istockphoto.com - DPChallenge Forums

10/10/2005 07:07:04 PM · #230

Originally posted by nico_blue:

As far as i know both shutterstock and istockphoto can pay by paypal, i think shutterstock can even send you a check anywhere in the world.

All of the stock sites I use pay you in Paypal or check

Olympus 17.5-45mm f/3.5-5.6

01/09/2006 07:13:48 AM · #231

Istock has totally changed there website....and it is even faster now
very cool new design.

kirsty_mcn

Olympus E-500 EVOLT

01/09/2006 07:52:00 AM · #232

********
i'm registering for dreamstime and wondered if theres a referral system.

if so, first person to give me their referrer ID gets my referral
********

edit: unless its cookie-based like shutterstock in which case i dont know who'll get it :)

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 07:54:25.

Olympus 17.5-45mm f/3.5-5.6

01/09/2006 08:02:11 AM · #233

Yes there is a referral System

You can use mine Dreamstime Referral

Melissa

kirsty_mcn

Olympus E-500 EVOLT

01/09/2006 08:07:29 AM · #234

hmm what do i put in "referrer ID" when i register??? let me know

gotta go, will fill in later. i'll try to get you as referrer but if its cookie based it might have already got someoone else's ID saved

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/09/2006 08:25:15 AM · #235

Originally posted by kirsty_mcn:

resp141

Just click my link below and signup..
Melissa

cwlawrence

Nikon D70

01/09/2006 07:12:28 PM · #236

I recently posted this on another thread, but thought it goes well here too. Boycott microstock agencies, try photographersdirect or alamy or search for a stock agency that will give you more per image. I know that making $300 every year or two is compelling but you can make that much on one image alone in that same time imagine how much you'd have to buy that really nice lens if all of your istock images that sold for $1 went for $25 instead (and the average is $150 per image!!!).

The folks who continue making this a relativism arguement are really not understanding the issue. I will try to summarize it: Those photographers who are uploading \'good\' photographs to microstock agencies are hurting photographers who depend on the income they receive from stock.

Now I will elaborate on a few points. First, If you are just another point-and-shooter, and most likely if you are reading this on dpchallenge you are not, then fine, go ahead and sell your shots on crapstock.com. But, if you have images that are good enough to be submitted here or that you are proud to show friends and family or that would make you happy were they published, then at least ask for a minimum of $25. This is an arbitrary number roughly based on the going rate of 8x10 prints sold at tourist spots around the US. And really, you wouldn't even sell your old coffee mug at a yard sale for less than 50 cents, why sell your images at 20 cents.

Second, There is no great divide between making photos for money and making photos for personal pleasure; in fact most pro photogs love what they do. So don\'t think that by asking for a few bucks it will cheapen your experience. Furthermore, giving your photos away is fine... to an extent; you wanna donate your images to local papers, your church, a friendly business owner, fine. It is when you give your property away to strangers that you start looking like a cheap prostitute.

Third, it does NOT take any more time to upload to photographers direct or alamy. So if you work two jobs and shoot on the weekends and can only upload your photos sunday night after the kids go to bed - then you have plenty of time to ask for the $$$ you deserve.

Fourth, maybe photographers should unionize. We can begin by supporting one another and boycotting microstock agencies. And we can follow by blacklisting any company that purchases photography well below their budget to do so.

Fifth, I first came across this debate as a writer. Folks were saying the same things: people who give thier writing away are killing the livlihood of freelance writers. Well, freelance writing is still around, albeit a much tougher way to make a living. I believe that photography will be the same. In the end, quality photographs will still be needed and the best images will still fetch a decent price.

Sixth, This arguement is timeless. The cycle is viscious. We do this to ourselves and gripe about it. It is not necessarily all Wall-Marts fault - the laziness and apathy of the people who shop there are to blame as well. But they will always shop there...

I probably have more to say but will stop here. It makes me very sad that, as a society, we no longer cherish quality, that our ethical value system is so skewed, and that the arts are so plundered by consumerism and a desire for that 15 minutes of fame (even if no one will remember who you are in the end).

With deep regret and a sustaining joy of photography

CW Lawrence

//www.pbase.com/charleswilliam3

IceRock

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/09/2006 07:28:11 PM · #237

Last year 2005 I think I sold about 25 picture and I got from 75 to 250 American dollars for each one

I cant figure out way you get only 20 cents is that a joke ?

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/09/2006 07:31:24 PM · #238

Originally posted by IceRock:

I cant figure out way you get only 20 cents is that a joke ?

lol

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/09/2006 10:12:48 PM · #239

Originally posted by IceRock:

Last year 2005 I think I sold about 25 picture and I got from 75 to 250 American dollars for each one

I cant figure out way you get only 20 cents is that a joke ?

Yeah, it's a joke alright. A joke on all the poor folks who submit there.

eyeronik

01/10/2006 06:53:13 PM · #240

Originally posted by mavrik:

Depends what your goal is, jrs. Mine is to make money and pay for my seriously expensive hobby. People get 100s of dollars back off there. $300 dollars in downloads buys my new D300 a lens! I'll take it. I think I'll make more money on istock than I will on DPC Prints in the next year, selling my stuff for 'real' money.

M

Im sick of all this istock stuff. You wont make enough money to cover anything.

Here are the costs:

- Time
- Camera your using
- PC
- Lighting
- Lenses

So you have a camera your thinking? Whopie. What about lighting? Buying pro lighting for those white background run of the mill shots is Â£500+ You will make that back in about 10 years.

Stock photos are for rich people who already have billion pound cameras and lighting setups. Stock is a crappy arse pastime for rich people to get richer.

I think its a big joke. The people on here owning all these expensive cameras must have a lot of money to buy in the first place, part from the odd few. I hardly think you need Â£10 a year from stock. Its a joke.

They want a lot from you, for very little money and people dont seem to count the time and effort involved. It also is not creative and will make u bored.

Plus Stock is stock, not art. Unartistic people are seen on stock sites doing

Pro photographers do something else surely?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2006 07:30:21 PM · #241

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by IceRock:
Last year 2005 I think I sold about 25 picture and I got from 75 to 250 American dollars for each one

I cant figure out way you get only 20 cents is that a joke ?

Yeah, it's a joke alright. A joke on all the poor folks who submit there.

Well, the sites which sell those $250 stock photos just don't seem to want any images from my five year-old 2MP P&S camera ... for those it's a fact that $0.23 is what the market will bear at this time.

You got a problem with laissez faire capitalism or something?

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/10/2006 07:31:06 PM · #242

Originally posted by eyeronik:

Im sick of all this istock stuff. You wont make enough money to cover anything.

I've made enough to cover my professional studio strobes, a lens and I'm working on a Wacom Intuos 3 tablet.

Originally posted by eyeronik:

Buying pro lighting for those white background run of the mill shots is Â£500+ You will make that back in about 10 years.

10 years if you really suck. And don't try.

Originally posted by eyeronik:

Pro photographers do something else surely?

Surely...just not in the offseason.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/10/2006 07:38:39 PM · #243

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by IceRock:
Last year 2005 I think I sold about 25 picture and I got from 75 to 250 American dollars for each one

I cant figure out way you get only 20 cents is that a joke ?

Yeah, it's a joke alright. A joke on all the poor folks who submit there.

Well, the sites which sell those $250 stock photos just don't seem to want any images from my five year-old 2MP P&S camera ... for those it's a fact that $0.23 is what the market will bear at this time.

You got a problem with laissez faire capitalism or something?

I would say that people with five year-old 2MP P&S cameras are in the minority on microstock sites. My problem is with those who have high-end cameras and produce quality images with them selling themselves short. It's just a waste.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/10/2006 07:58:44 PM · #244

If selling your image for a dollar wasn't bad enough in the first place, but I never realized they kept 80%!!! You would have to be stupid to sign up for that.

What if ebay charged you 80% to sell your stuff on their? Would you do it?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/10/2006 08:05:57 PM · #245

Right ... I spend five minutes uploading and keywording the photo.

They host it, market it (they do pay for actual advertising), collect the money for me ... yeah -- I'd say they're doing about 80% of the work.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/10/2006 08:59:13 PM · #246

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Nope. All stock agencies do that. None charge over %50, other than micro stock.

JoshuaM

Canon EOS-50D

01/10/2006 10:00:39 PM · #247

I just recently signed up for istock and dreamstime, with about 5 pictures on each. It is weird because I upload the same images to both of them and few of the pictures got accepted on both. Anyways, my profile links are in my sig, if you want to check it out (there is not much to see). I also signed up for SS and 123rf but haven't started uploading there yet.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/11/2006 02:22:34 PM · #248

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Right ... I spend five minutes uploading and keywording the photo.

They host it, market it (they do pay for actual advertising), collect the money for me ... yeah -- I'd say they're doing about 80% of the work.

Nope. All stock agencies do that. None charge over %50, other than micro stock.

And the one's like masterfile that charge 50% take care of everything. They scan, retouch, market, sell, price, and pick.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/11/2006 02:27:44 PM · #249

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

But they're getting 50% of your $250 sale, or $125. The microstocks are hosting your image for (say) 80% of maybe $3.00, or $2.40.

Which site is being exploitive, the microstock site (which, incidentally, primarily serves a small-business clientele which could never afford a $250 stock image in the first place) or the one which charges you 50 times as much for (essentially) the same service?