Photographers Direct - Stock Photography

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/12/2005 09:16:54 AM · #1

Does anyone have experience with this company. It seems like it could be a good source for stock.

Photographers Direct

I am debating signing up, but you can't have any images in a micorpayment site if you want to sign up with them (they are trying to promote fair trade photography).... which means deleting a few images first.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/12/2005 09:21:27 AM · #2

Looks pretty new to me. According to this there is a pic up for license for $150, so it's not terrible money.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

07/12/2005 09:47:28 AM · #3

I saw this site a few months ago and meant to ask the same question, but forgot. It looks like an extremely solid site, with excellent principles and prospects. Testimonials are excellent.

Of particular interest was the ability of buyers to make requests: Buyers' Requests.

An interesting list if ever there was one - and very current, demonstrating a high level of throughput. I think that this may be the site for me to try and sell a few photos through. There are a few photos on the request list that I already have, or could take in short order!

leaf

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/16/2005 02:15:12 PM · #4

Anymore thoughts on this?

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/16/2005 02:25:23 PM · #5

Keep in mind this clause in their seller rules:

Because you will always deal direct with clients when selling images through Photographers Direct, we are non-exclusive. This means we have no restrictions on photographers selling the same images through other agencies. The only exceptions are micropayment sites such as istockphoto, canstockphoto, photograb, shutterstock, dreamstime - we cannot represent photographers who market their images on these sites.

Reasoning here (might be controversy for another thread): //www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/micropayment.asp

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

07/16/2005 02:27:47 PM · #6

Originally posted by kpriest:

...."take advantage of the naivety of amateur photographer".

Now that's rude.Most of the non-listed sites require a large megapixel image that most people may not be able to make because they don't have a dSLR or whatever.

To each his own.

Message edited by author 2005-07-16 14:33:53.

bod

07/16/2005 05:26:12 PM · #7

megapixels != professional

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/16/2005 05:58:32 PM · #8

"...take advantage of the naivety of amateur photographer"

I agree.

carlos

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/16/2005 06:36:11 PM · #9

Originally posted by deapee:

"...take advantage of the naivety of amateur photographer"

I agree.

Being an amateur photographer myself having a few cheapo-stock pics, I do agree too.

leaf

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/17/2005 02:23:38 AM · #10

Originally posted by kpriest:

Well I think they do make a point or two, however they do generalize and exagerate a bit to get there. I don't think they are saying anything offending or out of line tho. Everything is true, just a bit to generalize. There are also reasons that are true as to why people submist to penny stocks that they didn't mention...

LucidLotus

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

07/17/2005 12:17:15 PM · #11

I'd think the question people need to ask themselves is will using this particular service be worth it to them.

Will moving all of your files from all the different microstock sites and putting them on here generate the same or more income? Will you even be accepted or will you then have to resubmit every single one back to those microsites?

Is there a large customer base for this new site to support making such a change?

I don't have the image size/camera/equipment necessary to create images for the sites they don't mind you working with (I'm assuming Getty, Corbis, Alamy), so I can't determine if making such a change would be worthwhile.

I am getting slow but steady (and yes very small sales) on the microstock sites I'm a member of, but that's still something. If my shots are only "microstock worthy" then the likelihood of me seeing anything from this site would probably be nil.

Just my thoughts.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

07/20/2005 11:16:21 AM · #12

I have signed up with Photographers Direct. There are an impressive number of photo requests coming through the system (ie buyers requesting very specific photographs). There is also a weekly e-mail listing every search result on their database that threw up a nil search return. That is quite an interesting read for the kind of search terms that buyers are using, and the images that they are looking for. All that is absolutely free.

I have not submitted any photos to their search function yet, but I plan to. The pricing structure, averaging about $200-300 per picture sold, to a specific buyer for a specific purpose, is attractive. The commission of 20% seems reasonable.

I will let you know if I actually sell anything.

oOWonderBreadOo

07/20/2005 11:25:49 AM · #13

did you sign up as a photographer or stock source?

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

07/20/2005 11:37:38 AM · #14

The quality of photos on that site is very good...They also have a huge selection. I think I will try to get in here.

digitalknight

07/20/2005 11:43:10 AM · #15

Originally posted by LucidLotus:

I'd think the question people need to ask themselves is will using this particular service be worth it to them.

How could it not? I sold 140 images on one of the stock sites in about two months (sales were increasing the more I uploaded)

My "check" for 140 images? $28! If I just sold one photo a month for $100 (I think they are worth more) I think I could probably match my "income" from micro sites.

EDIT: added URL

In fact, here is exactly what I've learned,

//www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/micropayment.asp

That one page alone tells me these guys are worth looking into.

I know there are those who pay for new cameras with the sales from micro sites, but they could be earning a living selling the images at fair market value. I learned the hard way, micropayment sites do nothing but make money for someone else, and sell your hard earned copyrights for pennies.

Message edited by author 2005-07-20 11:56:03.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

07/20/2005 02:26:34 PM · #16

Both: simple registration procedure, hjave 10MB for displaying stock, get 5-10 e-mails a day with buyer requests for photos, and 1 e-mail a week with 500 or so nil returned searches. I should be able to put a few pics up, hopefully respond to a request or two (though they are very specific requests - may not be easy), and sell a few pics a year.

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

did you sign up as a photographer or stock source?

narcisa

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

08/05/2005 09:18:51 AM · #17

Hi :)

I read this thread and I have some questions:

1. I read on buyers direct they give some notes for the quality: 5-9 if I am correct. What does this mean? I didn't find information about photo sizes they require.

2. Did anybody registered with them sold any pictures? Does is worth - I am present on some of the microstock and I am not so happy, but because my camera - Eos 300 D- I have only 6,3 Mpx :( I am not so sure I could do on the "big stock photo sites"

10x for your time

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/05/2005 10:02:43 AM · #18

I have responded to some requests by putting some pics up (unlucky so far), and then started adding a few more. They grade the quality of your photo. If you consistently put up high quality shots they reward you with extra MB of space. Mine is growing. Going to try to add many more soon.
The requests can be cool! If you have access to certain things then you can go take them and put them up.
I shoot a D70 (6(something) MP and my photos are consistently 7-9 on the grading scale. My size for my normal shots are 3008 pixels on the longest side, which they say is just barely in the size for a 8.5x11ish photo.

narcisa

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM

08/09/2005 03:03:45 PM · #19

Good luck - I still stick to mictostock sites at least untill I learn more. Please post if you sell photos.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/09/2005 03:07:43 PM · #20

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

... My size for my normal shots are 3008 pixels on the longest side, which they say is just barely in the size for a 8.5x11ish photo.

3000 pixels @ 300 dpi (required for magazine-quality offset printing) is 10 inches.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

08/09/2005 03:43:54 PM · #21

I've signed up too...haven't posted any photos but am on the email list.

Has anybody seen any sales from this? It seems like a must for a serious stock photographer (which I'm not) as some serious graphic designers use this.

Just last week we got an email for a lady doing some sort of school textbook and had dozens and dozens of very specific image requirements listed...very cool, indeed.

alanspencer

01/05/2006 09:30:04 AM · #22

I've had a number of sales with Photographers Direct since I signed up over a year ago. I\'ve currently got about 1300 on line. Many in this thread have asked is it worth it? I would say definitely yes. Basically it is a free service (until you sell something of course-and then you pay a 20% commission +VAT in UK). The sales process isn\'t any more cumbersome than selling direct to a client so does not take a huge amount of effort and you set the purchase price. Basically the main advantages and disadvantages as I see them are:

1. Its free until you sell something (or you could sign up for the subscrition version and not pay any commission)
2. You set the sale price/negotiate price direct with buyer...
3. ...which provides you with good quality contacts (you know they\'re good because the clients (i) pay and (ii) pay a reasonable price.
4. You only need to upload low res Jpegs which is quick (no need to upload hi res files-although I think the latest development may be to permit hi-res upload so the buyer can download directly from the site)
5. The reward for uploading high quality images is that you get increased storage space. I currently have about 75Mb and am only using about 50 so plenty of spare to go.
6. The interface is very clean and perhaps one of the better ones on the web
7. You can see what sells

//www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp

where you can also see a client list

8. There are plenty of requests to keep the keen photographer producing what the clients are looking for
9. This is an extremely honest, photographer friendly and ethical site
10. Commission rate is only 20%. This must be the lowest in the business barring direct selling.
10. Regular emails showing nil searches allowing one to shoot and/or upload to fill gaps.

Disadvantages:

1. You need to be able to respond to requests quickly
2. You will not be represented if you already supply to micro sites
3. You do your own keywording
4. You need at least 6Mp camera
5. The image rating system is a little strange at times. If you get an image rating of 5 the chances are a client will never see the picture-but it does encourage you to raise your game.
6. You need to do your own negotiation with the client.

I would highly recommend this site. My sales have not been enormous in volume or price (typically £40 to £80 per image) but for the effort involved in selling it was well worth it. There have been plenty of sales reported in excess of $500.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Alan

oOWonderBreadOo

01/05/2006 11:59:55 AM · #23

thanks for the info. always good to hear what's going on. I have a problem holding back my better images sometimes when I know they could be selling but it's probably worth it in the long run...

Brent_Ward