Im sure this has been asked many TIMES!

[j.art.photo.]

<p>Hi.<br>

I am relatively new to PN but have been in the photography bussines for a while now, yet there are some questions that I'm sure some of you are willing to answer. Most of the work I've done has been by contract and that is actually how I make most of my living , shooting events , wedings, children photography , pets, and even products. My hardrives are fuLLL of images not only from work but also the ones that are taken on my free time, some have been posted here (not the by contract ones) I wish I had more time to organize and make a nice portfolio on PN but thats on the works, so my question is!, does It make sense to sell the bulk of the images as Micro stock and Keep the better ones for personal use where I can get more profit out of them? never done the stock thing but would like to use that resource to work with so many pics seating doing nothing,,<br>

Does it make sense? have any sugestions? what stock agency could be a good choice?<br>

In advance thanks for taking the time to read my post and replying to it.<br>

Regards. J.A.R.T.</p>

[justin_greene]

<p>"have any sugestions?"<br>

Do some research on the existing sites and see if there are images that sell that are like yours.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>No, it does not make sense. </p>

<p>If you notice that the image is not your best, guess what everyone else is going to think. Unless your trash file looks like a Getty flip-book, I'd consider doing some homework on the stock submissions.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Okay, let me clarify. You've been at this for a while; so, let's assume you've got something over there.</p>

<p>Go over to about five of these micro stock websites. Invariably, they'll have a "featured photos" page. Have a look at some of the top 20 images over there. Note how many times those were downloaded or viewed. </p>

<p>These same websites, somewhere in there, will have a subscriber's price chart; and also, they'll have some kind of web page outlining what the photographer's cut is. </p>

<p>Now, do some math. Then, look at the images again. By this time, you should be drooling. Under the pricing schemes, what you'll probably see is that the photographers who are doing well are raking it in. They'll only be paid small amounts per, but they will have racked up about 10,000 plus downloads. So, the featured or well-performing photographers are doing well with the microstocks. </p>

<p>Okay, time to check out the average performers. Run the same type of checks; but, maybe pick your example photos from "recent" or somewhere closer to the bottom end of top 100 or something like that. About around in there, you'll start coming across those who are going to make around $500 per photo, over a year. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less, depending on what's in the photo.</p>

<p>Now, look at those photos for content again.</p>

<p>Finally, find the duds. They're in there. Looks like somebody's old vacation photos, pictures of someone's feet; there will be no models in these. The top performers will have models, usually more than one, or one really pretty one in there; okay, so what have you learned?</p>

<p>The people who are doing well with micro stock photos are the people who are building decent ad photos for stock to begin with. In those cases, the pricing schemes might be immaterial; the photos would have sold, regardless. It may so happen that for some, they will actually do better either in a really short run, or over a year, with the micro stock pricing scheme. </p>

<p>By this time, you might be drooling all over again. Get a bib, because it's time to check out how many people are on there. It'll be tens of thousands. Could be upwards of a quarter of a million or more. Now, how many people's photos have you seen on those websites so far? Even though it may seem like you saw a lot of photos, and therefore, photographer's work, chances are, you only scratched the surface. This implies the sink or swim, aggressive marketing model has its pitfalls. </p>

<p>I'd submit that what you need to send them might not only be some of your better work, but also find out if it's a good idea to have your own pack of rabid customers waiting in the wings to snap this stuff up. In which case, it'll be like many other third party websites that sell images; who's number one won't be about who's 7/7'd by their buddies, but also who sold, however they could. Keep in mind, when you had a look at those top photos, many of those were raking in the sales. </p>

<p>Just as with everything else online, we have no idea how inflationary that might be; or, what kind of advertising efforts were associated with recruiting customers for that image, or who knows what else might contribute. </p>

<p>But, if you think you can cash in by just uploading whatever; well, have a look again at those images that were below average. Were they selling? </p>

<p>Maybe you're the guy that's the next Robert Capa or Annie Leibovitz or whomever, but in a cold look, a lot of us or not. So, if you're really not, I'd hit it with a plan of some kind; something better than "It's not really my best," which, in terms of making me want to buy it based on what you said is, well, lacking! Beef up the sales pitch at least! You've got to sell that thing. </p>

<p>I had someone tell me one time that they didn't want to buy a photo that was numbered as fourth in a set because they thought they should be buying "Number One." Hey, "Number One," in that group wasn't too hot. Number Four was The Stuff To Have. They wanted a title on it that said, "Number One." That baffled me, but, that's sometimes what people want. </p>

<p>I know that was long, and I hope you receive it with good humor and confidence; but, that's what I think. Initial idea doesn't make sense. It can make sense with some refinement, but not as is. </p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>Yes John I totally get the point. thanks alot for the reply.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<blockquote>

<p>Keep the better ones for personal use where I can get more profit out of them</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is a decision only you can make.<br>

Micro-stock removes quite a bit of control from you as far as pricing is concerned.<br>

I suppose could upload to the MS and license it as RM with a ton of limitations, but good luck raking in the $$$. <br>

Check out some of the NON- Micro-Stock agencies. You have more control in pricing.</p>

<p>Lsstly, you mention making more yourself.<br>

Great option if you know how and desire to license your own work.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Peter:<br /> <br /> Most, if not all, micro stock agencies accept only RF images and hence sell only RF.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Thanks Mikael. LOL....Probably why I know little about MS sites; I don't partake in them. ;)</p>

<p>Back on track though, the OP should go RM if he believes his images are money makers.<br>

RF?..Might be ok for some..I'll pass.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>SELL SELL SELL<br>

What is your work doing for you right now- collecting dust. Do your best and make money- if you can find it:)</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>@ Peter. I also believe RM would be a better option, any non-M stock agencies you can suggest?<br>

@ Martin. Absolutely! those images in my hard drive are doing nothing for me now and I consider there are quite a few that have potential, that is the reason of my post, asking those of you who have more experience than me on this field and have the time to reply what would be a good option.<br>

and so far what I see is Micro would not be the best in my case.<br>

BTW thanks to all for replying, I hope more come and share their experience at the time of selling their work.</p>

[eloy_cortinez]

<p>I think the main problem with microstock are not the low prices, but the time and work involved in order to get a pic up there. Basically Keywording descriptions, categorization etc, it will take a lot of work if you want to upload lots of pictures... Rejection rate: they can reject pictures at a very high rate, for many reasons that have nothing to do with the actual quality of the picture, so it means for you keywording work wasted.... or could mean for instance doing even more work on photoshop to ensure you hide every commertial brand and every face without a model release... I think top people hire assistants to do the keywording, and have built a bussiness around microstock. As a work on the side... mmmm... i still looking for answers if it is worth or or possible....</p>