My experience with microstock sites (so far): istock, shutterstock, dreamstime, bigstock, & canstock
Wednesday, 11 January 2006
Tag it:
Click on a logo below to visit the microstock sites [stats updated 11/29/08]
Total Earnings: $8853
Shutterstock
earnings (incl footage sales):
$4837
Dreamstime
earnings:
$2203
iStock
earnings:
$1237
Bigstock
earnings:
$525
Canstock
earnings:
$51
Please note: signing up through the links above can potentially have a benefit to me (some sites offer a referral bonus). If you find the information on this page helpful, I'd appreciate it if you sign up through my referral. Thanks, and good luck!
I've had a few questions about how my microstock experiment is going, so here's a little summary. I started uploading images to a handful of microstock sites in February of 2005 as a test to see how it would go. These sites allow people to upload images which are then sold cheaply for royalty free use, with a certain percentage of the sale going to the photographer. There were two sides to the debate, in my mind: the first side that can’t believe how cheap these sites sell their images and can’t help but think that this business model is contributing to what might be called the “Wal-martization” of photography, and the second, which sees this as a model that is closer to an “Open source” model of photography, providing affordable images to a broader base of designers, bloggers, churches, nonprofits, etc.
On reflection, I have to come down on the latter side. For one thing, images on these sites are generally being uploaded by people with the means to buy a digital camera and access to the internet—not children in third world sweatshops. (That said, I do think a few of these sites could raise their payment rates some). Also, providing low-cost, legal imagery will allow many people to use it who would otherwise use none, or use other copyrighted images that they found online (perhaps illegally).
And for those who are worried about the future of photography as an occupation, you’ll always have the bigger companies and corporations who will pay top dollar for exclusivity or for images that are not sold on sites such as these. With the countless digital cameras that are out there, it was inevitable that a model like this would spring up.
My goals (beyond seeing how these sites worked) were fairly modest: to pay off my digital camera. I am well beyond that mark at this point--now I plan to use the earnings as seed money for an eventual full-time freelance career. To the right are the five sites I have uploaded to with my total revenue to date on each site listed beside it and a few graphs of earnings. If you are thinking about uploading, take these numbers with a grain of salt, because each site has a slightly different audience and not all sites have the same number of pictures uploaded (for various reasons). If you want to try selling images, I recommend submitting the same batch to all sites for a few months to see how your images do on each one and where they fit in best.
I also recommend editing the EXIF data in the files to add your keywords and description directly in the file. These sites can all read that information and input it automatically into the correct fields as you upload, saving a lot of time. (Keywords and description can be incredibly important in actually having your image come up when a designer is searching for imagery.) Once you have the keywords and description you just have to choose the categories it belongs to on each site as the final step after uploading. Many of the sites have batch upload capabilities as another way to save time.
It’s also worth noting that two of these sites allow vector imagery to be uploaded: istockphoto and shutterstock. So if you don’t have a digital camera, you could still create vectors (sort of like clip art) to upload.
Have fun and if you have any questions, feel free to post them.
I really enjoyed reading your comments on microstock sites. I agree, I think that many people who would grab images off of Google are now purchasing them at affordable prices. I just started a site that indexes and compares MicroStock Photography sites (number of images, compensation for photographers, etc.) The website is MicroStock Photography Forum (http://www.www.microstockforum.com)Check it out. It took me over a year to discover all these stock photography sites. One of the problems is that none of the sites allow you to talk abou thte others ones (makes sense). This is a site that allows you to share good and bad opinions of all the sites you can find. Good luck!PS: I still haven't paid off my digital camera(s), but everytime I get close I "need" to buy a new one.
I have been doing photography for over 30 years have been published and won many awards. But when I started submitting my images to stock house which you refer to had a big culture shock. My rejection rates were 80%The negatives were, noise,distorted pixels,and a few other negatives. I had slides which were small sizes so resied but that didnt work out.But wildlife and landscapes are not big sellers on stock.So going through a learning curve here.So far I have spent hours and hours net result 3$ and they wont pay you out untill you have had hundreds of downloads.I also submitted images to a big stock house in the UK got rejected and asked for my images back saying I was willing to pay postage have heard nothing. The stamp all over photographers. This is just another sweat shop culture idea as far as I am concerned. the internet is the ideal tool for top feeders to exploit the little guy trying to survive. What protection does one have to say someone buys your image for 1$ then prints 50000 posters they get the gold mine and you get the shaft
thanks for your comments Peter and Glen. Glen, you are right that some of the rules of the microstock game are unfair and take advantage of the photographer. And you won't make a living at it. I think that many of these sites need to raise their payment rates (ie. not the rate they sell the images at, but the percentage of the sale that goes to the Photographer). The reason I said that I don't believe this qualifies as "Walmartization" (aka "sweat shop culture") is that--I think--most of the people who are participating are doing it as a hobby, in their spare time, for some spare change. They can stop whenever they want and not starve.That doesn't mean that there won't be exploitation and they won't be taken advantage of in some way. But in my mind, opening the market up to the "little guy" who couldn't afford stock photos before (non-profits, blogs, etc) is worth the trade-off. To go back to the open-source analogy, sure some corporate types will take advantage of the free software, but in the end it's empowering a lot of the little guys, which is worth a lot.Thanks again for your comments.
Manfred Zimmermann
-
High resolution digital photos
|
24.239.168.xxx
|
Nov 14, 2006 (17:53:05)
Sounds weird, hu?- the cheaper the pictures the more will get sold.- more pictures sold means more pictures printed in ads and editorial media, because creating ads become less expensive and articles get more attention with a picture.As a result more publications will be printed and much more paper will be needed! And this increases with the improvement of image resolution!Besides the whole print media industry everyone with a digital 8MB SLR will want his/her private wedding fotos in full glory! Not those tiny printouts like the old days!Just like the computer did not reduce the amount of paper used in offices, I know companies were everybody prints out their emails ?for the records?, in fact we all have printers and use more paper than ever.Stop the further development of higher resolution cameras!Save our rain forests!phew? now lemme check if I recently sold any pics on iStock?.
Just announced...with a lot of iStock contributors still reeling: "In Getty Images, we have found our perfect partner. On February 9, in the early hours of the morning, iStockphoto agreed to join the Getty Images family, functioning independently with the benefits of Getty Images, yet, very importantly for them and us, autonomy. They will nurture and encourage our pioneering spirit so that our entrepreneurial culture will continue to thrive."Read more.I'm not quite sure what this means yet for the future of iStock.
Dreamstime announced today a price structure revision on the site which translates to better rates for photographers. I'm interested to see if the earnings go up substantially. I'm also beginning to test the stock video footage submission on Shutterstock with some clips from the cherry blossom festival in DC. I'll post findings here.
Another site which perhaps reflects the trend to (slightly) higher prices for stock is totallyphotos. I started submitting there a couple of months ago and despite less sales than on istock, the return has been much more ($12.50 for some shots).Not big bucks either, but looking better than the somewhat crowded istock.
I liked your article, better to look at this as an addition to an income rather than making a living on purely microstock. There is forum for those who are interested in looking into this further..Talkmicro MicroStock Forumhttp://www.talkmicro.com - as far as i know it's the biggest one of it's sort.Andy
Another good article on microstock -Sell your Photography and Digital Artwork Onlinehttp://www.talkmicro.com/Microstock_sell_Photography_or_digital_artwork_online.htm
yeah i think there is definate earning potential with microstock photography. I have found a really good forum. http://microstockgroup.com. there are hundreds of microstock photographers there so it is a good place to ask questions
An interesting article and thread, first of all cheers for that.I am one of the folks that was able to afford to buy a Nikon D70 when it was released which enabled me to play about with stock photography, I assessed the different sites and decided that Istock.com was the place for me, it's a great place to make some profit from images I take whilst learning more about the technical aspects of the style that sells whilst pushing my skills further than was possible without such a site.I have friends who think they will make more money from keeping their images to themselves as they see themselves as some kind of artist that’s above sharing files with the masses, although they have made less money and their images sit on their hard drive and aren't viewed by many. I think I have made the better decision on that one, but each to their own.I'm not sure what the point of this post is apart from the fact that i have not only enjoyed this hobby but am also making money from it that wouldn't have been available with such a site.I recently became an exclusive member of istock after getting over 500 downloads, which means that i got a small increase from any one image that is sold and the legal protection if it's needed along with some business cards that are in the post.I can't vouch for other sites but have found Istock to be a great place and is also now taking video submissions.
hiya....how are you averaging on the different sites? Check mine out here http://pdtnc.wordpress.com/tag/photography/stock-images/ :) I spent some time making myself a spreadsheet to work out the monthly averages, I felt that 'Total Earnings' doesn't give the reader as much insight into which sites are performing :)Nice work.
Thanks, pdtnc,That's a good idea--and I'm sure my Shutterstock graph would show a marked increase lately. I sold a few footage clips, the vector sales help (even though I've only got a few vector files up there, they sell consistently), and SS referrals help out, too.
i have tried to add the heywords to my photos by going to the file properties, this owrks, but when i upload the photos to several different stock sites, none of them recognize the keywords and i have to type them in again. ANY HELP PLEASE?email me minicooper_turbo@hotmail.com
From an email conversation with a pro stock photographer:
Quote:
I'm not as sanguine as you are about the role of microstock. Your argument is the precise one used 15 years ago when Royalty Free came on the scene. Stock got harder then, but the smart photographers adapted and became volume producers and were able to make a career of it. What I fail to see is how anyone can do the same with Microstock.
Thanks, XXXXX, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I asked the question because I am an outsider (someone who loves photography/digital imagery but is not a professional) and was wondering what you thought, from the inside. I realize my perspective is very limited and as a result, that the market could be changing dramatically without me even realizing it.In some ways, though, as camera costs go down and with the rise of digital, it seems microstock was/is inevitable, and I love aspects of it in the same way I love open source software (giving access to the little guy / non-profit / etc). My sanguine attitude is tempered by the knowledge that people who could afford to pay will also take advantage of this, and by the ridiculous percentage that these sites pay. Those running the sites are making big money and paying chump change to the photographers. If I could change one thing about the microstock sites, I would work some kind of a scale into the system which provides the imagery at the lowest possible rate to non-profits (or small run projects) and increases dramatically for for-profit (or very large run projects).
How many photos do you have at Shutterstock? What is your average daily download number? Do you find that the number of images download per day are exponential to the number of images you have on that site? or does it always seem to linger at about the same download rate, with the older images dropping off in sales as time goes on? curious, Dee
Dee,I've got about 180 photos on Shutterstock right now, although 30 or so are just added (editorial photos from the DC peace rally last week). I am finding that the number of images does have some impact, although not quite as much as I expected. (And others claim that having new photos helps keep you towards the top of the search results--which are usually listed by date--but I haven't noticed anything dramatic).
New Micro Stock Site with cash
-
New Micro Stock Site with cash
|
210.212.158.xxx
|
Feb 21, 2007 (05:15:13)
Hi, I really like this article. Recently I found a new stock site. Interesting thing is that they are having competition where one can win 20 pounds. Also I have sold one image in short time. This is for somebody who is interested in it. http://www.raw-stock-images.co.uk/Competition/Competition.aspx?ID=85Nilesh.
Hi, I am an amataur who just might have some material good enough for stock sites. I am a little confused about how you say that the same image can be uploaded to multiple sites.. Does not the first site you upload to have the rights on the image and thus stop you uploading to other sites?
Obviously not as you wouldn't have said it but could you expand more on the rules for this? Thanks.
Mark, you are free to submit your image to as many sites as you like, provided you do not enter into an "exclusive" arrangement with them. Many of the sites listed in the post above allow you to be exclusive or non-exclusive, and generally try to entice you into exclusivity with slightly higher payouts, etc. In my experience none of the exclusive rates will earn as much as having the images on multiple sites--but then again you will save some time only having to upload to one site. I recommend starting off by uploading as a non-exclusive contributor to multiple sites and seeing how your images do on each site before making that decision. Then, if you want to, you can remove your libraries on the other sites and go exclusive. Otherwise, you will have built a library on multiple sites and have multiple streams of income.
The giants of the stock photo business--Getty Images and Corbis--are being challenged by a flock of tiny "microstock" agencies. And it's become a game that almost anyone can play, reports Business 2.0 Magazine.
hi people. i am an editor from brazil. i have my own image bank on www.mundoimagem.com.br . recently i made some tests with buying pictures from shutterstock, because i need the pictures to make an book about the amazon forrest. there is a big problem. only one in ten pictures can be used. all the others have quality problems. people make pictures with a cheap 4 megapixel camera and than transform them to 15 megapixel with photoshop. but they cant be used for books and magazines. greatings from brazil
Shutterstock now pays $0.30 for regular downloads (see below for details):
Quote:
Dear Shutterstock Submitter,
Looking back on the first quarter of 2007, we are happy to confirm that demand remains strong for all of our products. As a result, payouts to you, our submitters, are increasing each month, proving again that Shutterstock has become the go-to resource for high quality royalty-free imagery. We thank you for helping us develop one of the strongest image libraries in the business.
On our end, we have made tremendous investments in product development, marketing, and operations to ensure that growth is swift and smooth. We now have a full line of products and licenses, including custom multi-seat licenses for larger companies. We have a team of 25 full-time employees and an aggressive marketing campaign to get the word out. And we have spent considerable funds to ensure that we have the servers and bandwidth necessary to streamline the photo submission process and deliver the goods to our customers.
Of course, you, our submitters, are a critical part of the equation, so we are delighted to announce an increase in your payout rate. It works like this:
* If you have earned $500 in sales from Shutterstock, we will increase your payment per Standard License download to 30¢ per download. This is a raise of 5¢ (20%) per download and will go into effect May 1st, 2007.
* If you have not yet reached this point, the current payout of 25¢ per download will remain in force. At midnight on the day on which your earnings hit $500, you will automatically be upgraded in our system to the higher rate, and that rate will apply going forward.
Of course, the fastest way to qualify for the higher rate is to submit even more high-quality images. Our subscribers can't wait to see them...
It is our pleasure to offer this increase--it's our way of thanking you again for your support, loyalty and, above all, your fantastic images. Please keep them coming!
Just wondering why you aren't submitting to more sites.
i am getting regular sales from Fotolia, Luckyoliver, Stockxpert and 123RF. The last 3 are very easy to upload to. I wont put referal links onto your blog but feel free to check out my blog at:
I've just added a short post about Microstock's Long Tail...a discovery I made after being quite lazy for a year about uploading anything to these sites.
Shutterstock has been the biggest moneymaker and as I begin to upload images again, I find myself most interested in uploading there for a number of reasons:
* They allow FTP uploads which read the EXIF data from the image file so uploading is relatively painless.
* They have the most formats and license options (Photos and Illustrations, Royalty Free and Editorial, Footage)
That said, I will probably keep uploading at iStockphoto and Dreamstime for the time being since they have also done quite well for me.
Shutterstock is a big seller for me too. Mostly because they are more forgiveness than iStockPhoto, I guess. However, iStockPhoto sells also very well if you calculate $$/#images ratio.
and plan to add some more in the future. Why not, they all generate me cash! The formula is quite simple: for the same image, more agencies = more money.
Since I am too lazy to do all the uploading/statisitcs/keywording job for each agency I am working with, I developed ProStockMaster software, which do all the work for me: http://www.prostockmaster.com
There is a free version limited to 5 uploads daily, so you can install and work with the software as long as 5 uploads a day are fine for you.
ProStockMaster can upload a complete image folder to 8 stock agencies just in few button clicks, it features automated keywords generation (IPTC), EXIF data reading and more.
This summer ProStockMaster, supported by thousands of submitting photographers, celebrates its first year on the Internet. You can download it for free and see how ProStockMaster streamlines your stock photography workflow.
I know its another to have to upload to and more images to categorize but its not doing bad for me. http://pdtnc.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/stock-image-spreadsheet-averages-and-earnings/
I finally got my blog updates :)
This is very beneficial info on how much you can realistically make in microstock business. If anyone is interested, ShutterPoint.com is currently offering a free "Guide to Marketable Photography" in pdf format, which comprehensively explains how to achieve marketable images and showcases hundreds of top-selling images.
Microstock is good, but sometimes an image can sell for more than $1. At http://www.zymmetrical.com, we have launch the first midstcock digital visual platform where you can upload photos, fonts, vectors, graphics and video and choose at what price you want to sell them.
we have been around for just a year and already we are seeing great results. We would be honored to have you as a member.
How do you pull the earnings onto your page? I tried to setup a portfolio page for some kids who modelled for me diplaying their pics and the respective earnings but I can't figure out how to do it.
Would be graetful for any hints.
If you mean this page -- I just use the stats pages from each site and manually update this page once every month or two. Which is a good reminder that it's about time for an update.
I'd like to suggest software for those photographers, illustrators and designers, who work with microstock agencies. It really makes life easier and has a lot of exciting features.
Each site, Alamy, dreamstime, fotolia, etc want pics to be uploaded to different sizes. It seems to take me forever: changing sizes, doing titles,
keywords, etc. If I want the same picture to go to 5 sites, I have to make 5 copies of the original and change the sizes of each copy because each site wants a different site.
What is the simplest way?
I have heard good things about Alamy but last I checked their submission process was a pain so I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Most microstock sites will allow you to upload at the highest resolution you have, in JPG format, so you shouldn't need to resize for them. (I think Alamy is the one that makes you save it as a TIFF for some reason, and submit your first batch on a CD by mail).
Hi,
ther is a new stock agency in englisch online. PantherMedia is Midstock, not Micro. So prices are higher. Thats better for photographers. Furthermore the integrated community is quite interessting. And its free of charge... If you register now you might have quite good salles, as the stock is mainly german at the moment!
I have been with Alamy for a couple of years and yes I have had good results. At one point I was making four or five sales a month. That doesn't sound much but then this isn't microstock its full price. It has dropped off since they doubled their library and introduced the Alamy Rank search engine but I still use them. Their process for keywording etc is a bit of a pain but they are working on it.
By the way, I didn't start getting sales with them until I had a few hundred images on there.
