| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2005 05:45:07 AM · #1 |
I've got hundreds of photos gathering dust on my hard disk, so lately I've been thinking - maybe there's someone out there who would have some use for them. Maybe they would even agree to pay something for them. Perhaps those photos would help me finance my next camera and what comes with it.
So I think about photo banks. Alamy.com or photolibra.com, the like.
What's your experience? Is there any chance for a beginner like me?
Does the 'beginner's luck' apply there?
Is it worth the effort or do I need to be a Charlie Waite to begin with? |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 05:53:07 AM · #2 |
By photo bank do you mean stock photography?
If so you may like to look at:
//www.istockphoto.com/
//www.dreamstime.com/
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:24:33 AM · #3 |
There are a number of (normally quite venomous ;-) ) threads here about the 'cheap' end of the market (like istockphoto) and the 'expensive' end (like Alamy). I use both; the cheap end is more instantly rewarding in that you can actually start to see sales much quicker, but I suspect (hasn't happened yet!) that the first Alamy sale will be a lot more thrilling and profitable!
Which outlet(s) you choose is ultimately a personal decision - the only thing I would say is that personally I wouldn't touch any site that charges you for the pleasure of selling your photographs. I notice you mention fotolibra.com, they charge you a storage fee regardless of what/if you sell.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:38:36 AM · #4 |
Any images you think of as "hero" images (to borrow a phrase from Bruce Fraser) you may want to consider selling on a site such as Alamy.
The reason Pete (Ganders) and I picked Alamy over other traditional agencies is that, unlike many, they don't have a minimum volume requirement either on registration or per year. They also accept/ reject solely on image quality (and their submission guidelines) rather than on content.
Both of us also have images that simply are not appropriate for Alamy (or other traditional agencies) because they are too low in resolution or simply not quite suitable in terms of quality. These include images taken for DPC challenges on older cameras (plus outtakes) and images that don't quite cut the mustard in our view. But they are making us a few cents here and there on the micro stock sites. As an example, my Leaves entry and various outtakes are selling quite well and each dollar earned is another dollar towards another camera accessory or lens.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 06:44:12 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Both of us also have images that simply are not appropriate for Alamy (or other traditional agencies) because they are too low in resolution |
Yep, I agree. A 4 megapixel image upsized to 5000px wide has got to be pretty excellent quality to begin with.
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 06:44:27.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 07:32:11 AM · #6 |
Thanks for advice.
Well, as you can see from the camera model next to my name, Alamy is out of my league - yet. :-)
Photolibra charges for storage, that's true, but the storage costs less than server space with my ISP, so that wouldn't scare me. Besides, if I wanted to go for Alamy, I would need GenuineFractals, which costs a couple of years' fees at Photolibra.
Anyway, you've been helpful. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
08/17/2005 07:58:31 AM · #7 |
You don't need to use Genuine Fractals - I have seen discussions elsewhere about alternative interpolation software that is much cheaper and similarly effective.
Some of the images we have submitted have been captured at 5 megapixels and sized up to Alamy's minimum 48MG file size and been of acceptable quality. We do use GF.
Btw if you find other traditional stock agencies that
a) accept digitally captured images
b) do not have really high volume requirements
c) do not charge for submission
please do share the find...
THANKS
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 07:58:52.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 08:04:23 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Some of the images we have submitted have been captured at 5 megapixels and sized up to Alamy's minimum 48MG file size and been of acceptable quality. |
From what cameras?
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 08:11:29 AM · #9 |
Nikon D70.
Not suggesting that ALL 5 megapixel cameras produce images of sufficient quality to be sized up that much.
Just wanting to point out that one doesn't need to be working with a really high megapixel camera to consider submitting to Alamy.
Message edited by author 2005-08-17 08:12:37.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 08:18:32 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Nikon D70. |
I'm confused and/or stupid.. Were they cropped, or did you shoot at lower res? The D70 is 6MP isn't it?
Originally posted by Kavey:
Just wanting to point out that one doesn't need to be working with a really high megapixel camera to consider submitting to Alamy. |
Definitely. Hence I 'side-graded' to a 4 megapixel 1D from my 6.3 megapixel 300D. Quality of pixels not number.. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 08:38:29 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Nikon D70. |
I'm confused and/or stupid.. Were they cropped, or did you shoot at lower res? The D70 is 6MP isn't it? |
Oh. Yes. Now I think about it. Yes. It is! ROFL! Er... I'm not one for remembering specs very well! LOL
:o)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2005 08:43:58 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Oh. Yes. Now I think about it. Yes. It is! ROFL! Er... I'm not one for remembering specs very well! LOL |
Hehehehe. Details, pfft. ;-)))
|
|
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: 08/24/2025 10:44:45 AM EDT.
