which stock site for which pictures

08/29/2006 03:55:27 PM · #1

So, I've just started selling my pictures as stock. I've started uploading the same pictures on different sites and I'm wodering if this is the way to go. I mean, obviously some sites pay more and some people use more than one site, so I'm wondering if I should submit them based on quality (or only if they're rejected on other sites) to different sites, or just submit most of them to all the sites I upload to (which right now is only two, but I plan to do more). I just don't know which way would be more profitable. Any suggestions?

Lawren

JonPM

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/29/2006 03:56:32 PM · #2

micro or macro?

08/29/2006 04:25:26 PM · #3

Sadly, I haven't figured out those differences yet, just getting started. I'm on istock and dreamstime. That's micro right? Think I just found something else I forgot to look up. :)

Lawren

08/29/2006 04:31:00 PM · #4

Also, while I'm at this question asking thing (I'm sure these questions have been answered many times before, but navigating message boards can be a pain) Where would people reccommend selling? Is it really worth it to sell images exclusively at a site?

Also, I'm really leery about selling rights to a photo, do people really buy them all that often? I volunteer at a zoo and take mostly animal photographs and would like to be able to see images to other volunteers, so I don't really want to have those restrictions, but I'm not sure.

Anyways, thanks for the help.

Lawren

JonPM

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/29/2006 04:50:52 PM · #5

Hmm, well I try to stay away from micro sites, but to answer your first question you should be ok uploading the same pictures to all your micro sites. The general "anti-micro" statement on these forums is "they pay sh*t so give them sh*t". lol

I wouldn't recommend being exclusive to one site until you've become really good at what you do. I would definetly not recommend this with micro since your entire goal is to sell as many photos as possible. So I think it would be best to upload the same ones to as many micro sites as possible.

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 16:51:42.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/29/2006 05:00:39 PM · #6

Originally posted by Larennicle:

Hi Lawren

In the beginning you might as well upload your photos to several different sites. You should consider ShutterStock, iStock, Dreamstime, and possibly Fotolia as these sites will probably provide you with the most sales (in the order I listed). The amount of sales you get is directly related to the amount of photos you have up, so in the beginning its very slow and easy to get frustrated, but don't worry keep at it and sales will pick up over time.

Once you start building a portfolio of quality photos you can take your best and move them to the macro sites like Alamy and MyLoupe if you want. To me this is more of a long term goal as sales are few and far between (though the money is very good when they do sell) and it can take a long time to get enough photos up to get your first sale on the macros.

If you have any more questions feel free to ask, I'll give you any insight I can.

Dave

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 17:19:31.

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/29/2006 05:14:46 PM · #7

yep, I can chime in for uploading your images to numerous sites. That way you can get an idea of which sites are worth spending time with.

Message edited by author 2006-08-29 17:14:55.

digitalknight

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

08/29/2006 05:40:48 PM · #8

when I started I started in the micro world - for three months with about 350 images in my portfolio

after 3 months I had made $72 across four sites - not even enough to request payment from two of them.

I discontinued all micro sites and put the SAME 350 images on Alamy.

I now sell about an image a month (portfolio up around 700 images now) for a net to me of around $250 per image.

When I calculate that about 200 people got my images for that $72 it makes my stomach hurt. When I get my check for around $500 every other month from Alamy it makes me smile!

That's the difference between micro and macro. When people pay $350 - $600 per image for my work I feel better telling people that I'm a professional photographer (part time).

Not to open up the micro vs macro debate - I don't really want to go through that again. For me - macro works better and I can buy new gear faster.

Good luck in your stock adventures.

08/29/2006 05:51:35 PM · #9

Originally posted by digitalknight:

Hey Doug

Have you sold any photos off your MyLoupe account? I haven't yet and itss been along time since I put photos online there...

I hope Alamy gets their upload feature online soon so I can continue submitting stuff there!

Dave

08/29/2006 05:56:46 PM · #10

So, what exactly is the difference between macro and micro? I applied at myloupe and was turned down but not really given a particular reason. I figured I'd take more pics, work on editing and stuff and try again later. My big concern is I also sell prints, so I want to be able to still sell my pictures.

Lawren

08/29/2006 06:14:52 PM · #11

Originally posted by Larennicle:

Macro Sites are sites which pay you more for your photos, photos can be Royalty Free or Licensed. Typically prices paid per photo are in the hundreds of dollars. This is the traditional professional stock photo industry.

Downsides of macro is: typically only accept hi resolution photos (think 6MP and up) so many people don't have a good enough camera for this purpose. Also frequency of sales are much less, though as I said the pay is much higher.

Micro sites are sites that pay you anywhere from $.20 to a couple dollars per photo. This is a fairly new (last 3-4 years) offshoot of the stock industry. Micro sites are (as far as I've seen) only Royalty Free.

Downsides of micro is: extremely low pay per photo, the micro game is all about quantity of sales. Some of the sites are much more selective of the photos they accept (vs the macros) which is fairly insulting considering the pay they give photographers.

08/29/2006 06:29:36 PM · #12

ah, sadly I only have a 5 mp camera. It's all I could afford for the time being seeing as I'm between jobs right now (hence the interest in selling pictures). I'll see what I can do for now, gotta work with what I have. Thanks for the advice.

Lawren

08/29/2006 06:37:01 PM · #13

Originally posted by Larennicle:

Hi again Lawren

Just as a side note, it is possible to take images from your 5MP camera and upsample them in Photoshop to a higher resolution so that they are acceptable to micro sites. I have some pictures taken with a 4MP camera that I've done this with. It is however a pain sometimes and you have to do each image on an individual basis to make sure you don't lose to much quality in the process. What I have done is to use images that were just to small, didn't upsize well enough, or that I thought were just so-so quality or content and use them on the micros. Then as I make some money from the micros to invest in new gear slowly start putting photos onto the macro sites. Thats why for me both micro and macro are part of my overall game plan, micro is a short(er) term strategy and macro is a longer term one.

Hope this helps...

Dave

JonPM

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT