NOT a typical stock question.

[Mike_E]

I think that there is more to it than just skill with a camera. Especially in event photography.

Yes, the customer Not Only wants great photography but they also want the experience of having a Pro there, doing the work and being a part of the experience. It's not nearly as exciting going to a party and having a DJ as it is going to a party with a live band (even though the music may really be better). The customer and the guests alike want to be posed by a Pro- to be a part of the Event, and at the same time be at an event that is a Big Deal.

Not only do you get to make art with your camera, you get to do performance art at the same time.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

To be successful in any business you Firstly need to be a good sales person. Secondly - you need sod all.

 

[Big Mike]

To be successful in any business you Firstly need to be a good sales person. Secondly - you need sod all.

Well said

 

[Mike_E]

in english??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[_SnapShot_]

I'm really curious, because I always hear people talk about the "simple" way to make "lot's of money" from putting pics on stock sites.

Lets start at the beginning. Micro Stock is not the same as Stock Photography. Don't confuse the two.

Look in this thread. Sold 150 photos in 6 months. Whats that, $37 for all that work? You can shoot one photo a day and make that much, on that one photo selling it for $40.

Micro Stock is not easy, it's not fast money, it's only going to make you money if you are good and have 500 or more photos, good photos, on the 6 good sites.

You'll need to be an illustrator or shoot pictures with models to be one of the top Micro sellers. Go look at the people who make money at this and are good. They are very good. They have thousands of photos, with models. They take professional photos, with professional experience. You aren't going to sell snapshots to anybody.

The money is also based on the size of the pictures. Some sites will accept 4 mega pixel pictures, 6 is going to be the smallest that's going to look good. You should probably have a top quality camera or you can't crop. You'll need lighting and equipment. Most of all, you'll need to be very good. That means hard work and experience. Bigger size pictures sell for more money.

How much do you want to spend on lighting, lenses and a camera to make 25 cents?

Ask one of the experts with experience. There are over 1000 micro stock sites and only 6 that are any good. The good ones are refusing images because they already have enough of similar shots. Don't even think of taking pictures of your pet, landscapes, flowers or what may seem like some artistic photos. They are overloaded with those.

The good sites are not easy to get accepted, and when you do, you'll be getting rejections on many of your photos. Some are rejecting up to 80% of everything submitted. Another will reject your entire batch for one bad picture and has announced Zero Tolerance. Others will remarket your pictures and sell their collections to other sites and you get nothing unless that site sells them.

The people who make money on micro are very good, the other people who make money are the sites that pay you 25 cents for all your work. There are less then 200 people in the world who make a good living doing micro, maybe less then 100. But there are tens of thousands of people who take pictures and try to make some money, all for pennies a picture.

You don't get a payout until you make $50 in sales. Some sites it's $100. But the sites charge people for subscriptions and hold your money for months and months, maybe forever if you don't make the payout minimum.

Ever have friends that went to Las Vegas? There aren't many who come back winners, but you heard the stories of the big wins and all the money they made. That's because the people who lose don't come home and brag about how much they lost. Only the winners want to tell their story over and over. Same with micro. The winners can tell you over and over, how much they make, but the people who sell nothing or make nothing because they don't make the $50 payout minimum, don't go bragging about it.

There are thousands of people who uploaded to the Micro Stock sites and never made a dollar. If all those people would come out and admit it, you would see the hard fact that micro isn't easy money and maybe it's no money for hours, days or months of work.

If you still decide that you are up for the challenge, competition, rejection and the hard work it takes to be successful at micro, at least you know it's going to be a year or more before you start seeing the returns for your work.

Plan on having hundreds of top notch photos, and continuing to upload top notch photos, 10 a week or the well runs dry. You need to keep uploading to the sites or your sales will drop off.

There are people who make money and new people get in and make good money. Just be aware up front, that it's hard work and is not easy money. Many more people fail then succeed.

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of trying. Dare to dream. But also know what you are getting into, and what it takes.

 

[Alex_B]

This week I might be just about to sell an image via a "macro" stock site.

it is a site where you can negotiate the price with the buyers.

 

[pandinus]

I've never used a stock site, and propably never will. However, sometimes when people view some of my photos they ask for the selling prise. (A great compliment to me, the amataur...) I've sold a few photos, but never for more than I think reasonable. I photograph because I like to, and so any money I make from it is spent on eqipment and so on...

But this thread is quite interesting, just about half the photomagazines I read brag about stock photography. And you guys sharing youre experiance, makes me somewhat glad that I never signed on to any of those sights.... My photos would more than likely never sell...

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

The stock business is dead. Killed by the internet.

I would argue exactly the opposite. The internet made the stock business. The internet has created a huge demand for images. Online stock libraries have been hugely successful.

On the other hand, I know for fact that many buyers are using Google Images to source photographs these days. Cutting out the middle man. Or, even just stealing images.

I discussed this on another forum recently. A quick glance at my website stats reveals that around 40% of all new visits were referrals from Google Images (.co.uk/.com).

I know that many design/publishing studios find online stock libraries boring! All the images are selected on the same criteria. Advertisers are always looking for something new or, different. Hence, they use Google.

Many people are also using Flickr.

There is a problem with amateurs who are unfamiliar with the laws selling photographs on the web without contractual agreements, but ultimately the responsibility should fall on the buyer.

The stock business is changing, but it is still booming thanks to the internet.

 

[VJM]

Maybe I've been spoiled with decent payments from various magazines for image use as I can't imagine someone even bothering to sell a picture for $.25 .... how broke can you be ... or how broke are you going to be after you decide to attempt it would be a better question.

TWENTY FIVE CENTS ?!?!?!? Who are the people supplying images for less than a postage stamp ?? I can't imagine a company offering $.25 per image and actually getting submissions ...

 

[Mike_E]

TWENTY FIVE CENTS ?!?!?!? Who are the people supplying images for less than a postage stamp ?? I can't imagine a company offering $.25 per image and actually getting submissions ...

Some people would Pay $25 just to be able to say they have been published.

BTW, if you are going to sell commercially, charge by the hour.

 

[JHF Photography]

Lets start at the beginning. Micro Stock is not the same as Stock Photography. Don't confuse the two.

Ok, so if we're going to start at the beginning.... what is the difference between Micro Stock and Stock Photography? And what is Macro Stock vs. Micro Stock? I've never heard any of these terms (except the standard "stock photography").

 

[Alex_B]

And what is Macro Stock vs. Micro Stock?

I think macro was just introduced as a colloquial term since the thing called micro stock came up.

Anyway, there are stock agencies / sites where you get 80% or more of what the customer pays. Could be 20 up to several hundred USD per image. That is certainly not micro

 

[VJM]

[QUOTE

BTW, if you are going to sell commercially, charge by the hour. [/QUOTE]

When you submit images to magazines to illustrate articles , whether you sent them on your qwn accord or they were requested by an editor , they have a set price depending on how the pic is used ; front cover, center spread, 1/4 page / 1/3 page ...

 

[Mike_E]

OK, It still sounds like a pain. What few I've shot have been sold directly to the ad companies and I charge by the hour (works out to parts of a day in 1/4 day increments). I see, I shoot, I go have fun somewhere else.