| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/28/2005 01:23:19 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
nico, honestly dude -- your portfolio is amazing. if you think each shot is only worth $.20 then you are selling yourself way short. |
Thanks a lot for the compliment, it really means a lot. My 'grand stock plan' is to complete this year on shutterstock and istock, take more pictures and get some key lenses for the type of photos I take. Specifically the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens and a fisheye lens. And also a good flash. Before the end of this year I will definetely apply to alamy or any sort of similar site and make sure to keep the dpc community well informed. But anyways I feel that by starting on Shutterstock and istock I was able to improve technical aspects such as noise and composition tremendously. I was also able to some extent build a working knowledge of what sells and what doesnt. In short I think the experience was beneficial.
This is going way off topic, but i'll share anyways. I wouldn't be nearly as decent a photographer as I am today if I hadnt started out with a Kodak DX3600 (a 2mp pixel camera with basically 1 button). When I learnt through first hand experience things such as motion blur and 3 second shutter lag, and basically outgrew my camera in everyway I decided the next step for me was to get a Canon G5. I still have my g5 now and love it a lot. With it I learnt things like manual controls, metering, white balance etc. I also learnt the effects of iso on noise. I got to the point where I only shot at iso 50 because anything else would have looked terrible to my 'trained' eyes. So not too long ago I took my next great leap and got a rebel xt. With it I aim to explore the great depths of using flash, enjoy the creative freedoms of iso 400 and above and many many things I dont know yet.
So back to my point, if I ever had one... i like to take little steps and feel comfortable where I am before trying to jump ahead.
Anyways for amusement here is an excerpt from my 10 year 'grand stock plan' -
YR 1 - Shutterstock and Istock
- Get cheap/good DSLR
- Get macro lens, fish eye lens and 550ex flash
YR 2 - Alamy
- Have some sort of movable studio setup
YR 3 - Participate in exhibitions, start selling prints at fairs
YR 4 - Getty
- Get top of the line DSLR
YR 6 - Corbis
YR 10 - Become a national geographic contributing photographer
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 01:46:38 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i'm not pointing the finger at anyone for selling their photos. if you want to do it, that is ABSOLUTELY fine with me. ...if you think each shot is only worth $.20 then you are selling yourself way short. |
I appreciate the above sentiment muckpond, I honestly do. I know that I'm in the great minority in being enthusiastic about the cheap r/f stock sites, but so be it. You see, I don't see it as selling a photo for only 20 cents. The way I see it, a desirable photo sells consistantly and repeatedly, and unlike the previous analogy to chocolates, it doesn't need to be replenished once it's sold. I can sell that same bag of chocolate kisses over and over and over again, for a small profit each time.
For example, on March 30 I posted a photo on istockphoto.com (link below). In the two months since, I have made an average of just over eleven cents per day on that picture. (I can hear the laughter now, but please just hear me out!) If that average holds, I'll make $40 on that shot this year. Easy math: 25 such shots would earn $1,000 in a year's time; 250 shots, $10,000. And I don't have to do a thing after the photos are uploaded! I like the idea of "work once, earn (a little, granted) for a lifetime".
And for what it's worth, that photo is really just a snapshot of my 7-year old niece who was visiting from out of town with her family. It's just a vacation pic, that's all.
Thanks to anyone who is at least open-minded enough to consider where I and other r/f stock shooters are coming from. I know this subject generates a lot of emotion, and I honestly do respect the opinion of those who don't see it the way I do, and I appreciate it when others offer me the same consideration.
//www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=512955
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 02:27:12. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 06:38:28 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
yes, they do add up. but, unlike sweet, delicious hershey's kisses, the value of a stock photograph gets diluted the more times it is purchased. |
But you don't keep selling the same hershey's kiss. You make a whole bunch of them, cheaply and quickly. So yes, one of my kisses might not sell thousands of times but if thousands of them sell a couple of times and it's taken me 100 times less time to produce than one of my top-flight pictures, doesn't it add up the same?
Originally posted by muckpond:
would you sell a computer program for $.20? probably not (freeware/shareware notwithstanding). if your computer program was worth something to someone, they would pay a reasonable amount for it |
Yes - and it would take me a lot longer to produce than some generic microstock images. If I were to break it down into actual time invested I would guess (off the top of my head) that I'd need to clear maybe $5-$10 for an image on there; well within possibility. That would be roughly on par with what I'd get if I'd spent that time coding. Perhaps you underestimate quite how much time you have to invest in programming ;-)
Originally posted by muckpond:
shutterstock, et al. are just preying on people that think they're "not good enough" for "real" agencies |
As I've said before, I think I'm good enough for "real" agencies. That's why I'm spending time and effort with my Alamy images. The thing is they are two entirely distinct markets; I don't see any problem with exploiting both of them.
Originally posted by magicshutter:
right. I was responding to a certain part of his post, which I quoted. He implies that we are out of line for being angry at having our photos sold without our permission |
No no, you misunderstand me. Im a big fan of protecting photographic rights. My issue was with the complaint that someone might buy your image, with you getting $0.20, and turn that into a huge profit by using the image in, say, a brochure that earns him thousands.
Nobody has the right to steal your rights; however merely making money using your images legitimately is totally fine - what do you think happens with images sold on Alamy for heavens sake? Everyone is out to make money. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 09:49:40 AM · #54 |
| For multiple uses of a photograph, perhaps a better method of compensation for the photographer would be to get paid for each usage of his/her photo. For example, for each brochure using a given photograph the photograher would get $0.0005 cents. If 100,000 were produced the photograher would get $50, with a stipulated minimum payment for jobs not requiring many uses of a photo. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 10:00:11 AM · #55 |
As I sit here and try to type exactly how I feel, I keep bringing myself to a stop, deleting, and re-trying, but it just can't come out right. Here's what I had...
I can't believe someone is stealing people's photographs and selling them, illegally for more money.
Well, I can believe it -- You can't leave your car doors unlocked and your key in the ignition at most gas stations...you lock your front doors when you leave or when you family goes to sleep at night...this world is full of thieves, and evil people who only want to profit for themselves, with little regard for anyone else's well-being they may harm in the process.
It's ridiculous, yes, me being an honest person and all, that things like this are going on. I think the guy should be locked up and fined. Sad, sad, sad.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 10:25:14 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For multiple uses of a photograph, perhaps a better method of compensation for the photographer would be to get paid for each usage of his/her photo. For example, for each brochure using a given photograph the photograher would get $0.0005 cents. If 100,000 were produced the photograher would get $50, with a stipulated minimum payment for jobs not requiring many uses of a photo. |
Shutterstock (and I assume the other RF agencies) DO have limits on both the kinds of uses to which the photos can be used, and the number of iterations allowed. And rememeber that the photographer gets credited when the photo is downloaded, not when it's used. If a designer downloads 10 photos of roses, as many as 10 photographers will get paid, even if only one photo is used.
These photos are not being used on the cover of TIME, they are going in a brochure for your local garden supply store, or maybe an organiztion's newsletter or someone's business card. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:35:11 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I can't believe someone is stealing people's photographs and selling them, illegally for more money. |
as stated before, it's not stealing. and it's not illegal.
--
hey -- i'm not trying to point fingers at anyone. there is a market for the microstock sites, definitely, and generale just pointed out a couple of good ones.
but there's nothing to prevent the cover of Time from using a shutterstock photo. and as more and more agencies start to utilize the microstock sites, and as camera quality and photographer skill improves, it won't be long until a situation like that happens.
it's a slippery slope. if people want to continue selling their work for $.20 or $.10, that's great. i just hope i've gotten you to stop and think about it a little bit. that was my goal.
the designer of the nike logo was a student who probably thought she wasn't all that great and she earned only $35. seems like chump change for a logo that is one of the top 10 most recognizable in the world.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 11:52:50 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
but there's nothing to prevent the cover of Time from using a shutterstock photo. |
It would violate the license ... too large a printing. It's somewhere in the fine print. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:00:49 PM · #59 |
from the SS terms of licensing:
By this Agreement, ShutterStock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways:
1. On web sites, multimedia presentations, and broadcast film and video.
2. In magazines, newspapers, books, eBooks, pamphlets, brochures, catalogs, book covers, textbooks, editorials, toolbar skins, posters, mobile phones, greeting cards (paper or online), pagers, CD/DVD cover art, and advertising...
(emphasis mine)
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:13:15 PM · #60 |
Reading through the licensing, I see a flaw in the original $125,000 maths:
"You may use ShutterStock images/photos for at most three (3) clients in any given month for each subscription you purchase"
So for that one month the evil money-making boss could only achieve the $125,000 if he used all 750 images on 3 clients. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:16:24 PM · #61 |
true, and i just saw that as well.
it's still theoretically possible, which is the point of the thread here.
and it's also possible for him to download the images, keep them, and use them for projects for other clients long after the subscription has expired. i know that's not in the spirit of the site, but it's perfectly acceptable the way it is written.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 12:16:43. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 12:17:58 PM · #62 |
Now I know how a recording artist feel :( :P
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 01:11:27 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
and it's also possible for him to download the images, keep them, and use them for projects for other clients long after the subscription has expired |
I disagree with your reading of the license, although I'm not a lawyer (we probably have one or two here...!) - if you are using images for "client work", which is the case we're talking about here, you are limited to servicing 3 clients per subscribed month. If you are no longer subscribed it would seem clear that you are no longer licensed to use it for "client work".
Edit: had to re-read the license...
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 13:17:12. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 01:29:16 PM · #64 |
| With the talent of photographers,designers,and artist on this site why dont they or we get together and start our own? It would be huge you know big |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 01:39:40 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by PhotosByAyme:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by PhotosByAyme:
anders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dappling in the tock stuff - but not all my prints images are there ... just specifically images that are normally just sitting on my computer and now they can sit at a site where i'll makde some moeny - more effort i put into a shot - i'm gonna charge more through my prints .. not stock |
Is your keyboard giving you some problems? ;o)
I'm guessing that should be "Ganders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dabbling in the stock stuff"
:o)
Funny that you call him Anders though - see the thread wishing him a happy birthday for a wee anecdote related to that...
:oD |
nope just too quick for the keys :)
geesh kavey - have you are are you a school teacher? LOL |
Nope!
I never comment on spelling mistakes, amd hardly ever comment on typing mistakes but... this instance just struck my funny bone - it made me smile. My comments were in same vein... :o)
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 13:46:06.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 03:08:20 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Personally, some of my chocolates are the fine belgian dark chocolate kind and I'll sell them for serious money through a serious agency like Alamy. Some of my chocolates, however, are unremarkable. There's nothing WRONG with them, but they're not fine belgian chocolates - more like hershey's kisses. So I'll put them in a big bag labelled 'shutterstock' and put them on the supermarket shelf and although each individual kiss might only be earning me pennies, if I make sure those bags are full enough and selling fast enough then I'll be doing alright. Hersheys, after all, has not (to my knowledge) gone backrupt. |
It's a good analogy--but I'm amazed that anyone finds that they make even their costs back--capture, prep, ship--to sell images at these kinds of prices. How is that even possible?
Guess I'd rather be known for only top quality stock images, and not dilute that hard-earned rep in my industry niche by selling "seconds" this way. My "real" agencies wouldn't like it much either, as they market on my behalf. One of them is niche-specific, the other is a boutique agency. Editorial work is a good way to get noticed, careful e-mail marketing and word of mouth did the rest in my case, which landed some book deals too (not photo books per se, but accompanying instructional verbiage).
Those who are trying to sell into the overcrowded markets of like travel/nature have a harder row to hoe. A book that helped me figure where the best opportunities were was "Sell and Resell Your Photos" by Engh. My plan was to establish myself in the niche, and then slide over into the nature stuff. As it happened, the boutique agency who was enticed by the niche photos also liked my landscape/nature ones, so I got to place some of those much earlier than expected.
Stock is for advertising, ad agencies create ads with assignment or stock images, and markup is normal and expected. So the EULA doesn't apply to this useage IMV.
Your chocolate analogy really works for the striation of the industry, that people shouldn't panic because of the micro agencies, it's the detritus of the food chain. There are much worse challenges facing us. At least there are people working towards standardizing licensing lingo a bit My particular peeve is the people in my industry who do assignment shoots for bupkis, and turn over the rights like a work-for-hire, because they don't know any better (mostly emerging photographers), but I digress. There's a ton of info available for free through the APA list, and joining Editorial Photographers is "almost free". Lots of tools there too.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 03:14:27 PM · #67 |
I've been told not to talk about ss on the DPC forum by the admins.
So I have posted a response on the ss forum.
I hope this is OK - as ive been asked to respond by several dpc members via email.
(I will not be responding here)
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 16:19:39. |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 04:12:52 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by shutterstock:
I've been told not to talk about ss on the dpreview forum by the admins. |
(Psst...we are dpchallenge.) |
|
|
|
05/28/2005 05:45:29 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... actually, and this is completely off-topic, i DO feel that i'm worth more. therefore, i'm leaving my job in the next couple of months and moving into very unknown but potentially more profitable terrain.
i guess this isn't so off-topic, because it precisely mirrors the shutterstock situation. i have a skill at something. someone is paying me crap to use that skill. instead of letting that continue, i'm moving on. it will take a while to market myself and build up some work, but in the end it is going to be infinitely more profitable to me. i just happen to be lucky enough to be in a situation where i'm able to take the time to do that. if photography is a hobby for you, then it appears that you have the time to put some elbow grease into marketing your work and get paid a decent wage to do it.
this wouldn't bother me nearly as much if, like GeneralE pointed out, you got paid $10. $10 is still cheap, but it's still 50 times more profitable than shutterstock. $.20 is just insulting to me.
i'm not pointing the finger at anyone for selling their photos. if you want to do it, that is ABSOLUTELY fine with me. i'm just trying to inject the confidence in ALL of you that you can totally do better. it's your choice if you don't want to.
nico, honestly dude -- your portfolio is amazing. if you think each shot is only worth $.20 then you are selling yourself way short. you all are.
the steady supply of cheap photos is a relatively new twist on an old, old game. if people were willing to say "hey, i'm worth more," then the supply of quality photos at microstock sites would dry up. |
That's admirable muckpond. I wish you the very best in your new endeavor. You are walkin' the walk in additional to talkin' the talk.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 08:45:52 PM · #70 |
it's easy to say i'm just attaching shutterstock, et al. i don't know what's being said on the SS forums, but i can just imagine.
the POINT of this thread was that you can do better.
all of my numbers in my original post were theoretical maximums (save for the cost of the photo to the client). the company is not emailing the photo to the client and saying "here you go, please give me $166.80." we are incorporating that photograph into a derivative work and billing for it as a whole.
even if the company doesn't build up a stock library (which we are not doing, but again, theoretically could), we are still making a ton of money on the deal while the photographers are not. i think it's unfair and i just really wanted everyone to stop and think for a few seconds before they hit that submit button.
if you've ribboned here, you're good. if you've placed in the top 10, you're good. jeez -- there are THOUSANDS of photos here that are stock-worthy no matter where they place on dpc.
i understand if it's a matter of resolution, but SS is upsizing every photo submitted and then selling it as high-res. if they can do it, why can't you?
do i really have to get a pair of pom-poms and start doing cheer on your front lawns? no one wants that... trust me.
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 09:03:49 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by amber:
I am amazed that with all the talent and knowledge on this site that the DPC 'bosses' haven't thought of starting up their own stock site with the members as a sort of cooperative, so that both get a fairer deal. |
Now there's an IDEA! |
Rather than speak my mind as well about the microsites & stock photography, I didn't notice a real answer to amber's question. The proactive solution would be for DPChallenge to start their own as a coop. Is that possible? Is it currently being discussed? Is there additional information already available? (thanks)
|
|
|
|
05/28/2005 10:54:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
i understand if it's a matter of resolution, but SS is upsizing every photo submitted and then selling it as high-res. if they can do it, why can't you? |
Even if I invest in Genuine Fractals, do your really think Almay will take my 2 or 3MP photos upsized to a 48mb TIFF? I don't think so.
Shutterstock upsizes one time, to just double the size of your submission. If the photo's already been upsized significantly, they will reject it. |
|
|
|
05/29/2005 04:44:43 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
the POINT of this thread was that you can do better. |
Doesn't that depend on what the goal is?
If the goal is to make money then it's clearly not wise to rule out these kinds of sites. I don't know if you followed the Alamy thread but both Melissa King and Jodie Coston posted their earnings from stock split down by the site from which they came and... the dollar/ image earnings per year seemed to match up VERY well with the long-time industry standard guidelines of how much one could expect to make averaged out by the number of images one had up... and those guidelines date back to before the rise of this kind of stock site. I certainly wouldn't dismiss this earning potential.
If the goal is to make money from images that would not be accepted (because of insufficient resolution, even after GF) by traditional agencies then it's not a case of "could do better" but of recognising the limitations of one's equipment and doing the best one can with what one has.
If the goal is to maximise potential earnings by targeting different markets then selling some images (for higher prices but in less volume) via traditional stock agencies AND some images (for lower prices but in higher volumes) via agencies such as we're discussing here is simply good business sense.
If the goal is to grow a reputation and a name for oneself as an artist and a unique creative talent then, absolutely, this isn't the path to take, but I doubt any of those happily selling images at Shutterstock, Dreamtime, Istock and all the others would claim otherwise for a moment.
Knowing the time I had invested in my very favourite images I too was very wary of this concept of sell 'em cheap and often. However, when I started thinking about it in more detail I realised that it doesn't have to be an either-or situation.
My plan is:-
-to retain control of my "hero images" (to borrow a phrase from Bruce Fraser) in the hope that I can develop a market for mounted, signed prints sold directly or via galleries. These will clearly be sold under my name.
-to reserve the best of the rest for traditional stock agencies (under rights managed licences). As my name will be clearly associated with these, I'll do my best to be a critical self-editor and submit only those I truly feel are good enough – technically good on focus, exposure, composition and content and with a bit of appeal, in my opinion.
-to submit those images that are good but not as good as the previous list to the sell-'em-cheap agencies and be grateful for any pennies they earn since those pennies may be few and far between but they'll still be that many pennies closer to a new lens/ accessory/ trip to somewhere cool. These images will be credited to a generic name, probably my company name, rather than my own name - not a case of denying that they are mine since it's easy to follow via the company name but of neutralising their direct impact on name for the more artistic/ creative stuff.
-to take a series of images specifically for this kind of market planning the shooting and processing to be done in bulk to maximise the number of good quality images produced within a minimal time. As above re credit.
As for the question asked above about whether one would sell a computer program for 20 cents, let me just do some hypothetical math here.
Let's say we're talking a pretty darn basic utility applicationâ€Â¦ we're still talking a few days work minimum to spec it out, code it, test it and package it for sale. Assuming a rate of £200 a day (which is on the low side of what a contractor or self-employed software vendor might expect), we're looking at a minimum of £2000. So no, we wouldn't sell a computer program for 20 cents. I might entertain the thought of selling a website for 20 cents for each visitor to the site but that's the only way I can even vaguely relate the computer program analogy to the sales model we're discussing here.
Now to the earnings for the pics. With a minimal amount of thought before hand, thought that can be done in down times such as sitting on the train home from work, to plan a shoot list based on basic objects inside the home I think it's very achievable to spend no more than an hour to gather objects, set up the light box and camera and shoot a whole CF card of images of these objects in different lights, from different angles and so on. Let's give another hour to process the good shots from the shoot and another hour to load them up to the sites and keyword them. So that's three hours work. I'd hope to produce at least 20 shots suitable for upload in that time. At least. Given that I'd be producing more than one of each item I don't think that's an impossible or even improbable task. So 20 images in three hours. We're looking at <10 minutes per image. Incase you think I'm being over optimistic about what I can achieve let me point out that batch photographing and batch processing are very powerful time savers and I'm thinking of images that are simple (but well lit, well exposed and well composed). Assuming the same £200 a day rate I used above. we're talking about £30 an hour which comes to £5 per image. I don't think it's wildly unrealistic (though certainly optimistic, but then that's the kind of person I am) to hope for sales of £5 ($9) from any one of these images given that it can sit on these sites and keep earning ad nauseum.
Given that Pete uploaded roughly 20 images (less in most cases) to a handful of these sites less than a fortnight ago and has already earned $2.10 I think it's worth our time, especially given that it's something that's enjoyable, that improves our general photography skills and that provides with an alternative revenue stream.
Message edited by author 2005-05-29 16:47:23.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2005 04:56:29 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Given that Pete uploaded roughly 20 images (less in most cases) to a handful of these sites less than a fortnight ago and has already earned $2.10 ... |
And it's interesting to note that with minimal effort I've earned more income from each one of those sites in a matter of days, than I have with images I worked hard on for DPCPrints in something closer to two years :-) |
|
|
|
05/29/2005 04:57:01 PM · #75 |
| reading through the thread i was wondering what the hierarchy of stock photogoraphy agencies is, with the basing criteria being prestige and renumeration. Up to now i've gleaned that alamy is somewhere at the top whilst istockphoto is somewhere at the bottom of the list. What about in between? Any lists? |
|
