anyone here besides jodie coston making $$$@stock?

Konica Minolta DiMAGE X50

07/31/2006 07:26:46 PM · #76

Originally posted by jenesis:

Question for Nico (and for anyone else who has alot of stock "people" photos):

I notice you have a lot of people photos in your Istock portfolio. I'm curious how get them (yourself excluded of course.) :) Are they mostly friends and family or actual models? And secondly, if they are models, do you pay them or are they from TFP shoots? Just curious. I know there are places like OMP and Model Mayhem to find them, but I'm curious if you pay them or if they know your shooting for stock? I would assume so since you usually need releases for stock.

Thanks! :)

My portfolio is a very eclectic mix and people shots account for only about a third of my porfolio. The models for my people shots come from everywhere really; i am in college so a lot of times i ask friends or poeple around to model either just for something quick or if its a bit longer then in exchange for some money (campus jobs usually pay 8-10 dollars an hour so i pay them between 10-20 for an hour) and i explain with the model release what commercial photography is, what istock is, etc. I also give them downsized copies of the photos for things like myspace and facebook. I have also been known to 'exploit' my family, a lot, often they dont want their faces shown so i just shoot creatively. I also have a few self portraits because its just so convenient sometimes for a quick shoot or trying out different things. Quite a few of my model shots are also from istock events (which are loads of fun to go to), and I have also done some event shoots where instead of getting paid i get model releases in exchange for shooting. I know quite a few people who use sites such as one model place and model mayhem to find models but i have no experience with them, yet. I hope to try them out eventually when i expand a bit and have a halfway decent studio space. Most photographers i know who use those sites do a trade for cd or prints and rarely pay the models directly. They sometimes provide a snack during the shoot, take the model(s) out to lunch/dinner aftewards to review the shots, sign releases, etc or cover part of transportation as a nice gesture. In the 'real-world' modelling industry it is actually the other way round where models (or their agency) hires and pays a photographer for a shoot when they need to build up their portfolio. So this arrangement is like a win-win for both sides... the photographer gets a model for their shoot and the model gets to build up a portfolio. If stylists are involved they usually get paid by the photographer.

Hope this helped!

Nick

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

07/31/2006 08:46:20 PM · #77

Originally posted by jenesis:

Jen, Today I did my first paid shoot for stock, coincidentally. This was mainly a short "get acquainted" shoot, and I paid her $20. (Ten dollars initial signup and $10/hr is what we agreed to.) These are the best from today.

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 06:05:21.

jenesis

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/31/2006 09:05:12 PM · #78

Thanks Guys! I was just curious as I've started doing a few shoots via Model Mayhem and I use a release that that gives me permission (in a more indepth form than I using here) to use the photos as I will but I think I'd feel weird using them for stock without asking the model first, even though the release already states something to that effect. I haven't actually shot specifically for stock yet, just some TFP/CD shoots to build my portfolio but some of the shots I've come away with can easily be used for stock. If I make money off of one, well it just seems like the model should benefit as well. But who's to say I'd make any money at all, in which case I'd be losing money if I paid them. Herein lies my dilemma. I guess I'm just not sure what the "standard business etiquette" is for stock models (that aren't family members) :) But if I can get away with paying $20-30 here and there, I guess it wouldn't hurt. I just didn't want to insult anyone (I'm clueless about this stuff) :)

Thanks again! :)

accady

08/01/2006 01:21:18 PM · #79

Can somebody outline the most important aspects about taxation on income from stock? What�s the best way to put it in your tax return? Canada, anybody?

Thanks

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/01/2006 01:38:52 PM · #80

I would imagine you have a line for other income on your return.

Gabriel

Pentax K7

Tomioka 55mm f/1.4 in M42 Mount

08/02/2006 05:41:57 PM · #81

Nico: That's a quite big quality portfolio that you have on IStock. Building this in 1 year means about 4 pics per day. That should be quite time consuming I think. How much time do you devote to it?

C-Fox

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/02/2006 06:55:39 PM · #82

Originally posted by accady:

Can somebody outline the most important aspects about taxation on income from stock? What�s the best way to put it in your tax return? Canada, anybody?

Thanks

It is income, just like other small business income.

accady

Konica Minolta DiMAGE X50

08/03/2006 12:52:22 PM · #83

Originally posted by C-Fox:

Originally posted by accady:
Can somebody outline the most important aspects about taxation on income from stock? What�s the best way to put it in your tax return? Canada, anybody?

Thanks

It is income, just like other small business income.

I was wondering if/how deductions can be made. Let�s say you buy something (like a pen, bottle of wine, etc.) and use it for your stock session. Is it practically possible to deduct it as expenses even though you�re going to use it for other purposes too??

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 12:52:46.

08/03/2006 01:06:20 PM · #84

Originally posted by BradP:

Originally posted by scalvert:
I sold one "by request" image earlier this year for $250.

Lemme guess.

Was it this one??

*wiping coffee off keyboard* Thanks for the mess, Brad.

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

08/03/2006 01:18:55 PM · #85

Way back when shutterstock was first mentioned at DPC, I signed up and uploaded a bunch of old junk that I took with my G3. I don't think the guidelines were very strict back then. I haven't uploaded anything else since then so I have 89 images. I make payout about every two months, which, considering the amount of effort I've put into this (ie. pretty much none), is just fine with me. I'd like to give alamy a shot someday but I'm waiting for the online upload. The christmas presents still waiting on the table to be mailed say I shouldn't even pretend like I'm going to actually send in cds.

renegade1966

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/03/2006 11:15:38 PM · #86

This might be a dumb question, and maybe already discussed in this thread but could someone please explain the terms "micro" and "macro" as they pertain to stock photography?

Canon EOS-20D

08/03/2006 11:28:17 PM · #87

Originally posted by renegade1966:

This might be a dumb question, and maybe already discussed in this thread but could someone please explain the terms "micro" and "macro" as they pertain to stock photography?

Originally posted by leaf:

micro - images sell for $10.00 or less
macro - images sell for around $100-$5000

however this is just in general. There is macro stock agency images that sell for $10.00 as well, if the image is going to be used as a postage size in a print run of 100 (for example)

08/18/2006 08:20:38 AM · #88

Two weeks ago I applied at iStock. I got a reply yesterday and two of my three app submissions were rejected.

My lightbulb passed. I processed the heck out of the large version I submitted, and treated it rather violently with Neat Image. My submitted version is much improved over my challenge submission in the thumb below.

My Skywalk failed with the comment:
"Unfortunately this image contained unacceptable amounts of jpeg compression artifacts. Artifacts are most commonly caused by over-compression but may be a result of other factors. Be sure your camera is at its highest quality setting and remember to also save your JPEGs at the highest possible quality (level 12). For more information about over-compression or artifacting, please see: //www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.3_noise.php"

I re-edited my iStock submission from scratch and came up with a new version wich I thought was much improved over my DPC version.

My Stairwell failed with the comment:
"This sample looks like it has been rezzed-up / up-sampled (made larger than the original size out of the camera) and this has degraded the quality. If the original sharper, cleaner version is available please submit that instead. If the original is unavailable you may replace this image entry with an alternative sample."
I don't think I submitted a rezzed up version, I'll have to check. Probably out of luck on this one.

So, last night I submitted two entirely different shots. We'll see how they do.

Message edited by author 2006-08-18 08:22:02.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

08/18/2006 12:48:28 PM · #89

I'm pretty sure that the "jpg artifacts" rejection is a default they use when the reviewers can't be bothered to select the actual reason.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/18/2006 04:13:04 PM · #90

Originally posted by ganders:

I'm pretty sure that the "jpg artifacts" rejection is a default they use when the reviewers can't be bothered to select the actual reason.

Maybe they were concerned that the Skywalk is a structure needing a release? Or the Union Station label at the end of the hall could be a trademark? I did blur out the Hancook Tires text & logos on the banners.

I think I'm going to take a look at myloupe this weekend. It might be more well suited to more artsy shots.

MayaM

Canon EOS-50D

08/18/2006 04:35:41 PM · #91

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

FYI - since these are just your initial application images, they are mainly looking at quality. Istock is not big on over processed images (too much ni, too much color enhancement, and so on). But in the future, when you are accepted...istock does not go for just blurring out a logo...you have to remove it, and trust me they have eagle eyes when it comes to spotting logos and the like. You cannot blur a face either.

Maya

Message edited by author 2006-08-18 17:11:10.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/18/2006 06:58:49 PM · #92

Originally posted by MayaM:

Istock is not big on over processed images (too much ni, too much color enhancement, and so on).

Thanks Maya. Oddly, the one photo they did accept I NI'd to death. The other two weren't NI'd and quite sharp to my eyes. But I do admit that I'm at a disadvantage, as my laptop screen has an insane native resolution (I got it on purpose so I could work on many windows at once for exploration geology mapping), so photos are pretty small even at 100%. If I ever get serious about this stuff I'll have to get a bigger screen with larger resolution to plug in to.

MayaM

Canon EOS-50D

08/18/2006 07:51:33 PM · #93

These are just your application images, they still have to pass qc once you are acepted by a different group of reviewers. They probably cannot tell the amount of NI in the light bulb pic because it is not a busy photo filled with detail to begin with, but in pics where there is a lot of detail they are picky about too much smoothing AND too much noise, hard to find a happy medium. I have only had 35 images pass there as compared to close to 100 on other sites.

Keep us posted, good Luck!

Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Pentax

08/18/2006 08:18:19 PM · #94

Originally posted by MayaM:

I have only had 35 images pass there as compared to close to 100 on other sites.

Oh my, LOL! I guess they can be pretty fussy. 35% acceptance rate is pretty stiff, especially considering the cool stuff in your portfolio.

I'll keep you posted. Thanks Maya!

kris_photos

Pentax K10D

08/18/2006 08:57:16 PM · #95

I am just curious as to if people without SLR's have had success with stock photography. I have a S2 and I know my skills are not there now but I was just wondering if one day I become good is it possible to do stock photos with my camera...

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

08/18/2006 09:01:54 PM · #96

I've been doing some research into stock and was about to start a thread... good thing I found this first! The key question was the same... how is micro working out for those that are doing it.

I've been trying to build a portfolio for submission to the RM agencies, but was completely blown away by the quality of work I found on some of the RF sites recently (nico_blue is an excellent example). I also read that getty in using quite a few salaried photographers now to avoid the royalties. From what I could tell, RM is very good for a very small set of very talented photographers. Masterfile is a good example... they list their photographers and most of the portfolios are outstanding. It seems the bar has been raised all the way around.

I'm not going to debate if micro is good for photography or not... it's simply an aspect of the business that I need to deal with. After looking at the reality of the situation and the quality of the work going into stock, I think I'm going too have to lower my sites and try to be competetive on the micros.

Thanks for the great thread full of useful information.

Message edited by author 2006-08-18 21:03:38.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/20/2006 07:45:45 AM · #97

Got the okiedokie from iStock last night...

"Dear John (Strikeslip),

Welcome to iStockphoto.com, the designer's dirty little secret. Congratulations, the iStockphoto administrators have determined that your images are commercially and technically ready for iStockphoto.com. Please begin uploading at your convenience. There is currently a limit of 20 uploads per 168 hour period......." yadda yadda yadda.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

08/20/2006 09:07:42 AM · #98

I suppose that's one of the better Dear John letters.

08/20/2006 09:30:16 AM · #99

Oh No! I've let my real name slip! Now all sorts of DPC psychos are going to hunt me down! That's it, I've got to go into hiding.

*crawls under bed*