New Opportunities Thread

[stevemart]

Good info, Maurice and many thanks again. I actually have so much work that isn't on SS or AS because I was hoping to get it into the better payers like Archangel etc. My wife has, for whatever reason, been a bit daft on wanting to get into St*cksy but after the 4th rejection she now realises it's hopeless...as I told her after the first time. I just don't do their style whatever that  is!! As you will understand from this......I don't know what they want but, in any case, it's not me and never will be. I don't know whether it is suitable for anyone but I'm not going to place it here for 10 cents because I believe it has slightly more merit! Vee shall see. 🙂

[Alexandre Rotenberg]

My latest few accepted at Arcangel  

[KeremGogus]

11 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

My latest few accepted at Arcangel  

Wonderful shots Alex!  

[luca pbl]

I'm off topic, but I wish to ask you something about an old "new opportunity" at the time of the new SS earning structure start. Dreamstime raised the low from 0.35 to 0.38, certainly to attract people, disappointed by the move of SS. Now, I've never had big numbers from them, but I could do around 20 monthly sales . After June I have about a third. Has this happened to someone else or is it just a random trend?

[Linda Bestwick]

4 minutes ago, luca pbl said:

I'm off topic, but I wish to ask you something about an old "new opportunity" at the time of the new SS earning structure start. Dreamstime raised the low from 0.35 to 0.38, certainly to attract people, disappointed by the move of SS. Now, I've never had big numbers from them, but I could do around 20 monthly sales . After June I have about a third. Has this happened to someone else or is it just a random trend?

Consistently still all over the place for me. March and October where my best months, so doesn't really fit with the drop that you are seeing, but like you, downloads there are low so I don't think it's possible to read anything in it either way. 

[Linda Bestwick]

On 11/25/2020 at 2:02 PM, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

My latest few accepted at Arcangel  

Great interesting shots, nice that 'arty' work is accepted elsewhere. Most stock is so clinical, hard to get stuff like this accepted at SS. Your inspiring me to get some work together and try Arcangel too  

[oleschwander]

35 minutes ago, Linda Bestwick said:

Great interesting shots, nice that 'arty' work is accepted elsewhere.

Exactly .. 😀

[Alexandre Rotenberg]

9 hours ago, Linda Bestwick said:

Most stock is so clinical, hard to get stuff like this accepted at SS.

Accepted on here from the same scene as the first pic on left above  

[SariMe]

Hello Sari, Thank you for your application. After looking through your work, we would be extremely happy to have you as an Arcangel contributor.
Third time's a charm!😌

[Sari ONeal]

18 hours ago, SariMe said:

Hello Sari, Thank you for your application. After looking through your work, we would be extremely happy to have you as an Arcangel contributor.
Third time's a charm!😌

Good for you, Sistah!   My most sincere Congrats!

 

 

[paula french]

I've just uploaded a batch of stuff to FA - There maximum is 25 images - unless I pay to upload more - from anyones experience is it worth paying??

[Milleflore Images]

1 hour ago, paula french said:

I've just uploaded a batch of stuff to FA - There maximum is 25 images - unless I pay to upload more - from anyones experience is it worth paying??

Yes, Paula. I have. This is what happened to me:

I had an account on FAA since 2015 and uploaded some photos back in 2015 and then forgot about them. I was paying the $30 annual fee since then, and then when it came up for renewal early this year, because I hardly made any sales there, I was going to cancel my annual subscription. But I first asked a friend what he thought, and he made the suggestion that he used the new Pixels.com website link that they have as his website.  At that time, I was paying $30/month for another site, so $30/year was a no-brainer for me. I canceled the other site. 

Because I wanted to use the Pixels site to showcase the whole range of my work (which can happen whenever you apply for a new agency) I started uploading my portfolio there in March this year - which was about 4,000 photos. And to my amazement, I started making sales - lots of them. The more I uploaded, the more I sold. 

 

Last month, November, was my best month so far, making over $300 USD there. And I don't have a fine art portfolio. But I sell quite a lot of different types of products.

Paying the $30 annual fee gives you these advantages:

1. You get access to a very attractive website on their more commercial 'sister' site, Pixels.com.  

2. Pixels have a wider range of POD products for sale. Latest additions include face masks and jigsaw puzzles, which are not available on the FAA side of things.

3. The ability to upload as many files as you want.

 

I believe that the same principles apply to POD sites, as to microstock. If you only have a handful of files or don't upload much, then sales may be disappointing (but it depends of course on your portfolio). 

I have sold 6 jigsaw puzzles since they started in November. An order for 32 face masks in November. And another single order for 75 greeting cards on 29 October. Plus lots and lots of other things. But remember I have over 4,000 photos on there and upload regularly since March this year.

Since March/April this year, I make regular weekly sales now. Here's a sample from this week:

 

[Milleflore Images]

Some people have said to me that they only want to upload their fine art work to FAA, and others like me, are using their Pixels.com side to capitalise on the wider more commercial side of things. It depends on the individual. However, whatever you upload to FAA automatically flow through to Pixels, if you pay the $30 annual fee. 

We already had this discussion on a previous thread started by Steven earlier this year. I am trying to find it for you. 

 

 

[paula french]

5 minutes ago, Milleflore Images said:

Some people have said to me that they only want to upload their fine art work to FAA, and others like me, are using their Pixels.com side to capitalise on the wider more commercial side of things. It depends on the individual. However, whatever you upload to FAA automatically flow through to Pixels, if you pay the $30 annual fee. 

We already had this discussion on a previous thread started by Steven earlier this year. I am trying to find it for you. 

 

Thanks so much for the info.  As you say for $30 per year, you do get quite a lot of scope to sell.  If I did decide I'd have about 3,000 to upload

[Milleflore Images]

On 12/4/2020 at 3:18 AM, paula french said:

Thanks so much for the info.  As you say for $30 per year, you do get quite a lot of scope to sell.  If I did decide I'd have about 3,000 to upload

You have a beautiful portfolio of wildlife photos, Paula, which should do well there, especially as wall art. But you would be amazed what buyers put on things. My funniest one recently was one of my photos of Halloween candy on a shower curtain. LOL

But the only thing to remember is that you shouldn't put editorials up there. Some people do, but they may be asked to take them down.

I cant find that earlier FAA thread, but here is my Pixels site if you're interested, Paula.

Milleflore Images - Official Website (pixels.com)

[Alexandre Rotenberg]

Can't all just be good news. My latest 24-image batch has been completely rejected by Arcangel. Here it is... (I thought at least some of those legs would sprinted me to my 2020 goal)

[PomInPerth]

14 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Can't all just be good news. My latest 24-image batch has been completely rejected by Arcangel. Here it is... (I thought at least some of those legs would sprinted me to my 2020 goal)

That's been my last 3 batches, it's frustrating there is no feedback as to why!

[Sharkshock]

On 12/3/2020 at 10:25 AM, paula french said:

I've just uploaded a batch of stuff to FA - There maximum is 25 images - unless I pay to upload more - from anyones experience is it worth paying??

I have some Flickr pals that are on there with me and here's the consensus: If you walked into the nearest McDonald's right now and asked everyone present if they could spare some change, you'd likely do better than wasting your time with FAA. 

[Luisa Puccini]

Quick question on Arcangel. How am I supposed to set up tax form and payments? I'm not US resident and I just can't find a page to fill any form or choose my payment method. (Not that I've sold anything yet...)

[Annavee]

On 11/19/2020 at 9:59 PM, MJD Graphics said:

I stopped uploading to SS after June I started concentrating on selling my paintings on a Dutch art site that also collaborates with a Dutch TV program about home styling. This month I had my first sales, one for 13,22 euro and one for 19,11 euro, way better than the cents SS gives us and a great feeling that someone wants to buy the image to hang on their wall.

I too stopped uploading in June and started at WadM. Very small portfolio, but I already had one 35 euro sale! Great expectations

[Alexandre Rotenberg]

Well since we're on the topic of new opportunities, my friend and super awesome aerial / architectural photographer Joas Souza, has cut out agencies and begun licensing images himself on his self-hosted websites.

I caught up with him on an exclusive interview published yesterday on my blog - link here.  

Perhaps I'll go down the self-hosting route soon considering the pittance I'm earning at these agencies. 

[Rudy Umans]

On 12/3/2020 at 11:42 AM, Milleflore Images said:

Some people have said to me that they only want to upload their fine art work to FAA, and others like me, are using their Pixels.com side to capitalise on the wider more commercial side of things. It depends on the individual. However, whatever you upload to FAA automatically flow through to Pixels, if you pay the $30 annual fee. 

We already had this discussion on a previous thread started by Steven earlier this year. I am trying to find it for you. 

 

 

Here it is:  Fine Art America - Anyone rate it? - Page 2 - Contributor Experience - Shutterstock - Forum

 

FAA is my main sales outlet and I sold there this year alone more in money than the last 5 years on MS combined.

I am very active on FAA. I like it there. This is me: Rudy Umans - Official Website (pixels.com) 

The other site I do fairly well on for jigsaw puzzles, calendars etc. is Zazzle. 

I know people who do very well on RedBubble (Australian site) 

[PomInPerth]

1 minute ago, Rudy Umans said:

FAA is my main sales outlet and I sold there this year alone more in money than the last 5 years on MS combined.

HI Rudy, great images. Do you have the same photos on MS or are the FAA photos your best and not sold elsewhere?

[Rudy Umans]

16 hours ago, PomInPerth said:

HI Rudy, great images. Do you have the same photos on MS or are the FAA photos your best and not sold elsewhere?

Thanks POMinPerth (I have friends in Perth)

For the most part, I don't have any overlap anymore with MS and POD. 

Some of my images are also on other POD sites and I have an Amazon store . My main attention is however on FAA. Simple they sell the most. (for me and in general). I had "stores" on Saatchi and some others, but it wasn't worth it for me.

[Alexandre Rotenberg]

Filomena came bearing gifts.

Latest four accepted potential book covers at Arcangel.

New opportunities can't come soon enough as it's pretty much game over at micros at <30cent RPI/download at lower volumes. Unsustainable. 

With this in mind, I've put together a guest post over at Stockstudio.io on Transitioning to Book Cover Photography, which I trust you'll find useful.