Love to hear your stock photo results. Let me know in the comments Follow me: Instagram: instagram.com/randomhartz/ Twitter: twitter.com/RandomHartz Facebook: facebook.com/Randomhartz
I started to upload photos to stock agences about 2 years ago and I made $1500 so far) The truth is that editorial photos sell much better(protests, signs, covid-19 related staff, government buildings). Also try to upload photos to Alamy, downloads are very rare but for a very good price, I sold only 6 photos there but each of them was $125
Thank you for sharing ! How large is your portfolio? I just finished evaluating my year end results and realized I had been missing out with by not emphasizing editorial images like you said. I thinks mostly because i didn't understand that they can sell. That is great to hear about Alamy, I still have not had any luck with alamy but I still contribute. How do you license your images on ALamy? RF or RM? Cheers
@@RandomHartz All my images are RF. I have around 1000 photos on 10 different platforms, but only 4 of them are working for me: Pond5, Shutterstock, Getty Images and Alamy. Adobe Stock is great but I can upload only commercial photos which is not really good because 90% of my content is editorial. I’m not a professional photographer, have an entry-level camera and zero experience, so with your skills and experience you can easily make $1000 per month, it’s just takes some time. Good luck) Remember that you can literally sell everything(from road signs to overfilled garbage can in your apartment, newspapers usually buy something like that).
@@margaritayoung That's interesting as I have had almost zero luck with Pond5. Shutterstock, Adobe, Twenty20 and EyEm (partner program via Getty) were my best agencies last year. The rest of mine have been duds as well. Ah thanks for the kind words AND encouragement!
@@RandomHartz I just joined Shutterstock, and upload my first video, I have zero experiences in this field, but I love photography I love nature, can you give me any idea which topics we should choose, one thing more my images are not uploading they says your image is too short, so I changed the size in Photoshop as well, but still facing same problem, I took those pictures from my Android right now I don't have commercial camera for professional photography,, I am facing this problem again n again, can you guide me,, thanks a bunch in advance, blessings from Pakistan🇵🇰.
@@nadiakanwal5783 I would start with images and videos of what is unique to you like from your work or hobbies and your part of the world. If you are just starting out then be sure to also photograph what you like. Learn about photography and as you develop your skills you can then move onto what might earn more money. As for your images being rejected due to what i understand as too small of files? you may need to verify that you are exporting your images at a high enough MP size. 4 MP minimum for Shutterstock. example: 2000 x 2400 pixels = 4.8 Megapixels (MP). A file of this size is acceptable. 1200 x 3000 pixels = 3.6 Megapixels (MP) is too small. I hope that helps and good luck!
You're right, key wording and description writing is a pain. I'm starting to upload a few images at a time so I don't have to spend two full days writing this stuff. I'm looking to start print & stock photo sales on my own website.
Sure thing, and in small batches of similar images. This way you can reuse the keywords and have a simular description. I will use the same or similar description &keywords this way. Only add or change what is necessary from one image to another in the batch. Helps me on workflow anyway.
Shutterstock rejected an editorial photo for not having a model release, but according to their rules they won't accept a release with editorial images. They rejected one for "subject not sharp", but the photo was shot on a tripod, manually focused on the rear screen under magnification, mirror locked up, and the shutter released with an electric release. The subject was razor sharp. After about a dozen of these SNAFUs I rejected Shutterstock.
Yeah SS has reject quite a few of my images for some silly reasons. Sometimes I upload it again a week or two later and the images get accepted. And if not, I just move on. I have a lot of my back catalog of images i am uploading so maybe I will circle back in a few months if rejected. I understand if you dont want to upload there, but they are also one of the biggest earners for most stock photogs, so you may be leaving some earnings on the table. To each their own. Thanks for sharing and good luck!
@@RandomHartz I know they're big, but I have a lot of other things to contend with, and i don't want to waste 3x 0r 4x the time to upload an image or images
You can add directly your keywords, title and description in the meta data of your file, it save time. I do it in photoshop but apparently in lightroom it's possible to…
Yes indeed, that is a great suggestion. You can also use Adobe Bridge (although i find Bridge a bit more cumbersome). I will add the most basic keywords in Lightroom but I am finding it easier to use another stock submitter program. The program streamlines finding and applying additional keywords as it has a built in keyword search tool. Keywording and descriptions are my least favorite part of it all!
@@ReformationsGlassArt I have been mostly using microstockplus. It is the cloud version of thier desktop microstock program. There is also stock submitter, x-pics and photerloo. I am probably forgetting a few. I try to add basic keywords in Lightroom and then upload to microstockplus where I use the keyword tool to find more specific/relevant ones and copy and paste them to multiple similar images from the same shoot. Then add or edit the keywords for each image if need be. I am also trying out wirestock but the jury is still out in that one for me. I have to say some of the stock agencies like Shutterstock have pretty good keyword tools that allow you to copy the selection which you can then paste into another program. Keywording and descriptions are my lest favorite thing. Lol. I hope that helps!
A few months ago, I started on the stock journey as well, not sure of the direction I'll head, but it has been a huge learning curve. On one site I have about 300 images, I currently submit to 4 sites, but I am finding that far too confusing and not the best use of my time and effort.
I understand completely. I have assets on 12 sites and 80% barely ever sell. My best sites have been Adobe, Shutterstock, wirestock (a mix of several sites, but also has it own issues) with pond5 and videohive for video (occasional sales). I would just focus on the main ones and revisit the smaller sites at a later time. I hardly ever make more than $1 a month with sites like deposit photos and 123rf. I have over 1000 assets on both of those sites. Find the most efficient workflow as it will be a while before your earning beer money.
Most Shutterstock (Ss) flags are false. They flagged one or my editorial images for not having a model release, but Ss won't accept a release with editorial submissions. The other images from that set were accepted. Another was flagged for "subject not sharp". The image was shot on a tripod, rear screen manually focused at high magnification, mirror locked up, and a electronic release was used. The image is razor sharp. After a number of these issues I decided I didn't have time for Ss's nonsense and quit submitting.
Had same nonsense with SS and lost my patience there. Could not for the life of me see why a perfectly good image was rejected. Also had several editorial images flagged for not having "model release" but it was an editorial image of a demonstration! Think SS needs to contract a new quality control farm.
I never had a Shutterstock photo accepted....I'm not a bad photographer, but they put the bar so high that is almost impossible to fit their expectations. It doesn't pay the try..
That's a bummer. I understand, your time has value and it absolutely plays a factor. My approval rate isn't the best either. I get a lot of rejections for "noise" or framing. Maybe 60 - 70% approval. Sometimes you have to just upload the image again it will miraculously get approved. What kind of reasons do they give you?
@@RandomHartz Man, from contrast to "composition'', noise, artefacts, even "rgb lens correction''...those guys are a little bit too picky or maybe we're all awful photographers!😁
@@RandomHartz Fun fact. There often is a glitch. Almost every other day. I know that for sure, as have spent 2021 editing my photos and uploading them to shutterstock. Sometimes all photos of 20-30 in a batch will be approved or the opposite. No matter what the quality is. Opening the same photos in lightroom and changing the slightest value (contrast or highlights, just anything), so the AI don't flag it as "previously submitted" and trying to upload it - all the photos will be approved another day FOR SURE. Trying the same photos another day will work. But for that all descriptions and keywords should be added to meta data to not waste a lot of time and getting frustrated by writing all again. I have had photos that i for sure want to get in, so after every rejection i open it in lightroom change the framing to the left or right - at some point it will work. Shutterstock wants the focus exactly in the center - i edit my photos keeping that in mind. Also in Lightroom "Noise reduction" - "Luminance" and "detail" + "Lens correction" - "remove chromatic abberations" is the key to get approval on shutterstock. in my experience to get photos in shutterstock is not difficult as you just try again another day. Their system sometimes is just rejecting everything or sometimes approving everything. And sometimes it actually works as it should - smth approved, smth rejected for fair reasons. All you have to do is to try and then try again, and then repeat that.
@@momentsinlatviasnature Great points! When I submit an image a second time I generally dont change anything and they sometimes go through. Honestly though I have stopped re submitting and move on cause i dont want to spend the time. It is rather annoying Shutterstock wants images perfectly framed with center focus, kind of kills the creativity IMO. Thanks for the comment.
Yes, shutterstock sure is a problem. I think they are shooting into their own foot. My acceptance rate with Shutterstock: less than 40%. With Alamy 90+%, with Adobe around 85%. For the same pictures. And they get sold, especially on Adobe.
Hi Random , your videos are great and very helpful. I have a travel web blog where I upload various photos that I make by myself, mainly landmarks. Can I use these photos for stock photography too or it is not allowed?
Thanks! Is the travel website yours? If so and you created the images yourself then you can license them to anyone you want. In that case you would own the copyright, and can submit the images to stock agencies. Certain landmarks, or if there are people in the images, would need to be uploaded as "editorial" but like a cityscape showing the whole city would be considered commercial.
Saya memiliki lebih banyak video microstock yang akan datang. Terima kasih telah menonton. I have more videos about micostock coming. Thank you for watching.
Sorry I didn't see your 2nd question. I believe you can make your own version (modified in some way) of a logo like twitter. But not the same logo as it is both copyrighted and likely trademarked by those companies. A quick search of twitter icon on adobe stock shows over 16,000 assets. You might want to look for something with lower competition or niche it down further like a LGBTQ colored version or holiday themed?
Nenad, Sure it doesn't sound like much now, but it is completely passive once you upload the images. There is a bit of a learning curve as well and once that is sorted out it becomes something you can so in your spare time or whenever you like. Stock Photography for me is a hobby and a way to make beer money from my travel photography. I have a lot of images that I want to finish editing so it is also a way for me to complete something, get closure on those projects too. Maybe in a few years it could be more than that, enough to buy new camera equipment. There are a number of youtube stock photographers that make several hundred dollars a month from their portfolios after several years of slowly adding images like @J. Whyte ua-cam.com/video/wufrPEJpIkw/v-deo.html I would not recommend it as a job unless you live in a really low income area where even a $174 goes a lot further than in the U.S. or your country of Serbia. There is obviously a minimum level of equipment and software you need to have to create image that sell but you can still make good images with older or less expensive photography equipment and computers. Thanks for watching
@@RandomHartz This means that stock agencies are exploiting people from poor countries for whom $ 174 is money that can provide them with a minimum of subsistence. That seems to be the point of the whole story with stock agencies, to invest a lot of effort and time so that the agency would pay you 10 cents per photo for your work and the agency would take 50 or 100 times more money for your work.
@@nenadmojsic1844 Yeah no doubt the agencies payout far less in commissions than what seems fair. I wouldn't say that they are specifically exploiting people from poor countries. I am not from a poor country and I am using the agencies. All business "exploit" either their customers of employees in order to profit so I think that is a bogus argument. The time you choose to invest is up to you, the agencies are not forcing anyone to upload images or videos. As a stock creator you are a business and you alone need to determine if you can make it work for you. If you cannot streamline your workflow then it may not be worth your time, but that depends on your needs. The real issue that I see is that people buying images dont want to pay very much for them since they can get them for free on sites like unsplash, freepik, etc. So most of this is economics. If people would stop giving away high quality images for free then there would still be a higher value associated with high quality images. Yes the agencies take far greater commissions and that is not good for us. Again it is a large part supply and demand and of course some greed. If prices drop and volume does to increase then they lose money and so do we. I am not defending the agencies but trying to offer a global perspective on the underlying issue at hand. That is partly why we have the subscription models, agencies want a guarantee of revenue each month and to do so they create unfair payouts of .10 to us. That said, not every agencies pays such low commissions and not all downloads are at such a low rate. I have had images sell for $17 or more too. Photos are not where the money is in stock photography, video pays more per download. So that is why I am editing more of my video files now than just the images. I just have a lot of images that I need to finish. Thanks for your comment, I know it can be frustrating and it is not worth it for everyone.
Love to hear your stock photo results. Let me know in the comments
Follow me:
Instagram: instagram.com/randomhartz/
Twitter: twitter.com/RandomHartz
Facebook: facebook.com/Randomhartz
Thanks for sharing. Yes, focus rejection its a pain. Especially when everything is fine with the focus.
I started to upload photos to stock agences about 2 years ago and I made $1500 so far) The truth is that editorial photos sell much better(protests, signs, covid-19 related staff, government buildings). Also try to upload photos to Alamy, downloads are very rare but for a very good price, I sold only 6 photos there but each of them was $125
Thank you for sharing ! How large is your portfolio?
I just finished evaluating my year end results and realized I had been missing out with by not emphasizing editorial images like you said. I thinks mostly because i didn't understand that they can sell.
That is great to hear about Alamy, I still have not had any luck with alamy but I still contribute.
How do you license your images on ALamy? RF or RM?
Cheers
@@RandomHartz All my images are RF. I have around 1000 photos on 10 different platforms, but only 4 of them are working for me: Pond5, Shutterstock, Getty Images and Alamy. Adobe Stock is great but I can upload only commercial photos which is not really good because 90% of my content is editorial. I’m not a professional photographer, have an entry-level camera and zero experience, so with your skills and experience you can easily make $1000 per month, it’s just takes some time. Good luck) Remember that you can literally sell everything(from road signs to overfilled garbage can in your apartment, newspapers usually buy something like that).
@@margaritayoung That's interesting as I have had almost zero luck with Pond5. Shutterstock, Adobe, Twenty20 and EyEm (partner program via Getty) were my best agencies last year. The rest of mine have been duds as well.
Ah thanks for the kind words AND encouragement!
@@RandomHartz I just joined Shutterstock, and upload my first video, I have zero experiences in this field, but I love photography I love nature, can you give me any idea which topics we should choose, one thing more my images are not uploading they says your image is too short, so I changed the size in Photoshop as well, but still facing same problem, I took those pictures from my Android right now I don't have commercial camera for professional photography,, I am facing this problem again n again, can you guide me,, thanks a bunch in advance, blessings from Pakistan🇵🇰.
@@nadiakanwal5783 I would start with images and videos of what is unique to you like from your work or hobbies and your part of the world.
If you are just starting out then be sure to also photograph what you like. Learn about photography and as you develop your skills you can then move onto what might earn more money.
As for your images being rejected due to what i understand as too small of files? you may need to verify that you are exporting your images at a high enough MP size. 4 MP minimum for Shutterstock. example:
2000 x 2400 pixels = 4.8 Megapixels (MP). A file of this size is acceptable.
1200 x 3000 pixels = 3.6 Megapixels (MP) is too small.
I hope that helps and good luck!
You're right, key wording and description writing is a pain. I'm starting to upload a few images at a time so I don't have to spend two full days writing this stuff. I'm looking to start print & stock photo sales on my own website.
Sure thing, and in small batches of similar images. This way you can reuse the keywords and have a simular description. I will use the same or similar description &keywords this way. Only add or change what is necessary from one image to another in the batch. Helps me on workflow anyway.
So absolutely great and intriguing :) I love it! :)
Shutterstock rejected an editorial photo for not having a model release, but according to their rules they won't accept a release with editorial images. They rejected one for "subject not sharp", but the photo was shot on a tripod, manually focused on the rear screen under magnification, mirror locked up, and the shutter released with an electric release. The subject was razor sharp. After about a dozen of these SNAFUs I rejected Shutterstock.
Yeah SS has reject quite a few of my images for some silly reasons. Sometimes I upload it again a week or two later and the images get accepted. And if not, I just move on. I have a lot of my back catalog of images i am uploading so maybe I will circle back in a few months if rejected.
I understand if you dont want to upload there, but they are also one of the biggest earners for most stock photogs, so you may be leaving some earnings on the table. To each their own. Thanks for sharing and good luck!
@@RandomHartz I know they're big, but I have a lot of other things to contend with, and i don't want to waste 3x 0r 4x the time to upload an image or images
@@romiemiller7876 I understand, you have to do what works best for your workflow!
@@RandomHartz Yep. Everybody has to find a system they resonate with.
You can add directly your keywords, title and description in the meta data of your file, it save time. I do it in photoshop but apparently in lightroom it's possible to…
Yes indeed, that is a great suggestion. You can also use Adobe Bridge (although i find Bridge a bit more cumbersome). I will add the most basic keywords in Lightroom but I am finding it easier to use another stock submitter program. The program streamlines finding and applying additional keywords as it has a built in keyword search tool.
Keywording and descriptions are my least favorite part of it all!
@@RandomHartz What stock submitter progs do you use - what other ones are you aware of please ?
@@ReformationsGlassArt I have been mostly using microstockplus. It is the cloud version of thier desktop microstock program. There is also stock submitter, x-pics and photerloo. I am probably forgetting a few.
I try to add basic keywords in Lightroom and then upload to microstockplus where I use the keyword tool to find more specific/relevant ones and copy and paste them to multiple similar images from the same shoot. Then add or edit the keywords for each image if need be.
I am also trying out wirestock but the jury is still out in that one for me.
I have to say some of the stock agencies like Shutterstock have pretty good keyword tools that allow you to copy the selection which you can then paste into another program.
Keywording and descriptions are my lest favorite thing. Lol.
I hope that helps!
@@RandomHartz thank you for the informative reply
@@ReformationsGlassArt 👍🏼
A few months ago, I started on the stock journey as well, not sure of the direction I'll head, but it has been a huge learning curve. On one site I have about 300 images, I currently submit to 4 sites, but I am finding that far too confusing and not the best use of my time and effort.
I understand completely. I have assets on 12 sites and 80% barely ever sell. My best sites have been Adobe, Shutterstock, wirestock (a mix of several sites, but also has it own issues) with pond5 and videohive for video (occasional sales).
I would just focus on the main ones and revisit the smaller sites at a later time. I hardly ever make more than $1 a month with sites like deposit photos and 123rf. I have over 1000 assets on both of those sites.
Find the most efficient workflow as it will be a while before your earning beer money.
@@RandomHartz I have made enough for 3 beers.
Most Shutterstock (Ss) flags are false. They flagged one or my editorial images for not having a model release, but Ss won't accept a release with editorial submissions. The other images from that set were accepted. Another was flagged for "subject not sharp". The image was shot on a tripod, rear screen manually focused at high magnification, mirror locked up, and a electronic release was used. The image is razor sharp. After a number of these issues I decided I didn't have time for Ss's nonsense and quit submitting.
Had same nonsense with SS and lost my patience there. Could not for the life of me see why a perfectly good image was rejected. Also had several editorial images flagged for not having "model release" but it was an editorial image of a demonstration! Think SS needs to contract a new quality control farm.
I never had a Shutterstock photo accepted....I'm not a bad photographer, but they put the bar so high that is almost impossible to fit their expectations. It doesn't pay the try..
That's a bummer. I understand, your time has value and it absolutely plays a factor.
My approval rate isn't the best either. I get a lot of rejections for "noise" or framing. Maybe 60 - 70% approval. Sometimes you have to just upload the image again it will miraculously get approved.
What kind of reasons do they give you?
@@RandomHartz Man, from contrast to "composition'', noise, artefacts, even "rgb lens correction''...those guys are a little bit too picky or maybe we're all awful photographers!😁
@@RandomHartz Fun fact. There often is a glitch. Almost every other day. I know that for sure, as have spent 2021 editing my photos and uploading them to shutterstock. Sometimes all photos of 20-30 in a batch will be approved or the opposite. No matter what the quality is. Opening the same photos in lightroom and changing the slightest value (contrast or highlights, just anything), so the AI don't flag it as "previously submitted" and trying to upload it - all the photos will be approved another day FOR SURE. Trying the same photos another day will work. But for that all descriptions and keywords should be added to meta data to not waste a lot of time and getting frustrated by writing all again. I have had photos that i for sure want to get in, so after every rejection i open it in lightroom change the framing to the left or right - at some point it will work. Shutterstock wants the focus exactly in the center - i edit my photos keeping that in mind. Also in Lightroom "Noise reduction" - "Luminance" and "detail" + "Lens correction" - "remove chromatic abberations" is the key to get approval on shutterstock. in my experience to get photos in shutterstock is not difficult as you just try again another day. Their system sometimes is just rejecting everything or sometimes approving everything. And sometimes it actually works as it should - smth approved, smth rejected for fair reasons. All you have to do is to try and then try again, and then repeat that.
@@momentsinlatviasnature Great points! When I submit an image a second time I generally dont change anything and they sometimes go through. Honestly though I have stopped re submitting and move on cause i dont want to spend the time.
It is rather annoying Shutterstock wants images perfectly framed with center focus, kind of kills the creativity IMO.
Thanks for the comment.
Same, I submitted 30 photos but only got 1 accepted, lol
Yes, shutterstock sure is a problem. I think they are shooting into their own foot. My acceptance rate with Shutterstock: less than 40%. With Alamy 90+%, with Adobe around 85%. For the same pictures. And they get sold, especially on Adobe.
That's interesting, I have simular acceptance rates with alamy and adobe too.
So wait....how much total did you make after a year?
Not very much. But I more than quadrupled that my second full year 😃
Hi Random , your videos are great and very helpful. I have a travel web blog where I upload various photos that I make by myself, mainly landmarks. Can I use these photos for stock photography too or it is not allowed?
Thanks! Is the travel website yours? If so and you created the images yourself then you can license them to anyone you want. In that case you would own the copyright, and can submit the images to stock agencies.
Certain landmarks, or if there are people in the images, would need to be uploaded as "editorial" but like a cityscape showing the whole city would be considered commercial.
@@RandomHartz thank you Random !
Perbanyak video tentang mikrostock pak 👍👍
Saya memiliki lebih banyak video microstock yang akan datang. Terima kasih telah menonton.
I have more videos about micostock coming. Thank you for watching.
Question if I design the google logo do I have made a property releases
I'm not sure what you are asking
@@RandomHartz if I take the image of Twitter logo and make vector file and upload it to Adobe stock do I make property releases
Sorry I didn't see your 2nd question. I believe you can make your own version (modified in some way) of a logo like twitter. But not the same logo as it is both copyrighted and likely trademarked by those companies.
A quick search of twitter icon on adobe stock shows over 16,000 assets. You might want to look for something with lower competition or niche it down further like a LGBTQ colored version or holiday themed?
coool!
174 $ per year ? Is it worth to work for that money ?
Nenad, Sure it doesn't sound like much now, but it is completely passive once you upload the images. There is a bit of a learning curve as well and once that is sorted out it becomes something you can so in your spare time or whenever you like.
Stock Photography for me is a hobby and a way to make beer money from my travel photography. I have a lot of images that I want to finish editing so it is also a way for me to complete something, get closure on those projects too. Maybe in a few years it could be more than that, enough to buy new camera equipment.
There are a number of youtube stock photographers that make several hundred dollars a month from their portfolios after several years of slowly adding images like @J. Whyte ua-cam.com/video/wufrPEJpIkw/v-deo.html
I would not recommend it as a job unless you live in a really low income area where even a $174 goes a lot further than in the U.S. or your country of Serbia. There is obviously a minimum level of equipment and software you need to have to create image that sell but you can still make good images with older or less expensive photography equipment and computers.
Thanks for watching
@@RandomHartz This means that stock agencies are exploiting people from poor countries for whom $ 174 is money that can provide them with a minimum of subsistence. That seems to be the point of the whole story with stock agencies, to invest a lot of effort and time so that the agency would pay you 10 cents per photo for your work and the agency would take 50 or 100 times more money for your work.
@@nenadmojsic1844 Yeah no doubt the agencies payout far less in commissions than what seems fair. I wouldn't say that they are specifically exploiting people from poor countries. I am not from a poor country and I am using the agencies. All business "exploit" either their customers of employees in order to profit so I think that is a bogus argument.
The time you choose to invest is up to you, the agencies are not forcing anyone to upload images or videos. As a stock creator you are a business and you alone need to determine if you can make it work for you. If you cannot streamline your workflow then it may not be worth your time, but that depends on your needs.
The real issue that I see is that people buying images dont want to pay very much for them since they can get them for free on sites like unsplash, freepik, etc. So most of this is economics. If people would stop giving away high quality images for free then there would still be a higher value associated with high quality images.
Yes the agencies take far greater commissions and that is not good for us. Again it is a large part supply and demand and of course some greed. If prices drop and volume does to increase then they lose money and so do we. I am not defending the agencies but trying to offer a global perspective on the underlying issue at hand. That is partly why we have the subscription models, agencies want a guarantee of revenue each month and to do so they create unfair payouts of .10 to us.
That said, not every agencies pays such low commissions and not all downloads are at such a low rate. I have had images sell for $17 or more too. Photos are not where the money is in stock photography, video pays more per download. So that is why I am editing more of my video files now than just the images. I just have a lot of images that I need to finish.
Thanks for your comment, I know it can be frustrating and it is not worth it for everyone.
I'd say over 90% of my work is unedited.