stock photo libraries

[fmw]

I used to make 4 figures per month on stock photos when I was a pro and shooting a lot. I don't think it is a good way to make a living exclusively, but it can be a welcome income supplement.

I don't understand the issue of driving down prices for pros at all. Stock photos and what commercial shooters like me did are two different things. Stock photos are decorations for magazine articles and things like that. Commercial shooters shoot exactly what a client needs whether it is a shot of the interior of a factory for an annual report or product shots for a catalog or a print advertising campaign - or portraits for a newletter. You can't buy those kinds of images from a stock agency because they are specific to the client. I can't remember ever being paid to go shoot a pretty sunset or a wild animal for a commercial client. If they needed that sort of thing, they went to a stock agency. Two different things for two different purposes.

 

[juno444444]

Thanks, that's useful data - I heard the debates as well. I can only take pictures when I have time and I have to make do with whatever my location might be at that moment. I can't do anything on assignment. So maybe "microstock" is for me.

 

[kRiZ cPEc]

just gone thru the post and didn't see anyone mention 'photolibra'--so I would love to hear comments from anyone who are now members of that stock company.

As for the keywording issue, I have a question, say how to make sure that what key in are truly strictly relevant to the photos? :blushing:

 

[rzymuone]

One Price for One Universal Size - Vectors or Photos.

Only A Dollar Each. - For Buyers

50% Commission. - For Contributors

We've Just Started.

http://www.OnePricePhoto.com Team

 

[photomaker123]

Here you will find all details about how and where to sell photos on internet or in your town !

http://www.how-to-sell-photos-online.com/

Best Regards!

 

[MGHNOW!]

I used to make 4 figures per month on stock photos when I was a pro and shooting a lot. I don't think it is a good way to make a living exclusively, but it can be a welcome income supplement.

I don't understand the issue of driving down prices for pros at all. Stock photos and what commercial shooters like me did are two different things. Stock photos are decorations for magazine articles and things like that. Commercial shooters shoot exactly what a client needs whether it is a shot of the interior of a factory for an annual report or product shots for a catalog or a print advertising campaign - or portraits for a newletter. You can't buy those kinds of images from a stock agency because they are specific to the client. I can't remember ever being paid to go shoot a pretty sunset or a wild animal for a commercial client. If they needed that sort of thing, they went to a stock agency. Two different things for two different purposes.

I would agree with what you are saying, except not all companies/people use stock photography as it should be used. Some use stock photography when it is not at all appropriate, just to save money. This is the type of behavior that can hurt the pro photographer.

I work at MGH (an advertising agency) and we recently wrote a blog entry on this topic. We use stock photography for objects, landscapes, etc., but always prefer using a pro (if our clients can afford it) because the pro will always give us the exact shot we want.

 

[Village Idiot]

There's two different types of discussion going on here, rights managed stock and micro stock.

The down side to micro stock (minus getting nearly zilch per picture) is that it's royalty free and not rights managed. Who ever buys your photo can do what ever they want with it. If you upload a great picture of your son or daughter it could end up in hustler advertising condoms or in some huge multi-million dollar add campaign for Nike. Plus if you sell an image this way, you can never license it exclusively to any other outlets.

Rights managed stock is agencies like Getty. They don't take just any photos and they're definitely more professional. They sell images with licensing agreements and such. Sales are for much higher dollar amounts but are fewer than micro stock agencies.

To me, one of the two feels like selling my soul to the devil for pocket change. Just my opinion.

 

[MGHNOW!]

There's two different types of discussion going on here, rights managed stock and micro stock.

The down side to micro stock (minus getting nearly zilch per picture) is that it's royalty free and not rights managed. Who ever buys your photo can do what ever they want with it. If you upload a great picture of your son or daughter it could end up in hustler advertising condoms or in some huge multi-million dollar add campaign for Nike. Plus if you sell an image this way, you can never license it exclusively to any other outlets.

Rights managed stock is agencies like Getty. They don't take just any photos and they're definitely more professional. They sell images with licensing agreements and such. Sales are for much higher dollar amounts but are fewer than micro stock agencies.

To me, one of the two feels like selling my soul to the devil for pocket change. Just my opinion.

:hug::

That's exactly what we mention in our blog about this issue.

The way our clients see it, there is an inverse relationship between image quality and price.

If you pay for micro stock (or "royalty free"), it is dirt-cheap but could also end up being used by anyone else. This can have disastrous consequences depending on how the image is used.

If you use rights-managed, the stock agency can make sure that certain people aren't able to use the same image, but it might not be the exact image that you wanted. Obviously this is a little more expensive.

The best option (if you can afford it) is to use a pro, because they can give you the exact shot that you want. But this is also the most expensive...

 

[Mav]

Don't give your stuff away for virtually nothing on the royalty free sites, and don't undervalue your work. If you ever want to get serious about your photography, giving it away for free today ruins the marketability of it tomorrow. Just say no.

 

[ripley74]

Hi everybody!

I sell between 50 and 200 pictures on different micro stock agencies, it makes me a monthly income around $50.

You can have all the details on how to sell and everything else you should know on http://www.sellstockimages.com/

I have learn with that guide... It helps me a lot

Ripley

 

[majordomo]

With their subscriptions models, your income can go down to just some cents per image. The big decision is, if you want to use a managed or a micro stock agency. First are more difficult to get partner with and you need high quality images to apply usually. With iStockphoto, fotolia etc. it's very easy to bring your images into the market, because they live mass before quality. We have 4 Million pictures ... we have 4.5 ... we have more picutures ... we have more customers ...

If you can earn let's say $50 for an image with a managed agency, you would need to sell the same picture 20 to more than a 100 times in micro stock agency (depending on the payment model) to get the same income! If you have a mass of okay to good images, use the micro stock agencies. If you have some extraordinary images which you don't want to spread for some cents, than maybe better try a managed agency to get a good money for them.