stock photo sites

TallyHo

Hi,

I know smugmug is going to get into stock photos eventually but im curious if anyone has used sites such as alamy ?

Im thinking i'd like to give it a try but want to know what experience (good and bad) people have had with them.

Thanks

rdlugosz

Alamy is a good place to get started. They've recently introduced some improvements to the intake process which allows you to upload images (previously you had to mail a CD!).

They also do not attempt to edit your work outside of purely objective criteria. That's more important after we talk about...

Photoshelter Collection - this is a relative newcomer to the space, having launched just late last year. I'm not sure how many images they've sold, but they certainly have a pretty nice interface for uploading, categorizing, and keywording (it even deals with words that have two meanings, i.e. "Film" - is this a noun as in a "roll of film" or is it a verb as in "to create a motion picture").

I think they're on track to become a very solid service, but it certainly remains to be seen. ALSO, they have a fairly rigorous image review process that may be a turn-off to some contributors... The criteria is very much subjective in nature; they want images that fit certain style characteristics and will reject those that don't fit.

It's just two different styles and you can certainly contribute to both. Alamy has a search ranking system that intends to move less popular images toward the back out the results while Photoshelter intends to cut out the "bad" images up front.

***

I would very strongly recommend that you stay far, far away from the "micros" - iStock, et. al.. There is a lot of hype surrounding them & they showcase their (few) all stars who have made a decent return. However, spend some time reading the more detailed analysis from folks like Dan heller and John Harrington (I think they've both discussed this) and you'll see that the only people who win in microstock are the image buyers and the stock library. The photographers and the photography industry as a whole get the short end of the stick.

A couple of other thoughts:
* Stock is a long term investment. You can expect fewer than 10% of your images to sell in a given year & even less until you build up a library of 1000-3000 (good - from a commercial stock sense) images online.
** Incidentally, this is why folks get stuck on the microstock thing: instant gratification! Typically your images will sell a lot faster and more frequently... sometimes within days of uploading! Rest assured that you're much better off selling an image once for several hundred or more dollars than to sell an image 50 or 60 (or 1000!) times and only get a buck per sale.
** Popular people in the photo world, in particular Scott Kelby, heavily advertise iStockphoto. This is a shame because I otherwise have a ton of respect for the empire that Scott has built around Photoshop training. At the end of the day it's all about getting paid, I guess, but he's doing a great disservice to the people that he's trying to educate.

* Keywording is the most important thing to learn. If people can't find your images then you can't sell them.

* You should look at what is selling in the style that you like to shoot and note a few things: are your images up to snuff? is there room in this market for your style? does your style "fit" with what sells in the stock industry?

* The industry is changing quite a bit. I don't believe there are a ton of "full time" stock shooters any longer - I think the trend is more toward using it as a supplement to your other shooting income.

* At one time I think Smugmug mentioned something about getting into the stock space... not sure if anything ever came from that.

I guess that's about all... there are a lot of good reads out on the net if you do some searching.

chuckinsocal

I Don't Understand
Many of the stock photos I've seen appear to be professionally staged, utilize models, professional lighting, etc. all of which require a fair investment of time and money by the photographer.

How in the world does the photographer recover his investment and make a profit by selling these photos for $1 or so apiece on the stock sites?

I'm obviously missing something. It's strictly academic to me, I'm just curious.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

rdlugosz

chuckinsocal wrote:

Many of the stock photos I've seen appear to be professionally staged, utilize models, professional lighting, etc. all of which require a fair investment of time and money by the photographer.

How in the world does the photographer recover his investment and make a profit by selling these photos for $1 or so apiece on the stock sites?

Bottom line is that they probably don't. If they are spending money on these shoots they're likely subsidising it via other income... probably that of their full time job.

If you're selling stock you should steer clear of the micros and stick to places like Alamy or Photoshelter who will actually pay you a significant (65% for Alamy) portion of the selling price - which by the way is a real licensing rate (a far cry from the bargain basement prices you see on the micros).

Sooner or later someone will probably chime in about how great they're doing on a microstock site. If they're actually able to produce some revenue numbers v. time & expense that truly shows this "success" then I'd be all ears. ...I wouldn't hold your breath though.

Angelo

chuckinsocal wrote:

Many of the stock photos I've seen appear to be professionally staged, utilize models, professional lighting, etc. all of which require a fair investment of time and money by the photographer.

How in the world does the photographer recover his investment and make a profit by selling these photos for $1 or so apiece on the stock sites?

I'm obviously missing something. It's strictly academic to me, I'm just curious.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

Chuck:

There are many "stock" sites where licensing fees run into the thousands of dollars.


.

sunxsweet

can you post the same images at multiple stock photography sites? ie - both alamy & photoshelter?

scottV

I may take some flack but I am a big fan of the microstock model. It is easy to get a start with stock photography where traditional RM agencies are certainly not easy to break into. Most people are hush hush with their earnings but I am willing to share some stats in the interest of the dgrin community. With a modest portfolio of ~450 images, only a handful of which I consider to be particularly good. This year i've had 663 downloads so far, averaging $1.45 per. Sure it would be nice to make $300 on a single download from alamy but I suspect I would average less than one per month. If anybody who is actually doing it can step up with some numbers as well that would be helpful, I have not yet seen any.

I read harrington's blog regularly and he certainly rails on the microstocks plenty but maybe he should focus on canon & nikon for providing afordable cameras that are capable of creating great images. Or the internet & communities like dgrin who help us all to improve our skills, why should we be left out of the elitist stock club. It's simple supply and demand that is lowering prices, and the supply of quality image makers has increased a thousand fold in the last 5 years.

I can't currently locate the article but within the last few months one of the macro agencies (possibly jupiter?) released some stats for their photographers and they were pulling in something like 40 cents per image per year. With a portfolio of 10,000 images that would be nice... but if I am able to double that figure in a single month with one microstock as a part time hobby thing then which is really better for the photographer?

In the end if your images are good then you shouldn't have a problem selling them anywhere, so do what feels right, but don't discount the micros before you've tried them out, you might like what you find.

/backs into the corner with flame-proof suit.

quark

As much as we photographers might dislike the micro stock agencies I am afraid they are staying. I have many friends in the graphic design biz and they all use istock because of the price and the fact that they can find images that meet thier needs.

The whole photo industry is changing and eventually I am confident that quality will be rewarded with an appropriate price. In the meantime the supply and demand curves are out of wack.