stock photos?

<p>Hey, #2 didn't upload correctly - here's another attempt:</p>

<div></div>

What are your thoughts on stock photography? My brief list of the pluses and minuses is not comprehensive, just throwing it out there. I'd like to hear other thoughts on the subject. Anybody submit photos to stock agencies? Which ones? What's been your experience?

 

On the plus side, your photos are being seen by a targeted audience on a (hopefully) reputable website and potentially making money, albeit likely a minuscule amount. Your stock photo could land on the cover of a prominent business' annual report. Your photos are being seen by people looking for photos (not just "at" them).

 

Minus: You're basically giving away your work. Is the amount you'd be paid for a stock photo worth it to you? Having no control over how your photo is used, it could wind up on the cover of a prominent business' annual report of a business you loathe or in a way you find distasteful. Or maybe that's not important to you.

 

Thoughts, please. --Sally

I don't know how paul_de_ley's lovely photo of an avocet in flight got attached to this thread. It was there when I "started the conversation," my questions about stock photography hadn't been posted, yet.

I've never submitted any photos for a stock agency. I'm an occasional user of free (CCO) photos for PP-challenges in the digital darkroom forum.

I'm a voluntary photographer/editor for a local social services organization in NL. We've sometimes considered using stock photos for brochures, flyers, etc. but have always decided against it. Somehow, many stock photos with people in them have a typical 'stock photo style' that doesn't match our brand in NL.

 

I do see that there many stock photo sites around these days. Googling 'best selling stock photos' gives you an idea of the demand for different themes.

Stock photos are offered free of charge on sites like pexels.com and pxhere.com. Even 'paid' stock photo sites often offer a selection of 'free' photos. I have no idea whether and how photographers are paid for these free photos.

 

The sad fact is, I suspect that unless photographers but a lot of thought and effort into creating photos that are likely to sell, earnings will indeed be miniscule. An exception might be cases where you have good photos of certain locations for which there are no (or few) stock photos.

I think that the only viable way for stock photography to pay is if the photographer has access to things that most people don't--operating rooms in hospitals or unique industrial processes, for example. A photographer in my area used to have 4-5 employees who did nothing else but take care of his stock photo library in the film era, but not any more. If the ego boost from seeing your work in public and getting exposure is important to you, then maybe stock photography is worth it. As a viable income source, I think it won't work any more for most photographers.

<p>Hey, #2 didn't upload correctly - here's another attempt:</p>

<div>[ATTACH=full]1174259[/ATTACH]</div>

 

Oops sorry Sally! Not sure what happened here to make my unrelated post from 12 years ago pop up in your thread out of the blue. Some odd quirk of the website? I haven't opened this image in years nor was I trying to move the post or do anything else with it recently. And it shouldn't have any indexed or hidden search terms to do with the thread's subject (I've never tried getting into stock photography).

 

Please ignore this odd intrusion everyone, so it doesn't lead to an irrelevant distraction from the actual thread subject. I'll message the webmasters a site bug headsup and ask them to remove the post. Lacking any obvious reason why it got randomly dropped in here in the first place, who knows whether hitting "report" or drawing further attention to my stray post might trigger other random site behavior.

An interesting link I forgot to share is this article (with examples) on Stock Photography (theme) trends in 2022. Another topic I read about while browsing is 'ranking'. I read that stock photographers who have been active the longest (and have the most downloads) get 'ranked' the highest on Stock photo sites and are paid more per photo. The conclusion was that it's a difficult market for 'beginners' to get into.

 

On the other hand, if you have a good quality (perhaps unique!) photo that fits in with a 'theme' or location, why not submit it? I read that 'photographers submit their photos to multiple stock photo sites. The main question seems to be whether the time and effort justifies the potential fame or income.

 

As a purely amateur/volunteer photographer, I've had multiple photos published in a local rag, on local websites, and distributed to up to 100 participants at local events during recent years. This is 'fame' enough for me and I don't need the $1-$2 dollars a month that I perhaps could earn by submitting stock photos. I also don't want to spend my time thinking up and photographing 'theme' photos' that are most likely to sell. I should add that I'm 67 and if I was still 25-40, I would probably view things very differently:)!

Oops sorry Sally! Not sure what happened here to make my unrelated post from 12 years ago pop up in your thread out of the blue.

 

Thanks, Paul. Curiouser and curiouser. . .

Paul,

It's always nice to see your images, regardless of the magic, glitches, or Voodoo that make them appear. :rolleyes:

A photographer I knew (now deceased) was one hell of a mechanic. By that I mean everything is technically perfect--there is just no soul in it. Sort of like me doing portraiture. Sure, you get paid--but there is little satisfaction...

 

He took thousands of staged photos--things that ran along with themes. Models were hired--and looks at various emotions and interactions in various settings were made. Then outright sold as stock photos. In the early 2000s, it was a nice source of additional income.

 

I have considered it as well. Not the "deliberate stock" option--but other stuff. Another couple of camera goons I know have suggested that my work was appropriate to upscale corporate interior decoration. Maybe so. As the OP suggested--one never knows what turn these might make--and what the energy of the entity might be. I don't know why really--but I think that matters. One can only be an economic prostitute in necessary directions--without sacrificing one's joy to it as well...

Well said! Without a degree of passion, enthusiasm, and joy, I think it would be difficult to motivate yourself and (if relevant) others to contribute to stock photos. TBH, I imagine that this applies to most if not all areas of 'professional photography', be it products, weddings, portraits, etc. IMHO this principle also applies to many other 'professions/jobs'!

 

From the few articles I've read (via Google), it seems much harder these days to break into (and earn from) 'stock photo photography' than it was 20 years ago. Simply because there are now many more competing' 'stock photo' agencies and websites (both paid and free) available and the internet is much more awash with images than it was 20 years ago.

 

FWIW, my personal impression via Google is that there are basically three types of 'stock photo photographer':

1. Photographers (like the deceased photographer you knew) who deliberately create and submit 'stock photos' or at least deliberately consider the 'stock photo value of photos they take on assignment or trips; 'stock photography' might be a source of income in this category
   
2. Photographers who - through their assignments or projects - take 'interesting' photos that may (subsequently) be of value to stock photo agencies and generate some income; it's not a prime objective (as in category 1)
   
3. Photographers who occasionally take a photo that they think might be interesting for a stock photo agency
   

For all categories of photographers, their income (and ranking in searches) on stock photo sites is as far as I know dependent on the number of 'downloads' of their photos.

 

There's a Dutch saying which (translated) means 'if you don't at least try, you'll never know :)

 

A photographer I knew (now deceased) was one hell of a mechanic. By that I mean everything is technically perfect--there is just no soul in it. Sort of like me doing portraiture. Sure, you get paid--but there is little satisfaction...

 

He took thousands of staged photos--things that ran along with themes. Models were hired--and looks at various emotions and interactions in various settings were made. Then outright sold as stock photos. In the early 2000s, it was a nice source of additional income.

 

I have considered it as well. Not the "deliberate stock" option--but other stuff. Another couple of camera goons I know have suggested that my work was appropriate to upscale corporate interior decoration. Maybe so. As the OP suggested--one never knows what turn these might make--and what the energy of the entity might be. I don't know why really--but I think that matters. One can only be an economic prostitute in necessary directions--without sacrificing one's joy to it as well...

Thanks for your thoughts. Whenever I've looked into stock photos, it's seemed too much trouble for too little reward. Wouldn't selling a photo for pennies be demoralizing considering the number of years I've been photographing and the amounts of money I've spent on hardware, software, film, developing, printer, paper, etc.? (PapaTango: "Give a person a fish and they will eat it. Teach a person to fish and they will spend lots of money on tackle. Give a person a camera and all bets are off ..." ) In addition, I like prints and photograph with printing in mind although I print few of my photos.

 

PapaTango and MikeMorrell said it best regarding the passion, joy, enthusiasm, and energy of it. When I think of submitting to stock agencies, I feel none of that.

 

What set off my wondering is meeting an Adobe Stock employee who suggested it. Yes, some of my photos would be appropriate for stock but to weed them out would take time better spent on photographing and editing what I already have.

 

Thanks, all. I may still look into it, still mulling.--Sally

I spent a couple of hours talking to a stock photographer a couple of decades back. He told me that to make any meaningful money (say 2-3 figures a month) you start with about 10,000 images. If you want me make a living with it, a lot more than that. Of course, YMMV.

When I retired in 2015, I figured one of the ways I'd pass time is to submit photos to stock agencies. It wasn't long before I decided that between choosing the photos, editing them, uploading them, adding tags, modifying rejections, etc, it took way more effort than I was willing to put into it, and any money I made from it wasn't going to be enough to change my lifestyle. I think I did make about $100 over the course of a couple of years on what I did upload. Somehow, I still am making a few dollars at Shutterstock (my account balance is $22 and change) on what I have out there, so I suppose if you uploaded thousands of images (I uploaded 60), you can make some money that might mean something. They will also often suggest topics for photos, so if you like assignments, there's that aspect of it as well.

I think that the client companies that use 'stock' have long since established relationships with particular suppliers whom they trust.

 

Moreover, "novice" users of stock these days seem to assume that if it's on line somewhere, it's free to use without credit or attention to copyright.

 

In any case, the old dream of getting income from your library of images was never much more promising than the hopes of minor-league baseball players back in the day.

A few made it to the majors and wealth and fame. Most ended up playing for the "Roswell Grays" for a pittance.

After looking over all this I found a YouTube video by someone named Rachel Larch about this topic. Over a period of three years she narrowed down submission to four agencies but finally just quit bothering. Quite a bit of time and work involved for very minimal income. I think I made more money at my first newspaper job and that was pathetic. By all accounts most photographers won’t do well in stock photography simply because the pay is so bad.

 

Rick H.