NOT a typical stock question.

neea · Sep 8, 2007

Ok.. So every so often we see questions about what sites are good or bad for selling stock photographs.

I have a new question!!!!!!

Ready??

How many of you, if any, have actually sold some of your work through a stock photo website? Have you sold more than one? Two?
I don't really need to know which site exactly, although if you're willing the info would be great.

It's just that it seems there's so many people wanting to know how and where. My self included. But I've noticed that other threads aren't very helpful.

I guess my main questions is.. is there a hope on earth that people could sell their pictures or are we all wasting our time (and yours with repeated questions).

I know I tried submitting stuff before and nothing was excepted. I noticed that anything 'landscape' 'floral' 'sunset' was so over done that it felt like the company I was submitting to was basically saying 'listen, we get 1000000000 landscapes submitted per day. we dont need yours but thanx anyways'.
It seems the trick is to do something 'new'.

Thanx

Iron Flatline · Sep 8, 2007

The stock business is dead. Killed by the internet.

jstuedle · Sep 9, 2007

Iron Flatline said:
The stock business is dead. Killed by the internet.

Ditto, and no.

neea · Sep 9, 2007

Iron Flatline said:
The stock business is dead. Killed by the internet.

Makes sense.
And thank you! Hopefully now when people want to ask stock questions they will search (haha. if only) and find this thread and save them and everyone some time.

:hail:

JHF Photography · Sep 10, 2007

jstuedle said:
Ditto, and no.

So what did kill the stock business? Could you elaborate on it's death?

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.

Big Mike · Sep 10, 2007

A lot of people talk about it...more likely, it gets talked about because 'newbie' photographers think their photos are nice and want an easy way to make money. The reality is, it's just not that easy.

If anyone wants to make money with photography, it's probably much easier to sell their services & expertise then just prints to the general public.

shorty6049 · Sep 10, 2007

i sell stock. me and a friend were going to do a challenge of sorts where we'd see how much stock we could upload and sell. He's sold 11 or 12 since the beginning of it (about 3 weeks ago maybe?) but i've only sold 2. I have 12 files online, he has almost 80. I have also sold photos previously on stock sites. BUT i probalby wouldnt recommend it because you recieve VERY little money for each photo sold, and its probalby more of a waste of time than anything... if you have a LOT of very good and high demand photos, you could possibly make some money on it, but for most people, its not that great..

phakimata · Oct 2, 2007

If you are talking about selling Macro-stock, it's very hard to get in, because they only except the elite photographers. Micro-stock is actually the way to go. I have been selling for about 6 months now, and without putting any effort in it I have sold more then 150 photos. Sales are going really well, and are increasing monthly.
In this case I use http://www.dreamstime.com, because according to a recent publication in PDN where they compare many stock agencies and income, http://www.dreamstime.com came out as the fastest growing agency, and also pays out the most. These agencies might not pay much per sold image, but the fact that you sell each image over and over again, the income is very good, and it will allow you to buy more equipment etc.
There's a link on my site to the complete article that was published in PDN here: http://hakimata.com/index-stock.html.

I hope this is helpful.

Cheers!

--
Hakimata Photography

VJM · Oct 4, 2007

I've submitted stock ( specific subject ) for 15+ years to agencies in US and the UK after a few years breaking into it by selling directlly to magazines. I did well taking into consideration the small subject matter I shot ; it paid for all my trips and equipment / supplies over the years. I still sell to the same magazines that gave me my start as they still request my stuff.

There was a big drop in stock sales last year and very few sales this year ; bad enough I don't count on it as additional income any longer. Checking in with other friends who shoot a much broader subject matter than I do, said the same thing ... sales are way, way off and these guys who have done it for many years before I did, think stock is dead also.

I also had a small pet photography business going which was a spin off from my other and it too went down in flames since Pet Smart does it for $9.99. Besides that, everyone and their mother own digitals and camera phones and doing their own which is " good enough " ...

I thought when the digital thing caught own things would be even better but it's been the opposite . I'm hoping / wondering if something will break and things get good again as it was a great way to get paid for having a great time :>)

Unless you were submitting to a stock agency , I can't imagine how anyone makes money at photography unless you did weddings - something I have a ' minus 10 ' interest in doing or sells to the National Enquirer

Yeah, after over 15 years of doing this like I did, the situation is a tough pill to swallow.

Big Mike · Oct 4, 2007

It sounds like 'selling images' is getting harder and harder. The money is in 'selling the service of photography'.

TheLostPhotographer · Oct 4, 2007

Big Mike said:
It sounds like 'selling images' is getting harder and harder. The money is in 'selling the service of photography'.

What service is that then?

Big Mike · Oct 4, 2007

Well, for example...if someone hires (me, for example) to shoot a wedding...the cost might be $1000...and that doens't include any actual photos. That cost is for my time and expertise of taking the photos (and, my time & expertise of editing). If they actually want to buy photos, it's an additional cost.

On the other hand, you could shoot the wedding for free and sell them the photos for a large price. It's just a matter of how you look at it.

Also, the same could apply for portraits. The sitting fee is the cost of showing up and taking the photos...prints are extra.

This could work in a commercial setting as well. If a company wants a photo of their product, they hire you 'as a service' to take the photos. Sure, giving them the photos is part of the product...but they could have taken a photo themselves...what you are selling is your expert service as a photographer.

When you are selling images, like in a stock scenario...it's more about selling the photo. It's already a finished product and the 'service' is already done. Maybe the cost of the service is built into the price of the print...but maybe it's not.

Johnboy2978 · Oct 4, 2007

I think BigMike is referring to selling your photographic services e.g., wedding photography, senior portaits, family portaits, etc. Being able to produce a high quality image of special events still nets a good income provided you have the skills to have others continue coming to you for your services.

sorry beat me to it

TheLostPhotographer · Oct 4, 2007

Big Mike said:
...

When you are selling images, like in a stock scenario...it's more about selling the photo. It's already a finished product and the 'service' is already done. Maybe the cost of the service is built into the price of the print...but maybe it's not.

That's what good stock shooters sell.

Good wedding photographers sell good wedding photographs. There is no service when it comes to selling images. They're either good or, bad. The service is all about being a good provider.