Which stock agency/ies to use

Hi,

 

I am new to this forum. My name is Sundeep. I have been a professional photographer for 3 years.

 

I looking into putting a load of my photography stock up onto the net for marketing purposes but I am not sure

which stock library/website to go for, or which combination of sites to go for.

 

There seem to be a number of considerations when choosing a marketer/photo stock library

 

- types of photos - ie subject matter

- fee charged

- commission received

- number of uploads permitted

- the traffic/exposure the photos will get

 

All the photos I wish to market have been taken on a Canon EOS 5D digital SLR so the tech. spec is high enough to

pass the technical quality requirements of most libraries (I know that Getty only take photos taken on certain

cameras - of which the 5D is one)

 

I have a varied portfolio, with quite a lot of photos of India, but also events, and generic shots.

 

I have just signed up for photo.net for year, so I am going to put some here. but where else would you suggest?

And on what basis? What has your experience been with your suggested photo libraries?

 

Any help you can give me will be much appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Sundeep

 

www.sundeepsitara.co.uk

Sundeep, I think the best stock agency is www.istockphoto.com. I've been selling there for awhile now. I was selling with two other stock sites for awhile, but I think istock is the best out of the three!

This is my link there...

www.istockphoto.com/kr1sta

 

I hope this helps!

Krista :)

Hello Sundeep,

 

Sorry to see no one has come forward with any suggestions for you yet.

 

There are a lot of stock agencies to choose among.

 

I'd just suggest you avoid micro stock... It's geared mostly toward ripping off... oops I mean taking advantage of... whoops, I mean *serving* amateurs. Essentially it's the same work to submit to micro or traditional, just the pay is a lot lower, as are the standards of acceptance.

 

I think we are seeing "mid-stock" emerging now. This is somewhere in between micro and traditional stock. For example, I'd put Alamy.com in that category, based on the typical prices I see being charged on their site.

 

I've been shopping for stock agencies too. I spent a few dollars to take a seminar with Bill Bachmann earlier this year and that was a big help. I also bought the book "Photographers Market 2008", which contains 60 pages of listings of stock agencies worldwide. It also describes any specialties they have and gives good contact info. $20 US well invested.

 

The largest stock agency is Getty. Second largest is Corbis, but traffic on Getty's site is about double or triple Corbis'. All the others are small, by comparison to these two. Unfortunately, the big gorillas tend to act like big gorillas. I guess we need them more than they need us, they are so successful. At least that's the sense I get. Also, Getty is in the midst of being sold... again.

 

I say no thanks to all that.

 

So, I am looking at more modest but more photographer-oriented agencies. I also prefer ones with high standards. I'd also consider some specialization (or failing to find it maybe I should start my own stock agency!)

 

Most will make you jump through a few hoops initially. You'll need to submit some images and then wait to hear if you and some of your images are accepted. It's after that where you'll likely find differences. For example, once accepted you can upload just about anything you want to Alamy. On the other hand, Photoshelter continues to review, accept or reject every image you submit.

 

Ace Stock was started by a group of pro photographers, so should be relatively photographer-oriented.

 

I also am intrigued by PhotographersDirect, because it does just what the name implies, sets up direct purchase negotiations between the photo buyer and the photographer. This would allow for more involvement in exactly how your photos are used, if that's important.

 

I think the best agencies would have some sort of regular communication set up with their photographers, forwarding along info such as frequent buyer searches that are going unfulfilled, etc. It should be a two way street that's working in everyone's best interest.

 

Bill Bachmann told me he's with six stock agencies. Of course, he has a couple full time employees handling editing, keywording and uploading for him, too! Bill admitted to being on Getty... But only because they gobbled up a small agency he was already signed with during one of their acquisition sprees, not by choice.

 

He also emphasized that a photographer should have their own website, as well, and that it should work hand in hand with their stock agency sites. Bill's site is www.billbachmann.com You may not know his name but I bet you recognize a lot of his work.

 

Even though he's often ranked among the top 5 stock photographers in the world, Bill doesn't call himself a stock photographer. He feels that's a side line to his travel & lifestyle/assignment photographer role.

 

For other website/stock sales ideas, take a look at www.chanan.com. Richard is highly specialized and has 30 years of work on file. He only sells direct and is not with any agencies that I'm aware of.

 

Less specialized (in fact far less specialized) and also mostly working direct (I think) is www.danheller.com

 

Hope this helps!

I agree with Alan in what he's saying about the microagencies. I'm sorry for my word choices here, but signing up with a

micro is like agreeing to being beat over the head with a wooden stick in the town square over and over again whilst contiguously smiling about it.

Microstock isn't all that bad. Sometimes its easier to sell one picture a few hundred times for a smaller price than to wait for it to sell once at a bigger price. I understand why some people might not like microstock. I guess it isn't for everyone.

Microstock isn't that bad for who, the art buyer? If your photos are good enough to be licensed at all, then

getting a fair market value for that use is the only logical way to go about selling your work.<p>

 

A Photo Editor has a great list of stock photo agencies organized by category. Check it out: <a

href="http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/02/27/stock-photo-agencies/">Stock Photo Agencies</a><p>

The most useful measure of how useful a stock agency is for a photographer is income per image per year- so for example 1000 images generating $500 p.a. would mean $0.5 per image/year. If there are people using microstock that would like to share their numbers- to avoid people like me thinking that they should be avoided - it would be helpful to form a real view.

 

But if the likely level of return is that I earn $5 over ten years from choosing,potentially scanning, prepping, and uploading an image forgive my lack of enthusiasm. The "real" agencies may not generate what they used to, may be tough to get into and they may reject stuff that the photographer thinks is commercial, but they do tend to generate a more worthwhile return once you're in.

 

As far as the web goes, my guess is that most people who design a web-site to sell their prints or stock photography never sell any. Thats because they don't reach the right people, as well as because the market is in general terms satisfied. There is no shortage of stock images. Unless what you have is highly specialist and clearly different from most everything else around, going it alone will be hard. Which is not to say its impossible- there are people contributing here that have set up and operate successful stock agencies that feature their own work. But there are not many of them, and I suspect they have worked very hard indeed to get their stuff in front of useful people and in managing a web-site to get picked up by search engines very frequently. I also think it would be harder to start down that road today than ten years ago.

Some photos sell well as stock but not art, and some photos sell well as art but not stock. If you can do both, you can do well selling your stock photos on a microstock website and still be able to sell your other non-stock photos for more money somewhere else.

Krista. I don't understand quite what you are saying. If I have photographs that will sell well as stock, why should I not follow the route to the stock market that gives me the best return? I don't think thats microstock. I think it is likely to be under a rights managed or royalty free contract with one or more of the major conventional stock agencies. What that may mean is that I can maximise income by putting through microstock only those images that my mainstream agencies reject. But my impression is that the return from microstock is so low that it is not worth the time necessary for choosing/scanning/prepping/uploading images, even if you can be sure that there's no more profitable avenue available.

 

Do you have any experience to indicate that I'm wrong? How much do you think people make per image/year on microstock and is there any information around to support that. I mean if we all knew that it takes a thousand images to make a hundred dollars I suspect most people wouldn't bother. If OTOH microstock is demonstrably yielding say $5 per image per year then a lot of people will find it worthwhile.

David Henderson, some of my images get me much more than $5 per year. If you are able to put alot of time into microstock, you can make alot of money. If you have a good enough image, you can probably make $50 per image per year.

 

I just looked at your website. Very nice photography!

Richard Wong hit the nail on the head! If your images are good enough to be licensed, don't give them away. Licensing images through microstock agencies is the same as giving them away in my opinion.

> The most useful measure of how useful a stock agency is for a photographer is income per image per year- so for example 1000 images generating $500 p.a. would mean $0.5 per image/year.

 

The most useful measure is total income per year. For instance, Getty's RPI is maybe $200, but it very rare for a photographer to be able to get 500 images accepted (submissions of a thousand *finished* images result in a few pics, if any). On my own website, every image that I select is accepted :-), therefore despite a much modest RPI, I have a better stock income than many Getty photographers.

 

Given the same income, the way you reach it does matter. That's why there are some occupations that are more socially regarded than others, even if the pay is the same. In the case of photography, you are selling a product of your creativity, not just a widget.

 

> As far as the web goes, my guess is that most people who design a web-site to sell their prints or stock photography never sell any.

 

Dan Heller has written on this forum that self-representation is the way to go nowadays. My experience (see above) tends to agree. However, this is not necessary contradictory with that statement. You have to be serious enough, and most people aren't, which is why they do not sell anything, not because the potential is not there.

 

Tuan.

Hi Sundeep,

 

Try www.photoshelter.com or www.Alamy.com. Both good agnecies break into the stock business.

 

Regards,

I would have to agree with Tuan and several others above, that marketing your work yourself is the way to go. Stock agencies have a sweet deal but that deal mostly benefits them, not you. Stock agencies make it so easy for publishers to select images from a website but all too often I see publihed work from stock houses that is sub-par. In general, the published work I see from self promoted shooters is better. Many times, publishers will choose images based on convenience rather than quality.This favors stock houses. If your emphasis is quality and your work is top grade, market it yourself.

I think if you look at the top sellers in a microstock agency and in a stock/midstock agency like getty/photoshelter you

would immediately recognize a very stark difference. Microstocks are heavily cliche dependent, with bright colors

with/without plastic faces making fake smiles. You will always have demand for such pictures on low end websites and

especially for thumbnails anywhere. I don't understand why more established photographer get so intimidated by them.

They should know that they are a class apart both technically and conceptually. I think there can be a perfectly

harmonious relationship between microstock and stock. Even a single photographer can contribute to both if he knows

which to sell where. The two simply have a different market. To be in keeping with the thread

 

For microstock:

Fotolia,

Shutterstock,

Dreamstime,

istockphoto.

 

For stock:

alamy,

photoshelter.

 

And if you haven't seen a 1000 lb gorilla ever try Getty

Tuan wrote:

 

The most useful measure is total income per year. For instance, Getty's RPI is maybe $200, but it very rare for a photographer to be

able to get 500 images accepted (submissions of a thousand *finished* images result in a few pics, if any). On my own website, every

image that I select is accepted :-), therefore despite a much modest RPI, I have a better stock income than many Getty photographers.

 

Yes, but Getty gets a lot more exposure than us little guys. How can we market our websites to try and even get a fraction of that

exposure? I would love to try and sell my own work from my website. I have no idea how to market it though, for this purpose and have

been advised to just give it up and put my stock in well-established agencies. I saw your website, Tuan, and it looks great. Do you, or

anyone out there have any advice for us newcomers just starting out how to market our websites, and become self-sufficient instead of

relying on the big-name stock agencies?

 

Thanks!

Hi photostock maniacs,

 

Travelingstock is a new online creative resource agency for travel stock photography. Its rapidly expanding collection of images focuses

on nature, wildlife imagery and lifestyle in the world. Many new destinations being added every day. Travelingstock is also an online

market for Pro and Semi-Pro photographers seeking to sell their own photos online.

 

So come along and drop your best pictures from all over the world!

 

http://www.travelingstock.com

Umm, yeah, microstock isnt that bad....hmmm..well I suppose istock is way better than the sites where you just

dump your images into a royalty-free black hole. istock reviews your images, so its not like you can put junk up

- they really do expect the best. I had editors choice images of lifestyle and food and scenics and action, and

the only thing that sold was a specialty.

 

This specialty took a good deal of setup and experience. I sold five downloads of two different pictures. My

balance is $4.30!

Of course, I sort of gave up when I saw the first payment, which I wont see until a $100 balance. Somone should

sue them

on that policy.

 

That's LESS than a dollar a download. Unlike many other agencies, istock wont tell you where the image goes, so I

cant even get a portfolio piece out of the deal. I have no idea where these pics went. Plus, if you want to give

your pic away completely, all you have to do is punch the sucker box, and VOILA, your picture could be replicated

on 100k posters in China and you will never see a dime in royalties....and if you're thinking your pictures are

going to be downloaded 10000 times, dream on, I've only seen a couple of images break the 200 downloads mark.

They have images that are great enough to showcase. Click on them, and see how many downloads - sometimes only 30

downloads and 1500 views. That's $25-50! and for studio setups with makeup, props, and models. Seriously, this is

beyond surreal.

 

The top photogs on there have 20-30k downloads, ok, Well, we're talking say 25k dollars for 3 years of solid

work? Maybe assistants make it quicker, but I dont know why a pro assignment photog would even bother.

Keywording, getting reviewed, etc...yadda yadda.

 

I have had web designers brag to me about how great istock is, and then the next word under their breath is how

do the

photogs make any money?

 

Photogs who use istock have already destroyed the value of photography. If they want to do it, cool, Dont come

crying when you have to get a real job.

So through all this I get that try Getty? or and avoid iStock and all those microstocks right?

<p>I'm new to this stock thing but have been researching it all day and it sounds like microstock is pretty bad. There are some good point made in this thread, I mean come on, getting paid as little as 30cents a photo and likely only selling it up to 100 times in a few months to a year. It comes down to a lot of photos and a lot of work and not knowing that you probably could have made MUCH more selling that photo to something else. I was getting ready to sign up to several micro stocks but I changed my mind, maybe i'll try them out for some of my many random photos that I don't really consider "art" worthy but are still decent quality.<br>

<br /> I think I'll look into <strong>getty </strong> and<strong> alamy</strong> , maybe free-stock-photos.co.uk (sounds like you don't have to pay any kind of fee for each sale), currently I have photos on <strong>photographersdirect</strong> as well.</p>

<p>I've had pictures up at istock and made a whopping $4 for six downloads, but I dont see that money until I reach $100 and, what really irks me, I DONT KNOW WHERE THE PICS ARE GOING...so NO TEARSHEETS FOR THE PORTFOLIO, plus they have some new agreement that probably makes all images royalty-free, so its pretty much ridiculous doing business with that company. I will say, however, that there are a couple of topics I've researched where images might move enough to get you in the $500-1k and up range per image, but I'm unsure. The other thing is that the royalty, or 'extended license' is royally unclear. Basically, the way I read it, once you check a box, you might get $75 for an image you agree to end up on a poster that could sell millions worldwide. You write off mechanical royalties. This is robbery of the highest order, but if you sign the agreement, then you suffer. I think these companies should be sued over these minimum pay schemes, and refusal to notify. They must have sold millions of images without paying out a dime because people like me bail before they make the minimum. That's just plain fraud.<br>

If you dont understand this, you might put up a pic you are really proud of and get no downloads or hand it over to someone for less than a dollar. Once I saw the pay, I yanked all but a few pattern images off of the site. Anything unique with people and odd situations, I pulled because I wasn't about to get paid snot for it. So a couple of shots, which still took two days of production have stayed up and a few more downloads have come in, but I'm not even making $1 an image. its really quite mind-blowing. Other than the 1% of the time where they might make you money, they are a horrid group of amoral suitgeeks getting rich trafficking off of slave wages to people who create and execute things they themselves are incapable of. I dont even like to add links to microsites on a photo portal I run, so that tells you what I think of them. You can make more money off of putting your own photos on the net, drawing traffic and selling adspace on your website than you will from the microstocks. Or peddling home-printed cards at a Sunday market. It really is that horrific. Microstock needs to be run out of business by a total photographers boycott.</p>

<p>These posts have been really helpful, there I was considering istock. Glad I am doing my research! </p>

<p>There is a very good resource for the stock industry (royalty free images, budget images, microstock images), it has good editorial as well, http://www.whichstockagency.com</p>

<p>I saw the recommendation for our site - www.whichstockagency.com - and just wanted to expand on what we do. We review, rate and rank the top stock agencies be they rights managed, royalty free, microstock or subscription. The only ones we don't cover are free sites! We also list all the current discounts, promotions and news plus you can post comments about your experiences with particular stock agencies.</p>