How on earth can a photographer make money without stock?

[SimpleFoto]

My experience so far ( I have around 200 images on various stock agencies) is that I don't think I will be able to give up my day job in the foreseeable, Not a bad little earner, and the most surprising images seem to generate the most money.
Most sites give you the chance to see which images have been downloaded the most which is a great guide to what's selling.

Good luck ... it seems to me , to be all about numbers.

Actually, I think it is all about quality. Generally 90% of sales comes from 10% of your portfolio. If you could upload more of the images that sell you wouldn't need a very large portfolio. Some photographers are able to do this (not me) and have great sales with a relatively small portfolio size. Kelly Cline (a very successful iStock food photographer) said at PhotoPlus something I love to quote. More images don't make me more money, more of the best images is what makes me more money.

 

[dnavarrojr]

Unfortunately, most agencies are stuck on what is currently selling and are afraid of approving new experimental stuff. Otherwise, you're just stuck shooting the same stuff over and over and over again.

 

[orljustin]

Wow, that is so incorrect. Royalty-Free licensing tends to give the buyer perpetual usage for a wide variety of commercial uses.

Only if they pay more for the commercial usage.

This is from the microstock agency Dreamstime: (my emphasis).

Web templates, greeting cards or postcards especially designed for sale, similar print-on-demand services, canvas, t-shirts, mugs, mouse pads or any other items incorporating the image in an essential manner, intended to be sold or given for free, are considered redistribution (if the image is used in an essential manner) and may not be created using the Royalty Free license. Instead you will need to use one of our Extended Licenses that grant you extra rights. For Web use, you must not use the image at a width exceeding 800 pixels.

From iStockphoto, essentially the same thing saying Extended licensing (not RF) has to be purchased for commercial usage.

iStockphoto offers two types of licenses: the complimentary Standard and a set of Extended Licenses to suit your specific needs.

Ah, there's the problem. You're not defining "commercial" correctly. Yes, the micros tend to require an extended license for items for resale and such, but "commercial" refers to being able to use the content in a promotional way, in ads, in posters, calenders, postcards, etc. Anything that can help someone create business for their business.