Stock photography...For those who do it....

[bc4393]

I know you don't get rich off it but I'm having a hard time taking the leap just because I think it would be neat to see where my photos were being used. If only for the sake of saying "hey, I took that!" Anyone else hit this speedbump?

[PhotosGuy]

I've never done stock, but keep a lot of "almost shots" on my HD just in case I decide to do it, so I'd still have the option to sell rights to the "best" ones. I suspect that it's because I hate deleting my children so much!? ;)

[Rick Wong]

It is a dilemma.On one hand you don't want to see them go cheap but on the other they aren't doing much sitting in your hard drive.Yes I've hit the bump too.Ah one day I'll have a little quaint coffee shop and gallery in the countryside.LOL.

[Kadath]

Have you considered www.creativecommons.org? =)

[DocFrankenstein]

I won't release my work. Stock is paying you pennies and their quality demands are ridiculous.

If you feel your work is worth 3 bucks a pop - knock yourself out.

I also beleive they don't pay you for every client that buys your photo. Try proving that it's 150 people instead a 100 that bought your stock.

[liza]

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml

[jcw122]

I won't release my work. Stock is paying you pennies and their quality demands are ridiculous.

If you feel your work is worth 3 bucks a pop - knock yourself out.

I also beleive they don't pay you for every client that buys your photo. Try proving that it's 150 people instead a 100 that bought your stock.

That's microstock, not normal stock.

[Mike Reynolds]

interesting I'll have to mow that over

[DocFrankenstein]

That's microstock, not normal stock.
What is the normal stock?

I thought it went extinct.

[jcw122]

What is the normal stock?

I thought it went extinct.

Umm...no? LOL, normal stock photography would not be micropayment stock photography. As in, you sell an image for usually a few hundred dollars, instead of $1, and it's not royalty-free....I don't exactly know it as much as microstock...but for now I'm staying away from Microstock, it's not good for the future of photography.

[DocFrankenstein]

Umm...no? LOL, normal stock photography would not be micropayment stock photography. As in, you sell an image for usually a few hundred dollars, instead of $1, and it's not royalty-free....I don't exactly know it as much as microstock...but for now I'm staying away from Microstock, it's not good for the future of photography.
Can you give me a few links of the existing non microstock agencies?

[liza]

www.alamy.com
www.gettyimages.com

[thesupe87]

I'm making half of my mortgage payment (on a 3 bedroom single family home) consistently each month. I have 400 images on Shutterstock, only 6 images on iStock, 500 or so on Bigstock, a few hundred on StockXpert - overall I'm on about 10 different sites. Total images I must have about 700, but not all of them get accepted.

I've been doing this only for about a year - check out my website link in my sig for more details on which sites I find sell the best.

[ssim]

What is the normal stock?

I thought it went extinct.
I'm making some sales through normal channels (read non-micro). I don't keep alot of images out there but they do move. My average right now would be around 60.00 per image. It's not the alamy's of the world pricing but it sure isn't micro either.

What do you find offensive about their quality criteria?

[thesupe87]

You no doubt have to have high-end equipment to be able to submit to a non-micro stock photo site. The formats they require are usually ridiculously huge in size, requiring a top-end DSLR to say the least. Correct me if I'm mistaken...

[DocFrankenstein]

You no doubt have to have high-end equipment to be able to submit to a non-micro stock photo site. The formats they require are usually ridiculously huge in size, requiring a top-end DSLR to say the least. Correct me if I'm mistaken...
I don't think so. With good technique, you'll be able to submit pictures from any dslr.

[Photodawg1]

I'm making some sales through normal channels (read non-micro). I don't keep alot of images out there but they do move. My average right now would be around 60.00 per image. It's not the alamy's of the world pricing but it sure isn't micro either.

What do you find offensive about their quality criteria?

Would these agencies consider work from my creaky 20d? Or do I need that $7,000 one I am lusting for?

[Scuff]

You no doubt have to have high-end equipment to be able to submit to a non-micro stock photo site. The formats they require are usually ridiculously huge in size, requiring a top-end DSLR to say the least. Correct me if I'm mistaken...

Correct - Alamy require a non-compressed file size of at least 48mb. (.tif)

The do however accept up-rezzed files and do give pointers and explainations of how they like you to do this.

As metioned before, with proper technique this can be done with a 6-8 megapixel camera.

[NickSimcheck]

Would these agencies consider work from my creaky 20d? Or do I need that $7,000 one I am lusting for?

20D will do the job just fine, if you were a legendary photographer you could swing a 10D.

They just want low-noise well lighted photos that are a certain size. And for places like Getty Images a full resolution shot from even a 5D wouldn't meet their size requirement (I forget how many pixels but it would be native for 14MP or 15MP camera) so you just have to up-res to their required size.

[Edwin Bont]

I submitted 300D pictures too (upsampled to 5000px) to my agency.
They are good enough for printing.
www.fotonatura.nl (Showcase » Portfolio's » Nationaal » Edwin Bont)

I even wonder if there is a printpress that can display all the detail there is in the full res picture (like the facet-eyes of insects) on A4 size paper.

I just joined this agency so I can't tell you much about payment, but the minimum price is 50€ (for me).
I also start working for their partner, I am now making photo-illustrations for postcards and expect to make more money from that.
I made these: http://www.edwinbont.nl/gallery/illustration/1/index.html before for a book and will use this style again but now I will use oilpaint and better technique (I learned a lot in the meantime).

[jev]

For me microstocks really no no
Why would i sell image for 0.25-2$ when i can get 200-600$ at a normal agency

As far as submitting to Alamy, any 6MP+ camera will do, if you know what you are doing it's really very simple. So as far as requirements I find Shutterstock and Istockphoto even more complicated then Alamy. Plus unless you are "exclusive" to Istockphoto they will not promote your images. So i can't really see any professional or advanced photografer being excusive to microstock site. But for people that want to sell occasional snapshot it might not be bad. jumt my 2 cents

[jcw122]

For me microstocks really no no
Why would i sell image for 0.25-2$ when i can get 200-600$ at a normal agency

As far as submitting to Alamy, any 6MP+ camera will do, if you know what you are doing it's really very simple. So as far as requirements I find Shutterstock and Istockphoto even more complicated then Alamy. Plus unless you are "exclusive" to Istockphoto they will not promote your images. So i can't really see any professional or advanced photografer being excusive to microstock site. But for people that want to sell occasional snapshot it might not be bad. jumt my 2 cents

I think many people think getting into a normal agency is much more difficult, whereas with microstock, it's much easier. That's at least the way it seems to me.

[Parmcat]

I have a couple of general questions.

I am considering maybe trying one of these agencies out.

I shoot mostly Macro stuff.....bugs, flowers, butterflies.

1: Is this type of stuff going to see?
2: How many images should I have before I set up an account somewhere?

Thanks

Parm

[jcw122]

I have a couple of general questions.

I am considering maybe trying one of these agencies out.

I shoot mostly Macro stuff.....bugs, flowers, butterflies.

1: Is this type of stuff going to see?
2: How many images should I have before I set up an account somewhere?

Thanks

Parm

1. Macro stuff would probably sell pretty well.

2. Many sites allow you to start uploading immediately, while higher end sites (like Shutterstock, and a few others) require 3-10 photos for evaluation. Shouldn't be too difficult, but I think they normally want some variety with the evaluation photos.

[barP]

so...help me understand - because i'm considering all this as well - what the policy is on selling images thru multiple outlets.

i read istockphoto's content license agreement and i'm just not getting the answer to this question:

can i sell a photo i've uploaded to istockphoto at other locations as well? "other locations" include smugmug, other micro-stock sites, traditional stock agencies, and gallery walls. how do other micros handle this?

wp.

[jcw122]

so...help me understand - because i'm considering all this as well - what the policy is on selling images thru multiple outlets.

i read istockphoto's content license agreement and i'm just not getting the answer to this question:

can i sell a photo i've uploaded to istockphoto at other locations as well? "other locations" include smugmug, other micro-stock sites, traditional stock agencies, and gallery walls. how do other micros handle this?

wp.

Yes, I'm pretty sure you can sell images at other microstock sites (I don't know about other places), as long as they aren't marked by you, as exlcusive to one site (there's usually an option during submission)

Check out talkmicro.com it's a good forum for microstock photography

[Peiling]

Hi.

Yes, you can sell at multiply Stock Micro Sites as long as you are not "Exclusive" with any. If you are "Exclusive", you can only sell in that one site. Many people choose to be non-exclusive and upload to 5-10 sites.

You can find out ALL ABOUT MICRO STOCK in my website below:lol::-
http://www.freewebs.com/mygardenofeden/allaboutmicrostock.htm

[snokid]

I guess I don't understand the problem.

A photographer can make a picture that is art, stock, or microstock it's up to them.

you go out and shoot a bridge on a foggy moon lit night that's art.

you shoot a fancy model that's stock

you set a pair of dice on a white back ground and that's microstock.

I don't see micro stock taking money from the top two, only giving people another outlet to market themselves to.


So some say hey my picture is worth more than a .25 hmm really? it sits on their hard drive what's that making them?

I wouldn't do micro if all I made was a .25 from each image. truth is you do make much more from each image. If you have a popular image you could make 100.00's each day from it.

Well if you want to test the waters try joining using my link and I can make a few cents off images you sell. then you can feel better because your image is earning a little more!!!

http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=69859 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=69859)

Bob

[DocFrankenstein]

So some say hey my picture is worth more than a .25 hmm really? it sits on their hard drive what's that making them?

That's the thinking they want you to use.

Calculate how much you spend on living, computers, camera gear, color calibration, time learning photography, time shooting, post processing...

Then calculate depreciation and a profit margin. It comes down to a very nice number.

[jcw122]

I was thinking about it a bit, and microstock and stock are very, very different.

No big company in their right mind would buy from a microstock site, at least without buying out the photo. If they buy from a microstock site, then their using the same image that possibly thousands of others are using. That's no good.

If the big company buys from a stock site, they are the only ones for that year or two being able to use that image, that's a big advantage.

[Julio]

No big company in their right mind would buy from a microstock site, at least without buying out the photo. If they buy from a microstock site, then their using the same image that possibly thousands of others are using. That's no good.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-ytmRysCdqy_QXDlYXCPqAWZsTGk_20061227.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top

[jcw122]

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-ytmRysCdqy_QXDlYXCPqAWZsTGk_20061227.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top


just proves my point. The article seems to imply they used microstock, but it isn't totally clear.

[pdrow]

May I give a slightly different prospective of microstock?
I work for a small regional magazine. The advertising rates are low. I can not afford to purchase 'real stock' and sometimes I do not have the time, subject etc to shoot my own photo.

A friend is a web designer. She uses microstock for the same reason.

anyway, I put up a few photos and it has been fun selling them. I am not getting rich, but most were just snapshots that turned out well. Funny thing, the ones I shot for the site are not selling.

[Peiling]

i think microstock is a cheap and useful avenue esp for newspaper. I see a lot of them being used in my local newspaper compared to the past where it was mainly AP, Reuters etc....probably not "news" related ones. I find them mostly in the local weekly addition on "Health", "IT", Urban Lifestyle" etc

Big company are unlikely to use them as they need specialised photo and unique photos that only they have, so they are willing to pay for them. Its more for the millions of small company with a one man show who cannot afford the big guys.

[DocFrankenstein]

A lot of the local advertising campaigns will depend on microstock as their image source.

On the other hand if you have billion dollar a minute tv campaigns, they will spend a couple of grand hiring a photographer.

[miklav]

There have been many discussions in the internet in the last couple of years about microstock versus traditional stock. Many microstock attackers are very emotional, however not providing serious argument. From my point of view comparing the price of individual sale doesn't make any sense. Stock photography (whether is it microstock or traditional) is a numbers game; so instead of comparing the price of one sale it's more appropriate to compare the income from the entire portfolio in one year.

The truth is that microstock is more profitable per picture (but getting every picture into microstock is more difficult and time consuming comparing with traditional stock)

Also, the market and licensing terms of microstock and traditional stock aren't the same (although there is some overlap).

I have written an article with more detailed analysis of that - if you are interested you are welcome to read it at http://miklav.com/HTML/ML_microstock.shtml

[Mthorpe_Davies]

www.alamy.com
www.gettyimages.com

Almay is an easy one to get into but Getty, you have to be a genius to be accepted by them, or Corbis or Jupiter

[Mthorpe_Davies]

so...help me understand - because i'm considering all this as well - what the policy is on selling images thru multiple outlets.

i read istockphoto's content license agreement and i'm just not getting the answer to this question:

can i sell a photo i've uploaded to istockphoto at other locations as well? "other locations" include smugmug, other micro-stock sites, traditional stock agencies, and gallery walls. how do other micros handle this?

wp.

Yes you can sell to basically anywhere unless you are exclusive with them, then you are only limited to selling RM stock at other sites, you can't sell any RF.

[PAS Photography]

I just thought Id chime in on the Micro vs. normal Stock debate. Lets face it Micro is not going away and is a growing trend for lower budget photo users and even some personal use. Most people are not going to get into a big stock agency with a minimal portfolio and do not devote time shooting stock to keep up with big name stock agencies. As stated above Micro sites are a quanity thing not a one time sale comparision. I have images that are good, maybe potential for a big stock agency but I am going for volume and repetative sales with my images. The Really GOOD images I save for use someday with a major agency. My income is slowly growing on Micro sites and roughly pull in a hundred or so a month with minimal to no effort. These images might sell eventually sitting waiting for someone but I figure why not be a part of micro on the ground floor. Most importantly... The images I sell on micro sites I would never use or consider for actual stock agency anyway! They are images that are taken that would typically just sit on disc or end up in a frame.

Heres an example: This one image has made $80 since July 06 which is about what one would get from a one time sale with a stock agency. The rate it sells I should be at $100-$120 within a year of its life on the stock sites.
http://thumb2.shutterstock.com/photos4/display_pic_with_logo/66057/66057,1150874184,2.jpg

Now times that by the number of favorable images on these micro sites and its pretty good petty cash for more equipment.

Micro sites wether good or bad they do produce income and its all up to the photographer what they choose to do with their work. Micro sites are not going to hurt the true stock agencies any time soon, but maybe in the distance future they could make the market change.

Just my 2 cents worth. I dont think the Micro vs Major Stock agencies is all that big of debate. If you are contributing to major stock agencies and making money then why would micro bother you. If you dont contribute to Either type, I dont think you should debate the topic to begin with.

[barP]

great post and great shot, pas!

wp.

[thesupe87]

I just thought Id chime in on the Micro vs. normal Stock debate. Lets face it Micro is not going away and is a growing trend for lower budget photo users and even some personal use. Most people are not going to get into a big stock agency with a minimal portfolio and do not devote time shooting stock to keep up with big name stock agencies. As stated above Micro sites are a quanity thing not a one time sale comparision. I have images that are good, maybe potential for a big stock agency but I am going for volume and repetative sales with my images. The Really GOOD images I save for use someday with a major agency. My income is slowly growing on Micro sites and roughly pull in a hundred or so a month with minimal to no effort. These images might sell eventually sitting waiting for someone but I figure why not be a part of micro on the ground floor. Most importantly... The images I sell on micro sites I would never use or consider for actual stock agency anyway! They are images that are taken that would typically just sit on disc or end up in a frame.

Heres an example: This one image has made $80 since July 06 which is about what one would get from a one time sale with a stock agency. The rate it sells I should be at $100-$120 within a year of its life on the stock sites.
http://thumb2.shutterstock.com/photos4/display_pic_with_logo/66057/66057,1150874184,2.jpg

Now times that by the number of favorable images on these micro sites and its pretty good petty cash for more equipment.

Micro sites wether good or bad they do produce income and its all up to the photographer what they choose to do with their work. Micro sites are not going to hurt the true stock agencies any time soon, but maybe in the distance future they could make the market change.

Just my 2 cents worth. I dont think the Micro vs Major Stock agencies is all that big of debate. If you are contributing to major stock agencies and making money then why would micro bother you. If you dont contribute to Either type, I dont think you should debate the topic to begin with.

Finally, someone who gets it. Thanks for that, PAS. Don't bash micro until you've tried it. There's nothing wrong with dabbling in a little Right's Managed at the same time as Royalty Free, either. A lot of my friends from www.talkmicro.com do this with sites like Alamy for RM, along with the micro sites.

[freaking102]

I suspect that many photogs submitting to microstock are getting ripped off, but are oblivious to it. You sell your photo for 25 cents a pop, regardless of how much the agency sells it for. If agency sells it for $10 a pop, you got ripped. You also get ripped by not being able to negotiate price with microstock agencies. If you got skill, aspire to a real egency and real money. Me? I'm an amateur who is more focused on his day job - so the subject is irrelevant to me, just of idle curiosity.

[Racer23]

I have been kicking around the idea of selling some stock too. My first stop is Alamy. After and iff all the images get accepted I will wait it out for a bit to see what it generates. Then after a year of little or nothing, I am going to take the same shots to a microstock and see what happens. But I am going to go with a larger stock company first then a microstock if that fails.

[snokid]

I feel both can be good for a photographer.

RM stock I would spend more time setting up taking and PP an image.

micro stock I would be more in the mind frame snap shot.


at least that's what I do and it's working very well for me.

Bob

[PAS Photography]

First of all you cant get ripped off if you know what you getting and what the next party is getting for it. Getting Ripped off is when you lack the knowledge and do something blindly. If someone is willingly doing something its their choice to take a lesser profit than potentially conceivable. I have submitted to major stock agencies and it is hard to have one of your images sold. You have 4X better chance at submitting images to a magazine for publication. I on the other hand choose to make something off of nothing. The nothing being images I "dont use" or "will never use" because of lower megapixels, image composition, or quality. If I can make a car payment every month for the next 5 yrs off of images that would still be on a backup disc and not have to do anything each month but collect a check... Id say those images were well worth their payments via microstock.

One other thing... that those making comments that are not currently using microsites dont know about. There are ALOT of photogs on these microsites that are making a couple grand a month. The thing is you dont hear about it because they dont want everyone ruining their good thing. Once you have a portfolio that covers all the basic images, and add an occassional images to stay in the newest categories stock sites are a residual income!!!! For those that dont know what that is Look it up.

[coreypolis]

First of all you cant get ripped off if you know what you getting and what the next party is getting for it. Getting Ripped off is when you lack the knowledge and do something blindly. If someone is willingly doing something its their choice to take a lesser profit than potentially conceivable. I have submitted to major stock agencies and it is hard to have one of your images sold. You have 4X better chance at submitting images to a magazine for publication. I on the other hand choose to make something off of nothing. The nothing being images I "dont use" or "will never use" because of lower megapixels, image composition, or quality. If I can make a car payment every month for the next 5 yrs off of images that would still be on a backup disc and not have to do anything each month but collect a check... Id say those images were well worth their payments via microstock.

One other thing... that those making comments that are not currently using microsites dont know about. There are ALOT of photogs on these microsites that are making a couple grand a month. The thing is you dont hear about it because they dont want everyone ruining their good thing. Once you have a portfolio that covers all the basic images, and add an occassional images to stay in the newest categories stock sites are a residual income!!!! For those that dont know what that is Look it up.
biased are we?

it would take you about what, 2400 images sold to make up for 1 sale at a larger corporation?

Getting paid a quarter at a time is demeaning. It undercuts those that are making a living at it. It ruins the chances the rest of us have to make a decent buck in a lot of different ways.

[ChrisRabior]

I've gotta second corey.. it's wonderful that you get so many sales out of your images, but the fact that they're selling proves that there is a demand for them. Good photographers hate seeing other good photographers put their images to micro because it undercuts the market. If all of the crappy photographers were on micro, and all of the good photographers on traditional.. who do you think is going to make more?

I'm transitioning out of micro into traditional, and it's purely because of the life of an image. If you sell an image for a quarter 200 times, congrats.. you made your money.. but that's the END of that image's use. Who wants to buy something that 200 others are already using. A traditional scope, you sell once, and it's on par with what a micro makes at 200 sales. To top it off, it's only 1 use, so you're much more likely to have additional sales because the image is still fresh and has a lot of miles left. I guess what that can pan out to is taking 25 cents for 50 downloads NOW, or a decent profit, sale by sale, over a longer period of time. Instant gratification is cool, but I'd rather have a long term stable income from my photos.

Don't take this as a knock to micros. I used quite a few, and made a few payouts, and was happy with the sales. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't just stop with micros. Give traditional a shot. You'll probably be bummed with how 'fast' your number of sales will go up.. until of course you glance further at the earnings for each one.

[PAS Photography]

Id be more than happy to switch over as well if I had the contacts to get my work into the larger stock agencies.

[coreypolis]

Id be more than happy to switch over as well if I had the contacts to get my work into the larger stock agencies.
alamy.com ;)

[ChrisRabior]

It's not about contacts, it's about images. The only thing keeping a lot of people out of the really big agencies is portfolio size.

Alamy, MyLoupe, Photographer's Direct, IfImages, photolibrary, masterfile, alwaysstock.. there are a bunch of macro sites out there.

I just got into Alamy. Give them a shot. MyLoupe and Photographers Direct won't take you if you have open microstock accounts. I'm applying there once I build up my Alamy account a bit more. You can give the others a shot if you'd like as well. Not sure how they do as far as sales.

[chrisvl]

I've been following this thread with interest.
How big does your portfolio have to be?
Next to Alamy who are the bigger macro stock sites. I'm not familiar with the others you mention.

[thesupe87]

I suspect that many photogs submitting to microstock are getting ripped off, but are oblivious to it. You sell your photo for 25 cents a pop, regardless of how much the agency sells it for. If agency sells it for $10 a pop, you got ripped. You also get ripped by not being able to negotiate price with microstock agencies. If you got skill, aspire to a real egency and real money. Me? I'm an amateur who is more focused on his day job - so the subject is irrelevant to me, just of idle curiosity.

I'm an amateur too, and I am focusing on my dayjob more, as well. But in just 1-2 hours a week, I've built my stock photo income on strictly micro sites (about 8 or 9 sites) up to the point where my monthly earnings will just about pay my mortgage each month. I haven't done any real work on my photos in the last three months, and the sales are staying consistent.

For the minimal amount of effort I'm putting forth, the extra income is superb.

Don't tell me I'm getting ripped off, getting .25cents per image. Welcome to the 21st century...not ever graphic designer works for an agency that can afford a $100 image or $1000 image collection disk. I've made over $1000 on a certain single photos over just a year's time...so speak for yourself when you think $100 is better than $1000.

[dkgilbey]

I've read this thread with interest & I'm always surprised at the negativity of some photographers toward micro. As someone already posted, micro is not going away & I certainly feel that an image has a life span of many more than 200 sales.
Microstock caters for a completely different market than the more 'traditional' stock agencies. I wouldn't expect a major bank or corporation to use microstock (you never know...Symantec used one of my images) but certainly many startup companies/websites/ or anyone with a tight budget looking for that professional image for their advertising etc
Many photographers use microstock as a supplemental income aside their 'regular' photography income (weddings,portraits & so on).
Either way you decide, I am very happy with the choice I made to sell 'micro' & the fact it has paid for all my equipment & more!
One small fact though, a photo on your hard drive (no matter how great) ain't ever gonna sell!
My photography site - it's not bad... (http://www.shotwithlove.com)

[chakalakasp]

Heres an example: This one image has made $80 since July 06 which is about what one would get from a one time sale with a stock agency. The rate it sells I should be at $100-$120 within a year of its life on the stock sites.
http://thumb2.shutterstock.com/photos4/display_pic_with_logo/66057/66057,1150874184,2.jpg


That's not the point, really. So you made a $80 selling it to 50 or 60 clients... and you're okay with that? I made $2800 selling this ONCE for a non-exclusive 2 year:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/104/251051988_a4d400a95e.jpg

Now I suspect that had I dumped that onto the micros, I'd have netted a few hundred bucks by now. But who in their right mind would want to run it in an international advert campaign after a couple hundred other clients already were using it? And even if they had, they would have snagged it for $2 instead of $2800.

Yes, if you are a mediocre photographer shooting shots of your dog with a digital Elph or something, by all means, capitalize with micros. But to take good, marketable images and whore them out for two bucks a pop... well, you're helping someone's pocketbook out there, but not yours. :)

[PAS Photography]

Wow, Congrats. Very impressive image. I am curious how many photos have you sold at that rate? Im always looking to make more money.