microstock photography

[Ardbrand]

hi, i've been a keen photographer for a few years now and i love browsing the online forums, gallerries,etc and have uploaded numerous photos for critique to help me improve as a beginner.
having recently read a book on microstock photography i decided to upload several of my photos that i regard as my best to one of the top companies to see if it was really possible to make money out of photography, but given the very low commision and the amount of rejections i've had i am starting to wonder if its a worthwhile endevour as it will end up taking up most of my valuable time by the time i've uploaded about a 100 photos a day (and assuming i get even 10 accepted,and sell 5 !) it would take a year or so to even make between £100-200! which in itself would be great towards a new camera etc but would hardly be enough to start earning a living!, so does anyone on the forum have much sucess with microstock or do you think i need to have several years more practice to improve my pics before i take this any further- the competition seems so daunting when i see some fantastic pics on these sites , any feedback would be greatly appreciated as i really enjoy doing photography with or without gain but every penny helps in these credit crunch times! ardbrand

 

[FranchiseJuan]

I am sure someone will come in with the oposit opinion here, but this is one of the reasons why I have always looked down on microstock - the return per image being not high enough.

The think about stock is that you actually end up spending more time in front of the computer, doing keywording, organising photos, and such then actually shooting.

If I am going to be spending that much effor, I want decent returns on my work. While I have not seen any of your work, I think almost any compitent photographer can make some money from stock. As long as you think about what the image is going to be used for, and process and keyword accordingly.

weather you stick with trying microstock, or try one of the more traditional agencies (eg Alamy), you should start with maybe 5 to 10 (not 100) images each month, and think carefully and clearly about what the image is going to be used for, and work on getting those images right for that month.

 

[Craikeybaby]

I've not had anything to do with microstock as I'm firmly in the camp that believes it devalues photography in general. Something like Alamy is a much better bet, you get the going rate for your images, rather than a few quid/pence. The QC is meant to be very strict, but I'm seeing that as a target for my photography to reach. They are also very open about their QC process, so if you aren't getting your images accepted you can at least know what you need to improve on to get them accepted next time, rather than having a 90% failure rate...

Damn, beaten to it!

 

[Kerioak]

I have been doing microstock for a couple of years and make a lot more than £100-£200 a year. If you work at it I think it is possibly one of the fastest ways of learning about photography - composition, sharp focus and lighting etc etc simply because if you get these wrong you don't earn. It is a numbers game, I know of quite a few who earn more from the microstock than they do from Alamy. Some sites work for some people, some for others.

If you are getting the majority of your images refused then start being much more critical about what you submit. Sometimes one site will accept an image that another refuses - they all have their own foibles about what they want.