Assignment sites

[commercial photographer in]

<p>I'd love to sell Stock photos, but I don't have nearly enough for a reputable agency to accept me. Is there a database site where assignments can be posted and photographers in that area can go to get them? I know years ago there was an agency in Canada that had a site like that but they were one of those Royalty-free agencies which are not the best to go with.<br>

I do have experience in all types of photography from nature, to photojournalism, and I'd like to find some reputable work in that field as a freelancer. Any ideas?</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I was a member of Digital Railroad. It went out of business. Many photographers did not get paid for photos that had sold. I was one of them.</p>

<p>DRR had a feature where photo buyers would put in requests for specific images and member photographers could upload what they had, or got out and shoot the specific images and upload.</p>

<p>I did sell rights to three of my images via their "requests".</p>

<p>There may be other stock agencies which have a similar type of thing. I don't know of any.</p>

<p>Avoid the microstock business model.</p>

<p>Check out this page for some words on the business of photography:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.danheller.com/bizfaq.html">http://www.danheller.com/bizfaq.html</a></p>

<p>Scroll down for links to stock photography pages.</p>

[craig_wactor]

<p>Why are royalty-free sites not the best to go with? Photographers typically make 3x as much per photo per year with those sites. I know that traditional stock photographers have a grudge against them because they feel like they own the stock business and microstock is stealing it from them, or something like that, but I work for several and the results have been good. My advice to someone in your position is to go with one. With IStockphoto, when you work your way up to a sizeable portfolio, you can even get put on with Getty images.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Equally, I have to say that my results from Royalty Free are at least as good and probably better than those from Rights Managed. That said I avoid microstock and the agencies I have are selective both of photographers and very much so for images. I think that its selectivity and a great distribution network, rather than contract type, that drives success in this market for the photographer. Assuming of course that you are creating material that people want to buy/use.</p>

[commercial photographer in]

<p>Thank you for the advise. Craig you are correct, I was not sure, about microstock agencies, I'm just going on the advise I was given. I see many people who sell on IStockPhoto and make a good deal of money with them. Can someone give me pointers on how much I can expect to make in stock photography?</p>

[sherri_meyer]

<p>Try Photographer's Direct at http://www.photographersdirect.com.</p>

[commercial photographer in]

<p>Thanks Sherri, that site looks great. What does everyone else think? I've applied with Istockphoto.com and just waiting for my application to be accepted. I'm also liking what Photographersdirect has to say. Has anyone had any experience with selling images through them?</p>

 

[broeraad]

<p>Photographersdirect is a great site , you have email request every day, customer pays you direct and you are later invoiced by Photographersdirect. I have bee working with them over three years now and sold with no complaints.<br />Aad</p>

[justin_greene]

<p>Photographer's Direct won't be happy to hear about your iStock applications:<br>

http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp<br>

"I'd love to sell Stock photos, but I don't have nearly enough for a reputable agency to accept me."<br>

Why don't you shoot your own ideas until you have nearly enough? "Assignment stock" isn't going to get you there, if you can find it at all.</p>

[commercial photographer in]

<p>Thanks for the tips. I think I am going to call Istock tomorrow morning and let them know I'm no longer interested in selling through them. I think I'm going to stick with Photographersdirect.com for now.</p>

 

[justin_greene]

<p>Good idea, if you don't want to make any money.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>As far as I can see Photographersdirect are not selective of images or photographers and therefore they are effectively microstock albeit with a different business model. It looks as though, making a rough and ready analysis of the numbers they provide on their site, that most of their customers are one -off and that its likely that the probability of selling an individual image in a year is likely to be below 1%. Thats a 1% chance of making 80% of an average $200. So if you took the time and trouble to load 200 photographs, if my assessement is right (and it may not be) then the expected value from loading the most you can put up without paying them is about $3 per year, maybe less. <br>

The only value I can see in this to anyone who wants to make any money out of photography is as a home for material that hasn't been taken by stock agencies with a more viable business model, and even then the return from the effort of choosing and uploading would not be worthwhile for most people I think. This is yet another lesson along the lines of "you don't bank percentages", and you may well make more money taking a smaller cut from a better agency.<br>

The important differences between this and a real stock agency are</p>

 

<ul>

<li>A real stock agency is selective to the point that busy professional buyers don't have to waste time sifting through mounds of unsatisfactory and imprecisely keyworded stuff to find what they want. Well, maybe they do, but its a much more tightly controlled mound.</li>

<li>A real stock agency has numerous distributors and sub agencies on a worldwide basis that contribute a ;arge chunk of their sales, not just their own website. They can do this because prices are (still) high enough to create an income opportunity for them.</li>

<li>A real stock agency stands behind the quality of what it sells. They have technical guidelines, camera guidelines, editors and so on. </li>

<li>They have often been around long enough to have a continuing relationship with buyers and mostly make multiple or indeed regular sales.</li>

</ul>

<p>Of course its the very lack of selectivity that makes microstock attractive to many people. Getting into a real stock agency can be pretty tough</p>

[edward_vargas1]

<p>Why not start your own stock agency? Visit Photo Source at http://www.photosource.com They have been around for over 25 years and give good advice for operating your own stock business.<br>

Good luck.</p>

[enlightened-images]

<p>Here's a pop quiz; answer quickly without thinking too much...</p>

<p>Do you consider your images more of an asset, or a commodity? That will help you decide which route to take. Royalty Free and microstock are more commodity items. If you produce work that is really special, or difficult for other buyers to find, or for other photographers to get, then you should definitely focus of Agencies with Rights Managed Libraries. There have been lots of reports out that show only a select few make really decent money in microstock. You can search on my weblog for an article called "How many for How Much?". If you think that the value or worth of your image should be based on how the client uses it, then go with Rights Managed. If you think that value should be based on file size, then Royalty Free is probably a better option for you. Check into the Stock Artists Alliance for more info.</p>

<p>If you want to do assignments, you need to get your work seen by people that hire photographers. The best resources to research these areas are by looking at places like Editorial Photographers, (also EPUK for those overseas) Advertising Photographers of America, or American Society of Media Photographers. - Links to all of these sites can be found on the Resources page of my weblog.</p>

[justin_greene]

<p>"There have been lots of reports out that show only a select few make really decent money in microstock."<br>

Just like in Rights Managed. Only a few make really decent money.</p>