle called Grimsey. This place with about 100 habitants is magnificent especially in winter, when no tourists hang around. Not to talk about the stunning light from the low sun near to the poles (and the green ones during night). On the other hand in summer you have more than three hours of daylight and great nature including hundreds and thousands of funny puffins. Well I was there in snow time (and forgot the boots in my hotel in the capital Reykjavik – no good idea).
In the icy season you are likely to fly in to Grimsey with a small propeller plane from Akureyri, but it is also possible to take the ferry twice a week. People on the Island are most welcoming and for a stay there are a comfortable guesthouse (which you will have for your own in Winter) as well as a shop selling whatever they got shipped some days ago. So you have to be a bit creative at cooking, since the isles restaurant is closed in winter (and hardly will open for you, as long as you are not a travel group). And plan some spare time for the return leg! When it gets too windy or snowy there won’t be any connection back to the mainland for one or more days. My friends and I got stuck, too. But I’m getting off topic.
Where to sell the pictures was the question. No bigger photo agency would be interested in just a hand full travel images, I guessed. But at microstock agencies I thought I could try. So my choice fell on panthermedia and fotolia. They rejected most of the offered, but kept three images in the end. Strike!
Con: Three images as microstock? That can’t give a good payoff.
Pro: Come on, it were my first ever published images! I was damn proud.
I knew it wouldn’t be hundreds of dollars cash, but it was a test, just to try how it works. And it worked. When I saw MY PICTURES online I felt like hot and cold. This is one of them, not an incredible wooooow, but at least a start.
The next days I stuck to my computer. Every few minutes I had to click and refresh the page of the agencies. How many visits, how many clicks did it get and how often would the images be bought? I was so nervous.
To tell the truth: The first day the pics weren’t clicked a single time. As well as the second. And the next and the next and so on … In the end I had about 30 hits in more than a year and sold the shown lighthouse image above one single time. I earned 0,40 Dollar. Don’t get me wrong, these agencies might be good and giving them a try with just three travel images wasn’t really fair. But in the end I decided: This is definitely not my way!
Interesting experience! Ich arbeite selbst gar nicht so selten mit microstock Bildern, ohne dass es die große Liebe wäre. Ist halt cheap. Aber ich finds gut, dass du dich da nicht so billig verkaufst.
It certainly isn’t for everyone. The point of microstock is quantity, coupled with quality. If you can get hundreds, but better still thousands of images online, then you can create a good, sometimes excellent passive income. Most people get tons of rejections at the start, until they learn what and how the agencies want the images. I refer lots of people to various agencies via referral links on my site, but the vast majority give up and don’t even get a single image online. I like the additional income I make through microstock, it’s not huge by any means. I only have 1000+ files online across the board but the sales keep coming, whether I do any work or not.
Hey Microstock Posts,
at first: thanks for taking the time to leave a comment. I guess it is like you say, for the vast majority microstock should be seen as a nice additional income. But achieving anything near to making a living from it seems to be very very hard work. If you also take into account the time for planning, shooting, retouching, editing etc. the payoff gets even worse. I luckily managed to sell through a traditional stock agency meanwhile. There is no difference in my effort work (planning, shooting, retouching and editing) but with a significantly higher yield ratio. But even in the traditional stock market with my kind of images you need way over 1000 files listed to get a constant passive return. To be fair: I mostly shot travel photography (with high investment for flights) in the last months, which might not be the best for primarily selling as microstock , keeping calculation in mind. Arved
I think your comment (2:02 pm) is right. Travel photography is not the best kind of photography for selling on the microstockmarket. Even though the “Kölner Dom” is my best selling pic on dreamstime, an american Microstock agency….
In November 2007 I also started a microstock test and uploaded several pics on several agencies. I sorted out about 100 pictures from my harddrives and uploaded them. Since than I didn’t update my microstock-portfolios. In the moment fotolia is my best selling ageny. In three years my earnings with fotolia rose up to 184,94 Euro (I checked this one moment ago) The best selling pics are three pics of backstage passes, i photographed years ago to test a selfbuilt light-tent… on fourth place comes a touristic picture of the casino in san remo….
All together with all agencies I earned about 400 Euro in three years. I think in the long run, you may achieve a nice “passive income”, but should not try to calculate your income per hour…
Yes true but you were incredibly passive, those who continue to upload earn a lot more than this. Often buyers search in ‘latest images’. Apart from when you initially uploaded your photos, your photos never appeared with this type of search. Also exposure of your original batch of 100 (if they all made it online) is also significantly reduced. 400 Euros in 3 years for basically what seems like an experiment. That’s ok.
And there is the problem with micro stock. The simple fact you made $0.40 means you never reach the minimum pay out threshold so effectively the micro stock agency sold your photos for a lot more and then they didn’t have to pay out so they effectively get your images for free.
I would like more transparency from these agencies as to how many portfolios they never pay out on as the photographer never managed to reach minimum payout levels.
Hi David,
thanks for leaving this comment. That aspect indeed is very true – and a major problem not for the agencies but for suppliers, at least for low level ones. This would be a very informative stat probably opening some eyes and changing many minds …
Arved