earn money from your photos

[danalec99]

When I posted my images at istock, my intention was not to put bread on the table. I was merely a freshie (I still am pretty much). But over the period, if my skill level happens to get any better, and if I want to earn serious money from stock, I will be positioning my products from firms like Corbis, getty, ipn, comstock etc. Ever heard of any big time advertising companines (Y&R, saatchi & saatchi...)buying from ".20 stock agencies"? Ever heard of TIME buying from .20 companies? I have not heard, thus far. And I don't think Corbis is threatened by any of these .20 stock companies.
If I think my work is top-notch, my next step would be to seek the platform that would sell my work at a premium. If they reject my portfolio, it just means that I'm not good enough yet (according their market standards). I will have to work hard until I have a Porsche to offer. The .20 companies simply serve a different sect of the market. Those who have Porsches should not worry about that market.

 

[GerryDavid]

And if a pro is on istock, they probably just upload thier 2nd's that are not so good that would normally just be collecting dust on the hard drive. And keeping the great shots for the pro stock companies.

The majority on istock probably cant get on a real stock company at this time, so this is a good way to improve your skills.

 

[Rob A]

you speak wisely!! :thumbsup:

 

[Rob A]

how would i contact a real stock company? i mean i know at the moment im nowhere near good enough, but just for far future referance? would i email them a portfolio or send it to them or ....

thanks!

 

[Artemis]

I believe doing local free work will get me known yes, and I am now, ive been asked a few times to do some pics, and have joind a sub photography group (As head photographer) who are going to do weddings and stuff...

Plus...is I stock for under 18's?

 

[danalec99]

how would i contact a real stock company?

::
Get this for starters. The market is much broader than the stock.

::
Corbis
Comstock
I don't have the links to similar pages in gettyimages.

::
Get registered with Blackbook. It is on the desk of all the big time Talent seekers.

I'm sure there are plenty more links related to this which I am not aware of yet. I hope someone here could help you.

 

[Rob A]

excelent!! thanks danalec!! :thumbsup:

 

[danalec99]

YW

 

[danalec99]

is I stock for under 18's?

I'm not aware of any age or country bar. But you might want to email ([email protected]) their Customer Service personnel before you sign up.

 

[ksmattfish]

These type of sites, while may be legit at making you a few bucks, devalue the entire market. Not only to you cheat yourself, but you make everyone trying to make a living suffer.

I agree. $0.20 is a joke for image usage, but unfortunately it's a sign of the times with the digital revolution. As photography gets easier, and there are more photographers, and the bar gets lowered as the market floods. I suppose if an amateur has never gotten a check in the mail, then $100 seems like a lot. Of course if you are going to pay taxes on that income in the states, you can take 40% away from that right away which turns it into 12 cents per image use, and I can't imagine making a living on that.

Point-n-shoot digi cams have spelled the demise of the photographer for the local newspaper too. Why would they pay for both a reporter and a photographer, when the reporter can just snap a shot for the story with his cell phone? It's too bad, because as I watch the old photogs from my local paper retire, I've noticed a serious lack of interesting photos in the paper.

Art is valuable, and a common problem with all sorts of artists is that they devalue their work. Personally I feel like I'm giving commercial interests a heck of a deal when I allow single usage rights to an image for $200.00. 20 cents pays for just over 1/3rd of a sec of my time at my minimum commercial rate, and according to the photogs I look up to, I'm still too cheap.

 

[metroshane]

Absolutely.

Let's expand this into a value thread since we're talking about it. People often think that if I charge $200 for an hour of work, then I'm getting paid $200 an hour. Not true. First, I shoot with a 10D...and while it's not top of the line, I have about 5k tied up in the body, various lenses, flashes, lighting kits, etc. So there is maintenance cost, depreciation and most importantly liability cost. What if I drop my camera shooting a $.20 job? Not worth it. What if it gets stolen while I'm shooting somewhere.

Next we have transportation to lug all this equipment around to various locations. Electricity to power 600W lights, strobes, battery recharges, etc. Taxes. Medical insurance...something most jobs incorperate into a pay scale. Liability insurance in case something happens at a shoot....someone gets hurt, I damage something, etc.

Most people have no idea how to value the things I've listed and therefore they undervalue themselves. You CANNOT stay in business this way. It's impossible unless you're independantly wealthy and don't mind a massive leak in your bank account.

So let's see. I make $200 for an hour shoot.
$80 to the gov (hey I'm a business now, got to pay extra taxes).
$6 for health insurance (yep, no group plan here)
1.20 in gas
.20 electricity
$5 depreciation of equipment (lamps are expensive, so are computers)
$12 liability insurance so I don't get sued if a light falls over on someone...even if it is thier fault.
$5 various supplies, CD-R, postage

That's not mentioning the things I'm forgetting like years of study and practice. And I only wish I were booked every hour! :roll:

 

[GerryDavid]

Your making it sound like once you sell the image for $0.20 you cant ever sell it again. :0) There are people on istock that have had thier picture downloaded 500 times, at say an averge 20 cents per download thats $100 from the one picture. And they usually have other pictures from that series on there as well. A few on istock make a very good income, but most dont.

I think it comes down to do what you want. If you want to do istock and are happy with what your getting paid, great.

If you dont like the pay and you dont wnat to do it, then dont do it. No one is forcing you.

If a company wants an average picture, they can use istock. If the site is a low budget thing, they probably cant afford a $200 stock image.

If your a big company and you want quality, they probably go to corbis or a company known for quality.

I think were just going in circles here, heh.

 

[metroshane]

You're right about selling an image mulitple times, Gerry David..that's why I wanted to discuss value as a whole as it relates to the professional photog...not the amatuer that's selling his hobby surplus.

But also don't forget one other thing...the company that's paying .20 for your image is making money from it.

 

[ksmattfish]

Everybody should feel free to place whatever value on their work that they want, but I'm telling you, I don't care how much of a newbie you are, if your image is worth selling, it's worth more than $0.20 for commercial use.

 

[danalec99]

The market knows whom they need, which is why I say there is no reason for worry.

Say for my sister's wedding, I'll have two options when it comes to hiring a photographer:
1. Hire a top-of-the-line- PJ who charges around US$5K and above (leather album and all the frills inclusive).
2. Hire a newbie who is building his portfolio. His fee - US$900 (album of 4x6).
(This is merely a hypothetical scenario, and obviously there are more options that these two)

My point is, there will ALWAYS be a crowd for Option 1 as long as mankind is there. I cannot even comprehend the idea that digital newbies who undervalue their work would affect the business of the likes of Joe Buissink, Bambi Cantrell, Dennis Reggie or a bunch of the pros listed here. The market is too smart for that.

Peace