Getting in to Stock Photography

[kimberly]

This thread has been quiet for a while but I have to add my 2 cents. I too

occasionally sell some of my work, but it is by no means the majority of my income.

 

I thought it might be worth sending some of my outtakes to the micro stock arena....but

I am a numbers person and I just did a cursory survey of istock, shutterstock and

BigStockPhoto. Heres what I found - the images that have the most downloads are getting

somewhere around 250-300 downloads, with most getting closer to 5-20. That works

out to a WHOPPING $60 for the most popular photos out of tens of thousands. HELLO

what the hell are you thinking. For the time that you spend editing, uploading, captioning

the images you might as well save your time and write a check to Getty. You'd save one

hell of a lot of time if you just sent them your money - which is essentialy what you are

doing selling on istock - and went out and did something you enjoy.

 

Nevermind considering the ethics of selling your work for a miniscule fraction of what it's

worth. So I guess if you don't mind contributing to the 'wal-martization' of stock

photography and you have so much free time that you want to work for sweat shop wages,

then micro stock sounds like a great idea.

[timnichols]

Just a few thoughts:

Here are some reasons why I sell stock.

1. There is no other market for most of the photos I take. I can put them online and sell and re-sell the rights to use them many times to designers who just happen to need what I've taken.

2. It's fun. It's like playing a video game and watching sales respond to what you do rather than meaningless "points" while you zap the non-existent alien invaders.

3. It's interesting. I sold the rights to two photos of a pair of pruning shears last week to three different buyers. There was nothing artsy about the photos. They were just useful to three designers who were probably working on gardening brochures or magazines.... So it's fun to see where they might turn up. Lots of photos that seem unlikely candidates for sales actually do better than the others because they are rarer. I've uploaded several classic "green fields with gorgeous sky" photos that haven't sold at all, so it's interesting to see what might work.

4. I don't feel that selling like this is unfair competiton for professional photographers who can make more through other means. How many of them even want to sell photos of garden implements and other such things on speculation?

5. It can be more profitable than you might think. With only about 20 photos in my gallery to sell at SS, I averaged about one sale per day. If that ratio were to remain constant, you can see how a very large number of photos would continue to generate income over time, and the photographer remains passive about the collection process and negotiation with buyers.

<a href="http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=66823"> Shutterstock </a>

[kristin_lincoln]

just puttin in my 2 cents....

 

It seems that stock photography is a hot issue ( a surprise to me). I have to say that some of the responses against stock sound very elitist. I'm a student. One day I will make a living from portrait work but for now I do stock because 1) its a really good learning experience for me and 2) I can use every extra penny I can get. It has NOTHING to do with ego.

 

The images I sell on stock sites are also images that I'm not going to sell other places. These are images of business situations or a photo of food. I don't want to work for a marketing company. Micro gives me the opportunity to shoot various stuff and get a few dimes off it, while maintaining the rights of my photos and not having to handle sells myself. Its easy and gets you a few bucks. And Im still my own boss and shoot what I want.

 

Stock has my vote. Its a good way to supplement income.

[glassbus11]

Wow, this thread is kind of old, but I still feel the need to throw in my two cents as well.

 

I agree with Kristin above me.

 

I think it is ridiculous to say that it has to do with ego. The reason I started selling on a micro stock site is because I had images I didnt have any artistic attachment to just sitting on my computer taking up hard drive space. I started to post and things started to sell. So I decided to keep it up. I really haven't made a whole lot of money, but the little I can get is worth it to me. Its all about bulk and volume, not how much you sell that ONE image at. If you ask me, I am not looking to make a thousand dollars off one image. Of course, everything has its market.

 

Since I now shoot sometimes specifically for stock, it keeps me doing photography. They say in order to improve your photography skills, one must KEEP SHOOTING. I always go through photographers block and sometimes shooting stock gets me back into a mindset where I can shoot things more technically correct as well as maybe spark some creativity in me that I couldn't find before.

 

I keep the line between my art (basically things posted here and other sites of the like) and my stock very definitive. I dont take offense to any of it...I know where I stand. I cant figure out why some people are so hostile toward it.

[jessica_s._leatherbury]

I just found istockphoto and then came to photo.net to see what folks were saying about it. My impression is that this situation with micro-stock is deplorable! In my opinion photographers shouldn't be contributing images to this endeavor because it hardcore under values the work of all photographers. I think the idea of istock is cool in general terms but there should be some reasonable fee paid to photographers.

 

I think photographers should have some sort of basic respect for their work and efforts - the notion of a union springs to mind. Could you imagine what a photographer's union would say about this? Think of the current WGA strike in Hollywood or any other myriad situation where an industry protects itself from being taken advantage of. The mentality of I "just have images sitting on my computer" is crazy to me. What if screenwriters just started saying, "If you produce this script that I've just got sitting on my computer I'll take $5 for it..."? Accepting .20 for a photograph is the same thing.

 

I'm all for capatalism and fair markets and all the good stuff but this is just hiway robbery, in my opinion. If I could have it my way professional photographers would stop contributing, leaving istock to survive with photographs from folks whose work really was worth .20. Then, in my world, another stock photo company would be built with the same basic model but pay the photographers some fair, reasonable, industry-standard price.

 

I don't know much about any of this, like whose buying these images, but if it really is Oprah and other mega-millionaire companies this industry (stock) is canabalizing itself. The whole notion of "change with the changing world to survive," is absolutely incorrect in this case, in my opinion. How is .20 survival?

[squaresnail]

To say that selling a stock image is the same as selling a script is wrong. The time it would take me

to go out and take a picture suitable for stock photography is miniscule compared to the time it

would take a writer to pump out a usable script. It would be more comparable to selling one quote.

The only way a single picture is comparable to a full script is if that one picture took hours, days, or

weeks of planning, and an investment of some capital (like going on location). Then you will have

put in some of the blood and sweat that a writer would have put into their full script and the image

will be worth a lot more.

 

Also pros should not worry about the amateur taking their business. Worrying about them as

competition would be like Nordstrom's worrying about Wal-mart's clothing line competing. There

will always be a market for the cheap and high-end of just about any good or service. Sometimes

there is a distinct difference in quality, other times the difference is negligible. I have seen some

horrible "pro's" that make good money but have no creativity.

 

I think stock has it's place, even places like istock. If I can go out and shoot 100 pictures in the

process of enjoying my hobby and profession that will then sell on a stock website but wouldn't sell

anywhere else than why not make them work for me. Especially if the same picture can generate

multiple sells. Think about it. Are they making money on your hard drive? Do you have somewhere

else we can sell them for much more? What better use is there for that random picture you have

that is good but not of interest to anyone you know?

[richard_abplanalp]

There are many "Pro" photographers on these sites.Many who have gone "Pro" because of these sites. Some may say it undervalues the works. But if the value was zero anything more is added value. If you feel you can subit photos to a regular stock company go for it. Look up the criteria and get to shooting. Then keep shooting as it will be a full time job keeping up with their demands. Then sit and wait for that one sale which might get you $100. The market is leaning towards Micro sites. Mostly for the need of smaller photos for websites. Or for companies that didn't have a photo budjet. Most of the customers on these sites would not have used a professional photographer or models anyway so the "Pros" are really not out any customers. I'm looking at a banner for RITZPIX.com right now. Should these sites also be abolished? Because they offer good quality prints at a much cheaper price. I believe the Micro Sites will be around for along time. Just my 20 cents worth.