Jump to content
Ajayverma321456

How many photos to start earning at least 100$ a month.

Recommended Posts

I've learned to LOVE metadata.  I look at is as a continuation of my image-making creative process.  I'm a bit of a writer too and metadata is the STORY of the image, not only describing what it is, but where it was taken, how it was taken, what all it can mean, etc. 

Of course Shutterstock's keyword finder "Select 3 Images Similar to Yours" helps.  And if a series of images are of the same subject, you can check the boxes for the whole series of images and only have to caption and keyword them once to submit.  If there are slight differences in some of the images, uncheck those, submit the first checked images, then re-check the unchecked images, make the alterations to the metadata, submit.  That's efficiency.

Getting back on topic, while I'll still submit a few images that I feel are stock-worthy that might sell here and there, I'm concentrating on video.  Video is where the money is at this point in this industry.  Video clips may not get downloaded as often as still images, but earnings are the bottom line, and a video clip earms on average 20-30x the $$ that a still image does, so video still earns $$ faster than stills. 

I've got a still image port of 2,800.  I'm aiming for a video clip port of 2,800 by the end of 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Grossinger said:

It's good to have a plan and goals. It's really good to have a growing portfolio of both images and videos. As of yet I have no goals in mind for video.

Why not start video today? Combine it with your photoshoots, assuming you have an ND filter and tripod...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grossinger said:


Why do I need an ND filter?

 

Because you work with a firm shutter time.

So if it is very sunny or if you want to open the lens very much, there can be too much light.

A ND filter reduces the light. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogif said:

Because you work with a firm shutter time.

So if it is very sunny or if you want to open the lens very much, there can be too much light.

A ND filter reduces the light. 

As soon as the weather improves 😁 I'm planning to have a go at shot I've seen done by someone i sub to. ND filter is like a sunglass for the lens isn't it as you say reduces light. This allows the shutter to stay open longer and blur something like the sea etc. But the end result is perfectly exposed. Well that's the theory. 

How in video is this helpful with moving objects. Cars birds people etc. Unless you want them blurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless someone is shooting slow-motion, the shutter speed should never be faster than 1/48 to 1/100 for video.  And even 1/100 is right at the edge of acceptability. So one needs to have an ND filter to reduce the amount of light entering the camera or else you will be forced to stop the lens down to apertures that you don't necessarily want to use. Personally, I never shoot anything that isn't f/4.0 to f/2.0.  And that would be impossible without ND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scorsby said:

isn't it as you say reduces light. This allows the shutter to stay open longer and blur something like the sea etc. But the end result is perfectly exposed. Well that's the theory. 

How in video is this helpful with moving objects. Cars birds people etc. Unless you want them blurred?

An ND filter does reduce light. When shooting video, shutter speeds are typically a bit slow at around 1/50 and 1/60 for 25fps and 30fps respectively. A ND filter allows such slow shutter speeds to be used without resorting to insanely small apertures (which would normally cause diffraction.) There is usually a little  blur with moving subjects in video but it's not as noticeable as it is with still photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Patrick Cooper said:

An ND filter does reduce light. When shooting video, shutter speeds are typically a bit slow at around 1/50 and 1/60 for 25fps and 30fps respectively. A ND filter allows such slow shutter speeds to be used without resorting to insanely small apertures (which would normally cause diffraction.) There is usually a little  blur with moving subjects in video but it's not as noticeable as it is with still photography.

Really? OK cool thank you Patrick. Lots of research ahead it appears.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the original OP...You can make more than $100.00 per month with a single repeat sale or make less than $25.00 a month with 10,000 or even 30,000 images. Bots aren't purchasing your photos, people are. Many contributors here who make a living with stock usually have a studio with professional lighting and they know how to use it. For example, if you drive a hundred miles and spend $75.00 on gas, $45.00 on motel and $30.00 for food and make less than $5.00 per month on the images you shot, well that's not how you conduct business. I have a good friend in Guanajuato, Mexico he's a Dutch guy. He shoots stock full time and makes on average $2,750 USD per month - he codes a bit to make some money but actually does live off his stock work from time to time - he only does a single thing and he does it very well...he also rarely travels unless a client is paying all expenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mandritoiu said:

I wonder why some vocal forum advisers only give friends and neighbors as examples of big earners.

🤔

He shoots for Stocksy. Mainly hospitals etc. we had a great breakfast in Guanajuato and I joked that he had a hundred candid stock photos in that restaurant. He agreed, never leave your camera at home. Hey Grossinger, regardless, if any of your border photos makes it mainstream and changes a life, you did something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grossinger said:

Yeah, there is that. I'm actually trying to expand that theme to human interest.

I actually do have a friend that lives in Guanajuato. Amazing town. A photographer's dream.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, mandritoiu said:

So are you advising us to leave SS and go for Stocksy? Why don't you do it to earn 15-20 times more than you currently do? Too hard to get into Stocksy?

And btw, I have good friends who make more than that from regular microstock! And my neighbor is a cop! True story! 😁

Hey brah calm down. It is what it is. He’s successful, sort of in his agency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's brah...that's from Hawaii.

I think you're confusing my financial goals as a stock photographer. I was getting a plane ticket plus I got camera equipment with just over 300 images - that was when a few of them were doing very well. I cannot do this full time but for the most part SS income does pay for things that I like - its not much but it does pay something. The OP here asked about making a $100 per month...its possible with one single image and may not be possible with 30,000 images. You're still convinced that a port of 10,000 mediocre images is far better than having 500 professional commercial stock photographs. You're wrong about that by a mile. (or kilometer)

*There are tens of thousands of contributors with huge ports that don't sell anything and they usually just quit. The effort vs income isn't worth it. There are part time contributors with small ports that sell a lot - I suppose a small port could be 500 images but I guess nowadays a small port is something like a thousand. Doesn't matter though does it? If the OP can take a single incredible sunset photograph that blows away all others they will make a lot of money with one single image - that happened to the guy years ago that took the wave tube photograph I believe from Oahu's North Shore - a million downloads I think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Brady Barrineau said:

It's brah...that's from Hawaii.

I think you're confusing my financial goals as a stock photographer. I was getting a plane ticket plus I got camera equipment with just over 300 images - that was when a few of them were doing very well. I cannot do this full time but for the most part SS income does pay for things that I like - its not much but it does pay something. The OP here asked about making a $100 per month...its possible with one single image and may not be possible with 30,000 images. You're still convinced that a port of 10,000 mediocre images is far better than having 500 professional commercial stock photographs. You're wrong about that by a mile. (or kilometer)

*There are tens of thousands of contributors with huge ports that don't sell anything and they usually just quit. The effort vs income isn't worth it. There are part time contributors with small ports that sell a lot - I suppose a small port could be 500 images but I guess nowadays a small port is something like a thousand. Doesn't matter though does it? If the OP can take a single incredible sunset photograph that blows away all others they will make a lot of money with one single image - that happened to the guy years ago that took the wave tube photograph I believe from Oahu's North Shore - a million downloads I think? 

The problem Brady, is that this is not a photo club. Sure, you can post that stuff on the show me threads. But people who come here want to know how to increase their income (ie. the title of this thread), and sometimes the photos you post are not helping them. In fact just the opposite.

For example, having kids in your editorials is a no-no. Its considered unethical (no parental approval), and when you post something like that, a lot of new people think its acceptable without know both sides. Same with your baby shoot taking 4 hours. That's why I felt I needed to say something so that new people learn a bit more.

New contributors don't know yet what is right and wrong, and can be very impressionable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brady Barrineau said:

I’m thinking about it but stock is a very small part of my work. 

This means that the effort you have to put into stocksy is much higher?
Or does that mean that the pictures Stocksy demands must be much better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Milleflore Images said:

For example, having kids in your editorials is a no-no. Its considered unethical (no parental approval)

Considered unethical by some people perhaps, but I don’t think this is a universally accepted view. You can’t just make rules up. I personally prefer not to have kids in my pictures, but they’ve probably slipped in to about 20 editorial shots of mine out of over 3,000, what are you supposd to do when there’s a crowd of people, ask the kids to get out of the shot.

One thing I don’t like is stock photographers obessession with taking intrusive photos of homeless people, SOME people consider this unethical.

Taking photos of food, though, is just plain lazy and probably extremely unethical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...