I’ve been asked once or twice in the past through flickr to provide photos for various things. Some, such as charities, I’ve been happy to oblige for free, others, small publishers, usually a copy of whatever they’re making and acknowledgement.

However, that ‘business model’ doesn’t work for personal requests, so I am thinking of asking for a nominal amount for the high-res of this, bearing in mind the risk that by sending the high-res file, it might be used anywhere.

Any ideas? Have other amateurs on here sold photos, and if so, how much for. By my own admission it’s hardly the greatest photo, but it is at least sharp and well exposed.

Obviously a cut of the profits go to Chipps’ and Mark’s beer fund 😉

Why not sell it on iStockPhoto? Or similar.

Personally, I would carry on releasing photos for free. You really need to be photographing something specific to be charging.

You’re right, the exposure, saturation and composition look fine. However it’s hardly a breathtaking view and it would only interest somebody who wanted to illustrate that paricular bay, for example. To be honest even landscape photgraphy has moved on in the digital age because digital cameras allow photogaphers to get excellent shots in light conditions that would have made film photography difficult or impossible, as well as allowing “darkroom” effects that couldn’t be achieved with conventional film.

If you want a landscape photographer’s comment, I would say that the picture is a little jumbled and busy and the light too flat. The beach is unattractive, it’s hardly a brilliant clean white strand like you get in the Hebrides. The canted boat doesn’t enhance the picture and with the low viewpoint you’ve missed the opportunity to show some interesting old field patterns and what look like Scots pines. Just coming back in the morning or evening would have lit the house better and given it more prominence.

The going rate on iStock is around the £15 mark for something like that. It’s a very nondescript photo of a very mundane looking scene though, very much a snapshot rather than something saleable, so if someone specifically wants it, I’d probably let it go for a few beer tokens.

I’d let it go for good karma.

Why shouldn’t Zokes charge a small amount for the shot (obviously not for charities and good causes) Regardless of what anyone thinks of the image it’s his work and he has the right to ask for a fee for it’s use. So say he asks and gets £20 He gets some beer/takeaway/petrol and the purchaser of the image gets to understand that work, no matter how small isn’t free.

Sadly iStock while a good idea would reject the above for 2 reasons. The blown highlight on the end of the boat and the sharpening halo where hill meets the sky. They’re damn exacting on image post processing and dynamic range.

Yup, those are precisely my views of it – a technically OK, if not artistically impressive view of a bay I used to live close by, and my wife was brought up next to. I’ve never had much interest in selling photos, not only out of respect of professionals and the notable limitations of my own talent, but also I enjoy taking photos. I’d rather earn money doing something I’m good at and enjoy my hobby, rather than the other way round.

I reckon 10-20 quid is fair enough – will probably spend it on some flowers for MrsZ, which will cheer her up 🙂

It sounds to me as if someone has asked for that photo specifically. In which case that’s between you and them. If you are friends and you didn’t do the work specifically for them, it should be free.

Re the photo itself, I hate the fact that the house on the left is dark. I’d have brought it up in PS.

Sadly iStock while a good idea would reject the above for 2 reasons. The blown highlight on the end of the boat and the sharpening halo where hill meets the sky. They’re damn exacting on image post processing and dynamic range.

They must be! Whilst I accept mea culpa on the boat, the only ‘artefacts’ my untrained eye can see on the high res are CA on some of the blacks (that’s what L-series lenses get you 😉 ). As a matter of course, I very rarely apply any sharpening in PP, and always shoot in RAW.

As for the house – well, the photo’s a few years old, and my PP skills have improved from non-esistant to marginal. If I’m charging, I might as well do a decent job on it this time!

The halo could just be exaggerated due to the re-sizing and JPG compression. iStock and the like really are buggers for being picky. 🙂

As a matter of course, I very rarely apply any sharpening in PP, and always shoot in RAW

Unless you have a camera that differs from the norm, sharpening is usually mandatory to reclaim the natural sharpness lost by the effects of interpolation and anti-aliasing filters in the camera body.

I think the cost you charge should be determined on what use the photo is put to. If it’s going to be the opening shot of next years biggest feature film, the rate might be slightly different than for someone who wants a print for their hobby room.

Try the image licensing fee calculator on Alamy (if you reckon they’ve got money to burn). 🙂