jon_kobeck Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Curious if anyone is making decent money shooting solely stock these days ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikael_karlsson Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Yes. But, it would be a fairly objective matter. What might be decent money for you might be peanuts for me, and vice versa. Personally, stock sales account for roughly 50% of my photography income at the moment. It has risen every year by about five percent for the least five years or so. Which would seem logical since I continue to add images to my stock collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_kobeck Posted December 26, 2007 Author Share Posted December 26, 2007 yes your right about the money being subjective. I wonder what the top earners bring in annually from stock. Care to speculate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stock-Photos Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Don't bother with ANY micro-stock companies. I just signed on with: http://www.digitalrailroad.net/ last week. My archive is here: http://www.digitalrailroad.net/spo123/Default.aspx (still a work in progress) It's too soon to say for sure, but I expect my stock sales to increase dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikael_karlsson Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Top earners? In the millions of $ for sure. Their production costs are massive as well. I agree with Harrington that micro-agencies are best avoided. Unless you shoot only the kind of images they are filled to the brim with. Specialize, find a unique part of the market where you can offer something better, with more expertise, etc that anyone else. Then market to a well targeted list and you'll be surprised at the number of repeat editorial licenses you'll continue to earn money from time after time. I work with several big book publishers and over the long haul these represent a lot of income for my small business. I think the most important thing to keep in mind when entering the stock photo industry is that it isn't a fast way to earn a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doak_heyser Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 A photographer in a NYTIMES article on microstock this year claimed to make $100,000+ US a year. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/technology/circuits/05syndicate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 "A photographer in a NYTIMES article on microstock this year claimed to make $100,000" Great news ! If I could make a 1/4 of that, I would be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_kobeck Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 Wow Doak, GREAT article! According to them, lots of photographers makeing big $$ on microstock. Very interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacques_domenge Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 A studio not too far from my house brings in more than $1 Million per year. Apparently they are one of three such studios in the US. The photographer keeps a staff of something like 5 or 6 people. I think a big part of being successful in stock photography is marketing yourself. You could have the best images in the world, but if nobody knows who you are, you will not make any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Jim Pickerell used to have an annual stock revenue survey. I couldn't see it on his newly reorganized website, but I am pretty sure you could find it on the internet archive. If I remember correctly, among those surveyed, median revenue (not income) from stock was in the $50,000-$75,000 range, with top earners around $500,000. Not that those who replied to the survey were professionals specialized in stock, not microstockers or amateurs. Here's one survey that is still easily accessible: http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003592325 True, there are a few microstockers with high revenues, but they are very atypical, as shown by the pdn survey. Most earn peanuts. Last, in an interview around last year, Tom Grill stated that nowadays it was quite feasible for a good stock shooter to pull in 1 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_kobeck Posted December 29, 2007 Author Share Posted December 29, 2007 It seems that one needs 5000 plus images (GOOD images) before any decent revenues begin, in microstock at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 "It seems that one needs 5000 plus images (GOOD images) before any decent revenues begin, in microstock at least." Plus those images have to be what advertisers want. Some photographers have invested allot of money and time on this, by aquiring props, lighting, models, studio, but whether Microstock is making it easier for the little guy, I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_pallas Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 There is a lot of hype out there. Personally I dont think there is that much to be made out of it. Certainly not Microstock. I think the way to go is set up your picture library and get other photographers running around for you. Thats really the way to do it and that could be the substance of the claims made by some photographers. They may actually be library owners not just photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now