I need some advice, please

[palaima]

Hello, so I am a student and I had a "golden thought" to make money out of my hobbie, so I thought about microstocks....but i read about them and made an impression that they ar enot as good as I thought, so i registered in Alamy, and now I need some help, i know it might sound quite illogical to first register and later to ask "Are my photos proper enough to sell?" but still, I now that most of you make money out of photography and now i am quite desperate to make some... So here are a few shots (probably the ones that i like the best).
So I am waiting for your responce. (PS: does anyone make money out of street/urban photopgraphy?)
http://images26.fotki.com/v958/photos/1/1242899/6860490/IMG_9981-vi.jpg

http://images50.fotki.com/v1558/photos/1/1242899/5542976/IMG_29612-vi.jpg

http://images50.fotki.com/v405/photos/7/70880/651/348751050-vi.jpg?1247812297
http://images49.fotki.com/v1508/photos/1/1242899/5998711/IMG_0890-vi.jpg

[chakalakasp]

If you are quite desperate to make money, then stock photography isn't the way -- it'll be at least 6 months before you start making sales on Alamy -- more likely at least a year. And that's if you upload many hundreds of images and spend a lot of time properly keywording them. So if you're broke and need quick money, I wouldn't recommend Alamy.

As for the photos -- well, they're good photos, but you have to remember that Alamy caters to editorial clients -- meaning they want pictures of things and people and people doing things, especially UK people doing UK things. A B/W of a flower or a sepia of a water droplet is probably never going to sell -- when was the last time you opened a newspaper and found such an image? Your stuff is more geared towards commercial clients, which makes me think it'd do better off at an agency that specializes in commercial stuff.

*edit* I would suggest putting your best stuff on Flickr and hoping that Getty notices you.

[palaima]

Understood, I have quite alot of portraits..but the problem is the agreement, some of the people i don't really know or i won't see in the comming few years...

[chakalakasp]

Not so much portraits for Alamy as photos you'd expect to see in a newspaper or textbook (two of Alamy's biggest clients). You don't usually see portraits in a newspaper (unless the person has done something), but you might see photos of a protest or of a nice beach on an island somewhere. In a textbook, you might see photos of an animal to illustrate that animal or you might see photos of people doing something to illustrate a concept (I've sold breakdancing photos a few times through Alamy, for example), but rarely will you see straight-up portraiture. The neat thing about Alamy, though, is that because they work with editorial clients, you don't need a model release to upload photos.

With Getty, yeah, you need releases signed for all people. But honestly, if you can get into Getty, that's the path to making money. I think they make on average $30 to $40 per image per year for you. You put in 100 really good images, you're probably going to make $3K or $4K per year. You put in 1,000 images and you probably quit the day job.

[palaima]

I think that i am not on the Getty level yet..
Thanks for the quick responce and expalantions.
Chakalakasp - thats why i asked about street photography, my portraits are not like studio portraits, they are from the streets, events.

[ashleykaryl]

I still have stock images with various agencies or distributors as they like to call themselves these days and frankly that ship has sailed. It's no longer viable to produce good images with professional quality when they are being sold so cheaply. I'd gladly withdraw my images actually if they weren't there under contract.

First RF and then Microstock has utterly destroyed the earnings potential for photographers and I would strongly advise any photographer against going that route now. In the past images used to sell for thousands. Now they literally sell for pennies quite often and it's just ridiculous.

[palaima]

Ashley you have amazing portraits! Would like to see some in high quality :)

[ashleykaryl]

My main website needs updating with newer images and it's on my list of things to do but I've been a professional for many years. Most of the images you probably saw were done on a Hasselblad but I also use a Canon 1DsII as well.

Getting back to the subject of stock in the present conditions I'd honestly think you should stay away. It's nothing to do with the quality of your images, but simply recognising that the current pricing is both dysfunctional and completely unsustainable from a photographer's point of view. Even if you shoot images which don't cost you a penny in production costs, the time element is still considerable and there are simply far better ways to use your time as a photographer.

[chakalakasp]

My main website needs updating with newer images and it's on my list of things to do but I've been a professional for many years. Most of the images you probably saw were done on a Hasselblad but I also use a Canon 1DsII as well.

Getting back to the subject of stock in the present conditions I'd honestly think you should stay away. It's nothing to do with the quality of your images, but simply recognising that the current pricing is both dysfunctional and completely unsustainable from a photographer's point of view. Even if you shoot images which don't cost you a penny in production costs, the time element is still considerable and there are simply far better ways to use your time as a photographer.

It depends what agency you work with. With the big two, Corbis and Getty, if you can get them to take your work it's well worth the while. RPI is around $35 to $40 a year on average. They also do the keywording for you.

[ashleykaryl]

I am with one of those two and I assure you that $40 per year return on an image means it's not worth my while picking up the camera.

[palaima]

Thanks for teh advice, now I have to do a little bit of thinking :)

[chakalakasp]

I am with one of those two and I assure you that $40 per year return on an image means it's not worth my while picking up the camera.

Ah, we have differing standards. My overhead is relatively small, so an income of $40,000 per year for the next 10 to 20 years ($400,000 to $800,000 lifetime return) for a onetime upload of 1000 images sounds like a good deal to me. And considering that I'm not planning on stopping shooting and that I usually produce at least 500 saleable images a year just shooting part time (granted, it's a very dedicated part time), I look at those numbers and think "yeah, I could live on that if it meant that all I had to do with the rest of my life to make money was take pictures". :)

[ashleykaryl]

Come tell me Ryan if you have made $40,000 in twelve months time from your stock collection and then $40,000 the year after. Remember to keep track of your expenses and time spent as well to see how much of those sales are actually profit or loss.

[chakalakasp]

Only time will tell, but I would be surprised if my numbers were off by a huge margin. While it's way too soon to extrapolate anything, I've already netted $200 off of 12 images in 2 months (5 sales total). I've got another 800 images in the pipe, though the editing process takes a while. An informal survey in another forum full of Getty shooters is showing an RPI ranging from $25 to $110 per year per image, with the majority being in the $35-45 RPI range. I know from other stock shooters I've spoken to that an annual income of above $100,000 is not unusual for a Getty contributor (at least it was a couple years ago), so long as they have a large and strong library. Of course, YMMV.

And again, my overhead is very low. My equipment is long since paid for, I shoot with middle of the road cameras (50D and 20D), have only three lenses, one flash, a two year old laptop, and no studio. I suppose if you were sinking $15K into each of your stock shoots, then yeah, you'd be in trouble in terms of generating a return. But most of what I do is not expensive, only time consuming in the post-process.