DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Stock Photography >> stock photography & making money
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 351, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/17/2006 09:54:18 AM · #176
Originally posted by nomad469:


Sorry and all due respect to those that do... my work is more valuable than 41.20 (206 downloads of a really good image)


Well, I know lots of people are all over the board with their feelings about stock photography, ethics etc...

I asked the guys that own our company what they think. They have been in business 20 years and used to make some good money on stock photos.

They say it depends on your goals, where you are going with your photography business, who you know, etc. There is no right answer.

Are photographers ripped off by cheap sales? Yes. We never were on microstock sites but we (and many newspapers, magazines, ad agencies etc) use microstock photos when we are building graphic designs for customers. We pay maybe $1 for a few images...total. Then we build a design (charging $95 and hour) and sell the finished graphic at a $1,000 or more.

So do the math. $1 for photography, 11 hours graphic design = $2,000 return. Certainly smarter than spending 10 hours on photography that many of these small to midsize companies do not put real value in anyway and would not pay $100 an hour.

I would have the same business model building ads for newspapers. $1 for images, 5 hours design time, 1/2 page ad sold for $1,800...I made 25%.

Do some photographers make lots of money? Yes. 5 years ago my company was grossing about $70,000 a year with what they said was maybe 3,000 or 4,000 images. Still only averaging $20 an image..but they were on the big stock sites and when they sold an image, it was for several hundred or more a pop. We actually make more money now pulling the images and leasing to our network of ad agencies and marketing companies. Who you know. My cut? 25% of sales. So far I have made over $5,000 in photo sales commissions and I have only been with my company 6 months. Only about 10% of my income is derived this way.

You can't fight microstock but smart companies, to stay in business and ahead of the curve, use the trend to advantage. Our company uses the photo market. We sell original photos of our own at the highest dollar, we lease our stock inventory and we buy and use microstock to save money.

So, from my perspective, I like microstock even though I would not sell my photos through it. We don't use the Corbis, BananaStock, Comstocks of the world as much anymore. We will buy micro for pennies or shoot it ourselves. If B,B&T or Hanes wants photos, they don't use stock...they pay us to shoot what they want...most big company trends are going towards more personal approaches to advertising anyway and are getting away from generic stock.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 09:57:15.
01/17/2006 02:13:13 PM · #177
thanks for Sharing.

Melissa
01/31/2006 02:26:14 PM · #178
Hey all... just wanted to let you know that //www.Fotolia.com is running another promotion... for every image you upload in February, you get $.20, as long as they approve it and you agree to leave it up with them for a year. They ran a similar promotion in January, but that had a minimum number (50?) that you had to upload before you'd get paid anything.

Message edited by author 2006-01-31 14:33:19.
01/31/2006 02:49:09 PM · #179
Originally posted by literaryradical:

Hey all... just wanted to let you know that //www.Fotolia.com is running another promotion... for every image you upload in February, you get $.20, as long as they approve it and you agree to leave it up with them for a year. They ran a similar promotion in January, but that had a minimum number (50?) that you had to upload before you'd get paid anything.


Just saw it myself. I will finish keywording the ones I have for January and continue to to submit new ones on Wednesday when the new promo starts.
01/31/2006 08:52:32 PM · #180
Originally posted by hokie:

We pay maybe $1 for a few images...total. Then we build a design (charging $95 and hour) and sell the finished graphic at a $1,000 or more.

So do the math. $1 for photography, 11 hours graphic design = $2,000 return. Certainly smarter than spending 10 hours on photography that many of these small to midsize companies do not put real value in anyway and would not pay $100 an hour.


Thanks for sharing this market insight. Just like istock's slogan: "the designer's dirty little secret". Just proves that microstock is great for designers, but bad for photographers.
02/19/2006 10:44:55 AM · #181
I was just browsing some pics on shutterstock. I noticed that the pics of people I looked at included the following text:

--
Release information
Model Released: YES: (signed release filed with ShutterStock, Inc.)
--

If I were to sign up to shutterstock and upload some pics of people, do I have to submit signed confirmation, or prove I have their permission, to shutterstock?
02/19/2006 10:50:55 AM · #182
Originally posted by GreenAlien:


If I were to sign up to shutterstock and upload some pics of people, do I have to submit signed confirmation, or prove I have their permission, to shutterstock?

yes
02/23/2006 03:58:16 AM · #183
yes to which bit? anyone here care to string a sentence together?
02/23/2006 04:10:51 AM · #184
You dan't have to prove it, but if you don't then there are limits as to the use of your photos for prospective buyers. If you have permissions, then ensure that this is stated. This may require you to send/upload a copy otyher wise you may be asked to produce it on demand - I'm not sure how they work when it comes to this...
02/23/2006 04:13:58 AM · #185
You need to upload a signed model release when you upload your image. If you don't have a signed model release form then Shutterstock do accept images for editorial.....not sure what the criteria for these are though.
02/23/2006 08:08:13 AM · #186
Allright.. i'll collect the tidbits for you.

If you have taken pictures of people and want to sell them atshutterstock or other microstock sites, you NEED a model release, which you have to upload to shutterstock (or whatever the site is) so that they can have it on file.

One exception... If the stock site licenses the image for editorial use only you don't need a model release. The only micro that is doing that (at this time) is shutterstock. Many (or probably all) of the macro sites offer editorial images, such as Alamy, corbis, getty, .. and so on

I have set up a microstock forum you might be interested in checking out.

Message edited by author 2006-02-23 08:09:37.
02/23/2006 08:13:17 AM · #187
Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by nomad469:


Sorry and all due respect to those that do... my work is more valuable than 41.20 (206 downloads of a really good image)


So, from my perspective, I like microstock even though I would not sell my photos through it. We don't use the Corbis, BananaStock, Comstocks of the world as much anymore. We will buy micro for pennies or shoot it ourselves. If B,B&T or Hanes wants photos, they don't use stock...they pay us to shoot what they want...most big company trends are going towards more personal approaches to advertising anyway and are getting away from generic stock.


For me it comes down to the black (or red) line. I have submitted images on both macro and micro stock sites. My images on the micro sites are producing more $/image/year than the macro sites..... And they are producing an amount that I could happily live of off.(once my portfolio has built up to a standard amount for someone doing stock full time). So I don't feel microstock is giving your images away at all. Quite the opposite actually.
02/23/2006 02:18:18 PM · #188
Well, I am doing just fine with Stock photo! ShutterStock is really getting good for me lately...Plus they have added more Reviewers. I uploaded some photos and they got approved that day!

Melissa
02/23/2006 04:15:55 PM · #189
I agree with Melissa.

Now that some of the micros have new extended licenses available, it will surely drive clients away from some of the macro sites.

My objective is to double my portfolio in 2006.
02/23/2006 04:30:55 PM · #190
Originally posted by leaf:

Allright.. i'll collect the tidbits for you.

If you have taken pictures of people and want to sell them atshutterstock or other microstock sites, you NEED a model release, which you have to upload to shutterstock (or whatever the site is) so that they can have it on file.

One exception... If the stock site licenses the image for editorial use only you don't need a model release. The only micro that is doing that (at this time) is shutterstock. Many (or probably all) of the macro sites offer editorial images, such as Alamy, corbis, getty, .. and so on

I have set up a microstock forum you might be interested in checking out.


What about property releases? Same thing?
02/23/2006 04:43:33 PM · #191
I made a huge decision and went exclusive with istock about a week ago! Its been great so far and Im hoping to make almost $1000 this month.
02/23/2006 05:27:38 PM · #192
nico,

does going exclusive give you a higher pecentage yield compared to not going exlcusive?

And Everyone,

Can you decide to pull a photo from one of these stock agencies and stop the use of that image from that point forward??? Thanks.

And one more thing...

Can product names be visible? I know about model releases for people, but let's say you take a picture of a tv and the name of the company is in the corner? Should I edit that out, or is it okay?

Message edited by author 2006-02-23 17:34:07.
02/24/2006 12:09:00 AM · #193
Hey cutter,
Going exclusive I get about the same or just slightly more than being non exclusive and selling on three sites, so it cuts down my uploading time by a third. But since I am not on the highest royalty level on istock yet I will definetely be making more being exclusive once i get to the next level. Also in my opinion istock has the best image protection/limitations on use out of all three sites.

You can pull a photo anytime you like but you can never take it away from anyone who has bought it already in the past. Those people still retain nonexclusive rights for royalty free use of your image.

No product names or logos can be visible.

02/24/2006 02:46:41 AM · #194
Originally posted by Cutter:



Can product names be visible? I know about model releases for people, but let's say you take a picture of a tv and the name of the company is in the corner? Should I edit that out, or is it okay?


No you cannot have any brand names in ANY photo (unless the brand name is owned by a friend and he signes a property release).. and yes property releases work the same way as model releases.

I don't think I would ever go exclusive, unless they offered 300% increase in income, even then I would be sceptical. I agree it is a pain to upload to numerous sites, but I earn a LOT more than 30% more by uploading to shutterstock alone, (which is very little work) not tomention 123RF, dreamstime and the others.

Message edited by author 2006-02-24 02:47:02.
02/24/2006 06:57:58 AM · #195
I earn allot more by NOT going exclusive....
11/14/2007 09:27:36 AM · #196
Just for a update! For the new people to the stock photography thing, I am now making $1000.00 - $1200.00 a month US dollars every month! So if you keep uploading you will keep making more money

//www.melissaking.ca/stock.html

Originally posted by melking:

Originally posted by rex:

How much money is made in a month?


Hi, right now I make about $350.00 US a month
but making more each month

01/25/2008 04:25:10 AM · #197
double post

Message edited by author 2008-01-25 04:28:16.
01/25/2008 04:27:37 AM · #198
Microstock is volume base bussiness.
Many Photographers complain to subscription agencies model, like shutterstock, 123 RF and dreamstime, here is way:

1. subscription sales are much more destructive for the business as a whole, than microstock in general. Subscriptions enable customers to build large image archives that reduces the need to download photos in the future and thus our (photographers) profit potential.

2. average subscribers only use about 15 - 30% of the full potential of their membership. This means that most pictures in a subscription sell at a 5-6USD price-point in average, giving us (photographers) about 25 cents in commission. A bottom-line commission of about 5 percent. Even if I was totally wrong and every subscriber actually downloaded the double of what I have heard, the commission would still only be 10%.

3. Same price at all size, even 16mp the price same as 1.3mp?

4. Deep Discounts
First, in the business world, deep discounts are normally given to the best customers. Giving a deep discount (up to 35% off or more from the normal price) is understandable. But subscriptions go much, much deeper than that.

The approximate cost and royalty for a maximum size image is as follows at the top sites:

IS: $20 ($4)
DT: $8 ($4)
SXP: $10 ($5)
FT: $5 ($1.50)

So an artist will receive between $1.50 and $5 for a maximum size image from the largest sites.

If a customer buys lots of images, then a discount should be given. Giving discounts to large customers is good business. But most sites already have discounts for purchasing large token packages. For example, on IS if you buy 1500 credits, then you will receive a 34% discount. On DT, if you buy over 150 credits, then you will receive a 25% discount. On SXP, if you buy 500 credits, then you will receive a 20% discount.

But subscriptions go above and beyond these deep discounts. Almost to the point of giving away our images.

For example, on DT, a submitter receives 0.30 for a subscription. That is a 93% discount from the normal royalty (of $8 for a maximum size image with over 100 sales). On SXP, a submitter receives 0.30 for a subscription. That is a 97% discount from the normal royalty (of $10 for an XXL image).

5. Macro Buyers
Second, the buyers that are purchasing subscription packages are normally the large agencies that need lots and lots of images. These are the agencies that used to purchase macrostock images for $100s (if not $1,000s) of dollars apiece. These are the customers that could actually afford to purchase images individually (if needed). According to the financial news, this is a multi-billion dollar industry. They have deep pockets. But yet, they now want to offer them even deeper discounts (over 95% off) on images that are already cheap. It makes no sense

for photographers future, there is pay per photo and 70% share agency out there...
//www.FeaturePics.com/Login/Registration.aspx?refid=13372 is one of them,that's my referral link if you dont want to use referrall link, you can go there by google :)

Downsize your image before send to the subscription model agencies.
this link is interesting
//www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=3278.0

Message edited by author 2008-01-25 04:39:38.
01/25/2008 04:45:37 AM · #199
Originally posted by nomad469:



Sorry and all due respect to those that do... my work is more valuable than 41.20 (206 downloads of a really good image)


You are probably right. How much is it earning you now? ;)
01/25/2008 06:35:02 AM · #200
I am just starting to set up for uploading stock photography ... ANY advice and opinions are welcome.

One thing ... I get very very nervous of people asking me my exact address, phone number, and other personal details besides my PayPal account number. Is there anyway to break into stock photography without giving this information to anyone but PayPal? ...

I notice a few stock sites pay primarily or secondarily through PayPal ... MUST these stock sites have enough info to come and knock on your door?
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 10/31/2020 07:17:40 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/31/2020 07:17:40 AM EDT.