cash flow from stock photography

I'm not too sure how the whole stock photography thing works. Basically you take a picture of something, then post it on a stock website and people buy it... what kind of research do you guys do to figure out what's the best thing to shoot and what kind of income does this generate on average?

I'm a fine art photographer but wouldn't mind some extra income...

You have the basic idea of stock correct. That said, it's extremely difficult to make money at it unless you have 10's of thousands of images available. 'Royalty Free' has knocked the bottom right out of this field.

Kent

i'd suggest taking a course on it or a workshop. Theres all kinds on things you need to know and understand, about model and property releases, sensetive issues clauses, royalty free, but more importantly you need to understand how to shoot for stock. You won't be succesful if you just send in snapshots while you're out and about,, you have to shoot with stock in mind so the image is what the potential client needs.

kmgibbs wrote in post #2676294
You have the basic idea of stock correct. That said, it's extremely difficult to make money at it unless you have 10's of thousands of images available. 'Royalty Free' has knocked the bottom right out of this field.

Kent

Well I guess it depends on how much money you are talking about I have less than 10's of thousands of images available and I make decent money.

Floyd

join some of the sites then look at the top 50 sellers take those pics with your twist that's really about all you have to do. if you do join shutterstock please use my link in my sig. If you want more links to other sites just PM me and I will let you know which ones are better and worst for me.

Bob

snokid wrote in post #2692804
Well I guess it depends on how much money you are talking about I have less than 10's of thousands of images available and I make decent money.

Bob

Depends on what you call "decent." Stock photos used to go for hundreds each. Now it's just pennies per image. That's what the increased availability of DSLR's to the general public has done to this part of the industry.

liza wrote in post #2692823
Depends on what you call "decent." Stock photos used to go for hundreds each. Now it's just pennies per image. That's what the increased availability of DSLR's to the general public has done to this part of the industry.

It's a shame...

snokid wrote in post #2692804
Well I guess it depends on how much money you are talking about I have less than 10's of thousands of images available and I make decent money.

Floyd

join some of the sites then look at the top 50 sellers take those pics with your twist that's really about all you have to do. if you do join shutterstock please use my link in my sig. If you want more links to other sites just PM me and I will let you know which ones are better and worst for me.

Bob

copying others ideas and styles isn't a good way to make money, why would anyone buy your image if its already there from a "reputible" photog?

micro is not a good way of making "decent" money. If you joined a real agency you could sell one image that would make you as much as selling thousands at shutter stock.

liza wrote in post #2692823
Depends on what you call "decent." Stock photos used to go for hundreds each. Now it's just pennies per image. That's what the increased availability of DSLR's to the general public has done to this part of the industry.

it's a love hate relationship...

i'd love it if i had thousands of worthy photos, but i hate that i don't... yet

IDK if I could do stock photography. Whenever I think of it, i Imagine shooting a couple different models all day doing various stupid things. Model with phone smiling, Model with phone frowning, Model talking on phone, model walk with phone, model sitting with phone, model laying down with phone, model opening door with phone. Rotate the camera from landscape to portrait and repeat. You get the idea... its repetitive crap like that that will get stock photos sold. You never know what a client will need, so you end up shooting thousands of photos of different models doing every task imaginable with different objects. Keep in mind, you have to have model and location release forms, none of the items in the photos can show any branding (model drinking coke from coke can). zzzZZzzzZZzzzzzzzzz

sirsloop wrote in post #2695515
IDK if I could do stock photography. Whenever I think of it, i Imagine shooting a couple different models all day doing various stupid things. Model with phone smiling, Model with phone frowning, Model talking on phone, model walk with phone, model sitting with phone, model laying down with phone, model opening door with phone. Rotate the camera from landscape to portrait and repeat. You get the idea... its repetitive crap like that that will get stock photos sold. You never know what a client will need, so you end up shooting thousands of photos of different models doing every task imaginable with different objects. Keep in mind, you have to have model and location release forms, none of the items in the photos can show any branding (model drinking coke from coke can). zzzZZzzzZZzzzzzzzzz

True... it's a big stressful endeavor to take on. I haven't tried it personally, but i would think that it's monotonous (my spelling isn't the greatest )

coreypolis wrote in post #2693455
copying others ideas and styles isn't a good way to make money, why would anyone buy your image if its already there from a "reputible" photog?

micro is not a good way of making "decent" money. If you joined a real agency you could sell one image that would make you as much as selling thousands at shutter stock.

I'm not really saying to copy per say.

but like it was said a model laying on a cellphone and what ever other pose.

Maybe you have a green background and that is what a designer is looking for.

Macro is good also, but the wait to sell a picture is much more than micro, sure you make more per photo, but volume makes up for it in micro.

I don't think macro is on it's way out any time soon, but micro is growing by leaps and bounds for sure.

think of your church, are they going to pay hundreds of dollars for an image for their sunday flyer? but they will pay a few dollars.

So micro has just created a new market.

just don't take pictures that you would sell with a macro agency and put them up on a micro site. Best of both worlds.

Sure taking a picture of a strawberry on white isn't that hard but if you sell 15 of them a day it's worth a 100 a month and that's just one microsite.

I guess it's to each their own. But for me micro is working.

Bob

Micros are a blessing for some and a menace for others. I think this would be a good start if you are interested in micros :
http://www.perrush.be/​SYF_micro_E_1.html

liza wrote in post #2692823
Depends on what you call "decent." Stock photos used to go for hundreds each. Now it's just pennies per image. That's what the increased availability of DSLR's to the general public has done to this part of the industry.

Only if you choose to sell your work through microstock agencies (also known as "laughing stock").

My royalty-free images still sell for several hundred $$$ per use, and the rate has been increasing over the last couple of years (contrary to the doom and gloom you hear).

coreypolis wrote in post #2693455
copying others ideas and styles isn't a good way to make money, why would anyone buy your image if its already there from a "reputible" photog?

micro is not a good way of making "decent" money. If you joined a real agency you could sell one image that would make you as much as selling thousands at shutter stock.

where are these REAL agencies people talk about?

It seems like the only people making money from them are the ones that are already there. It's impossible to get in with the REAL agencies unless you know someone. The pros on there aren't talking about how to get in.

If you already have an income and can make extra cash from a hobby by submitting to a microstock agency, then good. Right?

Ray Marrero wrote in post #2758498
where are these REAL agencies people talk about?

It seems like the only people making money from them are the ones that are already there. It's impossible to get in with the REAL agencies unless you know someone. The pros on there aren't talking about how to get in.

If you already have an income and can make extra cash from a hobby by submitting to a microstock agency, then good. Right?

no its not right, its extremely harmful to the photo community as a whole for a lot of reasons.

you can't just sign up with getty or corbis, but you can with middle levels like alamy. you can also join smaller "fronts" that work with getty and corbis. Stock is a extremely specific industry that requires a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas, like IP law, model releases etc.