Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Reverse image search engines - your new best friend!  (Read 29712 times)
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1942



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2011, 08:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It can be sobering to search on a portrait of yourself.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
TOlson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2011, 10:40:57 AM »
ReplyReply

There are 39,740 registered members on Luminous Landscape including those making a living in a variety of genre such as fashion, architecture, wedding, sport, photo journalism, fine art, product, social, editorial...

It would be a stretch to believe that a single one of these members is "making a living at micro-stock"

Or perhaps you would care to point me to one?

I think to try and say that no-one can make a living at microstock is like sticking your head in the sand.  There are quite a few people who are doing just that.  In the 2010 microstock survey of 600+ users, 129 people were making over 50% of their income from microstock.  600 is a small % of the total population, but I think it is safe to say there is probably at least close to 1000 people earning a decent income from microstock.

Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2011, 10:49:14 AM »
ReplyReply

of 600+ users, 129 people were making over 50% of their income from microstock.  

Percentages are meaningless. How much are they actually making, for how many hours per year?
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
TOlson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2011, 10:54:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Percentages are meaningless. How much are they actually making, for how many hours per year?

I was just giving one stat.  Did you look at the survey results?
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2011, 11:11:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I think to try and say that no-one can make a living at microstock is like sticking your head in the sand.  There are quite a few people who are doing just that.  In the 2010 microstock survey of 600+ users, 129 people were making over 50% of their income from microstock.  600 is a small % of the total population, but I think it is safe to say there is probably at least close to 1000 people earning a decent income from microstock.



Hmm, where did I say that "no-one can make a living at micro-stock"? I know of one or two photographers who claim to do just that. The point is every time there's a discusion such as this the same one or two examples are quoted time and again. Where are all the others?

Again, you want figures, there are 39,000+ members in this particular photographic community, many of whom are represented on the micro-stock sites. Point me towards those here who are "earning their living at micro-stock".
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 11:41:56 AM by KLaban » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2011, 11:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

BTW, what happened to the proposed real name policy?

Why the hell am I having this discussion with PorridgeFactory?

LOL!
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2011, 01:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW, what happened to the proposed real name policy?

Why the hell am I having this discussion with PorridgeFactory?

LOL!

You object to the Factory family naming their child Porridge?  Grin
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2011, 01:50:13 PM »
ReplyReply

You object to the Factory family naming their child Porridge?  Grin

 Grin
Logged

TOlson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #48 on: July 21, 2011, 03:16:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, where did I say that "no-one can make a living at micro-stock"? I know of one or two photographers who claim to do just that. The point is every time there's a discusion such as this the same one or two examples are quoted time and again. Where are all the others?

Again, you want figures, there are 39,000+ members in this particular photographic community, many of whom are represented on the micro-stock sites. Point me towards those here who are "earning their living at micro-stock".

Sorry I didn't realize I was supposed to use my real name.  I guess I should have read the instructions better.

You had said
There are 39,740 registered members on Luminous Landscape including those making a living in a variety of genre such as fashion, architecture, wedding, sport, photo journalism, fine art, product, social, editorial...

It would be a stretch to believe that a single one of these members is "making a living at micro-stock"


I took the last sentence to mean that you didn't think anyone was earning a living at micro.  I wrongfully expanded your supposition about 39,000+ photographers to include all photographers.

Regardless, I can hardly believe I am the first photographer to sign up on this forum who does earn the majority of their income from microstock.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #49 on: July 21, 2011, 04:14:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Regardless, I can hardly believe I am the first photographer to sign up on this forum who does earn the majority of their income from microstock.

Virtually every photographer I've known has earned a proportion of their income for a proportion of their career from stock, but it would certainly be interesting to learn if there were any here earning all of their income from micro-stock.

As things stand you don't have to use real names, it's just that some here prefer knowing and better still like to see validation in the form of work.

BTW, TOlson, I believe you are misguided, but whatever, welcome.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 04:18:07 PM by KLaban » Logged

TOlson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2011, 04:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply


BTW, TOlson, I believe you are misguided, but whatever, welcome.

misguided?
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #51 on: July 22, 2011, 02:42:26 AM »
ReplyReply

misguided?

Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the royalty free business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided

Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the micro-stock business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided.

Those who believe that there are anything like thousands earning their living from micro-stock are misguided.

Take your pick.

« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 04:16:52 AM by KLaban » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #52 on: July 22, 2011, 02:59:39 AM »
ReplyReply

You object to the Factory family naming their child Porridge?  Grin



No, I don't suppose he does, but it would be different if your name was Richard and your parents Mr & Mrs Head. Then you'd object.

Rob C
Logged

amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2011, 10:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Ugh, I just did a test-search and it found my image on hundreds of blogs: Naturally not even one of the many sites I looked at credited me as the photographer. Fortunately I found no commercial uses, but I'm almost scared of searching on any of my other images.



Logged
luceluceluce
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2011, 11:13:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the royalty free business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided

Those who believe that photographers and photography are better served by the micro-stock business model rather than the rights managed business model are misguided.

Those who believe that there are anything like thousands earning their living from micro-stock are misguided.

Take your pick.


Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want.  Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677



WWW
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2011, 03:29:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want.  Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D

That'll be one for anonymous, misguided and couldn't give a shit.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 04:01:24 AM by KLaban » Logged

Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2011, 06:10:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want.  Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D



So convincing given that this is your first post on LL. Are you sure you don't work for iStock? 
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2011, 07:50:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Misguided and loving it. Having a great time on microstock. Gives me enough money to live on, and more importantly, gives me the freedom to be whereever I want.  Such a criminal industry... must be stopped! : D



This post should be of interest to you http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55677.0 - post 191 sums up my feelings about RM v istock for commercial use.


From face to face conversations with istock contributors, often a blank look comes over their face when discussing the 'true' costs involved in supplying images - camera equipment costs, maintenance and repairs, computer equipment, insurance, travel and subsistence costs, time spent transferring images from the camera to the computer, RAW processing, image specific captions and important key-wording and finally but not least, the time taken to upload images. Having travelled the world and run a library, full time since 1993, all of these costs and my time (stuck at a computer, processing images, is not my idea of free time) have to be taken into account - when I run my car for business use, the full running cost includes depreciation, not just the petrol.

Only the other day I spoke to someone who informed me her partner has made 30 sales (from the same image) at istock (Getty) over the past year, a photograph of some wooden planks. The net profit was a pitiful 10. There again I note in past years that some excited istock users haven't been able to resist letting the world know they have earned enough over a year to purchase a new Canon 5D!

It is tough to sell a RM image at a slightly higher price against top competition, it's easier to sell an image that only costs peanuts. I hope for the sake of istock users and the photo industry, prices rise to reflect the true costs involved in taking images and to realise their potential commercial worth.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 02:16:07 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2011, 02:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

From face to face conversations with istock contributors, often a blank look comes over their face when discussing the 'true' costs involved in supplying images - camera equipment costs, maintenance and repairs, computer equipment, insurance, travel and subsistence costs, time spent transferring images from the camera to the computer, RAW processing, specific captions and important key-wording and finally time taken to upload images. Having travelled the world and run a library full time since 1993 all of these cost have to be taken into account - when I run my car for business use the full running costs include depreciation, not just the petrol.

The reason for the blank stare is that they're not pros, so those concerns are trivial to them. They would incur most of those costs anyway on their travels and upgrading their hobby equipment. Getting paid (a pittance) for stock is just a way for them to recoop some of the cost of their hobby.

I believe the only way for pros to survive is to not compete with hobbyists. This means leaving stock, for some it means leaving photography altogether.
Logged

N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 300


WWW
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2011, 05:03:05 PM »
ReplyReply

The reason for the blank stare is that they're not pros, so those concerns are trivial to them. They would incur most of those costs anyway on their travels and upgrading their hobby equipment. Getting paid (a pittance) for stock is just a way for them to recoop some of the cost of their hobby.



True for the hobbyists. However there is a band of proficient semi-professional photographers' who take istock seriously, some equip themselves to the hilt on the never, never (I know some) and desire to supplement their day jobs.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 05:21:24 PM by Nick Walker » Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad