Issues with Stock Photography....Need your advice and experience

[orljustin]

Try googling "stock photography crowdsourcing". I'm sure you'll find some articles about the rise of microstock.As the other poster said, you really don't seem to have a grasp on how this works.

 

[KmH]

From my research and speaking to people who do stock photography i have heard that you take pictures and send them to them. They then look at your submissions accept or reject them and then continue the process until you are deemed good enough for stock photography. They then monitor your photos and if they don't sell or get looked at they're pulled off the site. Am I correct or is it much different then this?

I take all that to mean you haven't even looked at the information the stock photography companies have on their web sites for anyone interested in submitting photos.

 

[Hockeystarz]

I read some articles. You are right the micro-stock photography industry is crowd-sourcing, but different then i thought. Getty images just taps into Flickr, which is an amazingly smart move. I still think there is a niche play in the industry. I have to think about the model some more and get back to you guys. Thanks for all of your help this is a great community.

 

[KmH]

Getty does a hell of a lot more than just tap into Flickr, which is a fairly recent strategy approach on Getty's part.

I would reiterate investigating the differences between RF and RM use licensing.

 

[imagemaker46]

I read some articles. You are right the micro-stock photography industry is crowd-sourcing, but different then i thought. Getty images just taps into Flickr, which is an amazingly smart move. I still think there is a niche play in the industry. I have to think about the model some more and get back to you guys. Thanks for all of your help this is a great community.

Seriously? Getty just taps into into Flickr. I should ask all the pros that I know that are being hired by Getty and have been shooting for Getty for years that all they do is tap into an amateur photo posting site. What Getty does is flood the market with both great images and real garbage. A typical NHL hockey game, Getty wants at least 10 images on the wire between the 1st and 2nd period, another 10 after the 2nd period and another 25-30 after the game, do you really think that hockey produces that many great images from every game? By the time the game is over and you're looking for the last 10-15, you're uploading the goalies in warmups. Getty is all about the quantity, they bought out or simply underpriced alot of really great agencies worldwide out of business, they hired average photographers that owned enough gear to do an average job and paid them peanuts, most of these guys were happy to take a $100 to shoot a pro hockey game, if they didn't do it, there were always 10 other guys standing there willing to do it.

I wish you the best in your stock agency ideas, but at least understand how the ones at the top of the food chain work.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Stock is dead, get over it.

And move on to some other aspect of photography.


Or should I say it is dead for the photographers? The so-called-agencies of today are still making money, I guess, but I can't imagine any serious photog looking at stock seriously. I used to do quite a bit of stock and it was a big chunk of income but that's history. And I'm not going to shoot for 25 cents a picture.

 

[Hockeystarz]

Stock is dead, get over it.

And move on to some other aspect of photography.


Or should I say it is dead for the photographers? The so-called-agencies of today are still making money, I guess, but I can't imagine any serious photog looking at stock seriously. I used to do quite a bit of stock and it was a big chunk of income but that's history. And I'm not going to shoot for 25 cents a picture.

Exactly that is what we are trying to change. There are ways to get this done with out the back agencies in the way.

Imagemaker 46 thanks for giving me some better insight into how getty operates. I don't believe starting a stock agency is the answer. There's a different business model that can work. I'm on to something, but ill run it by you guys when I get it going a little better. I think you will be pleasantly surprised with what my partners and I are coming up with. Thanks for your feedback.

 

[KmH]

Stock is bigger than ever, but the rules of the game have changed, and it's no longer a way for a photographer to earn a living.

 

[orljustin]

I think you will be pleasantly surprised with what my partners and I are coming up with. Thanks for your feedback.

I doubt it. I'm sure it won't be much different from 10 other sites trying to license images out there.

A typical NHL hockey game, Getty wants at least 10 images on the wire between the 1st and 2nd period, another 10 after the 2nd period and another 25-30 after the game, do you really think that hockey produces that many great images from every game?

I'm not really sure how breaking news photos applies to the kind of stock we were talking about. Or I assume we were talking about. The OP never told us what kind of images he and his friends have had no luck with that they deserve to be making money off of, but are just being shut out by "the man".

 

[imagemaker46]

I didn't think he was talked about the news side of stock, but he mentiond Getty and didn't have a real understanding of how they worked. c.cloudwalker is right about stock, I used to do pretty well in the film days/before computer days, when shooting solid images right out of the camera was what sold. There is now a larger stock market for computer generated photo assisted images. Good stock is still required, just not the way it was. I'm sure there are photographers out there still making a living at it, my guess would be they made most of their money in the film days, became well established, made a name for themselves and are working off that side, I do expect that they aren't making the money they used to.

If Hockeystarz has come up with something new, then good for him, I hope it works.

 

[Hockeystarz]

Thanks for the support and help imagemaker. I'll get back with our landing page and final idea soon, we're working hard at it. KMH, the rules have changed and we're looking to change them even more. There is plenty of great content out there not being tapped into. Would love if you guys could all give us feedback on the idea later on. Have a great day.

 

[orljustin]

There is plenty of great content out there not being tapped into.

There are plenty of outlets currently for all kind of content, good and bad. There is also plenty of content already being licensed, actually more than enough, good and bad.

What you mean is "there's a lot of content out there that people think is awesome and they should be paid for, but isn't really saleable and nobody really wants to pay for it".

 

[Hockeystarz]

I think i'm talking about the concept incorrectly from the photographers point of view. Yea, there is a lot of photography out there that can already be tapped into. I think there is better stuff that can be done for the consumer, that would lead them to more easily finding the exact image they need. The concept needs to be plated with but stuff can be done there.

 

[RacePhoto]

From my research and speaking to people who do stock photography i have heard that you take pictures and send them to them. They then look at your submissions accept or reject them and then continue the process until you are deemed good enough for stock photography. They then monitor your photos and if they don't sell or get looked at they're pulled off the site. Am I correct or is it much different then this?

I know the thread has gone further but what's quoted above is way off track.

You Apply for membership to some stock agencies and have to pass a test to be accepted. That's the best four or five. Personally after the top two, they aren't worth the time. Then AFTER you get accepted, you send photos for review, which are accepted or rejected based on commercial value, quality and what that site may think sells for their buyers. All sites don't want the same things. I don't know of anywhere that is culling old photos at this time, but it's a possibility.

RM is rights managed, Microstock does sell that and RF is what most of them are selling, which is rights free. (not free, but includes model or property release so the person paying for the download and license can use it) The prices of both of these are moving closer together, the old wisdom that there's some big money difference, is antiquated. Micro sites didn't used to sell Editorial, now they are promoting that aspect. Many of the old larger RM sites are finding they have stiff competition and are lowering prices, so the income from that will be dropping. Print media like newspapers are gettng heavily discounted image licenses from old RM agencies, because Micro RF has nibbled into their sales and profits. It's a jungle out there!

RF can get you 25 cents starting from ShutterStock, and in my opinion they are the best because they make the most sales, so bottom line, more money in the bank. iStock (owned by Getty) will get better license fees, but sells less for many people. Volume or dollars? It ends up close to the same. iStock has just started forcing it's independent contributors into ThinkStock which is competing with ShutterStock and is a subscription service paying 28c a download. At SS once you reach $500 in sales, you will get 33c a download, so again SS ends up better in the long run. The next agencies are a big drop, maybe half the earnings, for most people, of IS or SS. The others are cutting commissions, making more rejections and tightening their belts. There's one where basically everything is approved as long as it's over 5MP. Needless to say, they have low or no sales, because it's clogged with non-commercial images.

Flickr, I won't even post camera phone shots there. If it was a good one, someone will steal it in 15 seconds. The tie from Flickr to Getty is by acceptance and after that, limited submissions, which are also reviewed. Not easy.

It appears that people with 1000 images accepted, can make some income. Maybe $500 a year maybe more, it depends on what they shoot and how much need there is from the buyers. More unusual and marketable images, more money. Shoot apples isolated on white and you'll make much less. But both will sell. Some people claim the return per image is $1 per year. Some say they make $2 and that's with multiple sites. The more someone works and produces and builds a big collection, the more they will make from commissions, it's a matter of building.D

Does someone want to work four hours a day, making 15 new images a week? Edit, keyword, upload, investing time and money? Then have them reviewed, some rejected, and hope that in a year, you'll make $800 for a years work? Once a collection is built the sales of the good images will repeat, that's the whole benefit of MicroStock. Repeat sales, volume sales at low prices. It's not like traditional stock where you might sell something for hundreds, one time or have an exclusive RM license for a couple of years. Whole different party.

Buyers aren't living in a void, they know which are the biggest and best stock agencies. They know that after 15 million images, they can find pretty much anything they want on ShutterStock. Or that if they want single images from a collection with more business oriented shots, maybe iStock is the place? That's why the new sites, opening by the hundreds, failing every two years, have a problem. The two big established sites are reliable, well stocked and easy to deal with.

I've had my tag line for probably five years now ( Shutterstock :: Make money with your photos! ) and nine people have joined ShutterStock using my referral link. Not one has ever been accepted and uploaded one image, let alone sold one. It's not just a matter of taking out your P&S, walking around the neighborhood or shooting things around the house, and getting to be a member and make money. The people who do make good money from Micro, (Most of them, there are exceptions) work hard, hire models, do location shoots, have studio settings, use DSLRs often a Canon 5D or High end Nikon of similar standing, own some lighting, soft boxes, alien bees, reflectors, or much more than on camera flash.. Some are individuals, but many of the top earners have teams and run as a professional business, editors, submitters, multiple photographers. Some of the top shooters were professional photographers before they went into MicroStock. And then there are people like me who find it an entertaining HOBBY where I shoot something if I see it, or get an idea and don't care if it makes $1 a year or nothing.

There are people who depend on the income and are out of work graphic designers, it's not all photography. Stay at home Mom's or Dad's with free time and in fact, some nice free models! Oh be prepared to have model releases, property releases, and know your legal requirements for selling images, or what you can't sell! Yes, the web is full of free images, but many people thing the web is free and will "borrow" images from a site for nothing until you file a DMCA and guess what, once you have them take down the stolen image, you get nothing! Kind of like catching a shop lifter exiting a store and the penalty is, they give back the item. Not even, oops, I forgot and they buy it, they just hand it back and walk away. There's little protection for artists on the web, the way it is right now. SAD.

I'll close with the challenge for anyone who has any interest, even if it's just for fun. Follow this link, pass the test and get one image accepted. Not even make a sale, just get onto ShutterStock as a contributor with one image. Then come back and explain how easy or hard it is to make money with crowd-sourced images. Shutterstock :: Make money with your photos! I'll bet not one person can join, using the link so I can follow along as only NEW entries count, and get an image accepted.

Some critics say it's just snapshots and not real photography. Actually it can be more critical than shooting "art" and expression images. Technical demands are high, sharp, no artifacts, no CA, no noise, and after that it needs to be something that's marketable to buyers. First hint, don't even bother with shallow depth of field on your application images. High ISO, I don't think so. Heavily edit or filtered, hit the road Jack. No trademarks or logos and humans need model releases, even if you can't see their face.

Considering all this, you want to start an agency? You might want to investigate the competition and the hundreds of sites, losing their shirts, on crowd-sourced images. Just the same, you may want to open HockeyStarz Burgers in between a McDonalds and Burger King, with a Hardee's across the street. ???

 

[orljustin]

I think i'm talking about the concept incorrectly from the photographers point of view. Yea, there is a lot of photography out there that can already be tapped into. I think there is better stuff that can be done for the consumer, that would lead them to more easily finding the exact image they need. The concept needs to be plated with but stuff can be done there.

What, are you inventing keywording, or categories, or searching by color? The various agencies have spent years on searching. What eureka do you think you have that you've come up with in four days, that isn't out there?