Stock Photographers...

[jra]

Just a few questions for seasoned stock photographers....
How big is your stock collection? I'm just curious how many photos the average stock seller has for sale and what's considered a decent collection.

Do you sell through multiple agencies or only concentrate on one?

Have you made any mistakes with your stock business that you really wish you could undo?

What style of photos have been good sellers for you?....what hasn't?

I've decided to give stock photography a try and see how I can do with it. I certainly don't expect anyone to give up their trade secrets but I'd appreciate any input from seasoned stock photographers :) BTW...no need to debate or argue micro stock here ;)

[jra]

Wow...the Alamy topic has been going on for over 4 months with page after page of stock sellers discussing stuff and not a single response here??? Come on people....throw a dog a bone ;)

[ChrisRabior]

I don't know if I'd call myself seasoned.. just enough to have a bit of a feel for what I'm doing.

How big is my stock collection? I'd like to think it's infinite in size, only limited by how lazy/productive I end up being =) Currently, I have about 1300 images accepted to Alamy, but only 950 or so available for sale (the remainder waiting patiently for me to get off my butt and keyword them). To put that into perspective, that only represents what I shot between July 2006 and June 2007 (I'm working my way through submitting the oldest to newest images), and in that period of time, you're looking at about 20k images. I've got another 68k (and growing) to go through, prep, submit, and hopefully wind up with anywhere from 500 to 5000 more stock shots. Lots of work, but hopefully work that will pay for itself in the long run.

A 'decent' collection purely put is one that gets a lot of sales. Doesn't have anything to do with the number of images, it's all about quality. If you're stuck on numbers, I've seen a lot of Alamy contributors with over 7,000 images and a few with over 15,000. Some of the top Shutterstock contributors have portfolios in the thousands as well as those at iStock and other micros.

At present, I'm focused on Alamy. Eventually I might consider other agencies, but each photo has to be submitted and keyworded all over again. I'm barely keeping up with my productivity with Alamy. I can't imagine doing multiple..

I dabbled in microstocks for a while, sold some images as RF that probably never should have been even available as RF, and stayed on a lot longer than I probably should have. Micro was good for proving that my photos were in fact worth something, and good for developing my eye of the various causes for QC failure. I also wish I'd have started keywording image files prior to uploading (even only minor info like location and subject) to make things simpler after they're online. Particular regrets are shooting things I know are important, not keywording/noting what/who it was, and forgetting. Almost impossible to figure out who/what is in the photo after the fact for many of them, so there are a lot of wasted opportunities for stock.

I submit 99.999% unreleased (editorial). Can't speak to how shots with releases sell, because I don't really have much of it, but on the micros, those types of shots are the bread and butter for many of their contributors. Most of my sales have been sports related and/or local to my home state. If you want a look at what sells, check out the featured images or most popular images for the microstock sites, check out Alamy measures, and browse the Alamy forums for images found. All sorts of things sell, including those you could never imagine someone having a use for.

[Erich in Az]

If you want a look at what sells, check out the featured images or most popular images for the microstock sites, check out Alamy measures, and browse the Alamy forums for images found. All sorts of things sell, including those you could never imagine someone having a use for.


True statement! There were 2 sales related to this search term last month :lol:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-search-results.asp?qt=cyclist+pee

[jra]

Thanks for the responses :)
Chris, with your Alamy collection, are you seeing fairly steady sales? Is there any way to see just how many sales Alamy (or any other agency for the matter) makes each month? It would be nice to know that I'm choosing a place to sell that has lots of potential buyers.

[jbimages]

Thanks for the responses :)
Chris, with your Alamy collection, are you seeing fairly steady sales? Is there any way to see just how many sales Alamy (or any other agency for the matter) makes each month? It would be nice to know that I'm choosing a place to sell that has lots of potential buyers.

Alamy are one of the few stock agencies that publish their historical trading statement. http://www.alamy.com/contributors/statements/default.asp

[ChrisRabior]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=559642

[jra]

Alamy are one of the few stock agencies that publish their historical trading statement. http://www.alamy.com/contributors/statements/default.asp

Thanks for posting that...very good info. If one is choosing an agency to sell through, it would be smart to make sure that agency is actually selling something :)

[jra]

Maybe a bit OT but why would a buyer not choose the micro stock sites to buy their photos? I've looked through some of them and there are some very good quality photographs selling for very cheap. What motivates a buyer to go to one of the higher priced stock agencies?

[jbimages]

Micros only sell RF images so there is no way to know who else has bought the image and to what use the image has been put. Most companies aren't all that happy if their competitor uses the same image.

Because the photographer has no say in how an RF image is used, they must be model and property released if they contain people or someone's property and all logos have to be removed.

Traditional stock agencies carry rights managed and editorial images. A company can licence a rights managed image and be sure they have exclusive use of that image for whatever time they require. They can also find out where it has been previously used.

Editorial images, used in newspapers, books, magazines etc., can be unreleased photos that include people and property as well as released photos.

[jra]

Micros only sell RF images so there is no way to know who else has bought the image and to what use the image has been put. Most companies aren't all that happy if their competitor uses the same image.

Because the photographer has no say in how an RF image is used, they must be model and property released if they contain people or someone's property and all logos have to be removed.

Traditional stock agencies carry rights managed and editorial images. A company can licence a rights managed image and be sure they have exclusive use of that image for whatever time they require. They can also find out where it has been previously used.

Editorial images, used in newspapers, books, magazines etc., can be unreleased photos that include people and property as well as released photos.

Thanks for the info on that :)

Another question....While browsing through some stock sites to see what's there, I noticed that a large portion of the photos are done on white seamless BG's. Is that what buyers want? Do photos like this sell as well as their numbers would indicate?

[jbimages]

traditional or micro sites?

I have licensed couple of images on white backgrounds but would hesitate to say that they are the majority of images licensed. Of 106 found images credited to Alamy in December 2008, one was on a white background.

[canon shooter]

Any advise for someone trying to get started at some stock photography.

What are the best sites to use?

How hard to be accepted?

How many images do you have to have to be accepted?

What kind of money can you make per image? I have read of some who say images go for .05 - .25. How can you make any money at that.

Input would be great.

[jra]

traditional or micro sites?



I was searching one of the micro sites and noticed a lot of photos done on white seamless. I guess that's an easy and clean way to photograph stuff. I just wondered if the amount of photos done like that reflected what the buyers want or simply because it's so easy from a photographers stand point...or maybe both :)

[Dan-o]

It is done because it is very easy for the artist or web designer to incorporate an image without a background into what ever they are working on.