View Full Version : Stock Photography
Malok
15th of March 2004 (Mon), 17:13
Does anyone on this forum sell photos to stock photography agencies? Are there many agencies that will take digital files and in the sizes that the D10 and D300 put out? I realize that they normally ask for slides, but with the changing scene I wonder if many agencies are shifting to digital. If they have, I would imagine that they would want very large file sizes. Would they take interpolated files or do they only take RAW, tiff, or jpg? I'm sorry if my complete ignorance is showing. :oops: Any input would be appreciated.
Malok
Ferdinand
15th of March 2004 (Mon), 17:51
Hello Malok,
I have very limited experience in this, from my limited experience its *.PNG format.
Also I got this from DPREVIEW forum for calculating stock photo price. http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm Hope you find it useful.
Regards,
Ferdinand.
robertwgross
15th of March 2004 (Mon), 18:17
Some stock agencies and publishers deal only with transparencies. Other stock agencies and publishers deal only with digital files. A few will go either way.
The "digital" people will tell you that it is cheaper and faster. The "transparency" people will tell you that image quality is better and there is much less likelihood of the image being faked.
Choose your weapon carefully.
(I go both ways. I shoot digitally until I stumble onto something that I know is a killer shot. Then I pull out the Canon film camera, move the lens over, and shoot some Velvia.)
---Bob Gross---
Ballen Photo
15th of March 2004 (Mon), 18:58
(I go both ways. I shoot digitally until I stumble onto something that I know is a killer shot. Then I pull out the Canon film camera, move the lens over, and shoot some Velvia.)
---Bob Gross---
FILM? What's THAT? ;-)
......Bruce
sparktography
15th of March 2004 (Mon), 19:01
Some stock agencies and publishers deal only with transparencies. Other stock agencies and publishers deal only with digital files. A few will go either way.
The "digital" people will tell you that it is cheaper and faster. The "transparency" people will tell you that image quality is better and there is much less likelihood of the image being faked.
Choose your weapon carefully.
(I go both ways. I shoot digitally until I stumble onto something that I know is a killer shot. Then I pull out the Canon film camera, move the lens over, and shoot some Velvia.)
---Bob Gross---
Bob,
Do you know where I could go to get a list of the ones that accept both film and digital, or digital only? So far I've only been doing consignment photography, but I'm starting to get a largish personal collection that I am considering submitting to an agency...
Sparky
robertwgross
15th of March 2004 (Mon), 19:39
No, I don't have a list. Some of the older publications and agencies stick to film only. Some of the newer publications and agencies are willing to think digitally. About one year ago, I bought the 2003 Photographer's Market book, and I looked up each one of the publications that had my interest. Not a single one was listed in the book. We can't all be published in National Geographic, I guess.
Note that some stock agencies have onerous contract fine print, so think long and hard before you stick you toe in that water. Exclusivity is one word to watch out for.
A friend of mine has been going around and around with one agency (who wants 35mm slides only). They now have many hundreds of his nature slides, and I don't think he has recovered a nickel yet.
The digital agencies obviously represent a cheaper approach for the photographer. I mean, it doesn't cost much to send them a file. Unfortunately, many want the files delivered on CD-ROM. That still isn't a huge deal, but it is just one of the many hurdles to be crossed.
Yeah, film. It is the stuff that came along before digital cameras.
---Bob Gross---
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.