Stock photography sites... Thoughts, opinions, recommendations?

tirediron · Sep 21, 2005

Several people have suggested that I submit some of my work to the various stock photography sites on the 'net. It seems like a relatively easy way to potentially make a few dollars, what do you think? How many out there have tried them, or use them on a regular basis? Are there any dangers, (assuming one reads and understands their agreements) or sites to stay away from? What sort of luck have those of you that have tried them experienced? Thanks!

fadingaway1986 · Sep 22, 2005

Hey there.

I am registered at shutterstock, dreamstime and istockphoto.

shutterstock I have about 68 photos on and have made around $4.80 (yeah, not much, but getting there.)

the other two are more a waste of time. Istock dont want to accept my photos. Dreamstime I only have 2 photos on cause the upload process is long and boring..

Shutterstock you can upload via ftp. So just drag and drop. and then go and fill in "details" afterwards.

I have heard that shutterstock have the best turn around on approval times - but I don't know about that. Apparently you need 7 of your first 10 photos there to be approved otherwise you have to wait a few months and try again. So only submit your very best photos first time round...

I hope that helps.

Now just to be really annoying. If you found that helpful, could you please click my link if you sign up with shutterstock, so I am your referrer? (that just means I will make 3c when you sell a photo. Lol - I'm desperate.)..

Link: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=2719

If not, oh well, it doesn't really matter.

Hope that helped you

darich · Sep 22, 2005

I registered on Photograpersdirect.com a couple of months ago. I've got around 70images uploaded and just made my first sale.
This image has been bought by a company in Germany for a calendar with a run of 5000.
125Euros which is about £85....not bad for a first sale!!!

Costs nothing to upload unless you opt for the subscription service to avoid paying commission.

cbay · Sep 22, 2005

Yes, i think its a great idea, but i believe that you need quite a few stock photos to start with to start a good steady income...

SLOShooter · Sep 22, 2005

I suppose it's alright, but a lot of artists feel that it depreciates the value of their work, and yours.

Also keep in mind that Stock Photography is not Art Photography. People that browse thoose sites are looking for pictures of buisness people, buisness items, backgrounds, yada yada yada, so don't expect pictures of your mom to sell well.

tirediron · Sep 22, 2005

Thanks for the input! Directphoto is the one with which I have registered (although I've yet to submit anything). Interestingly they are very opposed to istock and similar sites... (From their site):

Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on micropayment sites?

Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Micropayment sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 3 dollars) take advantage of the naivety of amateur photographers.

The only people who benefit from these sites are:

The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers' livelihoods.

The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like.

The people who lose out every time are the photographers. Every photographer I have spoken to on this issue has expressed regret at placing their images on micropayment sites. Initially they are excited at people taking an interest in their images and paying for them. Of course they like the fact they are making an income from their images, but here are the facts:

The average fee for an image licenced through Photographers Direct is 200 dollars, of which the photographer will receive 160 dollars. This is for a single usage licence, NOT a Royalty Free licence. The same image can be licenced again and again for similar fees.

To make the same amount through a micropayment site you will have to sell anywhere between 200 and 800 images. These images can be used anywhere at any time and cannot realistically be traced. You are not 'selling' your images, you are not 'having success'; you are giving away your images, and the buyers cannot believe their luck.

Imagine the day when you see one of your images on a book or magazine cover. You will probably be very happy and proud, until you realise you earned one dollar from an image that is helping to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing sales. Is this fair?

You will also have ruined the future sales value of your images. Because there will be dozens, if not hundreds of copies of your images floating around, you will be unable to realistically sell them in future. If any agency knows you have sold them through a micropayment site the chances are they will not want to touch them. How can they licence an image at a normal fee if there are hundreds of copies floating around which were bought for a dollar?

You also will not be able to sell the images as Rights Managed. Imagine if a corporation approached you and wanted to use your image for an advertising campaign. They ask you where the image has been used before because, of course, they do not want to use an image that has been used by a competitor. What do you tell them? All you can tell them is that you have no idea where it has been used before.

Further damage is caused because any buyer who uses a micropayment site will begin to see it as the norm. Whenever they get a normal quote from a photographer for an image, their response will be 'but I can get images at microwhateverstockphoto for 1 dollar!' Where does this leave the photographer?

For these reasons Photographers Direct cannot represent any images which have been on micropayment sites, and we cannot represent photographers who have any images on these sites. This is part of our Fair Trade policy.

Click to expand...

Not sure if I agree with the comment about it deprecating the photographer's work.. I suppose it depends on one's approach.

Nikon Fan · Sep 22, 2005

Great link Darich...I don't really care for stock photography much b/c of the lack of pay, which is to be expected, but this site looks pretty cool. I may give it a try...

darich · Sep 23, 2005

thanks eromallegadnama

i figured i had nothing to lose by posting image on photographers direct since it costs nothing to upload and nothing for them to hoset images. I was also constantly being asked what i was doing to sell my images.
Looks like it's paid off a bit quicker than i thought it would. I've only been on photographers direct a couple of months and I've sold one image for around £85. I've also got a few further possibles which could pay wquite handsomely if they come up trumps!!
:thumbup:

cristiaciobanu · Mar 14, 2006

I think you can't get rich by doing stock photography. But if you want to try it here is a web site that contains information about stock photography agencies and also a list of stock agencies: http://stockphotography.uv.ro/en/indexen.html
Good luck!

dappleyard · Apr 9, 2006

There's a new stock photography site getting ready to launch soon it would seem - www.ourstockworks.com. Looks pretty nice, I got a preview account a couple of days ago and have been impressed so far.

darich · Apr 9, 2006

ourstockworks.com
My first impressions are that the text is very small to read and therefore maybe difficult to navigate.
I also noticed that they sell "from £20". It looks like an inflated version of the micro stock sites that are talked about on here.
With a commission of 50% going to the site it seems quite high although i know other places charge similar or even more.
PhotographersDirect only charge 20% commission. You can opt for a subscription membership and pay no commission if you get regular sales.

My initial thoughts are that ourstockworks is another micro site that charges very little and undersells photos.

I'm open to be proved wrong though

mentos_007 · Apr 9, 2006

yeah but PhotographersDirect require the pictures to be very very big... so analogue - mostly mediumf ormat and bigger... and digitals... from 6MP... ehh not for me...

darich · Apr 9, 2006

mentos_007 said:
yeah but PhotographersDirect require the pictures to be very very big... so analogue - mostly mediumf ormat and bigger... and digitals... from 6MP... ehh not for me...

This is a quote from the PD site

NOTE: If your original digital images are LESS THAN 3000 PIXELS long then they are INSUFFICIENT QUALITY for printing. DO NOT UPLOAD LOW RES VERSIONS. If you do, your account will be deactivated.
35mm film can be scanned at 4000dpi to create digital images of 5500 pixels longest side, so 35mm film is as good as a 5500 pixel long digital image (if your original is 35mm film then put 35mm film as the original rather than the pixel length).

It is very easy to submit an analogue image as long as it is scanned as described above before hand.

Admittedly i've got an 8.3mp camera and previous to that a a 6.3 so I've never scanned an image for submission but they are accepted.

They're required to be big because unlike the micro sites the images are sold on for a decent price so the quality has to be worth the money.

Incidentally - I have nothing to do with Photographers direct other than submit photos so I'm not plugging the site for my own gain. Anyone who does decide to join or use them will not be paying me any sort of percentage or cut.
I just hate to see someone selling shots for £20 or even $0.2 when they could be sold properly for several times that amount.

Paul_the_6th · Jun 19, 2006

I'm going to look into Photographersdirect. There was a review/article about "Making a living from selling your photos on stock sites" in digital photography magazine last month. They made it sound really easy and like you could hand your notice in straight away to become a freelance stock photographer.

On the flipside, most of the forums I've found through google and my own personal favourite (tpf) it seems that the micropaysites are alot less easy to make a living with than first thought.

Photograpersdirect.com seems the best option. If you have several images and sell one in 3 months for £50, isn't that better than selling the same image around 50 times and ending up with £2.85?

Also, I like the idea that you can negotiate your price with prospective buyers. This will allow you to build a better relationship with customers and find out what they really want. Then if you're planning on making serious money from stock photos, atleast you can aim more towards what buyers are looking for.

I've got a LOT of trips/stuff planned for this summer so I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to submit a couple of the images and see what happens over the following months