Stock photography requirements

[zenpro]

Hi guys,

just out of curiosity, what are the camera requirements for the photography agencies you shoot for? ;)

I'm not interested in micro-payment stock agencies as I don't appreciate the way they do business and what they are doing to photography (plus, they pretty much accept any camera). :x

thanks.
zen

[peterdoomen]

Professional stock companies usually require 48MB TIFFS to be uploaded.

That's one of the reasons I chose microstock. If you're not interested in Microstock, that's your good right. But for me and a lot of other people, it works. ;-)

P.

[zenpro]

Professional stock companies usually require 48MB TIFFS to be uploaded.

8 Megapixels shooting in raw will produce good 24MB TIFFs. If they want 48MB without interpolation, only the 1Ds Mark II and digital medium format would be acceptable. So those stock companies won't accept Nikon digital photographers? :D

[deadpass]

I'm pretty sure the 5d can get away with stock pictures as well

[gmen]

Interpolation of images is certainly allowed/necessary with the bigger stock agencies. For example, Alamy's criteria are here (see section 5):

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/stock-photography-technical-criteria.asp

---- Gavin

[ChrisBlaze]

how much do stock companies pay?

[peterdoomen]

Professional stock: high price per download - low download volumes (unless you are a top photographer)
Microstock: low price per download - high download volumes

So both can earn you a bit of money. For example, I earn anywhere between 8 and 40 dollars per day with my portfolio (still under 1000 images but growing).

P.

[ArenGh]

^ Could I please view your portfolio?

[T-rev]

How do these agencies work? do they kinda lease your photos from you or buy them off you?

Sorry I am a newbie and a little confused.

[peterdoomen]

My stock program works as follows:
- I upload photos with keywords
- The photos get reviewed by a pro
- Accepted photos come in my portfolio
- Buyers download the photo and I get an amount of money per download
- Since this stock program offers a flat fee to the buyers, they download a lot. So even if it's only small money per download, I earn a decent amount per day (between 8 and 40 $)
- At the end of the month, I get a message from PayPal that money has been added.
- I log into PayPal and withdraw the money to my account (which is costless if the amount is larger than 100$, that means every single month)
- I compare the money in my bank account with the price of those nice L's in Canons catalogue and decide to buy the new 50L.

OK, the last step is optional (though it's the real nice one). But that's roughly how it works.

Hope this helps.

PeteR.

[simatbirch]

Don't forget though that with microstock you only keep accruing cash while you're submitting new material. When a pic hits the website - every man and his dog downloads it, so you get paid, but then you'll never get paid for it again because every agency in the world will have it.

With the likes of Alamy you'll get paid a decent price for a download, then hopefully of course it will be downloaded by another client one day - then again, and again - repeat business.

Microstock = slave to shooting constantly. Old firm agencies = retirement fund.

Microstock is diluting the pool.

[zenpro]

Alamy seems like a good deal. It's not Microstock and they accept images interpolated from a 30D. What do you think about it?

[peterdoomen]

Don't forget though that with microstock you only keep accruing cash while you're submitting new material. When a pic hits the website - every man and his dog downloads it, so you get paid, but then you'll never get paid for it again because every agency in the world will have it.


That's not true. Of course newer images are a bit more popular, but my top sellers are not new photos. Even if I don't upload photos for weeks, I get high download %.

P.

[GCRollo]

Who buys these images & for what use?
What is the image content/subject (More popular)?

[peterdoomen]

Stock photos are bought mostly by graphics designers and editors who use them for all kinds of publications.

My most popular photos have to do with food. I've a few popular animal pictures too, but it really depends. Some do landscapes, houses (inside as well as outside), cars, people... Read my brochure for a few ideas.

P.

[jcw122]

I'm going to jump in and say...

I don't see Stock Photography as anything very creative at all. I don't really think of it as a real form of photography. It's just photography of simple objects, for eventual commercial or public use, and it doesn't seem to take much skill or creativity compared to nearly everything else I've seen on the forums.

What do you guys think of my thoughts? Not trying to bash Stock Photography (ok I sorta am), but it to me it just seems like an easy way to make $$$ from photography, which doesn't take alot of skill.

[glacebay]

but it to me it just seems like an easy way to make $$$ from photography, which doesn't take alot of skill.

I think the point the one gentlemen is making is 'Statically Speaking' you have a greater ROI from micro because of the shear volume. However, I have experience in neither so what the heck do I know =)

I have to disagree with the skill factor. Post-Processing is an art in itself. It's one thing to pull a picture off the camera and VOILA! But it's another to touch it up and make it look great! Plus it takes a little vision. Sure, ANYONE can throw photo's on there, but not everyone is making a tun of cash.

Ahhh You got to love Capitalism! Supply and Demand!

Broke Newb,
JM

Currently 100% Supply with 0% Demand

[munchy]

Currently 100% Supply with 0% Demand

So very true... LOL!

[peterdoomen]

I have to disagree with the skill factor.

Indeed, you need skill. And also, stock *can* be very creative.

In fact, buyers are looking not only for boring product images, but also for creative angles, new views for the same subject.

Graphics designers and editors want images with impact. And making these is quite a challenge. I know for sure I am a better photographer now than before I was doing stock.

PeteR.

[jcw122]

I can see the work and creativity put into stock photography, now that I did a bit more reading. It definately seems like it takes a bit of work.

I think what I mean, instead of saying it doesn't take skill or creativity, is that the actual shots lack creativity and soul. They just seem like pictures, that do not nessesarily convey thoughts, ideas, or feelings of the photographer.

I am excited to get into stock photography though. I think it will be able to help my editing and more technical skills, which as of now, I have none of heheh.

[Ray Marrero]

I'm going to jump in and say...

to me it just seems like an easy way to make $$$ from photography, which doesn't take alot of skill.


And what's wrong with that?? Do you have something against money? If you do send some my way, I could use it to buy more equipment.

[jcw122]

And what's wrong with that?? Do you have something against money? If you do send some my way, I could use it to buy more equipment.

Read my second post too, I'm basically just ranting.

I'm going to try Stock Photography...a 17 year old needs funds for this expensive hobby!

[glacebay]

Read my second post too, I'm basically just ranting.

I'm going to try Stock Photography...a 17 year old needs funds for this expensive hobby!


I'm 30+ and married. Aka I need to smuggle/laundry my funds for this expensive hobby *laffs*

[coreypolis]

I'm going to jump in and say...

I don't see Stock Photography as anything very creative at all. I don't really think of it as a real form of photography. It's just photography of simple objects, for eventual commercial or public use, and it doesn't seem to take much skill or creativity compared to nearly everything else I've seen on the forums.

What do you guys think of my thoughts? Not trying to bash Stock Photography (ok I sorta am), but it to me it just seems like an easy way to make $$$ from photography, which doesn't take alot of skill.
then I would do more research on the subject.


stock can be any kind of photo. you really need to shoot with it being a stock photo in mind, as there are certain things you need to do to make it sellable, but it is in every way as creative as any thing else in the industry.

It isn't a easy way to make money, as it requires not only a lot of knowledge on shooting for it, but also managing the images, releases, payments, copyrights etc.