| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/18/2004 04:17:44 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
That sounds good to me. I just need to sell about 10 of those $100k images and then I can retire :) |
And your more than talented enough to do so.
This is my biggest concern, I've seen very talented people go out of business because of not charging enough. Just trying to educate a little, but if I really thought about it. I'd keep the info to myself so the competition would go away. ;D |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:30:50 PM · #52 |
| The fact that there is $100k jewelery,doesn't mean you have to sell yours for that prize. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:35:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by garlic:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Any rights managed site is going to require exclusivity. People buy from those sites because they don't want images that have been used before in a lot of cases. They want something unique and they do pay a higher premium for it. |
And Masterfile is rights managed but the other ones are not?
Find it pretty hard to get the infomation that I would like to have on at least some of these pages. F. inst. is any side ratio alowed (know what I mean)?, do you submit one large high resulution image or do you submit three sizes of the same image? |
The 5 minutes I spent on the Masterfile site, it looks like they offer a non-exclusive rights section, but I didn't see any photos there, maybe it's new to them?
iStockPro for example, allows the photographer to decide if the photo will be non-exclusive licensing, negotiated rights, or both.
Each site is going to be different so just make sure to read the fine print. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:41:47 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
For those on istockphoto, why not try their pro version istockpro.com
Images go for more (unlimited I think) and you will only need one sale to equate to a thousand sales on istockphoto.
I currently have 94 images on there, although I got excited and uploaded all my crap.
The application proces can be very long, but worth it even if you only make a few hundred bucks. |
Do you mind I ask Jon, have you gotten any downloads off iStockPro?
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:41:47 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
1. While working as an art director developing a package design we were in the need for top class landscape photos that hadn't been used before. Like every other Art director / media buyer I called a few stock houses. For a 5 year unlimited usage internationl license, that could be used for everything except advertising and billboards, the price was roughly $100K an image. |
Any idea on the agency cut on that price ?
Or to put it another way, how much after tax and fees would the photog see ?
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:42:31 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
The fact that there is a market for high-priced custom photography does not change the fact that there is also a market for low-cost stock photography. Those markets will never merge. As Setz pointed out, a small-town burger stand setting up a website will be in the market for some small, cheap photos. They will never buy $50,000 images, and getting rid of all small, cheap stock sites like istockphoto.com will not entice these companies to shell out the big bucks. You are talking about two different types of photography. There is demand for both, so there should be supply for both. They are not compatible markets. |
Well said Steve... I agree 100% |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:42:32 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
1. While working as an art director developing a package design we were in the need for top class landscape photos that hadn't been used before. Like every other Art director / media buyer I called a few stock houses. For a 5 year unlimited usage internationl license, that could be used for everything except advertising and billboards, the price was roughly $100K an image.
2. An aquaintence of mine sold the usage rights for a photo to be used on a high traffice website for MSN, the price I believe was $50K
I'm trying to help you guys and keep the stock industry prosperous. I would think you would appreciate it. :P |
If all of us have comparable (and comparably priced) photos for sale the price will go down, unless you want to say that photography doesn't obey the laws of supply and demand.
If you propose (and we all agree) in this forum to not charge below a certain price, we are likely violating Federal price-fixing and anti-trust law.
The reason those photos sell for so much is because
1. there are so few sales
2. the photos are (presumably) really good
There's only going to be so many of those high-priced sales each year ... why would you want to encourage so many people to compete with you for them? I'm never gonna take a $50k photo (especially not with my camera) -- that means I should never sell a photo?
Would you tell all car manufacturers to only make Ferarris and not Fords? |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 04:56:40 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The reason those photos sell for so much is because
1. there are so few sales
2. the photos are (presumably) really good
|
3. Because they are custom shot for a specific customer with a specific need.
When you have to have something done this way, I would not call it 'stock'. It isn't stock.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:01:29 PM · #59 |
The point seems pretty simple. You could easily make a lot more than 20c or 50c for the images that you are selling - maybe not $100k but certainly many multiples higher than you are selling them for.
The funny part is how offended people seem to be to the idea that their images are actually worth something and that they are selling themselves short, particularly when the person telling them has a lot more experience than most of the people who participate on this site.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:08:27 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The reason those photos sell for so much is because
1. there are so few sales
2. the photos are (presumably) really good
|
3. Because they are custom shot for a specific customer with a specific need.
When you have to have something done this way, I would not call it 'stock'. It isn't stock. |
I thought one of the examples cited was for a custom shot, but the other was just a long-term world-wide exclusive license of a photo in a stock catalog.
I have a few photos for sale (but no sales) ... besides lack of promotion they are probably priced either too high (i.e. should be pulled) or too low ... I have no idea which at this point.
I've suggested a few times that DPC Prints have a "Curator's Club" somewhat akin to the Critique Club, to which people could submit their print portfolios (voluntarily) for pricing advice and guidelines, but so far no one seems to want to take that on :( |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:20:57 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've suggested a few times that DPC Prints have a "Curator's Club" somewhat akin to the Critique Club, to which people could submit their print portfolios (voluntarily) for pricing advice and guidelines, but so far no one seems to want to take that on :( |
I think nothing over $20 is a good deal for online prints. This is an issue that I have thought long and hard about. What people are buying online is more of a 'poster' than an art print. There is no artist signature and there are no limited edition sets (via dpcprints anyway). I have sold online for more than $20 but not very many.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:22:24 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've suggested a few times that DPC Prints have a "Curator's Club" somewhat akin to the Critique Club, to which people could submit their print portfolios (voluntarily) for pricing advice and guidelines, but so far no one seems to want to take that on :( |
I think nothing over $20 is a good deal for online prints. This is an issue that I have thought long and hard about. What people are buying online is more of a 'poster' than an art print. There is no artist signature and there are no limited edition sets (via dpcprints anyway). I have sold online for more than $20 but not very many. |
One time poster purchases are quite a bit different to a sale for stock usage though.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:40:19 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
One time poster purchases are quite a bit different to a sale for stock usage though. |
Absolutely... I just don't think that a simple unsigned print of anything is worth much more than the price of a poster that you could buy at Walmart. You can buy poster prints of most of the Ansel Adams stuff for $20. Original prints of his stuff are in the thousands of dollars range. Why would anything I do be worth any more than that? There will be some images that sell for more and a majority that won't. In the case of stock, this concept is somewhat similar because someone will pay a premium for something that is exactly what they want/need for a certain application.
|
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:43:44 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
1. While working as an art director developing a package design we were in the need for top class landscape photos that hadn't been used before. Like every other Art director / media buyer I called a few stock houses. For a 5 year unlimited usage internationl license, that could be used for everything except advertising and billboards, the price was roughly $100K an image.
2. An aquaintence of mine sold the usage rights for a photo to be used on a high traffice website for MSN, the price I believe was $50K
I'm trying to help you guys and keep the stock industry prosperous. I would think you would appreciate it. :P |
If all of us have comparable (and comparably priced) photos for sale the price will go down, unless you want to say that photography doesn't obey the laws of supply and demand.
If you propose (and we all agree) in this forum to not charge below a certain price, we are likely violating Federal price-fixing and anti-trust law.
The reason those photos sell for so much is because
1. there are so few sales
2. the photos are (presumably) really good
There's only going to be so many of those high-priced sales each year ... why would you want to encourage so many people to compete with you for them? I'm never gonna take a $50k photo (especially not with my camera) -- that means I should never sell a photo?
Would you tell all car manufacturers to only make Ferarris and not Fords? |
Great points. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 05:57:53 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've suggested a few times that DPC Prints have a "Curator's Club" somewhat akin to the Critique Club, to which people could submit their print portfolios (voluntarily) for pricing advice and guidelines, but so far no one seems to want to take that on :( |
I think nothing over $20 is a good deal for online prints. This is an issue that I have thought long and hard about. What people are buying online is more of a 'poster' than an art print. There is no artist signature and there are no limited edition sets (via dpcprints anyway). I have sold online for more than $20 but not very many. |
Well, good ... that's more in line with what I have. I tend to view these (and design them) like posters/prints, without the expense of having to print 1000 at a time ... the real small (4x5, 4x6) prints are more like postcards, so I have them very cheap.
And yes, this was a diversion into print pricing which is different than pricing for stock usage. Sorry, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled topic. :) |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 06:20:56 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
1. While working as an art director developing a package design we were in the need for top class landscape photos that hadn't been used before. Like every other Art director / media buyer I called a few stock houses. For a 5 year unlimited usage internationl license, that could be used for everything except advertising and billboards, the price was roughly $100K an image.
2. An aquaintence of mine sold the usage rights for a photo to be used on a high traffice website for MSN, the price I believe was $50K
I'm trying to help you guys and keep the stock industry prosperous. I would think you would appreciate it. :P |
If all of us have comparable (and comparably priced) photos for sale the price will go down, unless you want to say that photography doesn't obey the laws of supply and demand.
If you propose (and we all agree) in this forum to not charge below a certain price, we are likely violating Federal price-fixing and anti-trust law.
The reason those photos sell for so much is because
1. there are so few sales
2. the photos are (presumably) really good
There's only going to be so many of those high-priced sales each year ... why would you want to encourage so many people to compete with you for them? I'm never gonna take a $50k photo (especially not with my camera) -- that means I should never sell a photo?
Would you tell all car manufacturers to only make Ferarris and not Fords? |
I wouldn't be so sure of your ability to take a photo worth thousands. Remember the guy that took the photo of the fireman carrying the little girl after OKC bombing? Hobby photographer with a point and shoot. Sold it for like $145K (had to end up giving it to charity or something do to being on the job at the time). My point being, timing is everything. Anybody could be in the situation of taking a very valuable image. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 06:23:55 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I've suggested a few times that DPC Prints have a "Curator's Club" somewhat akin to the Critique Club, to which people could submit their print portfolios (voluntarily) for pricing advice and guidelines, but so far no one seems to want to take that on :( |
I think nothing over $20 is a good deal for online prints. This is an issue that I have thought long and hard about. What people are buying online is more of a 'poster' than an art print. There is no artist signature and there are no limited edition sets (via dpcprints anyway). I have sold online for more than $20 but not very many. |
Well, good ... that's more in line with what I have. I tend to view these (and design them) like posters/prints, without the expense of having to print 1000 at a time ... the real small (4x5, 4x6) prints are more like postcards, so I have them very cheap.
And yes, this was a diversion into print pricing which is different than pricing for stock usage. Sorry, and we now return you to your regularly-scheduled topic. :) |
For pricing them as posters you should consider the same mark up they use. Plus a photo print costs more and is better made then a thin piece of poster paper. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 06:27:12 PM · #68 |
| You are correct that I might take a valuable photo-journalistic shot ... but I'm not entirely sure I'd want to profit off that. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 06:27:53 PM · #69 |
This turned into a heated debate pretty quick. My thoughts are that the consumer and artist should compromise a little on pricing. Obviously, the consumer isn't going to pay a billion dollars for a photo and likewise, a photographer would feel insulted if his "prized" photo sold for only $.14, they'll have to meet somewhere halfway.
When I was in highschool, I dreamed of entering the music industry in hopes of producing my own instrumental tracks and beats.. 2 years later and halfway through college, along came Napster and I thought I'll never make any sales if people can obtain my stuff for free.
Did all this piracy bring down the cost of CDs? No. In fact, it did the opposite. Remember when CDs were $10-12 brand new? Now they are like $24 ON SALE. The price raise of copyrighted music is also inversely proportional to the cost of CD-Rs. They used to be over $1 each, now they can be had for less than a penny. That's just business.
Seems like some of you live in the luxury world where price determines quality. Many of us here are not professional photographers, nor do we wish to do so. We should be commended for our work, not criticized. If we are happy at selling for $0.20, who are you to judge? Isn't it easier to sell 50 copies of a cheap image, than pull 1 sale off a ridiculously priced photo?
I think MeThoS was just bitter that the images he needed costed in the thousands. So what if day rates for commercial photographers are $1200? How many of us are commercial photographers? Lawyers can charge up to $500/hour and more. Does this mean if I dispense legal advice, you need to cough up $500? I am no more a licensed or practicing attorney than most of us are "commercial photographers." Just because I can put a bandaid on a cut does NOT make me a doctor. |
|
|
|
06/18/2004 08:41:09 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
I wouldn't be so sure of your ability to take a photo worth thousands. Remember the guy that took the photo of the fireman carrying the little girl after OKC bombing? Hobby photographer with a point and shoot. Sold it for like $145K (had to end up giving it to charity or something do to being on the job at the time). My point being, timing is everything. Anybody could be in the situation of taking a very valuable image. |
So what's wrong with selling stock cheaply until that really valuable image comes along? Would the photographer in question have lost out on selling a shot the whole world wanted just because they could get his ordinary stuff cheaply?
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:25:31 PM · #71 |
I have to agree with Brent, many of the photographers here that are putting images on istockphotos are seriously undervaluing their own work. It seems to me there is some kind of "well, I'm not a pro, this is just a hobby, I don't NEED the money, I have a low opinion of my work, blah blah blah." mindset at work here.
I don't get it. If you have the potential to make money by selling your photography, why would you settle for pennies when you can make dollars? And even if you don't have the potential to earn top dollar, why wouldn't you at least try to make more rather than just settling for less without trying?
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 02:27:59 PM · #72 |
I think the sales potential could be about equal no matter which route you choose. Pennies add up to dollars. Low priced volume sales or high prices occasional sales.. take your pick... do both? :)
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 03:22:27 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have to agree with Brent, many of the photographers here that are putting images on istockphotos are seriously undervaluing their own work. It seems to me there is some kind of "well, I'm not a pro, this is just a hobby, I don't NEED the money, I have a low opinion of my work, blah blah blah." mindset at work here.
I don't get it. If you have the potential to make money by selling your photography, why would you settle for pennies when you can make dollars? And even if you don't have the potential to earn top dollar, why wouldn't you at least try to make more rather than just settling for less without trying? |
Please name one website online where I can make more money than istock with the same ease of uploading and managing my portfolio and the same supportive and community environment where I can learn from other photographers? If I knew of a place where I would make more money for the same amount of work, then I would go there, but I honestly haven't heard of any sites like that. And I am not going to put in the extra work to go through a larger stock agency and probably have to upgrade my camera, buy real lighting equipment, spend more time on it, etc. That would take all of the fun out of my hobby because it would make it...like a job. |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 04:23:53 PM · #74 |
MeThoS,
Thanks for your insight.....I will consider your points.
Flash
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 06:58:14 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by seanami:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I have to agree with Brent, many of the photographers here that are putting images on istockphotos are seriously undervaluing their own work. It seems to me there is some kind of "well, I'm not a pro, this is just a hobby, I don't NEED the money, I have a low opinion of my work, blah blah blah." mindset at work here.
I don't get it. If you have the potential to make money by selling your photography, why would you settle for pennies when you can make dollars? And even if you don't have the potential to earn top dollar, why wouldn't you at least try to make more rather than just settling for less without trying? |
Please name one website online where I can make more money than istock with the same ease of uploading and managing my portfolio and the same supportive and community environment where I can learn from other photographers? If I knew of a place where I would make more money for the same amount of work, then I would go there, but I honestly haven't heard of any sites like that. And I am not going to put in the extra work to go through a larger stock agency and probably have to upgrade my camera, buy real lighting equipment, spend more time on it, etc. That would take all of the fun out of my hobby because it would make it...like a job. |
I saw nothing on the masterfile site that indicated they required any specific type of equipment. They just want good images. I would suspect thay they don't care if you are using a oatmeal box pinhole camera as long as they can sell the images.
Lots of stock photographers don't have studios with lots of lights etc. That's the appeal of shooting for stock, if there's a market for what you shoot, you just shoot what you want and get checks in the mail. I used to know a guy that shot stock travel photos, he had 2 Nikon F2 bodies, a handful of prime lenses and that was it, no flash, no studio. He made his living with that equipment, it paid for him to travel all over the world as much as he liked taking photos. He had a very nice house in Los Angeles. So, don't think that just because you don't have a "pro" camera and a bunch of lights that you can't sell stock photos.
|
|
