| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2006 09:20:23 PM · #1 |
Ahoi - Yes - another one of these topics. I uploaded a couple of images at two of these stock sites. I know that the more images - the more you can sell. Personally I don't see myself making much profit this way.
The internet fees are more than what I will get. Are there any sites that you can get good money for photos?
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 09:22:07 PM · #2 |
| Try Alamy. People here seems to make more then $100 a photo there. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 11:52:07 PM · #3 |
sometimes more than $1000
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 12:25:33 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by WGF Images:
sometimes more than $1000 |
How many have you sold there, if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 03:36:57 AM · #5 |
11 sales, since May 2005.
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:16:14 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 01:26:12 PM · #7 |
Mel, so when are you going to step up the ladder and submit to the bigboys?
|
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:04:07 PM · #8 |
Dont bother with stock, its for non artistic people and already rich people.
I imagine stock photo as this now, sorry if it offends:
Married women/man with 2.4 kids with SUV bmw over the top annoying truck you see. (I saw a guy driving one, he picked his kids up. 500 yard to his sodding house! I was driving behind him as he squeezed through the packed streets)Has over the top camera and decides they can be an artist. So they take pictures of the usual stuff and low and behold get some pro lighting for £2000000 or whatever and start taking pictures of apples and fruits and she does it to excess, raking in some cash.
-- the end----
Im sure its not all like this.
I tried the stock game, so Im bitter. Yes indeed. I have had lots of images accepted, not ones I even took for stock. I took some for stock and realised how boring and tedious it is. But I had problems because I like abstract and this isnt stock. Id like to make some money from it, but its all pennies. Too make decent money from it, you must already have money, therefore rendering it all total rubbish. Anyone with a decent camera can afford new lenses and its pointless them doing stock. Id say stop right now as it will decrease your creativity.
stock is not art. |
|
|
|
01/10/2006 07:13:11 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by eyeronik:
Dont bother with stock, its for non artistic people and already rich people.
I imagine stock photo as this now, sorry if it offends:
Married women/man with 2.4 kids with SUV bmw over the top annoying truck you see. (I saw a guy driving one, he picked his kids up. 500 yard to his sodding house! I was driving behind him as he squeezed through the packed streets)Has over the top camera and decides they can be an artist. So they take pictures of the usual stuff and low and behold get some pro lighting for £2000000 or whatever and start taking pictures of apples and fruits and she does it to excess, raking in some cash.
-- the end----
Im sure its not all like this.
I tried the stock game, so Im bitter. Yes indeed. I have had lots of images accepted, not ones I even took for stock. I took some for stock and realised how boring and tedious it is. But I had problems because I like abstract and this isnt stock. Id like to make some money from it, but its all pennies. Too make decent money from it, you must already have money, therefore rendering it all total rubbish. Anyone with a decent camera can afford new lenses and its pointless them doing stock. Id say stop right now as it will decrease your creativity.
stock is not art. |
re-reading your username IRONIC springs to mind! There are many artistic fotogs that make a pretty penny from stock and it often pays for the more artistic to be 'more artisic'.
As has been mentioned, sites like alamy will give you fewer sales but plenty more money when you make one. Its not a get rich quick scheme but can be a decent earner for those that succeed.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:17:06 AM · #10 |
| Bitter= No money made through stock. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:30:50 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by eyeronik:
Dont bother with stock, its for non artistic people and already rich people. |
Thanks. I'm not rich ... and if you judge by my DPC scores, not artistic either. Based on a limited sampling fromShutterstock I'm going to suggest that you get about $0.10/image/month/site.
Quantity is the key ... if you have 500 images at 5 sites the above formula would yield about $250/month. Not a "living" (in the USA ... although close to what they give families on welfare) -- but maybe quite a comfortable living in some countries. But once those photos are uploaded, you should get continued sales every month ... so what's the hourly rate if you get $250 for working zero hours?
Think of it as analogous to other rental property -- I can't afford to buy an apartment building, but maybe I can collect the rent on three of those mailboxes down at a "MailboxesETC"-type store. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 03:47:55 AM · #12 |
Any photo, I feel has real value and is exclusive, I would submit to the sites that pay real money for the licencing.
Photos that are not that interesting, I would submit to the stock sites. If they do not like them, they are only confirming my belief that they are close to worthless.
That being said, what GeneralE said is correct. If you never put anymore effort in after the first uploads and you earn $250 a month, there are a large number of people in non-first world countries, that would be earning double their wages who are currently working 12 hours a day 7 days a week per month. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:16:27 AM · #13 |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 04:47:36 AM · #14 |
There is a small annual charge to set up a portfolio .
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 05:00:58 AM · #15 |
or you could spend your time taking photos of problems in society, distributing them as widely as possible with the hope to create change...
different philosophy, I suppose :) |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 05:13:34 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
There is a small annual charge to set up a portfolio . |
Or you can upload for free and give them the 20%.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2006 05:39:46 AM · #17 |
Of course, you could hardly describe them as a disinterested third party. As they are direct competition with microstock it might be worth taking anything they say with a pinch of salt.
That's ignoring the fact that they manage to suggest that microstock is the only outlet for Royalty Free - as half their arguments against microstock are the RF aspects, why don't they also refuse to deal with anyone selling images RF at Alamy? |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 01:13:10 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Of course, you could hardly describe them as a disinterested third party. As they are direct competition with microstock it might be worth taking anything they say with a pinch of salt.
That's ignoring the fact that they manage to suggest that microstock is the only outlet for Royalty Free - as half their arguments against microstock are the RF aspects, why don't they also refuse to deal with anyone selling images RF at Alamy? |
Because Alamy's smallest RF price is still 100 times more than a micro payment. |
|
|
|
01/11/2006 01:26:05 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by eyeronik:
Dont bother with stock, its for non artistic people and already rich people. |
There are as many perspectives on stock photography as there are stock agencies. If you look at some of the work on Masterfile, Workbook Stock and Agefoto Stock you will see a lot of more conceptual work that shows strong commercial and/or artistic merit.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:31:14 PM EDT.
