WHERE to start- I am lost in the abyss of photography

Hello, I found the site searching on stock photography, and am very

interested in it, but the more I read the more confused I get :)~

 

Is there a stock photo for dummies layout anywhere for me to eyeball?

(yes dummies and I am posting you all here LOL!!) seems an honest

enviornment so I am hoping you all can enlighten me.

 

I read in reference to the NOT good ideas on the average $1 for your

stock photo sites ( which I was going to sign up for).

 

I am a beginner, and will be starting off w/ some new lenses and so

on, I sell my prints cheaply at a store in town etc, and am just

poking my nose into this area overall, I am fairly overwhelmed and

ready to run away from it honestly! But do wish to learn more

before I race off!

 

Advice? Where to start to read? Books? I am just so lost in all of

the selling of ones photos/stock wise and other, and it increases

the more I read!

 

I did goto alamy to read (found that somewhere on a thread-

somewhere) and THAT was even more confusing. Dont know where to

start.

:)Thanks for ANYYY help whatsoever.

I have hopes to search this site up and down in days to come, but my

mind is frazzled and fried for this evening!

Thank you again. The camera I use is a Canon Powershot S1 IS, and I

am getting a macro and tele lens for it, hoping that will help me

out more and give me more advantages w/ photography. I've only had

the camera for 6 months, but I ADOREE it, it's by my side more than

my own children. :O

-Michelle

I visited your site and couldn't raise a single image of yours. What software are you using on your site? As for the good stock houses, well, they're rarely interested in gushing amateurs with just a few images to offer.

I only threw that site together a few days ago-literally for the store in town to make my end easier, it was photobucket that is hosting the photos currently.

 

It is not something that I think I CAN do now, but something to look into and grow towards in the future.

I am fully an amatur, but would like to learn and look more into stock photography and was looking for a basis or beginning area of learning more about it.

Thanks again.

-Michelle

Michelle:

 

If you are interested in selling your own images, get a copy of Sell and Re-Sell Your Photos by Rohn Engh, now in it's 5th edition. Sell and Re-Sell will teach you a lot about the basics of the business of stock photography. Rohn Engh's website is www.photosource.com

 

If you are interested in having agencies represent you, you need to get better equipment. The minimum for agencies like Alamy is a 6.1+ megapixel DSLR. Since p&s digitals have smaller sensors (do a search on this site and read Bob Atkin's article about sensor size) the images they produce - even if the megapixel count is higher - are inferior to those produced by 6+ megapixel DSLRs.

 

Hope that helps.

Except for a special few, stock photography is NOT a big money maker by any means or measure, especially at first. There are general stock house and those who specialize, and in most cases, they want 100s or even 1000s of images, and on an ongoing basis. I urge you to research the subject thoroughly.

Thank you very much Mikael!

Actually I puchased that book (unsure the edition) on a whim a few days ago online and am awaiting its arrival in the mail! So glad that you mentioned it, I just thought 'ahh why not buy it' totally on a fluke!

 

Thank you also on the camera and megapixel end, I was very lost on Alamy, and since they are a legit site then I assume that's why!

At the end of the registration or whatever it was it said Tax something, and other sorts I said "Rut roh! What are you doing!?!"

 

I did not like the idea of the open ended purchase/lose all rights on your photos, and decided to search alittle deeper on the internet to see exactly what was what in reference to it all and wound up here.

 

I did have one more question if no one minds, I was reading the copyright site that was posted on here a few posts down, if you send a batch of photos, for copyright, for the $30 they say is the fee, do they HAVETO be all one subject, (my mind sees a photo shoot of one subject area/mornings shoot etc) since my photos, I only wish to keep/copyright certain ones, in all different subjects/forest/ sunsets/birds etc, do I need to copyright EACH one at $30, or can I run a sheet and CD to send, and its one lump sum of the $30?

 

Is there a limit to how many at once you can send?

 

May be more of a confusing question than I realize, again I am beyond beginning with all of this. Just moving things up a small notch, and am curious what is the best steps initially w/ copyrights for my future pics I sell.

 

Thank you again very much. Knew I would find legitamate help here!

 

Michelle

TY again Art, our posts over-ran eachother.

 

I think it would be wonderfully exciting to see a picture I took in print :) (and still have rights to it!) and an added hobby/area to enjoy w/ photography as I like taking photos so very much.

 

I am starting to learn more little by little, and I want GREAT pictures (as best my camera and abilities currently will allow-only way is up they say!) and I am looking towards creating prints/posters for metaphysical type stores, chiropractic offices and so on, as well as selling prints at other stores near me, so I'd like to really get into the copyright/rights/and expansions with REAL photography as a whole, before I get burnt and get angry I didn't check into this sooner.

 

The money end, vs the amount of time I've read everyone puts into it, I assumed it was not a get rich quick area, but just seemed so interesting, and something I really enjoy doing.

Thanks again.

-Michelle

Michelle:

 

First of all, Art is right. Stock photography doesn't - generally speaking - bring in the big bucks. Then again, there are stock shooters out there that produce very marketable model-released images that are marketed through the major agencies and these shooters make a lot of money, no doubt about that. Marketable images have very little to do with "good" images as "good images" are generally perceived when describing photographs. I specialize in photographing police, prisons, forensics etc and the images in my files that sell most often are of accidents and drug busts. Nothing artistic about images like that, but I predominately license my images to the editorial market.

 

As a beginner you will find it hard to be accepted by a serious agency, unless you have images that are unique and very marketable. An alternative is to market your images yourself. This is hard, can often be frustrating, and take a lot of time and effort. The rewards are that you keep 100% of any sales and that you're free to produce whatever images you want (as long as they sell). To be successfull when marketing your own images these days I strongly urge people to specialize. To find a narrow section of the market and go for that. Photo researchers go to the big agencies when they need generic pics but for those hard to find specialized images they often search out individual photographers who are experts in their field.

 

Often the reason a photo researcher might go with an image from me over an image from Corbis or Getty is that I know my stuff, I know what I shoot. I can explain the difference between a knock-and-announce warrant and a no-knock warrant to the photo researcher and my caption info is extensive. For the editorial market this is important.

 

You never lose all rights to your images when they are licensed (unless all rights are sold to a particular buyer but then the price will be quite high). The royalty free model can be seen as selling all rights with an image for a low to fairly low fee but it's up to you if you want to sell your images as royalty free or not.

 

Hope that helps.

Also, you need to take a course or two in basic recording keeping for a small business, and maybe a bookkeeping course. That will set you up for 'you can do it alone,' or you will need to find an accountant to keep your business in good shape for the 'wonderful folks at the IRS' that will want to share your 'income' down the road.

 

 

 

Does your town (or area) have a Small Business Administration office or a business department in the local community college? That would be a good place to start....

Michelle-- A lot of shooters have abandoned pure stock photography these days. What they will do is get an assignment and put the out-takes into stock. Trust me, it's not anything like it was in the 1980's when a good, prolific shooter could make a six-figure income.

 

Today, the stock world has been crushed by cheap picture files that they sell at CompUSA, CD's holding thousands of images for $39.95 or even cheaper. True, the photobuyers often end up paying the photo researchers just as much to find the shots and the retouchers even more than the photographer would have charged to make a good-enought shot in the first place, but for some reason that doesn't enter their minds.

 

Plus the major stock agencies have been sc**wing the photographers lately, charging for sending out images to prospective buyers, charging for talking to clients about their images, and even charging for sending out the photographers' royalty checks! I'll sell stock through my own site to a bunch of buyers I've developed relationships with over the years, but I don't bother with a pure stock agency. The paybacks these days are ridiculous.

 

And regarding "Sell and Re-sell Your Photographs," I am very familiar with Ron Engh, and he is an excellent individual, but some of the programs he espouses in his tomes are a bit optimistic. If you work hard and spend lots of money on equipment and hours a day at the computer marketing your stuff (after you've already spent hours a day shooting it), you might make a modest income at best.

 

My advice: Unless it's for your portfolio, for technical experience, or for your pleasure, don't shoot anything unless you have an assignment for it--or at least, don't shoot it and expect to get any sort of decent financial return.

 

Best of luck, and happy shooting. -BC-

Michelle:

 

I think Bill's comments are overly negative. There are plenty of stock shooters that make six figure incomes. It's just harder these days than it used to be but harder doesn't translate into impossible.

 

Using assignment outtakes as stock is a thing of the past and if you don't specialize and provide original, professional images the stock photo market is indeed incredibly limited. Like in any other kind of photography, if you can't produce what it takes you will not make it.

 

There are plenty of stock photographers who shoot for stock only and take few if any assignments. True, these photographers know what the market wants and have the ability to produce that kind of images. But the need for having this basic know-how is true for any business. A grocer who doesn't stock the products his customers wants will soon go out of business. A stock photographer who produces nice but not marketable images will soon go out of business. It's all in being able to read and understand the industry and producing the type of images needed.

 

The comments Bill make about the industry being ruined by cheap images simply isn't true. Sure, if we talk about very generic images like sunset over ocean, seagull sitting on pole, amateur pet images etc, there isn't much of a market for those kind of images. But there never was much of a market for that type of images to begin with! The jey, again, is to produce marketable images for a specific part of the industry. I regularly license images for use in textbooks for $250 and up per image for one-time usage and a print-run of less than 40,000. That isn't because my images are works of art - it's because I produce the images publishers of criminal justice, and similar, textbooks need!

One place to check out is http://www.danheller.com/ for a site by someone who makes his living doing this. Also, you should join this group and learn from the professionals there, all of whom make their livings as stock photographers STOCKPHOTO@yahoogroups.com. The latter group should certainly keep you abreast of what is going on in the field. All best.

Thank you so much everyone for your inputs it's helped ALOT and I understand a bit more now finally!

 

I was so lost trying to comprehend things of this nature overall, so many avenues, types of sites/photography quality etc.

I just saw on one of those 20 cents for each download site (forgot name but royalty free one disgustingly CHEAP per download) that someone had posted a pic that wound up on a bullitin board for triple A (I believe it was)!

Amazes me, and it only costed them .20 cents.

That's TERRIBLE!

I KNOW I said I'd love to see one of my photos someday in print (or billboard ;) ) BUTTT not for twenty cents!

 

I have ALOT to learn, along with an upgrade on a camera someday, but learning as much as I can as I go is the best way to be prepared when you're situated and ready to roll, I am going to keep my feet wet and eyes glued to books and information along the way.

 

Thank you very much on the sites as well, I will be sure and read up on them and save them for future references.

 

I am working on doing a copyright CD now and sending it in (was VA forms etc been reading on that for 2-3 days now too) so I can send a wad in at least and see how I do, thanks to the links posted on threads off this site as well.

Would like to know if I can do it right the first time, seemed self explanitory FULLY, $30 learning experience, not too bad.

 

If they accept it and say you did it right here's your copyright, then at least I will be ahead of the game some, on a single person, learning level of course ;)

 

I thank you all VERY much, you've all been wonderful in explaining, definitly has helped.

-Michelle

Mikael-- Well, there's overly negative, and there's realistic based on long experience. I have been making money at this profession since before I was legally old enough to drive a car, and perhaps that gives me a longer time on which to draw the proper extrapolations. I don't necessarily disagree with you, mind you, but there are a few important aspects you mentioned that do need to be interpreted.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are plenty of stock shooters that make six figure incomes. It's just harder these days than it used to be but harder doesn't translate into impossible.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

OK, let's see you post some of their names and incomes. Also, a dollar today doesn't go nearly as far as it did back in 1985. One house I know of that in 1985 sold for $135,000 just recently went for $575,000. All other factors taken into account, to equal a minimum six-figure income of 1985, someone would now have to be making at least $200,000, probably closer to $235,000. The average good, experienced stock shooter was earning far less than half the top levels both then and now. So, in effect, what you're saying is that a stock shooter these days has to work harder to effectively make half as much. Yeah, I'll agree with that. The problem is, to make that level those people were working twelve hour days six or seven days a week. Where's the time for the extra effort going to come from?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Using assignment outtakes as stock is a thing of the past

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Tell that to Steve Uzell. He NEVER shoots purely for stock, only sends his out-takes to his stock agency, and has an $8000.00 day rate. All the top ASMP speakers whose presentations I have attended recently say that they stopped shooting pure stock long ago. For the top photographers who take in top incomes, shooting just for stock is a concept as dead as day rates.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There are plenty of stock photographers who shoot for stock only and take few if any assignments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I know a few of those, too. The last one I met was driving a Ford Pinto (really).

 

I think the problem here is one of acceptable scale. Can you make a living at pure stock photography, even if you sell it to mid/low level textbook markets yourself? Perhaps. Can you be the major wage earner in your family, and work your way up to a big house with new SUV's in the driveway and a decent retirement program? Maybe stock shooters who are very lucky and very good, but taken as a group the chances for that are lessening month by month.

 

Some people might consider shooting for stock at least a good way to get some training. I suppose that's a way to look at it. The problem is, by the time you have learned all the ropes, what will the market be like then? I did a lot of the same kind of stuff you're doing a few years ago, when it paid OK for what I considered to be down-time work, but I moved on when that market stayed flat for payments and it got too time consuming to push top-notch images through the low-grade noise. I'll still do textbook work, but only when an editor calls me up for a specific need. Trust me, if you are really good there's LOTS better ways to make more money easier in photography.

 

If you get into most other professions, you can count on your income increasing as you gain experience and capability. Stock photo use fees, on the other hand, have stayed flat or gone down. And I'll agree with what you, in effect, said: A stock shooter would have to work harder today to EFFECTIVELY make half as much as he would have in 1985. And it was only the very top people who were achieving six-figures then, with constant work.

 

Draw the curve, see where that leads for stock shooters. Is that really where you want to be in five years? Ten years? Think about it.

 

Best of luck, and happy shooting. -BC-

Bill:

 

I too have been a professional shooter for many years. I too have been published in numerous national and international magazines, as well as textbooks and photo books. So, I too bring a bit of experience to the table...

 

I don't know where you get your figures from but it seems to me that you're covering mainly breaking news. Outtakes from news assignments don't make good selling stock, that is true. Good selling stock is produced in a "controlled envionment" in the studio, with models, etc and types of great selling stock are released modern lifestyle images, released modern people images, etc.

 

Shooters that make over $200,000 per year from stock? Since I haven't seen any tax returns from any of these people I'm just guessing but how about Tom Manglesen, Mountain Light (the late Galen Rowell), Frans Lanting, Gary Braasch, and Ken Graham for starters?

 

Personally I'm quite comfortable with what I make on stock sales and I see the totals increase every year so far with more than 10 percent from the previous year. Am I making a million bucks a year? Nope. Do I have any desire to? Nope, at least not if that means that I have to shoot in a studio rather than in the field as stuff happens.

 

I'm a writer as well as a photographer and when I moved to the US some seven years ago I did about 75% writing and 25% photography. I now do roughly 10% writing and 90% photography.

 

Being a successfull stock photographer it's all in the product you put out there and how you put it out there. There's a huge difference between an award winning news image and a great stock image. There's a huge difference between a great, beautiful image and a great marketable image. Sure, beautiful images also sell, but the shooter that knows his/her business and produces what the market wants will outsell the photographer producing beautiful or technically perfect images.

 

I think it boils down to what you want from your life and what you're willing to sacrifice to get there. I could probably make a lot more money if I started shooting released lifestyle images with models instead of the real documentary style stuff I shoot. But I don't want to and I can't see myself ever doing that. To me it's more important to be happy with what I do than to make tons of money but then again I'd never buy a new SUV even if I was filthy rich...

Michelle, you have to be commended for recognizing that your images have a value, and that some methods of diffusion are incompatible with that value.

<p>

Mikael, it is difficult to deny that RF has caused a drop in stock photography revenues for many. If you look at the catalog of Corbis, you will see that nowadays, RF encompases a rather deep range of quality images, not just sunsets and pets. In fact, RF houses often create work-for-hire with the type of desirable lifestyle released images that you are mentioning.

<p>

The success of Tom Manglesen is due to his network of "Images of Nature" galleries that sell exclusively his prints. Not exactly stock photography. Galen Rowell shot a lot on assignment or book projects

for prestigious clients, and used his outakes as stock (the model you said doesn't work). Same with Lanting.

 

<p>

 

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria stock photography</a>

Quang-Tuan:

 

I don't dispute that RF has had an impact on stock photo fees, absolutely not. The point I'm trying to make - and I'm obviously not doing a good job of it - is that this isn't true for ALL stock photography. That RF has had an impact is a fact, but it hasn't had the same impact across the board. At least yet. Maybe that's what the future has in store for us but nobody knows that yet.

 

I'm sure Mangelsen makes more $$$ from his stores but I simply stated that he probably makes over $200,000 from stock sales per year.

 

I see now that I did write that outtakes from assignments don't work as stock and for this I'm sorry because that's not what I meant. What I meant was that it doesn't work as well as it used to.

 

As we all - that are professionally involved in the industry - knows, stock photo isn't really ONE market, that everyone fits nicely into. Because the market is quite diverse it's hard to generalize. It wouldn't be tru to say that stock photo is a goldmine where it's easy to get filthy rich. But it would be equally untrue to say that nobody makes any money to speak of as a stock photographer. What might work great for you might not work at all for me and vice versa.

 

Anyway, hope I managed to be a bit more clear this time.

Mikael-- Well, I do a fair amount of news, but that's not what pays most of the bills. It does, however, go a long way towards generating some publicity and legitimacy for one as a professional photographer, which helps a great deal in the marketplace. I also find editorial photography to be enlightening and envigorating, and it also brings me in contact with a lot of potential commercial clients--and commercial is what pays the bills.

 

It is true that not everyone aspires to the higher echelons of the American Dream (our second car is a used Corolla), but it is a useful economic marker. And yes, the people you pointed out (and perhaps the estate of Galen Rowell) did do well in stock. However, look at when they started. I doubt that they would do as well if they started out under present market conditions. And again, one must look at the lessend percentage that stock shooters are being forced into accepting, along with declining per-use rates.

 

Like I say, stock shooting is not necessarily a terrible thing, and yes, money can be made in it. But I believe that the best advice I can give someone starting out in the business is to look into other aspects of photography a bit more closely. High-end automobile photography is dying because of technology--advertising agencies are finding that they can take the CAD/CAM renditions of cars and create glorious photo-like images of them for ads without engendering $35,000 (or more) photography bills for a single image. While the downward curve for stock photography isn't as steep, it's still going in the same direction, and for similar reasons.

 

Best regards, and happy shooting. -BC-