| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2005 08:54:10 PM · #26 |
I actually have a point of view on this :)
some people decide to sell there pictures that way, it's their choice, the person who sold this picture on Istock has over 1500 pictures in her gallery, I beleive she chose to do that. Some of her works is great and belong in a gallery, but she made that choice. As for the other side of the medal. If you choose to be an artist more than a photographer, than, exhibition is the way to go, not stock photography.
what does it all means? well it's a question of choice.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 12:58:12 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
I think you folks who think your stock photography is worth 20, 200, or 2000 dollars are soon going to have to realize that the times have changed. The photographs are only worth 50 cents or a dollar these days, as that is what the market is bearing. You aren't shooting yourself in the foot selling it for that price - you're trying to set up a price-fixing scheme if you try to get others to hold out for a higher price. Stock photography isn't worth the money it used to be. |
For an example, would you like to say what you do for a living? ;)
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 03:03:02 AM · #28 |
Click on Che for story of photographer Alberto Korda. No $$ made on that image.
Message edited by author 2005-02-14 03:48:23.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 03:33:36 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have done great and exaustive research into what the market is bearing and believe me when I tell you that only a very small percentage of the sucsesful stock agencies out there offer their photographers under $20 an image even for royalty free. No photographer with any talent or potential should sell there images to the few exploitive fringe stock agencies that have popped up in the last 2 or 3 years. |
Please have a look at my
ShutterStock Portofolio
and
DPC Portofolio
and
DPCPrints
and tell ne if there is any "talent or potential" for me.
If yes then I might wait one more year to save some money from my east Europe teacher's salary and buy a decent camera and reconsider stock photography.
Meanwhile I am pretty happy with my 23$ that I made in one month of ShutterStock.
I shot with a Canon Powershot A70 in my spare time.
Message edited by author 2005-02-14 03:36:04.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 03:53:33 AM · #30 |
First of all I admit that I know very little about Stock photo agents and this one in particular.
But I do know something about business and it if you look at the basic facts to this transaction you have a supplier (the photographer) at one end and the customer at the other end.
A supplier sells his product for a very low price and the customer takes full advantage and uses the product for maximum exposure. This is simply commerce, as we know it.
Now like I said earlier I know little about stock agency and the particular terms and conditions of the contracts so what I̢۪m about to mention is just raising some questions that some more enlighten members may be able to answer.
In business when you have such a large difference in price of supply and value to end user there nearly always has to be other parties involved in the supply chain so my questions areâ€Â¦
What use of the photos are stipulated in the terms and conditions when they are purchased?
Are you notified who purchases your product?
Is it possible for the product to be on sold to others?
What size file do you supply for .20c?
I may be a little cynical but on face value someone looks to be making a tidy little earner.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 07:09:02 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
sites that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents. |
Why not hold out til you are good enough for sites that pay $200 or $2000?... |
This is the advantage of the internet, I can develop multiple personalities without any problem, and they will never know it whas the same person... :) |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 07:41:50 AM · #32 |
I've noticed in this discussion, and in others in the past, someone always recommends selling your work on sites that pay more. In this one, there was the comment about selling it on "sitest that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents." But I've yet to find a stock agency that offers higher payouts that doesn't have SOME restriction in keeping out the "weekend warrior" photographer. The higher paying ones seem tailored to ONLY allow professional photographers to join. Which is fine if they want to do that, it's their company. But then the professionals shouldn't complain about all the amateurs going to shutterstock or istock or dreamstime or... then, after all, they were kept out of the "big boy" sites by the very professionals that are complaining about the "little guy" sites... See what I mean? Just my thoughts...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 08:03:55 AM · #33 |
I would say that there are talent and potential there Tiberus. But this is a hard buisness so I wouldn´t give up my current job for it if I where you. Just continue what you are doing and maybe one day you´ll be albe to earn a living on this. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:42:43 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
I've noticed in this discussion, and in others in the past, someone always recommends selling your work on sites that pay more. In this one, there was the comment about selling it on "sitest that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents." But I've yet to find a stock agency that offers higher payouts that doesn't have SOME restriction in keeping out the "weekend warrior" photographer. The higher paying ones seem tailored to ONLY allow professional photographers to join. Which is fine if they want to do that, it's their company. But then the professionals shouldn't complain about all the amateurs going to shutterstock or istock or dreamstime or... then, after all, they were kept out of the "big boy" sites by the very professionals that are complaining about the "little guy" sites... See what I mean? Just my thoughts... |
That's true of the largest Stock companies (Getty, Corbis). But there are some others out there. You may want to check out Alamy (www.alamy.com). If you have a program like Photoshop, and I see you have a Rebel, then you can submit to them. They are strict on file sizes but do accept interpolated images. Other than that, they don't edit the content. (I've seen a lot of crap there too, but one professional on another board says "crap sells"). I just sent in 14 images for test submission and they all passed their Quality Control. All were shot with my D70 in high-jpeg format.
The prices on Alamy for RF ranges from about $50 to $250. For RM (they call it Licensed) it depends on usage but could run into the thousands for a one time use.
-John |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:18:00 AM · #35 |
Thanks "dogz", I'll got take a look at them. So there are no "catches" there, like you have to have a minimum portfolio of 500 images, or they have to be 50MB Tiffs, or you must submit 50 images a month, or etc...? Interesting. I'll definatly go look... Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:21:44 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Thanks "dogz", I'll got take a look at them. So there are no "catches" there, like you have to have a minimum portfolio of 500 images, or they have to be 50MB Tiffs, or you must submit 50 images a month, or etc...? Interesting. I'll definatly go look... Thanks again! |
Check out this earlier thread. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:27:27 AM · #37 |
iStock et al are no good for me - many many better options.
Example - one image on iStock I had as a test for 6 months, sold 6 times to 6 different people / companies (A golf picture)
Total money $1.20 Wow!
Sold the same image privately just the once.
Total money $280
You would be much better off just paying £3 a month for your own website and selling from there.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:30:34 AM · #38 |
Hmmm, seems they want 48MB tiff files, taken (preferably) from cameras that produce at least 17MB images, and are upsized with software I don't have... (or want to know how much it costs... :-) ). Once again, the weekend types are excluded. Leaving us to go to the $0.40 sites, or nothing. If those are my two choices, I may as well go to the $0.40 sites... Right? Why not?
Again, just my two cents worth...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:33:39 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Hmmm, seems they want 48MB tiff files, taken (preferably) from cameras that produce at least 17MB images, and are upsized with software I don't have... (or want to know how much it costs... :-) ). Once again, the weekend types are excluded. Leaving us to go to the $0.40 sites, or nothing. If those are my two choices, I may as well go to the $0.40 sites... Right? Why not?
Again, just my two cents worth... |
You don't have Photoshop? your camera is quite capable of creating acceptable images. I have one so I know.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:49:09 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Hmmm, seems they want 48MB tiff files, taken (preferably) from cameras that produce at least 17MB images, and are upsized with software I don't have... (or want to know how much it costs... :-) ) |
It's not that bad -- programs/plugins such as Genuine Fractals or PixelPro cost about $130 US (note: I don't have them either). The newest version of Photoshop should be able to do this as well with the newer upsampling algoritm, and you can do it with an older version if you you use the time-consuming "stair interpolation" method of repeatedly upsizing in small increments (e.g. 5%) until the desired size is reached.
A 48MB file from a 16MB original is double the size (double the pixels in each dimension = 4x in file size).
Message edited by author 2005-02-14 11:50:00. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:50:47 AM · #41 |
Two questions:
1. How do I market my photos so that people buy them? (For a weekend warrior like me).
2. Which organizations can I donate my photos to? |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:56:40 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Hmmm, seems they want 48MB tiff files, taken (preferably) from cameras that produce at least 17MB images, and are upsized with software I don't have... (or want to know how much it costs... :-) ). Once again, the weekend types are excluded. Leaving us to go to the $0.40 sites, or nothing. If those are my two choices, I may as well go to the $0.40 sites... Right? Why not?
Again, just my two cents worth... |
DS, If you take a picture on Fine/Jpeg setting (better yet RAW) and open it in Photoshop and save it as a Tiff, it should be around 17mb. That's what Alamy was referring to. If a D70 can do it, I'm pretty sure the Rebel does too. Then you can either use Photoshop to interpolate it (bicubic, or bicubic-smoother for Photoshop CS) or use Genuine Fractals (you get 10 free uses with their trial version). If you use Photoshop, try doing it in 10% increments rather than all at once. Then when it's over 48mb, save it as a Tiff.
The only other thing you need is a cd burner and pay postage to the U.K. So with Alamy, it is pretty easy for us weekend warriors to get a start with an agency. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 12:23:00 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
I've noticed in this discussion, and in others in the past, someone always recommends selling your work on sites that pay more. In this one, there was the comment about selling it on "sitest that pay 20 dollars not 20 cents." But I've yet to find a stock agency that offers higher payouts that doesn't have SOME restriction in keeping out the "weekend warrior" photographer. |
Check out Photoexposure. Stock prices range from $25-$200, depending on file size and the photographer gets, I think, 80% comission. Weekend warrior types are accepted. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 12:42:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by eugene:
2. Which organizations can I donate my photos to? |
If you want a US income tax deduction, any organization registered as a 501(c)3 non-profit with the IRS qualifies. Otherwise, I'd just suggest the organizations whose goals and beliefs most nearly coincide with your own.
I personally channel most of my donations (of any kind) to local organizations (school, free clinic) than to large national organizations (e.g. Red Cross, although I've volunteered for them too), but I don't think it matters that much ...
If you check in this pBase gallery you'll see how I was thinking of adapting this image for use by the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers), but I don't think I ever heard back from them. : (
 |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 01:28:16 PM · #45 |
No, I don't have photoshop. I have some competitors, but not photoshop. And why do I want to create 48MB tiff files when a 2 or 3MB jpeg (high quality) looks just as good? Seriously, I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference if you didn't know beforehand. At least I couldn't. I've never understood why they want that conversion to the bigger file... Maybe there is some reason for it... If so, someone educate me please. And, with dialup, there's no way I want to be uploading 48MB files either. And spending $130 for Genuine Fractals is a significant investment too (not to mention getting photoshop). Hence why I say they put obstacles in the way of the amateur photog to join. Which is fine if they want it that way. People like me will just continue to use the 40 cent sites instead...
I see Zal has another potential exception, I'll go check that out too. Thanks Zal.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 01:38:51 PM · #46 |
I am pretty sure that the older stock sites are primarily catering to print-oriented sites, where that 48MB file is just barely enough to print as a full-page at magazine quality.
I think the newer "cheapo" RF sites are primarily catering to web-based designers or places creating ads or corporate identity pieces where the images don't have to be so large, nor can they afford for them to be so expensive.
People designing a website for a local store are not going to be able to pay $200/each for images which will be posted at under 600 pixels ... they'll either take their own or get them from Shutterstock or one of the numerous other RF sites. |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 02:15:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
No, I don't have photoshop. I have some competitors, but not photoshop. And why do I want to create 48MB tiff files when a 2 or 3MB jpeg (high quality) looks just as good? Seriously, I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference if you didn't know beforehand. At least I couldn't. I've never understood why they want that conversion to the bigger file... Maybe there is some reason for it... If so, someone educate me please. And, with dialup, there's no way I want to be uploading 48MB files either. And spending $130 for Genuine Fractals is a significant investment too (not to mention getting photoshop). Hence why I say they put obstacles in the way of the amateur photog to join. Which is fine if they want it that way. People like me will just continue to use the 40 cent sites instead...
I see Zal has another potential exception, I'll go check that out too. Thanks Zal. |
The reason they want such big files is that they may need only part of the images, likely their workflow is set up for 48MB tiff files and the TIFF files also don't have compression artifacts and other nasty bugs that make jpg unsuitable. If you can't tell the difference between output from a 2-3MB jpg and a 48MB tiff, you must not print very big.
As far as time to upload such big files, I know that Alamy accepts submissions only by mail, so uploading is a non-issue. All you need is a CD writer and postage to the UK. I'm not sure about other agencies.
This is at the same time, the funniest and saddest discussion that keeps going around on DPC. Funny, because the same argument keeps happening over and over again with a slightly different cast. Sad, because so many talented folks sell themselves short by not even trying to get into a better paying agency.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 02:35:10 PM · #48 |
It always amazes me how people on DPC will argue to the death that their images aren't worth more than 20 cents. Pro's are telling you that they see potential in your images and not to get taken advantage of, but you argue with them. Last time I checked, an education version of Photoshop CS was pretty cheap. There are plenty of sites that sell them. So a couple of hundred dollar investment for an opportunity to earn it back in one sell doesn't alienate the "weekend warrior" as you put it...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 02:36:01 PM · #49 |
In reference to this quote:
"If you can't tell the difference between output from a 2-3MB jpg and a 48MB tiff, you must not print very big."
Well then, I'd say that you mean larger than 8x10, right?
So, I'd really like to know the answer to this question then:
What PERCENTAGE of pictures in the "picture universe" (i.e., including but not limitied to billboards, magazines, newspapers, books, pamphlets, web sites, newsletters, posters, CD covers, postcards, movie ads, bus benches, coporate logos, books, etc etc etc, whatEVER you can think of) get printed larger than 8x10?
I personally have NO idea. But it would be interesting to know. My personal GUESS would be that a very small percentage are used over 8x10, maybe 5%? Does anyone have any documented evidence on the answer to that question? I'd love to know the real answer... Thanks to anyone with any info!
And I agree, the discussion is really silly. Those who don't want the extra hassles/time to go for the "big bucks" don't (including me so far), and those who do, do. And in the end, if everyone gets what they WANT, then what is the difference? Everyone is happy, photog, stock service, and customer. That's the free market system, right? It's all, like so much in life, a personal choice...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 02:39:55 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
In reference to this quote:
"If you can't tell the difference between output from a 2-3MB jpg and a 48MB tiff, you must not print very big."
Well then, I'd say that you mean larger than 8x10, right?
So, I'd really like to know the answer to this question then:
What PERCENTAGE of pictures in the "picture universe" (i.e., including but not limitied to billboards, magazines, newspapers, books, pamphlets, web sites, newsletters, posters, CD covers, postcards, movie ads, bus benches, coporate logos, books, etc etc etc, whatEVER you can think of) get printed larger than 8x10?
I personally have NO idea. But it would be interesting to know. My personal GUESS would be that a very small percentage are used over 8x10, maybe 5%? Does anyone have any documented evidence on the answer to that question? I'd love to know the real answer... Thanks to anyone with any info!
And I agree, the discussion is really silly. Those who don't want the extra hassles/time to go for the "big bucks" don't (including me so far), and those who do, do. And in the end, if everyone gets what they WANT, then what is the difference? Everyone is happy, photog, stock service, and customer. That's the free market system, right? It's all, like so much in life, a personal choice... |
Considering how many issues of various magazines are printed Including an 8.5x11 cover (or bigger) or a 2 page spread, I'm sure the precentage is more than 5%. And by your comments, you have totally missed the point of this conversation...
|
|
