Stock photos or commissioned photos?

[chrisv2]

For a project I'm working on, I'm trying to figure out if it makes sense to hire a photographer or to use "stock photos". Shutterstock, for example, sells "packs" of 25 stock photos for $1700.

I need "service industry" photos: doctor's office, landscape service, auto repair, accountant office, lawyer office, etc.

There's probably no way that hiring an independent photographer would come close to that price point, is there? I realize that one huge benefit from the commissioned work would be uniqueness.

 

[tirediron]

It depends on how many images you need, how complex the shooting, time, etc. As much as it pains me to say it, given the wide range of topics, it might indeed be cheaper to go with stock. The other big advantage to hiring a pro is that you can direct him/her, so not only will the images be unique, but they will be tailored to your specific requirements.

 

[Braineack]

istock is roughly $30 for 3 credits -- that's what a "signature" level photo would cost. So that would still only be roughly $825 for the photos you need.

I cant imagine hiring a photograhper for less, and being able to have them shoot where/what you want.

 

[chrisv2]

I'll have to look at istock. My requirement is for re-use across an unlimited number of replicated websites; once you go "unlimited template use" mode with these places you usually end up in a different (more $$) set of terms and conditions...

I don't want to totally cheap-out here but I was thinking maybe this is an opportunity for a hobbyist photographer as well; the pictures don't have to be perfect; I am pretty good at getting around in PS myself, if needed...

 

[Braineack]

yeah, youll have to buy an extended license for that.

 

[Dave442]

I would go with stock photos for such a variety. Especially if you have a tight timeframe for the shots. I could hire a photographer for this, but would probably budget about $3000 to get final images that may require a reshot or two. The good thing with stock photos is you have a licence to use the photos, otherwise you need to make sure the photographer you work with is going to provide images that you can use commercially (property and model releases). If you have your own Location Manager that can set up the shots and get permits/releases so the photographer can just go to shoot then the photographer fee would be a bit less.

 

[Designer]

Since I've never bought or considered a "pack" type purchase, I'm wondering how many of the photos will be actually what you want? Do you get to select the pack or do they?

 

[Ornello]

For a project I'm working on, I'm trying to figure out if it makes sense to hire a photographer or to use "stock photos". Shutterstock, for example, sells "packs" of 25 stock photos for $1700.

I need "service industry" photos: doctor's office, landscape service, auto repair, accountant office, lawyer office, etc.

There's probably no way that hiring an independent photographer would come close to that price point, is there? I realize that one huge benefit from the commissioned work would be uniqueness.

You could probably get such photos through a stock agency. They sound generic.

 

[dennybeall]

Just the administration for the photographer, finding the different offices and getting permission and scheduling time to shoot, would cost more than your budget.