I am looking for some advice about transitioning into microstock photography full time. I have an illness called fibromyalgia. Although it affects people in different ways, it has now progressed to the point that it?s impossible for me to work a traditional job. If you could imagine how your body would feel after running an iron-man triathlon without preparing, you know how I feel 24 hours a day! But I am not one to complain; there are people much worse off.

I have decent equipment and believe that I am a good photographer. I live in an amazing area with plenty of subjects to photograph and I have a lot of time to spend on promotion. But I cannot keep a regular schedule so wedding and studio photography is out of the question.

Is it feasible to make microstock photography a full time career? If so, what suggestions can you make. Any replies would be appreciated on this thread or via private message.

Thank you very much.

It might be feasible but it depends on how much money you need to live on and how many quality images you can produce that will sell as stock. Do you have photos on the sites? If you are just starting, shutterstock and istock are the sites that sell the most for me. Get on them and see how it goes.

It might be worth looking as the sites that sell for more money as well. I am now with Alamy and the Photoshelter collection.

__________________
istock-Shutterstock-Bigstock-Mostphotos-Dreamstime-Stockxpert

Short answer, yes. Some people like Ron Chapple royalty-free stock photos and illustrations at microstock prices: iofoto, a fresh new collection of stock photography have their own company and team of people that work for them. I'm sure he's doing very well financially.

Long answer, it depends on how much money you need to make and how much time you can take to make the transition from your current income to microstock. A year? Two years?

For the people who are making a living with Microstock it seems to have taken a year to several years to build a large enough portfolio that will generate enough money to live on. This is usually thousands to tens-of-thosaunds of images of true stock, not snapshots laying around on the hard drive.

On average, I'd say it takes me about 30-60 minutes per image to prepare a scene, take shots, pick the good ones, post-process them, research/keyword them, and upload them to about eight sites. Everybody does workflow differently.

To get some insight on Microstock, Lee Torrens has been doing great job of blogging his experiences at Microstock Diaries - Selling Photos Online in the Microstock Market

Hope this helps.

Paul

Thanks for the resources.

I would take the "micro" out of the word and leave it as "stock". Yes, you can. You have to get a grip on what sells and where it sells, it takes time and in the end if you work hard enough you will see that you will have pics at microsites and pics at Alamy and Photoshelter, to say a couple. There are tons of agencies out there and if you comit full time to it you can earn a living out of stock photography (not just microstock).

__________________
www.microstockinfo.org (in Spanish)
http://stockmicro.blogspot.com (in Spanish)

You could live on traditional stock photography. Microstock is mostly hype.

Ordinary wedding photographers make a living without having to be the best ones.

Ordinary microstock photographers don't make a living out of it; only a handful of them, worldwide, do.

So basically there is something wrong with microstock.

If you can manage to do a bit of everything, maybe taking still life photos for some local business as well as microstock, then you could make it.

In any case, the more you put into it, the more you get out of it, although the pay per hour will not be fair.

For the general photographer Micros have to be part of the equation, not the whole thing. You can expect high returns in the long run only if you are dedicated, talented and put up a very big portfolio of great sellers. Maybe less than 5% of all microshooters fall into this category. I think that it has to be seen as an aditional way of selling-licencing your work, no doubt about it, but you have to consider traditional sites for RM work and maybe, if you have the time, direct sales as in those sites that sell prints, or your own images in products, as seen in other threads here.

__________________
www.microstockinfo.org (in Spanish)
http://stockmicro.blogspot.com (in Spanish)

I don't think there is anything wrong with microstock. It's just a different animal that traditional stock. You can make a decent living with a smaller portfolio of excellent images in traditional stock, whereas in microstock you can sell lesser quality images but you need a hell of a lot more of them.

All in all, though, I think it is very feasible to make a living in microstock. I just do this part-time and make a decent amount at it. It pays the rent. It pays for the brand new Jeep Liberty I just bought last week. Doing it full-time, I'm sure I could pull a large enough paycheck to cover all of my monthly expenses.

The stats aren't convincing, with the average microstocker earnings in 2006 somewhere around $5,000. But that's the average, which is heavily weighed down by the larger percentage of microstock photogs and illustrators who just do this part-time. The people who make a living at it full-time represent a much smaller percentage of the industry, but they also represent the already smaller segment of the business as full-timers.

There are plenty of people earning 6-figure incomes in microstock. I know 1 illustrator who does extremely well in microstock with a portfolio of under 400 images, and he does it part-time (he also has a regular day job). Sure people like that are in the minority, but I have to imagine that there are a whole lot more people somewhere in the mid-range making a fair income in this business.

R Neil, I say go for it. Especially considering your circumstances, this is a great business for you to be in. If you're feeling really crappy one day, you just don't work, but you keep earning since your images keep selling 24 hours a day. You shoot when you can, upload when you can, and retain the flexibility to take breaks and rest when you need to.

__________________
openpathdesign.com Microstock - A Crash Course

I don't take anything e-person writes about microstock earnings seriously. I had a look and he doesn't seem to have more than 50 photos on the main sites, so how can he possibly make informed comments about microstock earnings?

__________________
istock-Shutterstock-Bigstock-Mostphotos-Dreamstime-Stockxpert

According to the PDN (Photo District News) survey,
PDN's Stock Income Survey: Earnings By Agency & Specialty
The average Microstock shooter made $4005 a year. That would be about 8000 downloads a year.

While there are some obvious flaws in a voluntary survey, made up of 1800 subscribers of a publication, it probably shows a higher interest and activity level than you would find with the average Microstock shooter. The people who took the survey, would be professionals and people making a serious effort, even if it was part time.

Average with Microstock is a nebulous measure. There are active people making over 100k a year, which means the average is skewed towards the high side. Then there are people who upload six photos and make nothing, which would drive the average of all microstock photographers, way down.

If DT, SS or IS, every released an "average" figure, that would be something to see. If it was by number of photographers, and showed the median income, it would be fantastic reading.

I don't see any way to make sense out of this, in any fair way, and come to some valid conclusion, of the potential to make a living at Microstock, other than, some people do very well and some people are spinning their wheels. It all depends.

It's the same as if someone came here and said, "what camera should I buy?" and expect some simple answer. There is none.

Myself, the question is, how good do I have to be, and how much time and effort does it take, to be "average"? :-D If it takes two years and $4000 in equipment, (that's everything, lenses, cameras, computer, software, lighting... everything) and so far I'm finding it takes at least 30-60 minutes to edit each photo, plus the time to set up and shoot. Is it worth investing in all of that, to eventually break even?

On the other hand, I already have pretty much "everything" so I'd be working to profit from what I already own.

The difference being, if someone goes out and buys all of this, to sell microstock, it's going to be an uphill battle. If one already owns equipment, it might be a potentially profit making situation.

Meanwhile, thanks to all the people here, and reading and studying, I know one thing. Diversity is the answer. I'll keep selling news photos, keep selling individual "art" photos and try to get better and add Stock to my income stream.

I'm also positive about the potential to make a living from selling Stock or Microstock. It all depends!

__________________