| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2004 07:14:14 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
Still, not everyone can do that ... even if they are talented enough, there just isn't a market (IMO!) for 10,000 times as many stock sales as there are currently ... just as you can have bulk sales at small prices or a few expensive ones, you can have five stock photographers making a living or 5000 making peanuts. I sure hope my economics are off, but that's what makes sense to me ...
Not everyone can be rich. Going for the high-end market seems a bit like playing the lottery -- all well and good if you're the rare one who hits the winning shutter-click ...
Message edited by author 2004-06-19 19:16:00. |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 09:03:53 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
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. |
Still, not everyone can do that ... even if they are talented enough, there just isn't a market (IMO!) for 10,000 times as many stock sales as there are currently ... just as you can have bulk sales at small prices or a few expensive ones, you can have five stock photographers making a living or 5000 making peanuts. I sure hope my economics are off, but that's what makes sense to me ...
Not everyone can be rich. Going for the high-end market seems a bit like playing the lottery -- all well and good if you're the rare one who hits the winning shutter-click ... |
My point was not that everyone should go drop everything to do stock photography, just that you don't need a dozen 1Ds camera bodies, every L lenses made and a studio full of lighting equipment to sell stock images.
If you are happy selling your work for $0.50 a shot, and that's all your work is worth to you, then by all means go ahead. I was simply trying to encourage people here to at least try to do better. There is a lot of capable talent on this site that certainly can command more than what istockphoto pays.
I doubt that anyone is getting rich off of stock photos alone without working very hard and having thousands and thousands of images on file with their agency. I never meant to imply that stock photography was the shortcut to easy street, it's not. You will, however, have a much harder time generating anything more than pocket change at $0.50/use.
Making money selling stock is hardly like playing the lottery unless you just luck out by being in the right place at the right time, but that's not really what stock photography is about. People work at it, it takes skill to create a marketable image. The lottery takes no skill, just $2 and dumb luck.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 09:26:44 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I doubt that anyone is getting rich off of stock photos alone without working very hard and having thousands and thousands of images on file with their agency. I never meant to imply that stock photography was the shortcut to easy street, it's not. You will, however, have a much harder time generating anything more than pocket change at $0.50/use.
|
I still don't understand the difference between selling one image 100 times at $0.50 or selling it one time at $50. If I sell my image 100 times at $0.50, it it a $0.50 image or a $50 image?
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 09:36:25 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I doubt that anyone is getting rich off of stock photos alone without working very hard and having thousands and thousands of images on file with their agency. I never meant to imply that stock photography was the shortcut to easy street, it's not. You will, however, have a much harder time generating anything more than pocket change at $0.50/use.
|
I still don't understand the difference between selling one image 100 times at $0.50 or selling it one time at $50. If I sell my image 100 times at $0.50, it it a $0.50 image or a $50 image? |
You have to sell it 100 times in one case and once in the other.
If you sell an image, and it gets used for an ad, then your image is no longer unique for the next buyer. By the time you sell it 100 times, if it gets that far, everyone's seen it and the Art Director will not want to use it because everyone else has used it.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2004 10:00:14 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You have to sell it 100 times in one case and once in the other.
|
This is true. I have several images that have sold 14 and 15 times already in less than one month. I suppose its just a preference as to which method one chooses to get to the end result. I could have put those same images up as rights managed stock, but I chose the other route instead :) |
|
|
|
06/19/2004 10:43:14 PM · #81 |
| The funny thing about istock is, the more a picture sells, the more people will want to buy it. There are some individual photos there that have sold thousands of times each (yes, one picture, a thousand times). That's why they have the most popular list. At least two of my photos have sold over 100. |
|
|
|
06/20/2004 07:08:06 AM · #82 |
One of my photos has been downloaded 60 time in 4 months
|
|
|
|
06/20/2004 11:39:31 AM · #83 |
You have to remember... the people who are downloading images from istockphoto are not necessarily people who are using them in "advertising" or to illustrate corporate annual reports. For example, a lot of the people who pay 50¢ for an image might just be looking for a cool picture to use as their desktop for a month, or as a "graphic element" in a PowerPoint presentation they are putting together to impress their boss (and figure it is worth the $1 to "make them look good".)
But since you don't know who the people are or what country the images are being downloaded in, who knows how they are being used once they get the high-res version, or whether or not they comply with the "license". It would be trivial for somebody to download 100 images of "office stuff" (or whatever) and put together a "Basement Bob's Stock Photography Volume 478: At The Office" CD or "Bargain Bart's 5000 Web Images" and sell it. (You know, the kind of CDs you see in grocery stores for $4.99, or at computer shows by the truck load.) |
|
|
|
10/16/2004 10:03:50 AM · #84 |
I just wanted to bump this...I'm going to look at doing a little bit of stock photography to expand my horizons, and this is by far the most informative thread I've found at dpc.
Perhaps we can continue the debate?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 10:17:35 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
That site is contributing to the current raping of photographers incomes...Go to Masterfile if you want to make real money. The average is $1000/ month for every 200 images selected. There are people on there that have 5400 images, do the math.
People, please quit selling yourselves so short and letting people take advantage of you.
Big deal if some one buys your image for $.50. Do you give a chit about the product you get out of a gumball machine? That's exactly what that site is, a gumball machine for photos... |
Ok great, how do you upload images there? Or do you have to become a paying member or something for that. If so I am not interested!
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 11:49:11 AM · #86 |
I submit stock photos to IStockPhoto, Dreamstime, CanStockPhoto, and a new one Bigstockphoto
Istock = $567.00 US
Dreamstime = $81.00 US
Canstock = $1.75 (not active on this site)
BigStock = $.50 (only started 2 days ago)
This is a great way to make extra money for toys...
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 11:56:03 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by melking23:
I submit stock photos to IStockPhoto, Dreamstime, CanStockPhoto, and a new one Bigstockphoto
Istock = $567.00 US
Dreamstime = $81.00 US
Canstock = $1.75 (not active on this site)
BigStock = $.50 (only started 2 days ago)
This is a great way to make extra money for toys... |
Those are nice shots mel! (I'm talking about the two links posted on your istock page, the two girls with cell phones) Who did you use as models? And was it for the purpose of using at istock? |
|
|
|
10/16/2004 12:09:32 PM · #88 |
Sweet, I just got an e-mail back saying that my 3 sample photos passed so I can start submitting to istockphoto as well!
Samples submitted:
   |
|
|
|
10/16/2004 12:12:14 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I just wanted to bump this...I'm going to look at doing a little bit of stock photography to expand my horizons, and this is by far the most informative thread I've found at dpc.
Perhaps we can continue the debate? |
Same here, I just spent roughly 45 min reading this thread and mulling over the points of both sides and both are valid. I think it's in the best interest of anyone interested in selling stock photography (regardless of photo equipment) to look into each of the online sites that specialize in this and decide which fits them best. Some people are more comfortable with the "gumball sites" and others feel that their work commands a premium. Personally, I would see what the market can bear and chose something near that.
Obviously, there are extreme cases where a single print can be worth a few hundred thousand and I doubt those are the more common variety stock photo. Although the numbers that GoldBerry posted are very inspiring and enough to encourage me to start taking this venue seriously. Now only if my skills and photos were worthwile. :)
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 12:17:31 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by melking23:
I submit stock photos to IStockPhoto, Dreamstime, CanStockPhoto, and a new one Bigstockphoto
Istock = $567.00 US
Dreamstime = $81.00 US
Canstock = $1.75 (not active on this site)
BigStock = $.50 (only started 2 days ago)
This is a great way to make extra money for toys... |
Those are nice shots mel! (I'm talking about the two links posted on your istock page, the two girls with cell phones) Who did you use as models? And was it for the purpose of using at istock? |
Are you talking about this girl!...the same girl in both photos right?
that is my Cousin from Glovertown....you might know her if I said her name.. I took the photo for Stock...I took over 250 photos of her!
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 12:21:31 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by melking23:
that is my Cousin from Glovertown....you might know her if I said her name.. I took the photo for Stock...I took over 250 photos of her! |
Did you use any type of special lighting for that shot or was it natural light?
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 12:27:47 PM · #92 |
I used lighting! I used those yellow work lights you get at the hardware store...with a white background. light was on the floor shining at her face.
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 12:37:56 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by melking23:
I used lighting! I used those yellow work lights you get at the hardware store...with a white background. light was on the floor shining at her face. |
OK, I know which ones you used: the 500W halogen work lights.
Now on to a different subject...
I was just browsing the masterfile website when I came across this:
Masterfile is actively recruiting new talent to improve our collection. We continually replace non-productive artists, and are seeking people who will work hard for us and provide images that keep our clients coming back to Masterfile. We are loyal to our "producers".
Does this mean that if, once accepted as a photographer for masterfile, that if I do not regularly produce stunning photographs every week or whatever, that they cancel my membership? That's an additional stress I don't need in my life. :)
|
|
|
|
10/16/2004 01:20:19 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I was just browsing the masterfile website when I came across this:
Masterfile is actively recruiting new talent to improve our collection. We continually replace non-productive artists, and are seeking people who will work hard for us and provide images that keep our clients coming back to Masterfile. We are loyal to our "producers".
Does this mean that if, once accepted as a photographer for masterfile, that if I do not regularly produce stunning photographs every week or whatever, that they cancel my membership? That's an additional stress I don't need in my life. :) |
Yes it does. Most reputable stock sites have requirements for submitting additional images. Usually it is on a quarterly or annual basis, so it's not like you have to run around shooting to submit images every couple of days. Any agreement you come to with an agency should have their requirements spelled out plainly.
Keep in mind that this is just the number of images, so variations of the same image each would count as separate images. |
|
|
|
10/16/2004 01:30:10 PM · #95 |
I guess it makes sense that they would like to see new work from their photographers on a regular basis. Another condition to being accepted into masterfile was a rather large portfolio of 100+ images. I have about 2300+ photos from the 10D but I'd say that a small fraction of those are even worth considering submission material. I need to get out there and shoot otherwise I don't stand a chance of being accepted by masterfile.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 08:20:07 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
Although the numbers that GoldBerry posted are very inspiring and enough to encourage me to start taking this venue seriously. Now only if my skills and photos were worthwile. :) |
I am the one that posted the numbers, Goldberry is not into Stock Photography! :)
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 08:28:12 AM · #97 |
One note: read the terms and conditions of use carefully as they differ from site to site. Some sites allow you to remove photos at a later date others do not.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 08:40:17 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
One note: read the terms and conditions of use carefully as they differ from site to site. Some sites allow you to remove photos at a later date others do not. |
Wow! A very good Point! I know Istock, Dreamstime and Canstock let you delete the photo you want when you want, but I checked out Bigstockphoto...Which I just joined last week and they don't let you delete when you want...So I guess I will stop Uploading to them now....here is what is on the site!
Do I lose my rights to the photos after I've uploaded them?
You do not lose the copyright or ownership... but by uploading, you do agree to allow BigStockPhoto to use and sell your photo. That being said we are reasonable people and if we get a request to not use a photo, most likely, we'll take it off the site for you. But we can't prevent anyone who has already downloaded/purchased it from using it.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 10:09:37 AM · #99 |
This has been an interesting thread to say the least. I wanted to weigh in on the upper-tier vs. lower tier stock sites, and specifically the argument that you should charge more for your prints if you can...
It seems to me that in the art related fields (I'm including photography) prices go up for two reasons in particular: (1) The artist is really good, and no longer living. (2) The art is not something most people could easily do themselves.
If an image of a pencil taken with a $4000 dSLR is listed on mega-stock.com for $100 per use, and the identicle image taken with a point-n-shoot is on cheap-stock.com for .50 per use, that tells me the image didn't require the same equipment or talent that was used for the expensive image, and thus, mega-stock.com is overpriced on that image.
If you take stock shots that *require* expensive and custom lighting / lenses, exotic travel, or skills that are difficult to acquire you should be using mega-stock.com. If you make average shots of average things that average people could make if they knew about the market, then I see nothing wrong with achieving your ambitions at cheap-stock.com.
Eventually, the less skilled artists who are just getting by on mega-stock.com are going to be pushed out of the way by the cheaper stock photogs, but if someone can't differentiate themselves enough to stay on top, then competition will make its own adjustments. Likewise, I would imagine that someone making massive $$ (read: so much that the IRS knows about it) from cheapstock.com will reach a point where they believe they can "make the jump."
Let's not over-inflate for no good reason. Being a "pro", and using a pro site takes more than equipment and talent - it takes commitment and consistency. Even the most talented and well equipped photographers don't always want to commit to having to deliver on deadlines. For those who do, there's a place. For those who don't there's also a place. I for one am goad that there are opportunities for all.
|
|
|
|
10/18/2004 12:21:59 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I guess it makes sense that they would like to see new work from their photographers on a regular basis. Another condition to being accepted into masterfile was a rather large portfolio of 100+ images. I have about 2300+ photos from the 10D but I'd say that a small fraction of those are even worth considering submission material. I need to get out there and shoot otherwise I don't stand a chance of being accepted by masterfile. |
The Masterfile ToS says that they expect uploads of 50-100 images/annually.
Great conversation. Please keep it up. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 07:00:07 PM EDT.
