MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
What are your experiences of trying to sell through a stock agency?
Its been suggested to me that some of the web agencies might be worth offering high quality photos to (was thinking of general stuff, not sports). I was thinking of it as a side line that brings some kind of return, even if minor.
I've sold stuff ad-hoc through Flickr - agencies have just emailed me through Flickr asking to use photos. Flickr also offers agencies the option to license your work through Getty Images (if you consent to it).
I've been on photo4me.com for a while, sold one recently in poster form, but never sold anything as stock images - I've given a few away to small businesses as advertising shots.
Doesn't Getty tie you into all sorts of exclusivity clauses?
Getty have a very strict list of cameras that you have to use!!:
"If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list:
Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11,
Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11."
Regularly(ish) submit to Alamy and have had a few sales, mainly to magazines. Oddly enough my first sale was for the most dosh and appeared in a book. It's been downhill mostly from there 😆
It's a handy way of earning a bit of pocket money if you are out taking pictures anyway but be prepared to submit plenty of images. I'm only up to 400-odd which is nowhere near enough for regular sales.
Avoid microstock sites like the plague - the only people making decent returns from them are the site owners.
I submit to Microstock sites and while I don`t make a fortune I get a regular payment every month.
All my camera gear has been paid for by these sites.
As mentioned above you don`t make a fortune but I just submit pictures I had taken anyway.
The best thing is when you see one of your pictures being used.
So far I have had mine used on a book cover, CD cover, Kitchen Blinds in Lewis`s. Full page in a magazine and a loads of websites.
These are the sites I use in order of revenue
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61041
http://www.dreamstime.com/register-resi141866
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/?refid=2ISYGMvAjF
So far I have had mine used on a book cover, CD cover, Kitchen Blinds in Lewis`s. Full page in a magazine and a loads of websites.
I can't help thinking that there is something wrong here. Congratulations for having your work used and for generating money from it, but I can't help thinking that these sites are simply taking advantage of photographers. How much could you have received or have you taken away from a photographer who could have have their work paid for on a paid by quantity basis? Are these stes undervaluing the photograher's work? I accept it is the place to look and without your work may not have been seen, but still...
My knowledge goes back to the days of 35mm film but in those days stock agencies used to take a 50% cut.
The advantage to the photographer is that they don't have to pay for advertising or marketing their image and the stock back can target a much bigger market than an individual is able to.
The 'approved list' of cameras mentioned by Rockhopper is interesting.
I have heard that some pro photographers are complaining that amateurs are taking their trade, but then I guess some of the amateurs may end up as professionals eventually. I know of person who earns about £2000 per year from 'amateur' submissions. I don't know how many photos they have lodged to produce this money. I guess its a bit like any competitive field of employment - only so many photographers, either amateur or pro, can survive in a flooded market so you have to be good at both pictures and selling. Must be tough being pro though unless you are established.
Try ALAMY.com, they give you 60% and keep the 40% for themselves. They are based in the UK, but have a worldwide impact - they dont have any restrictions like Getty. They also donate 80+% of any profit they make to charity - their website has details. They are not like the small stock companys.
If you want more detailed info email me.
Thanks Trimix, most kind. I can't see an email address in your profile though, unless I am looking in the wrong place.
OK, thats odd. I cant see yours either - are they all hidden now ?
Getty have a very strict list of cameras that you have to use!!:"If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list:
Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11,
Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11.
That list is about 7 years out of date. That or they only do retro.
I have heard that some pro photographers are complaining that amateurs are taking their trade... I guess its a bit like any competitive field of employment - only so many photographers, either amateur or pro, can survive in a flooded market so you have to be good at both pictures and selling...
Considering musicians and writers all face the same sort of problem, it is hard to have much sympathy. The solution - it seems to me - is to see the current situation as a challenge and try to become such a good photographer your work is hard to resist.
You can make money - the skill is not necessarily having great photos - its having photos that others want to buy. Alamy sell loads to all sorts, not all of them are what you would call a great photo, its just that they suit what the consumer wants.
It could be a daft picture of a dog for a calander or a picture of a cloud for HSBS's latest advert. One woman made 30K for a holiday snap that was sold to a large bank for its adverts. Others make smaller amounts for all sorts of random shots. Some make nothing, but either the picture sits on your hard drive earning nothing or you upload it and it could earn something.
The key is how you describe them, not the picture. The picture buyer / reseacher will use the words in the search for the image, not the image. Then once they have a collection of images then they will look for the picture to suit.
I can't help thinking that there is something wrong here. Congratulations for having your work used and for generating money from it, but I can't help thinking that these sites are simply taking advantage of photographers. How much could you have received or have you taken away from a photographer who could have have their work paid for on a paid by quantity basis? Are these stes undervaluing the photograher's work? I accept it is the place to look and without your work may not have been seen, but still...
Thats all very well but the point is that maybe the pictures I sell through microstock may not be available by other photographers.
Besides which it is a bit of a contradiction really as a lot of "professional" photographers sell their own pictures on microstock sites. (the remains from paid shoots).
Its all about supply and demand.
My Full time job is a Taxi Driver but it doesn`t stop every body else working part time to supplement their full time job income - same thing really .
A bit of inspiration here..
[url= http://www.photoradar.com/news/story/yuri-arcurs-how-i-sell-2000-stock-photos-per-day ]Yuri Arcurs.[/url]
My Full time job is a Taxi Driver but it doesn`t stop every body else working part time to supplement their full time job income - same thing really .
The complaint that some professional photographers have is about the rates that amateurs are prepared to work for. It would be like somebody in your town, who likes driving cars, offering a taxi service for 10p/mile or even for nothing in their spare time.
Thats all very well but the point is that maybe the pictures I sell through microstock may not be available by other photographers.
Or the client doesn't want to pay pro rates? And as trimix said there is the question of supplying what the punter wants at the right price.
Cool, I'm also off to do a bit of moonlight taxi/private hire driving...
There's not a big demand for typists now everyone has a computer.
Being a camera operator is about as relevant.
So what cameras are people using to get photos accepted?
I presume its all SLR's rather than high end compacts?
Besides which it is a bit of a contradiction really as a lot of "professional" photographers sell their own pictures on microstock sites. (the remains from paid shoots).
Would take a pretty special kind of photographer to do this - commercial contracts generally dictate that images cannot be used elsewhere for financial gain.
The only guys I know who make a (semi)reasonable amount from stock now are submitting dozens of images a week to reputable agencies like Photographers Direct and Getty. It's pretty much a dead duck now.
They also have a minimum filesize, think its about 24mb
Well, I was thinking of it as much as a challenge, to learn to fit their criteria, make more effort with my photo quality and maybe fund a bit of my kit, as I take photos anyway.
I have started looking at some of the sites people have kindly mentioned on here (and thanks to everyone who has posted) and several of them list specifications for images and cameras - have found the pages for this but not had time to read them properly yet. They look a bit intimidating, but then I guess that's the challenge 🙂
In case its of any use to anyone, quite a few of the stock agencies seem to have discussion forums, for example
Another thing to point out is - some of the stock sites have certain quality criteria you have to meet before you can submit images. This made me learn how to take better pictures.
I now spend very little time bothering to submit images any more but the images I have already online generate a steady amount of cash every month. Which I usually spend on new camera gear.
I also have no criticism about the money I spend on lenses etc as they are funded purely from my sales.
Dirtybike, thats very encoraging information, thanks. I fancy a challenge but a bit of minor cash would be good too!
Thanks to everyone who is posting stuff on this thread, its very helpful giving me lots of web sites and info to check out further.
