Sold my first picture

[midlife_crisis]

I'm over the moon, I took up photography in June as a hobby and I've just had my first download on iStock.

Sorry, I had to tell someone.

[T.D.]

I'm over the moon, I took up photography in June as a hobby and I've just had my first download on iStock.

Sorry, I had to tell someone.

SWEET! Congratulations. You've sold exactly 1 more than I have. :oops:

Good job!! You must be thrilled.

[latigo]

Congrats!

[mchong75]

Congrats.

Post the pic which was sold.

[DavidPhoto]

Congrats but hey at least post a thumb of the pic you sold!

[midlife_crisis]

Congrats but hey at least post a thumb of the pic you sold!

doh, it's this one http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4798978

thanks for humerring me

[DavidPhoto]

congrats again. You'll be rich before you know it :)

[pmk]

Cool!

How does iStock work? How much does one make per download? Who buys them, individuals .. companies?

Are you buying us all a round of beers with your newfound wealth? :)

pmk

[stathunter]

Congrats but it appears that your mother bought it.





:)

[midlife_crisis]

lol, I'll see you at the local, the beers are on me.

I've no idea who bought it, i think it depends on what is downloaded as to what you get. I got 44 cents and I'm not sure if that's canadian. It's gonna take a while to get a round in, I'll start with the bottle tops.

I first uploaded pictures of istock just to see if I was capable to meeting the standard and then someone was daft enough to download one.

If I can do it anybody can.

[midlife_crisis]

Congrats but it appears that your mother bought it.
:)

lol, that takes the mistery out it

[New Hobby]

Did you get a model release signed? ;-) Congrats

[pmk]

Hey, that's my pigeon in your photo! You owe me a beer AND 22 cents! :D

pmk

[Tumeg]

a little off topic, but I just signed up for stock photo, and was wondering what they need my address and phone number for (I have an idea of why)
What do they send you, and call you for? Do they send you junk, or do they call you with random stuff?

[transcend]

And you are happy at giving away all rights to your photo for 44 cents? Highway robbery...

[midlife_crisis]

And you are happy at giving away all rights to your photo for 44 cents? Highway robbery...

The way I looked at it was, "I'm not a photographer I'm a programmer that takes photos", I guess that may change now :)

No, I'm not really happy about giving way all the rights to my pictures so I guess I'll have to look into it and find out how to protect my rights. I am happy that somebody thought the picture was worth paying for though

[transcend]

I can certainly see you being happy for selling a photo, congratulations. Just be aware that you got completely taken advantage of. 44 cents doesn't really count as paying, especially at the micro agencies where you can spend $20 a month for unlimited downloads or something ;)

Microstock is really not the way to go. The agency wins, the client wins, the photographer gets royally screwed. How happy would you be to see that image used in a national ad campaign for a blue chip company, for example? Don't laugh, it's happened. The shooter got 23 cents in that case for an image worth many thousands of dollars at that level of usage.

Good luck in the future!

[epatt250]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=61210

Read the first post of that thread before going the stock route.

[midlife_crisis]

I totally get your point, so what are the options for me?

[sfgp]

A quick calc tells me that you will have to sell 14,000 + pictures to pay for your equipment.

There are better ways to sell stock photos than microstock.

Good Luck.

I posted this in another thread - but I will drop it in here again. FWIW.

Don't slam me to hard - I hate to see talent being used, abused and poorly paid.

------------------
A Quote from Photo District News:
http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
"SAA executive director Betsy Reid pointed out a discussion board on iStockPhoto where members were congratulating photographer Lise Gagne, who wrote that she had just seen one of her stock images on IBM's web site. http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
'Once you're done celebrating, is anyone going to stop and think that you got 20 cents for that image?' Reid asks."
http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
Can IBM afford to pay market rates for images? Of course! Would they pay 500 dollars for this same image if that was the price? The odds are they would. So why did they pay 1 dollar? Because that was the price it was offered for. The photographer has thrown away 499 dollars.
http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
The painful injustice of microstock sites can be seen from the July 23rd 2007 cover of Time Magazine (yes, that's right, Time Magazine). The cover has 3 images. One is credited to Getty Images, one to istockphoto. How much did the photographers earn? A conservative estimate would be that the Getty photographer earned over 1000 dollars. The istock photographer? 20 cents.

-------------------------------
Full article here -> http://www.photographersdirect.com/s...tock_sites.asp (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp)

-----------------

[midlife_crisis]

hi sfgp, is that a recommendation for photographersdirect? what are the better ways you are referring too?

[sfgp]

is that a recommendation for photographersdirect?

Not a recomindation for photog direct. (I am not connected in any way with them).

The whole intent is to point out the vast differance in photographers revenue between
micro stock and rights managed agencies.
And a suggestion to investigate any Rights Managed stock photo agency as a
venue for your stock photos.

Yes, they will be harder to get connected with. But the financial returns are
much better.

I just have a basic problem with selling 'all rights' to a picture for .20 to .50

[liza]

And you are happy at giving away all rights to your photo for 44 cents? Highway robbery...

I can certainly see you being happy for selling a photo, congratulations. Just be aware that you got completely taken advantage of. 44 cents doesn't really count as paying, especially at the micro agencies where you can spend $20 a month for unlimited downloads or something ;)

Microstock is really not the way to go. The agency wins, the client wins, the photographer gets royally screwed. How happy would you be to see that image used in a national ad campaign for a blue chip company, for example? Don't laugh, it's happened. The shooter got 23 cents in that case for an image worth many thousands of dollars at that level of usage.

Good luck in the future!

I agree completely. Don't allow microstock agencies to bend you over. I negotiate with corporate clients directly and charge $150 per digital file.

[midlife_crisis]

I can see that this is a subject that people feel very strongly about.

Thanks for all the concern and I'll look into rights managed agencies.

[transcend]

I agree completely. Don't allow microstock agencies to bend you over. I negotiate with corporate clients directly and charge $150 per digital file.

I deal with commercial clients for a living. Advertising, catalogs, brochures, web usage etc. $150 barely covers a spot web use for my clients. I usually sell in the $550-$1500 range for single page use, depending on the client, usage and industry that number can go much, much higher.

That's a lot of images at .23 cents!

edit: spelling

[liza]

I deal with commercial clients for a living. Advertising, catalogs, brochures, web usage etc. $150 barely covers a spot web use for my clients. I usually sell in the $550-$1500 range for single page use, depending on the client, usage and industry that number can go much, much higher.

That's a lot of images at .23 cents!

edit: spelling

Tell me more...

I'd like to expand more in larger metro areas with this type of work. It keeps food on the table during the slow season. ;)

[ChrisRabior]

I just sold my first picture on Alamy. It's a shot of Cobo Hall during the Detroit Auto Show.. $144 sale.

Alamy would be a better option than Photographer's Direct for your current situation. PD is very very picky about its contributers having ANY work up with micros. myLoupe is another option, but like PD, they won't touch you if you have images up with micros. Alamy (to the best of my knowledge) doesn't really care, although you'll take a verbal beating from most of its members if you talk about supporting the micros in their forums.

Good luck to ya.

[transcend]

It doesn't really make sense to have image son micros and regular stock anyways. One alamy sale will net you about the same as 300+ micro sales! If they accept you at the bigger stock sites, you are good to go.

[Michaelmjc]

A quick calc tells me that you will have to sell 14,000 + pictures to pay for your equipment.

There are better ways to sell stock photos than microstock.

Good Luck.

I posted this in another thread - but I will drop it in here again. FWIW.

Don't slam me to hard - I hate to see talent being used, abused and poorly paid.

------------------
A Quote from Photo District News:
http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
"SAA executive director Betsy Reid pointed out a discussion board on iStockPhoto where members were congratulating photographer Lise Gagne, who wrote that she had just seen one of her stock images on IBM's web site. http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
'Once you're done celebrating, is anyone going to stop and think that you got 20 cents for that image?' Reid asks."
http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
Can IBM afford to pay market rates for images? Of course! Would they pay 500 dollars for this same image if that was the price? The odds are they would. So why did they pay 1 dollar? Because that was the price it was offered for. The photographer has thrown away 499 dollars.
http://www.photographersdirect.com/1.gif
The painful injustice of microstock sites can be seen from the July 23rd 2007 cover of Time Magazine (yes, that's right, Time Magazine). The cover has 3 images. One is credited to Getty Images, one to istockphoto. How much did the photographers earn? A conservative estimate would be that the Getty photographer earned over 1000 dollars. The istock photographer? 20 cents.

-------------------------------
Full article here -> http://www.photographersdirect.com/s...tock_sites.asp (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp)

-----------------


It might be an old thread, but I thought I would say something. I understand you don't make as much money as you possibly could, but you make a hell of a lot more money than you would without selling any pictures.

Right now, if someone isn't a member on a microstock site, they probably arn't making any money at all.

I look at it as, I have a lot of pictures, I may as well sell them for something. When you have a lot of pictures online, you make more money than I think you realize. I've made over $800 since the beginning of the month. $800 so far for nothing.

So think about that.

EDIT -

the iStock photographer made a hell of a lot more money than 20 cents. Time magazine would have had to purchase an extended license for that file, to be able to distribute it worldwide. The extended license could have been close to 1000. There are different options for the amount the file will be reproduced.

Maybe find out more before you start firing off all your stats.

[ChrisRabior]

It might be an old thread, but I thought I would say something. I understand you don't make as much money as you possibly could, but you make a hell of a lot more money than you would without selling any pictures.

Right now, if someone isn't a member on a microstock site, they probably arn't making any money at all.

I look at it as, I have a lot of pictures, I may as well sell them for something. When you have a lot of pictures online, you make more money than I think you realize. I've made over $800 since the beginning of the month. $800 so far for nothing.

So think about that.

EDIT -

the iStock photographer made a hell of a lot more money than 20 cents. Time magazine would have had to purchase an extended license for that file, to be able to distribute it worldwide. The extended license could have been close to 1000. There are different options for the amount the file will be reproduced.

Maybe find out more before you start firing off all your stats.

I knew there would be one of these responses.
I hate to burst the bubble, but the point is that if they're selling on iStock, they'll also likely sell on Alamy, Photographer's Direct, myLoupe, Photoshelter, or any other number of non micropayment agencies. Who in their right mind would be happy selling an image for 25 cents when they could get 150 dollars?

You have to go through the same boring, lengthy process of editing, keywording, and all that fun stuff regardless of what agency you submit to. Why not just go straight to the big guns? My first two sales at the macrostock level surpassed the income I got from over 1000 sales with micros. It's just better business.

[Michaelmjc]

If you're on iStock as an exclusive photographer, you get increased royalties.. and you are exclusive to iStock so you can't sell to any other agencies...

And for the 3 minutes it takes to upload the picture and keyword, I can see how it's such a hassle.

You know how hard it is to get accepted to Getty or any other very large stock site, and meet all their requirements and inspection process. My hat is off to anyone that can get more than 100 images accepted by them.

and where are you all getting 25 cents from? you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[Uhland]

I made like 40 bucks on microstock =)

I only put like 10 of my photos from my A620 on there tho ;p

[azpix]

It doesn't really make sense to have image son micros and regular stock anyways. One alamy sale will net you about the same as 300+ micro sales! If they accept you at the bigger stock sites, you are good to go.

What's the criteria for being accepted?

[Col_M]

What's the criteria for being accepted?
This link explains all :)
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp

[janvm]

Hurray for you! Not to crush your dreams, but i hope you enjoy the wait to hit the pay out limit. tried it with dreamstime (43 exclusive images, not exclusive photographer) and after 1 year i'm totalling 60$. Not bad fot the time i put in, but since microstock usually wants finished pics (all the pp you can imagine), i just went with alamy. Same time consuming keywording, less pp means more time to shoot and the pay out is better. We'll see if i get more than 60$ in 1 year...

[azpix]

great info in this thread.

on alamy, they want their photo in an uncompressed file or jpeg. any know whether using one over the other effects sales.

also, say on another stock site they want jpegs that are at least 17mb. I have a 40d and don't have any jpegs close to that size. how does one get there jpegs to 17mbs?

[crash331]

great info in this thread.

on alamy, they want their photo in an uncompressed file or jpeg. any know whether using one over the other effects sales.

also, say on another stock site they want jpegs that are at least 17mb. I have a 40d and don't have any jpegs close to that size. how does one get there jpegs to 17mbs?

What stock site says that? A wholly retarded one, I'm guessing.

[Col_M]

great info in this thread.

on alamy, they want their photo in an uncompressed file or jpeg. any know whether using one over the other effects sales.

also, say on another stock site they want jpegs that are at least 17mb. I have a 40d and don't have any jpegs close to that size. how does one get there jpegs to 17mbs?

I don't submit to Alamy yet but I'm planning to and from my research what I understand is that Alamy only want jpegs that come from a >48Mb 8-bit TIFF but don't actually accept TIFFs. So an example procedure to submit to them would be something along the lines of this, (I appreciate everyone's workflow may vary)

Open RAW file correct WB etc.
Convert image to TIFF
In PS or equiv. clone out blemishes, touch up and a noise reduction if needed (don't over-do this step).
Convert to 8-bit TIFF (assuming you were working with 16-bit TIFF)
Then using PS or Genuine Fractals increase the resolution of the 8-bit TIFF until it is >48Mb (shown in bottom left of window in PS)
Finally save as JPEG with minimal compression (10+ in PS)

It would be good if a Alamy contributer could confirm that i'm on the right wavelength :)

Oh and congrats on your sale midlife_crisis :)

[janvm]

close enough :) Only my noise removal is a bit different. I use a very soft noise remove on the original size, and a bit stronger noise removal on the sky after the resize.

The only thing they ask is no sharpening. I usually cheat a little bit on that step by using the bicubic sharper option in PS to resize to 5300 at the longest side if the pic could use a wee bit sharpening. I stopped using genuine fractals since i always got pics rejected for interpolation artifacts...

[inthedeck]

Keep the info. coming, this is rather interesting.

[stathunter]

This is interesting. I have never submitted to a microstock agency.....but this seems somewhat appealing - only if I can just submit bulk stuff that I am not forced to pp.

[Col_M]

close enough :) Only my noise removal is a bit different. I use a very soft noise remove on the original size, and a bit stronger noise removal on the sky after the resize.

The only thing they ask is no sharpening. I usually cheat a little bit on that step by using the bicubic sharper option in PS to resize to 5300 at the longest side if the pic could use a wee bit sharpening. I stopped using genuine fractals since i always got pics rejected for interpolation artifacts...

Thanks janvm :)

[Michaelmjc]

This is interesting. I have never submitted to a microstock agency.....but this seems somewhat appealing - only if I can just submit bulk stuff that I am not forced to pp.

Just make sure the pics you take are spot on then. It's always best when you don't have to do any, but doesn't always work in your favour.

[Scuff]

I use microstock and macro stock agencies.

I find it a useful way of getting some of my images earn a little cash instead of gathering dust on my hard drive.

While micro stock payouts are low, it can be a useful way for new submitters to learn what is needed to be successful with stock photography.

There are links to the popular microstock agencies on my site here (http://www.gtmedia.com/Links.html)

So I do not hide anything, please be aware that these are referral links. It wont cost you anything but I may make a few cents if you join up. If you don't want to do that, don't click on them.

Whilst I have sales on both Alamy and microstock, the amount of sales income from microstock easily exceeds that from Alamy.

[e20ci]

I have been using Fotolia (http://us.fotolia.com/partner/318516) for a few months and made about $50 so far. Not bad, considering I just uploaded old shots I had already taken. They sell small versions (1200x800 pixel, I think) for $1 each and give you half, but that adds up easily, and its not like you're giving away the full high quality version to anyone for really cheap. Just upload as many good shots as you can, and eventually, someone somewhere will see it and buy it.