| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2005 04:18:24 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
The only barriers to being accepted by a right protected stock agency are descent iconic images at a descent resolution. Easier doesn̢۪t always mean better. A lot of the people on DPC who are selling to Shutterstock have both the equipment and the talent to be accepted by a respected stock agency. The only barrier I see in their case is their willingness to try. I know many of the photographers here lack the proper equipment (5mp camera, at least) and experience to go that route at the moment, but if they hope to ever become more then hobbyists (and there̢۪s nothing wrong with being a hobbyist) then participation in Shutterstock is not a wise career move.
My portfolio was accepted by Bruce Coleman, one of the oldest, largest and most respected stock agencies in the world, on my first try. And that was before the 1Ds. |
A couple of quick questions -
How many images did you have in your portfolio?
When did you join?
How much have you made?
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 05:30:51 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I wouldn't submit to these agencies for the simple reason that it devalues individuals' work and time. If, as I've done in the past, sold a digital file for $300 (for advertising) why would I sell something for $0.20 and devalue any future work I may do? It doesn't make sense. People should respect their investment of time and energy more than they do. Just because it's there doesn't mean you should sell it. Why doesn't everyone sell tapes of themselves having sex, when they're doing it anyway? Huh? The answer lies in the dignity and self-respect people (usually) have for themselves. |
I think you see a similar thing at work when people sell prints of their pictures, and charge the cost of the materials, printing, framing, matting, maybe time and nothing else. The images are what are valuable, not the materials, yet some people seem to believe what they produce is worthless. 20c per image which might take 5 minutes to take, download, get ready, upload etc, works out at $2.40 per hour. I wouldn't flip burgers for that kind of wage, so I wonder why people spend their hobby time this way but certainly it is their decision.
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 17:32:59. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 05:45:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
A couple of quick questions -
How many images did you have in your portfolio?
When did you join?
How much have you made? |
This is not something you join. It is a business contract between two parties. You must first submit a portfolio to an agency you feel best suits your needs, and then if the agency feels, after reviewing that portfolio, that they can market your work (make money) they will write up a contract stating the rights of both parties.
For me that was the easy part (and the part that most who have never tried seem to fear). The hard part was scanning, editing and uploading 50,000 images from the slides that are currently in my files. All the images I had taken at that point (2001) were taken with a Nikon N90 and a myriad of Pentax manual focus cameras. I decided based on the time factor involved and my age that my time would be better spent concentrating on capturing the images instead of sitting in front of a computer scanning stuff I had done in the past. If I had started out in digital then time would not have been a factor in uploading them as it takes no longer to upload a batch of images with a high speed connection to my website, Shutterstock or to Bruce Coleman. In fact downloading straight to Bruce Coleman would be easier for me because I save my images as full res TIFFs anyway, and wouldn't have to worry with converting to them to JPEGs.
I let my contract lapse. I have only been using a digital camera for less then a year and when I feel that I have aquired a reasonable number of maketable digital images, a few thousand, then I will renegotiate a contract with Bruce Coleman or perhaps a different stock agency that I feel better suits my future needs. When I get older and my legs less steady I will go back and go through all of my slides. They will seem new to me again and I think it will be a very enjoyable endeavor. (not to mention slide scanners will probably be much faster by then) In the meantime I have my health and plan on being out and about. The slides are money in the bank.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 07:33:22 PM · #54 |
ok, this is my deal. I bought my d-70 because I like photography, but.. the main reason was to make money. I want so bad to work for myself and make money and a career from my talents, I do not want to make some CEO rich from my hard work. (Which I am now). I want to make real money from my photographs, and I am willing to invest the time and money to do so. I thought that stock photography may be a way to help me persue my career. But reading the posts I understand that it will take much more than that.
So what do you pro's reccomend I do. I am 24 years old with a Nikon D-70 a 18-70mm 70-300mm a nikon sb-600 and a hell of alot of ambition. WHAT DO I DO?
Travis
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 19:37:04.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 07:52:35 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
I am 24 years old with a Nikon D-70... and a hell of alot of ambition. WHAT DO I DO?
|
Hey Travis, quite a conversation you started here with your original post. I'm sure you will do it. Good luck.
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 20:12:11. |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 08:03:04 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
... Once you have sold an image thru an agency like Shutterstock that image is not now nor will it ever be of any commercial value to a rights protected stock agency. Think. You gave away what may amount to some of your best and most valuable work for 20 cents where as if you had held onto it and waited until you have a full portfolio to present, that same image could be worth thousands to you and your estate in future income. (Images if managed thru a reputable stock agency could possibly produce income for the estate of the photographer for a period of 70 year after the photographer has deceased.) ... |
While I understand your point, doesn't this arguement require creativity to be viewed as similar to a spring -- something that can be tapped into, but if tapped too much will run dry. I just don't see creativity in that way; the more it is used, the more it is available. As long as the shutter will continue to click open, a person can always create more. Unless the photographer decides they have no more to give, their best work is always ahead.
But, this discussion has led me to a question. While I have not seriously considered a career in stock photography (or any other photography for that matter), the agencies you are touting are well over toward the professional side of the scale. While I understand that is the reason you are pushing their value, just where would you suggest those here interested pursue the time honored starting position of an apprentice?
David
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 08:15:48 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
A couple of quick questions -
How many images did you have in your portfolio?
When did you join?
How much have you made? |
This is not something you join. It is a business contract between two parties. You must first submit a portfolio to an agency you feel best suits your needs, and then if the agency feels, after reviewing that portfolio, that they can market your work (make money) they will write up a contract stating the rights of both parties.
For me that was the easy part (and the part that most who have never tried seem to fear). The hard part was scanning, editing and uploading 50,000 images from the slides that are currently in my files. All the images I had taken at that point (2001) were taken with a Nikon N90 and a myriad of Pentax manual focus cameras. I decided based on the time factor involved and my age that my time would be better spent concentrating on capturing the images instead of sitting in front of a computer scanning stuff I had done in the past. If I had started out in digital then time would not have been a factor in uploading them as it takes no longer to upload a batch of images with a high speed connection to my website, Shutterstock or to Bruce Coleman. In fact downloading straight to Bruce Coleman would be easier for me because I save my images as full res TIFFs anyway, and wouldn't have to worry with converting to them to JPEGs.
I let my contract lapse. I have only been using a digital camera for less then a year and when I feel that I have aquired a reasonable number of maketable digital images, a few thousand, then I will renegotiate a contract with Bruce Coleman or perhaps a different stock agency that I feel better suits my future needs. When I get older and my legs less steady I will go back and go through all of my slides. They will seem new to me again and I think it will be a very enjoyable endeavor. (not to mention slide scanners will probably be much faster by then) In the meantime I have my health and plan on being out and about. The slides are money in the bank. |
Very interesting post and thanks for the insight.
But the thing is that I dont have a few thousand good images and Im not going to get to anywhere near that number anytime in the near future. I just have about 85 images on shutterstock and 30 on istock. Thats what I've been able to do in a couple of months, and I agree that the price could be higher. But when I look at it like these images would just be sitting on my hard drive anyway I think this is a good investment. In about 6 weeks I have made about 25 on shutterstock and 10 on istock... while this isnt anything amazing its still something. If I continue taking baby steps like this soon I have maybe 500 or a 1000 images (If I get really bored this summer) and I will be able to upgrade my camera and maybe start building my next portfolio. But till then I have to continue taking my baby steps, even if it means I only get 20 cents each time my image is bought.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2005 08:22:15 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... 20c per image which might take 5 minutes to take, download, get ready, upload etc, works out at $2.40 per hour. I wouldn't flip burgers for that kind of wage, so I wonder why people spend their hobby time this way but certainly it is their decision. |
And when that same image is downloaded 20 times, with no further work from me, no marketing effort, no whatever ... can I then consider myself to be making $48/hour and give up my McJob? |
|
|
|
01/29/2005 10:49:05 PM · #59 |
Very interesting read.
I also think that 0.20 on shutterstock is far too cheap for those that have invested a lot in equipment...
Maybe this is not a point but again: I only have a Canon A70. Great little camera that helped me to improve in some ways my skills (:-) IMO).
Then there are the pics I take and literarely are sitting on my HD.
Money is an issue for me. I come from Romania, not a very rich country, where the averrage monthly salary is a little more than 150USD. I graduated from Chinese department of Bucharest University and got a scholarship to China.
Well now I am in China trying hard to make a better life for my little family.
My wife is very supporting but buying a dSLR is way out of the question. The Canon A70 was an effort for me and it is producing 3Mp pics that even some are pretty good (IMO) they will never sell at other big names of stock photography. Actually istock refused them simply cause they were to noisy...
My PC is also a second hand one. Cyrix III, 192RAM, 40G HD and finally a CD burner (all bought with financial efforts). If I have to run my image's through NeatImage it will take ages to get rid of the noise (if the PC doesn't crash)
The point is that I am happy with the shutterstock and I will keep on uploading. I have 78 pics (well maybe 20 are art clips) and so far they brought me: All Time Totals: 72-$14.40 in les then 2 months.
With a little more work I might be able to pay my membership on DPC. Expires on Mar. 2, 2005.
I don't have a credi card and I realy hope I can get on my PayPal the money to pay for it from my own work with photos.
Sorry for the long blablabla
This is what brought me the bucks
Message edited by author 2005-01-29 22:58:08.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 12:39:40 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
... 20c per image which might take 5 minutes to take, download, get ready, upload etc, works out at $2.40 per hour. I wouldn't flip burgers for that kind of wage, so I wonder why people spend their hobby time this way but certainly it is their decision. |
And when that same image is downloaded 20 times, with no further work from me, no marketing effort, no whatever ... can I then consider myself to be making $48/hour and give up my McJob? |
When that starts happening for all 12 of the images per hour, every hour, you sure can, but that doesn't seem to be the way it pans out...
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 02:25:22 AM · #61 |
Wow. I made another buck today!
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 03:25:47 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
When that starts happening for all 12 of the images per hour, every hour, you sure can, but that doesn't seem to be the way it pans out... |
Seems like we have too many variables in this equation. For any one photo, it seems like it should be:
$/hr = total lifetime income ($)/shooting/processing/upload time (hours)
With RF stock you make money on popular images with multiple downloads, and lose on those with few or none. But I fail to see how that's any different than any other creative endeavor. I've only "sold" one print here (other than to family/friends). Should I lower the price, or increase it tenfold, or conclude I wasted my time working on that photo at all?
If I were to open a restaurant, it's all very well to tell me to make it a Chez Panisse or "21" or Paris Ritz, but if all I'm capable of cooking is burgers, and there's people who want burgers, am I to forego the business opportunity just because I'll never make the Michelin Guide? You gonna close down McDonalds and make the masses eat escargot and foie gras too?
Sorry, I've been up TOO long : ) |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 03:28:50 AM · #63 |
| Paul. You're making me hungry. But I say. Let's stop killing the poor cows. No more beef. lol |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 10:44:33 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Paul. You're making me hungry. But I say. Let's stop killing the poor cows. No more beef. lol |
I think McDonalds stopped using beef a long time ago...
As a context to this discussion - John Setzler has a US flag image on one of these sites. He has made $20 from the image. Now that's a whole lot of downloads. I had a look at a virtually identical image on Corbis. Single use for 3 months is $1100.00. Unlimited rights to it, much like is being sold for 20c is $35,000.00
Not saying every image is worth that much, but there is a happy medium were they are at least being sold for something slightly more than what they cost to create in the first place.
Message edited by author 2005-01-30 10:50:08. |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 11:21:04 AM · #65 |
To use your restaurant analogy, General:
I think what Gordon is saying (and I've come to agree) is that it's okay that the hamburgers are selling for $1.50 or less...but here's the problem:
So is the caviar...
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 12:13:17 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
As a context to this discussion - John Setzler has a US flag image on one of these sites. He has made $20 from the image. Now that's a whole lot of downloads. I had a look at a virtually identical image on Corbis. Single use for 3 months is $1100.00. Unlimited rights to it, much like is being sold for 20c is $35,000.00
Not saying every image is worth that much, but there is a happy medium were they are at least being sold for something slightly more than what they cost to create in the first place. |
Actually iStock rights are not unlimited. I can't remember the figure offhand, but if use exceeds a certain figure, the price does go up substantially. Always assuming that figure is ever exceeded. I'm too new to this to know whether it actually happens.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 12:17:53 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
To use your restaurant analogy, General:
I think what Gordon is saying (and I've come to agree) is that it's okay that the hamburgers are selling for $1.50 or less...but here's the problem:
So is the caviar... |
In my personal case, the purchasing public seems to classify my work closer to ground cow than sturgeon roe. I'm happy to be told otherwise anytime, but kudos ain't Euros, if you know what I mean : )
I've been advocating for a while that we have a group of people (with a better-developed commercial sense than myself), to whom we could submit photos (e.g. for DPC Prints) for pricing advice. It's all very well to say a flag photo can make $1000, but that doesn't mean that my flag photo either can or will.
Surely every photo isn't of equal worth -- it often sounds as though people are arguing that there should only be top-quality, expensive stock available. The RF market developed (initially on CD-ROM) mostly to fill an unmet market niche, which will influence, but should not replace, the traditional stock agencies.
Maybe I'm not capable of building a Mercedes or Rolls -- does that mean I shouldn't sell a servicable Kia or VW? Especially since I'm not really in a position to make the investment of time and equipment necessary to make the Mercedes? I agree with all of you that I shouldn't sell the Rolls for the price of a Kia, and I hope I'll recognize the "Rolls" if it ever shows up on my memory card. But as I mentioned earlier, I don't think any of the shots in my Shutterstock gallery are better than a Honda anyway ... |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 12:36:39 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
As a context to this discussion - John Setzler has a US flag image on one of these sites. He has made $20 from the image. Now that's a whole lot of downloads. I had a look at a virtually identical image on Corbis. Single use for 3 months is $1100.00. Unlimited rights to it, much like is being sold for 20c is $35,000.00
|
I think a lot of the arguments I am getting when I suggest some of the photographers on this site look for a legitimate venue to sell their images may be based on a fear to succeed.
What I mean by legitimate is a stock photo agency that pays the photographer the industry standard commission or at least close to it. Most agencies pay their photographers 50% commission on the sale of work submitted. Some pay back 60%. There should also be no filing fees, no registration fees, no additional sales fees, and no hidden costs charged to the photographer.
Jon from Shutterstock say he pays out 35% (which somehow ends up being 20 cents)
Quote from another thread:
Originally posted by shutterstock:
We pay out well over 35% of the income we generate from sales.
Jon |
A new agency that is getting some discussion here at DPC:
//www.pinupinoo.com
Images downloaded (up to) Commission
100 15%
250 20%
500 25%
1000 30%
Over 1000 35%
Anything below the industry standard is exploiting the photographer, no matter what his or her level of proficiency.
You don̢۪t have to be a Richard Avendon to hook up with many of these agencies. All you need is an initial portfolio of one hundred of your best images (that have not priviously sold as stock or been published) shot at 5Mp or better and the ability to produce 25 to 40 images a month on average. But you do have to try.
Message edited by author 2005-01-30 12:38:28.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 12:43:50 PM · #69 |
| Here's an interesting thread on dpreview about rm vs rf. He doesn't say the article is incorrect. He makes .03 cents per year per picture that's rm and $63 per year per picture that's rf. The guy has 61,000 pictures as rm and easily makes less than a few people on iStock that have 1,000 pictures up. He made $21,000 on his rm. That's 61,000 pictures and only 21 grand made. I don't know. But processing 61 grand of images for that small change seems to be a waste of time. I am math challenged, so maybe I'm just not looking at this right. |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 01:12:58 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
You don̢۪t have to be a Richard Avendon to hook up with many of these agencies. All you need is an initial portfolio of one hundred of your best images (that have not priviously sold as stock or been published) |
Don't have that ... maybe five or ten I'd even be willing to submit.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
shot at 5Mp or better |
My better camera (bought last August) is 3.0MP
Originally posted by nsbca7:
and the ability to produce 25 to 40 images a month on average. |
I work two jobs and have an eight-year old ... realistically I don't have time or talent to do this reliably.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But you do have to try. |
Which is what I've been doing ... starting out slow and small. I have all of 47 images approved at Shutterstock. I hardly think I've undermined my entire allotment of marketable images ... I do plan to try other avenues if encouraged by success. But if I can't sell an image for 20 cents, why should I presume I could actually get hundreds?
Message edited by author 2005-01-30 13:16:29. |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 01:15:58 PM · #71 |
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=152009&page=1
There was another thread about this last month. Good info. |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 01:16:22 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by pcody:
Here's an interesting thread on dpreview about rm vs rf. He doesn't say the article is incorrect. He makes .03 cents per year per picture that's rm and $63 per year per picture that's rf. The guy has 61,000 pictures as rm and easily makes less than a few people on iStock that have 1,000 pictures up. He made $21,000 on his rm. That's 61,000 pictures and only 21 grand made. I don't know. But processing 61 grand of images for that small change seems to be a waste of time. I am math challenged, so maybe I'm just not looking at this right. |
He made $2,100 with his royalty managed and $10,206 with his royalty free images, but he sold those thru Corbis, not I-stock.
The benifit of selling rights managed is that even though this photographer only made $2,100 in one year this way, his images remain on file year after year and as he adds to them the yearly income from these image files increases.
It's the same as say you are selling a house. You want $100,000 for the house and you know you can get $100,000 it you are patient, but someone comes up the first day you put the house up for sale and offers you $40,000. Hey, it's money in your hand. Do you take it, or wait maybe 6 months to get the full price?
Message edited by author 2005-01-30 13:19:56.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2005 01:21:14 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe I'm not capable of building a Mercedes or Rolls -- does that mean I shouldn't sell a servicable Kia or VW? |
Sure, but you're selling your Kia/VW for the price of a Matchbox or Hot Wheels. |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 01:31:09 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
The benifit of selling rights managed is that even though this photographer only made $2,100 in one year this way, his images remain on file year after year and as he adds to them the yearly income from these image files increases. |
Same thing with RF where we are paid/download, it's just (a lot) less.
If I spend ten minutes shooting, processing and uploading a photo to Shutterstock (not unusual for the photos I submit there), then I need five downloads to "break even" with the Federal Minimum Wage -- not an unreasonable measure at this point, since no one has offered to pay me even that for photographic services ... and what happens when that photo hits 20 or 100 downloads?
I think the rate of return on investment ("you're selling it too cheap") has to include the degree of investment (I'm not working that hard) into the equation.
I don't think stock images are supposed to be great pieces of creative or artistic expression, for which I'd be entitled to value for the intellectual effort(?) which went into it -- the talent here is in recognizing something which forms a good potential building block for someone else's vision, and capturing a clean, well-lighted image of it. |
|
|
|
01/30/2005 01:31:48 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Maybe I'm not capable of building a Mercedes or Rolls -- does that mean I shouldn't sell a servicable Kia or VW? |
Sure, but you're selling your Kia/VW for the price of a Matchbox or Hot Wheels. |
LOL! |
|
