Shutterstock.com experience

chris_arnet · Nov 5, 2007

Has anyone had experience with this website or any others like it? i was going to put some of my pics up there, but a couple of the final registration questions are sketchy. Really, it's just one. They want my credit card number, which im not worried about, but they want my activation code too, which bothers me.
Anyways, any help with this website at all (not just about the credit card thing), would be appreciated.

Chris

Oh, recommendations for other websites are gladly accepted too.

JerryPH · Nov 5, 2007

I know a few people that use Shutterstock... basically for every dollar they make selling your pics, you make about 10 cents. One person in particular that I know a little about personally has something like 5,000 pics there and receives about $20-25/month for all his work... some very impressive.

In general, you won't make much from there at all, as I understand it. You are competing against thousands of other photographers in pretty much the same areas.

As for what their needs concerning your CC are... I cannot help you but I do find it a little unusual as well. In my case, I simply have a separate CC that has an extremely low max value, low % rate and if something was charged on it, they could not squeeze over $150 on it. I use it for my internet purchases when needed. When I need more, I contact the CC company, let them know that I will exceed the limit and that payment was already made against it, and from what company.

The things we have do to protect ourselves nowadays. :grumpy:

sfgp · Nov 6, 2007

Chris,

Before you start using any sites like Shutterstock, I would urge you to
think carefully about it.

"The painful injustice of microstock sites can be seen from the July 23rd 2007 cover of Time Magazine (yes, that's right, Time Magazine). The cover has 3 images. One is credited to Getty Images, one to istockphoto. How much did the photographers earn? A conservative estimate would be that the Getty photographer earned over 1000 dollars. The istock photographer? 20 cents."

My $.02 worth.

_SnapShot_ · Nov 6, 2007

chris_arnet said:
Has anyone had experience with this website or any others like it? i was going to put some of my pics up there, but a couple of the final registration questions are sketchy. Really, it's just one. They want my credit card number, which im not worried about, but they want my activation code too, which bothers me.
Anyways, any help with this website at all (not just about the credit card thing), would be appreciated.

Chris

Oh, recommendations for other websites are gladly accepted too.

Sign up as a photographer not a buyer. You are in the wrong registration area. That's why they want your CC numbers and validation. As a photographer you only need a paypal account and photo ID.

Many people try to sell at these places with hopes of making money. When you get 20 - 50c per download and have 2000 good images up, you might make something.

http://www.talkmicro.com to read about it.

chris_arnet · Nov 6, 2007

_SnapShot_ said:
Sign up as a photographer not a buyer. You are in the wrong registration area. That's why they want your CC numbers and validation. As a photographer you only need a paypal account and photo ID.

Many people try to sell at these places with hopes of making money. When you get 20 - 50c per download and have 2000 good images up, you might make something.

http://www.talkmicro.com to read about it.

you can either submit a photo id or credit card info. i dont feel like scanning my passport.

Sideburns · Nov 6, 2007

you should sign up at photographersdirect.com if you can be approved. They pay REAL money for photographs.

Jestev · Nov 6, 2007

Sideburns said:
you should sign up at photographersdirect.com if you can be approved. They pay REAL money for photographs.

From what I can tell about photographersdirect is that you have to make the effort to submit your work for the individual things requested. The thing that makes stock nice and simple is that the customer comes to you. At photographersdirect you have to read all those application things to get to the customer.

travelster · Nov 7, 2007

I was a member of non-microstock sites for a couple years and sold only one photo. My photos are the best out there but they pretty damn good. I switch to microstock, including shutterstock.com, and have made a couple hundred in the past year.

Cheers,
Glenn
Designer of DBGallery: the Photo Database System
http://grrsystems.com/DBGallery
"Take control of your photo collection!"

Sideburns · Nov 7, 2007

Jestev said:
From what I can tell about photographersdirect is that you have to make the effort to submit your work for the individual things requested. The thing that makes stock nice and simple is that the customer comes to you. At photographersdirect you have to read all those application things to get to the customer.

Well ok. sell your art for 20 cents....
Just because you don't like the real stock websites doesn't mean its good to support the crappy microstock sites. Those sites are taking the money away from real photographers who know what they're doing...and devalues the work of a professional photographer....

(company) OH I know! We can get our cover for a dollar at shutterstock!
(guy) Great idea! We can then use it for anything else we want since it's royalty free!
(photographer) OH crap! I'm not making any money!

Jestev · Nov 7, 2007

Sideburns said:
Well ok. sell your art for 20 cents....
Just because you don't like the real stock websites doesn't mean its good to support the crappy microstock sites. Those sites are taking the money away from real photographers who know what they're doing...and devalues the work of a professional photographer....

(company) OH I know! We can get our cover for a dollar at shutterstock!
(guy) Great idea! We can then use it for anything else we want since it's royalty free!
(photographer) OH crap! I'm not making any money!

Did I say that photographersdirect was a bad thing? No, I didn't. I said that I can see why people find microstock easier and more efficient because once their work is up they don't have to really do anything.

I also didn't say I thought microstock companies were a good thing. I said they were simple.

chris_arnet · Nov 7, 2007

i have very much decided by now NOT to use shutterstock

i will continue to sell my work at local art shows.

Brian Harris · Nov 21, 2007

>Those sites are taking the money away from real photographers who know what they're doing...and devalues the work of a professional photographer....

When I read that I had a thought... what if stock photography (and maybe photography in general) today is of little value*? If digital cameras offer near-endless exposure opportunities, editing software makes it easier to compensate for poor skills, AND more people are producing photos, not to mention streamlined distribution provided by the internet, then the natural result would be a devaluing of photography.

Don't think for a second that I actually LIKE my thought. I just had it!

*"Value" in this context is defined strictly as market value, not artistic, social, personal, etc. value.

RacePhoto · Nov 23, 2007

I'll think you'll find some differences of opinion on the various methods for selling your photos. Personally, that's up to you.

Microstock you'll have to have hundreds of photos on at least the top six sites and work on the basis of volume. A good photo can earn upwards of $1 per site, per month. So if you want to take 200 good stock photos, and make $100-$200 a month for your work, micro isn't all that bad.

The idea is selling for less in volume, and the returns keep coming in, over and over.

There are detractors, who say you are selling out, and not getting what you should. In which case, you might try traditional stock (good luck getting one sale and getting something accepted) But when you do, you'll make the same for one photo as you did for the 200-2000 photos you'll need to make a consistent income selling micro.

So in this case you are banking on selling one photo, once, for a big payday. Your choice.

There is a third alternative, (and many more I'm not getting to) Sites that let you set your own price and they take a percentage for hosting your images, making your photos available and seen by potential buyers. The idea is that buyers come to these sites, to find photos, and wouldn't know you existed otherwise.

The sites below do not have reviewers and you manage your own photos, and set your own prices.

Mostphotos is one of them that's new to the market
http://mostphotos.com/index.php?referenceid=2382

Redbubble seems to be gaining some popularity, cards and photos and some other things like T-Shirts.
http://www.redbubble.com

Where the people who shout about one way or another, or claim you are hurting the market, don't "get it", is that there are not the same photos and photographers, in fact different subjects also, that are selling to different interested parties.

Someone with a website, isn't going to pay $50-$200 for a little photo. They can't afford that. They will download from a microstock site.

A big ad campaign, isn't going to find some 4 megapixel image from a microstock site, for $1, for their needs. They will need something shot professionally, or from a traditional stock site. Each has it's own place and levels of payment.

There's also MidStock, right between the other two. :lmao:

There's room for everyone.

Like I said, if you want to sell your own photos, at your own prices, try this.

Mostphotos http://mostphotos.com/index.php?referenceid=2382