Good Online Stock Agencies?

[ni_gentry]

Can anyone recommend a good and fair online stock agency that would

be good for someone just starting out in stock images? <p>

I've got a collection of nice images that myself and a number of

friends/fellow photographers think would sell. At least they

compare nicely against a lot of the stock images I see on some

sites. I'm just wondering if any of those places are worth it and

if they give the photographer a fair deal.....? Thanks!

[mona_chrome]

Personally, I think it is an oxymoron to say good and fair stock agencies, online or otherwise.

Might as well give your work away!

[keith_van_hulle1]

Can you clarify whether you want (what I would call) a REAL stock agency or those cheapie places on the 'net where you get a nickel per photo? The reputable companies will (a) want only the best work available (b) expect you to provide them continuously with more work of the same quality and © something more than just a few shots. If you're just talking about uploading to those royalty-free places, take your pick, they're all about the same. Depends on how you value your work. Or is this for what you might deem a quick buck?

 

Check the archives, we have beat this one to death before and there's some good info in there to consider before doing this.

[robert_roaldi1]

This is an interesting can of worms.

 

Many photographers hate the on-line micropayment sites because of their low prices. I am new to this and my attitude is that there is a supplier for every market. Someone who needs a 1.5 inch square photo of a rural barn for a 5000-run travel brochure is not going to spend top dollar for a high rez photo nor are they going to hire a photographer. A low-rez well-shot picture for a buck or two is all they need and all they can afford and all they will pay for.

 

That client was NEVER going to buy a high-end high-rez photo so no one has lost any business.

 

I wrote software for 25 years, doing other things now, and I cannot for the life of me understand why there are programmers willing to stay up nights to develop software for open source or other environments and basically give their work away for next to nothing. But everyone, including many photographers, love to have access to that cheap software.

 

People used to make really good money at semi-skilled jobs in North American auto plants. Now there are people elsewhere in the world doing the exact same work, sometimes better, for a lot less money.

[tholte]

Good article in PDN about this very thing. Jan. 2006 issue "What's This Photo Worth? Do I Hear One Dollar?" www.pdnonline.com

[stephen_bay]

<p>

If you have a speciality, that should determine what types of agencies that you target. <a href="http://stockphoto.net">Stockphoto.net</a> has a big database that you can browse through. I think stockartistsalliance.org also has a lot of information, but you might have to be a member to access it.

 

<p>

Otherwise, a lot of people seem to like Alamy. But they are really more of a portal than a traditional agency. They are basically unedited so as long as your pictures meet their minimum quality standards, your images get in.

[enlightened-images]

Robert: <br>

<br>

I have to take issue with a few of your statements. I do agree that there is a supplier for every market, and as PT Barnum noted, there's also a sucker born every minute. I think that if you consider the point, more of 'us' have issues with the photographers that supply images to the microstocks, as opposed to the microstocks themselves. For me personally, it's a value & worth equation comprehension problem. <br>

<br>

But you are wrong when you say that a client will NEVER (your emphasis) pay decent $$$ for a simple shot like you decribe. Perhaps you are just displaying a newbie-style ignorance of the larger industry. There are lots of companies that can and would pay more. Have you priced out what a company pays for a 5,000 run 4c gloss coated stock DM brochure? Printing costs? Graphic designer costs? Sales & Marketing employee time and salary for meetings? Mailing lists & services? And your telling me they can't afford or won't pay more than $5.00 for a photo?!!!????!!!! - Come on, man, get real. Sure they CAN afford it. They just don't HAVE TO, because there are plenty of photographers out there that would rather earn a percent of $5.00 than a percent of $39.00, or $99.00, or $175.00, or $299.00, OR $375.00. Why? Do they care about the greater good, like the open source programmers? No. They care about the IDEA of selling their photos; or the IDEA of being published. They don't care about the actual value they could have asked for or gotten, nor do they care about what the client could have or WOULD HAVE PAID. Even if a client was willing to pay $10.00, why leave 50% lying on the table? <br>

<br>

You say in your example, no one has lost any business. I say that's again where you are wrong. If the same client would have paid $10.00 or $25.00, then wouldn't you agree the photographer has lost between 50% or more of his potential business? What if the same company had a photo budget of $50.00- in that case, ever the standard RF companies lost business, yes? <br>

<br>

Would you all of the sudden be willing to give up half your income, especially if no one was forcing you? Might seem kinda like a dumb move from someone on the outside who was still getting their same wage for the same work from the same clients. The rest of us would look at you and say, "Gee, why doesn't he WANT to make more money, considering that what he does be worth xx% more?" <br>

<br>

Finally, FWIW; I use the open source software on my web site's new weblog. Am I at odds with that? No. I understand that there is a large community that promotes these ideals, and I happen to love the open source - for those that choose to contribute. Can I fault someone who wants to GIVE AWAY their photos? No, if that's what they want to do. But if someone wants to SELL their images, they should at least consider that with the microstock model, everybody BUT the photogapher is getting a good deal. Yes, it's the same argument from the initial RF / RM Debate, but that's only because it's still true. The sad part for me is that I now find myself telling new photographers to consider selling all rights for several hundred dollars through major RF labels than for a few pennies on the microstock sites. <br>

<br>

 

Just my thoughts.... <br>

<br>

Gary Crabbe<br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com">Enlightened Images</a> <br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com/views">VIEWS; Our weblog</a><br>

[robert_roaldi1]

Gary,

 

"I think that if you consider the point, more of 'us' have issues with the photographers that supply images to the microstocks, as opposed to the microstocks themselves."

 

What you seem to be complaining about is that others are willing to do what you do for less money. I wasn't very happy when software contracts started going overseas either but that ship sailed.

 

You could make the same argument for early stock agencies who made marketing easier for some photographers while making life difficult for others who could not get into those agencies. I understand that you don't like it, but my sympathy is worthless.

 

 

 

"But you are wrong when you say that a client will NEVER (your emphasis) pay decent $$$ for a simple shot like you decribe. Perhaps you are just displaying a newbie-style ignorance of the larger industry. There are lots of companies that can and would pay more. Have you priced out what a company pays for a 5,000 run 4c gloss coated stock DM brochure? Printing costs? Graphic designer costs? Sales & Marketing employee time and salary for meetings? Mailing lists & services? And your telling me they can't afford or won't pay more than $5.00 for a photo?!!!????!!!! - Come on, man, get real. Sure they CAN afford it. They just don't HAVE TO, because there are plenty of photographers out there that would rather earn a percent of $5.00 than a percent of $39.00, or $99.00, or $175.00, or $299.00, OR $375.00. Why? "

 

I can't argue with you but I have done volunteer work in non-profit organizations putting together precisely that kind of publication and they woulnd't spend $5 on an image, let alone $50 or $100.

 

It's important not to confuse the cost of producing a beautiful photograph with its commercial value. When there were 50 photographers in North America, the price of a photo of a barn wasn't cheap. But if the world is awash in well-exposed, well-composed photos of barns, the situation is changed. There is no final arbiter in the sky who decides what an image is worth. They are only ever worth what someone is willing to pay for them. To someone who wants a low rez image of a rural barn, it must seem like madness to pay more than a $1 or so when they can turn around and get free or near-free software from just about anywhere, software that was much more time-consuming and difficult to produce than that photo.

 

I know you (and others) don't like to hear it, but maybe that 4 mpix pic of autumn-coloured trees, or that barn, or that horse that you took isn't such a masterpiece and maybe it just isn't worth what you think it is. If you can find a buyer at $50, good on you. All I am saying is that you shouldn't be surprised if you can't.

 

What micro-payment sites represent, imo, is a different marketing approach. You try to reach lots of buyers at a low price, offering low rez images. The jury is still out on whether they will survive or whether they will continue to attract photographers.

 

But they are a unique niche. And, yes you're right, they may take away a lot of business from people who used to supply that market. But that just makes photographers the same as everyone else in an open market. Sometimes, somebody undercuts you and you go out of business. It's been happening for a long time.

 

"Do they care about the greater good, like the open source programmers? No. They care about the IDEA of selling their photos; or the IDEA of being published."

 

You seem to be making assumptions about other people's motivations. You may be right in some cases and you may be wrong in others. The same argument might apply to open source programmers after all. Are they driven by idealism or ego?

 

I have a lot of sympathy for those who invested years and dollars in self-training and equipment and who feel that they are being undercut. But the technology (digital photography and the internet)that brought digital equipment to pros that freed them from the tyranny of labs and film producers, also freed a lot of part-time amateurs into easily producing and marketing sellable images.

 

 

[enlightened-images]

Robert:

 

Well answered. I'm not gonna argue the reality of the marketplace or economics. I don't deny either the market, or the need. I just have a hard time understanding photographers who place so little value in what they create, or rather, the rights they give away. I've been in the industry long enough so that I was still hearing the fading cries of assignment photographers complaining about stock. And FWIW, some of the photos I see on these microsites are lucky to ever earn $0.20. <br>

<br>

Now personally I've never taken a 4mp fall sceinc, or sold one for publication for $50.00. Although <a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/portpg1/nhfalsrs.htm">this photo</a> has made thousands in sales for brochures, magazines, and book covers, etc.. In fact, I submit that part of the reason some non-profits aren't willing to spend or can't afford $5 or $10.00 for a photo maybe that they care so little about their public image (quality of photos, design, printing, web, etc.) that nobody wants to donate to them? (Just a thought...) <br>

<br>

Finally, I've been nosey enough to understand many of the motivations by peering in on certain groups. In a recent article, a woman writing about life as a microstock supplier summed it up perfectly by saying, "I view my microstock income as "gravy" rather than a way to "pay the bills"".

<br>

<br>

I'm too busy making real money with my pictures to ever worry about the clients I might be missing because of the microstocks. Heck, I don't miss them at all. The race to the bottom is no different from what I see on craigslist under the "photography" services,. I learned early on not to worry about cheap clients. But I would still rather see one photographer get so sick of the ultra-cheap market, and perhaps climb out of the $3.00 microsite RF arena into the $39.00 RF market, or the $99.00, or the ..... <br>

<br>

Big happy smiles to everyone in the universe...<br>

<br>

Gary Crabbe<br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com">Enlightened Images</a><br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com/views/">Enlightened Images Views</a><br>

[xavier_henri]

I went through forum archives and finally made my own choice: no microstock... Maybe it's

a lost war, but I am trying to respect full time professional stock photographers.

<P>I decided for Alamy and then Acclaim images, and don't regret it at all after 6 months!

<P>Here are my <A HREF="http://www.fovegraphy.com/Stock.php"> online stock

photos</A>. I still have hundreds that are eligible, but it does take time to properly post-

process and keyword them...

<P>Xavier.

[perrush]

Found this thread by the search :

 

Henry, I wrote an article about microstocks :

 

http://www.perrush.be/SYF_micro_E_1.html

 

It would be interesting to hear your views about micro <-> alamy

 

Greetz

Stefan

[xavier_henri]

Stefan,

 

I have read your article. Your results are interesting, but I do not sell my photos to make a

living out of it... It is rather for "recognition".

 

On Alamy, my photos sell for an average of $150... It's a lot better for my ego than selling

much more for a few cents!

 

Nevertheless, I have the impression that the market is shifting towards microstock. I may

change my mind in the future.

 

Xavier.