Got accepted to iStockphoto....now what?

thenimirra

Just got the email yesterday that iStock finally accepted my application and my images and I can begin uploading now. It was my second attempt at trying. You can see the images they accepted on my blog.

http://pictureyourworldphotography.blogspot.com/2008/06/breaking-news-istockphoto-accepts-my.html

Here is my question: Does anyone have any more suggestions/tips/recommendations of how they have succeeded at stock photography? This is a new area for me.

Angelo

thenimirra wrote:

Just got the email yesterday that iStock finally accepted my application and my images and I can begin uploading now. It was my second attempt at trying. You can see the images they accepted on my blog.

http://pictureyourworldphotography.blogspot.com/2008/06/breaking-news-istockphoto-accepts-my.html

Here is my question: Does anyone have any more suggestions/tips/recommendations of how they have succeeded at stock photography? This is a new area for me.

I have several images on istock and I see occasional sales. i know others who do VERY WELL.

just keep adding images and keyword the HECK out of them so they'll be found

thenimirra

thanks for responding Angelo. I read that keywords seem to be very important for having people find your images.

Are you an exclusive member?

Angelo

thenimirra wrote:

Are you an exclusive member?

keywords are singularly the most important thing you could possibly do to direct people to your images in a search.

pick out an image, any image, from all the posts on this forum and I'll give you an example of the keywords I would apply if it were mine.

mercphoto

Angelo wrote:

pick out an image, any image, from all the posts on this forum and I'll give you an example of the keywords I would apply if it were mine.

I'll bite. Something about you knowing people who do very well on iStockPhoto made me really pay attention.



The details are this is a waterfall and a rock at Hamilton Pool in the Texas Hill Country.

Thanks!

Angelo

mercphoto wrote:

I'll bite. Something about you knowing people who do very well on iStockPhoto made me really pay attention.



The details are this is a waterfall and a rock at Hamilton Pool in the Texas Hill Country.

Thanks!

Hey Bill:

Firstly, I'll clarify that I know photogs and illustrators who do well in lower-end stock, not all on iStock.

Secondly, it's ironic you should be first to bite as I've taken a keen interest and appreciation for your stated positions in that thread about gay marriage. I've been meaning to post something there but here it winds up

OK, on to the image. If this were mine and I wanted the greatest possible exposure / hits my keywords might include:

water, waterfall, water spray, splash, rock, boulder, stone, tide pool, tide basin, cliff, shoreline, beach, fountain, foam, deluge, pond, geyser, green, brown, white

photocat

Keywording and quality of photographs are the most important. And post often, as to build up a strong portfolio. I have been with them since April of this year, and it has been a steep learning curve. But definitely a learning curve. I have gotten to grips with artefacting, noise, no clear focal point. I belong to Alamy too, and I must say that iStock is very very picky to their submissions. Another dog to chew on is their rules about copyright or possible copyright. They take it to the extreme. Idem ditto for model releases.
I have browsed their forums a while, and there is a lot of moaning and groaning about rejects, for all the above reasons.
I shoot Nikon, and have started using Nikon Transfer, ViewNX and NX for a faster workflow, I save as tiff before importing them to Aperture, from where they are exported to the formats Alamy and iStock want. Istock does not want any upsampling, Alamy does not accept files below 49 MB uncompressed, so shooting with my Nikon D300 demands upsampling. (Easily done with a preset out of Aperture, set pixel width to 5100 largest size and you are there).
Keywording is an absolute time eating occupation, I find that since I started shooting for stock, I spend a lot of time working on it.
It also helps to check out the files they need. They have enough flowers and flags... grin
Good luck! I remember I felt so happy the day they accepted me... A real achievement emotionally...
Between April and now I have sold two images, but with a total of 0.50 cent total, getting rich is not yet in sight. Alamy pays better, but has a larger photographer base, so the crowd you have to stick out from is bigger.

thenimirra

I'm definitely starting to see what everyone means. while I was accepted to iStock, Shutterstock rejected all of my entries, including the ones that iStock accepted. It's very confusing....

photocat

and O so easy to feel depressed when another reject comes in... You need a big ego and lots of self confidence, two domains that I lack at times... In the beginning, every reject threw me in a state of total panic.

mercphoto

Angelo wrote:

Secondly, it's ironic you should be first to bite as I've taken a keen interest and appreciation for your stated positions in that thread about gay marriage. I've been meaning to post something there but here it winds up

Thanks!

OK, on to the image. If this were mine and I wanted the greatest possible exposure / hits my keywords might include:

water, waterfall, water spray, splash, rock, boulder, stone, tide pool, tide basin, cliff, shoreline, beach, fountain, foam, deluge, pond, geyser, green, brown, white

Thanks again!

Sam

OK,

I have been reading this and tried to not respond. I failed.:cry

While I am not condemning anyone here, and I mean that, why on earth would you all stress out over whether some mini stock company accepts your images or not?

I mean except for the very few, who have portfolios of 10's of thousands of images, your gona get pennies.

I would rather throw away my photo than sell it for 25 cents. I wouldn't give my rejects away for 25 cents, not that anyone would want them.

It is a free, sorta, economy, so things like this will happen, but I believe this really does diminish the value of photography. I fully realize no one is going to stop this, but why would any company hire a photographer, except at a very high level, when they have access to hundreds of thousands of images for less than a cup of coffee?

Why would you put all this effort out for 50 cents?

I haven't been selling many fine art prints lately, but I did sell one last month, and as an example I would need to sell this about 600 times to equal one real sale. While this particular image gets a great reception, I have a hard time believing it would sell 600 times, and once I put it up for sale at these rates I couldn't sell as a fine art print.

Them's just me thoughts,

Sam

thenimirra

photocat wrote:

and O so easy to feel depressed when another reject comes in... You need a big ego and lots of self confidence, two domains that I lack at times... In the beginning, every reject threw me in a state of total panic.

I don't have much of that either and I was kinda down about the whole thing. So I've decided since I made it into iStock, I would keep getting better at giving them the kind of images they want. Once I learn the system, then it will be more likely that other images I submit to other stock agencies will be accepted as well.

And I've thought about things the same way you have spoken of too Sam. It seems to me that all of the folks I know who have made a successful go at doing photography full time have numerous income streams, including stock photography. I just thought getting into it would be helpful to me as well. But you definitely have a point about stressing out over a few pennies.

photocat

Why would you put all this effort out for 50 cents?

I haven't been selling many fine art prints lately, but I did sell one last month, and as an example I would need to sell this about 600 times to equal one real sale. While this particular image gets a great reception, I have a hard time believing it would sell 600 times, and once I put it up for sale at these rates I couldn't sell as a fine art print.

Them's just me thoughts,

Sam[/QUOTE]


We have different opinions on this Sam. Stock can be a nice adding to income with pics that otherwise would sit on a hard disk somewhere and be seen by nobody. My grandmother (who died 25 years ago) used to say very wise words: Those who do not honour the small are not worthy of the bigger.

Istock is about quantity and quality. You do need quality to make quantity, I used to be a single mom on welfare, so I do value 0.25 cents.

If you get enough 25 cents, you will get to 10.000 dollar too, it just might take a bit longer.

It takes courage I find to keep posting, and every phtograph that is accepted is a small boost for my ego, and I love the feeling.

You might be selling art prints for a good sum, but not all of us do.
Why can't we try to submit and get better photographers, as we do get feedback, and I think we all hope that one day an ad agency will find us and we will be lucky. If not, no harm done. They don't eat bread in the stock library, if they sell, good. If not, well, we tried.
It is better then having 20.000 pics a year just sitting on a hidden hard disk...

Sam

Photcat,

Your Grandma's words are wise, and I have great admiration for your efforts to get off welfare. Not an easy task.

I am not rich, and have to watch my budget.

I am not judging, nor condemning, just commenting.

Rights managed Stock images could be a good source of income. But micro stock? Why would any real photo image company, or agency bother with a photographer who values their work in pennies?

I would rather my images rot on my HD rather than sell them for $0.25, but that's just me.

Again These are just some thoughts on the subject, not a condemnation of you or thenirra. I truly wish you both the best.

Sam

Angelo

Sam:

First of all contributing members at iStock earn more than $0.25 per image.

Not only do I sell images there but I purchase a great many too. I respect people trying to break into the business and give them a fair shake every chance I get.

I purchased four images today for a brochure I'm designing and paid an average of $20 per image for which the artists will receive approximately $15.
That's more than you'd get from a print sale.

photocat

Sam wrote:

Photcat,

Your Grandma's words are wise, and I have great admiration for your efforts to get off welfare. Not an easy task. I am not rich, and have to watch my budget.
Sam

Yep Sam, my gran was a wise one. Tiny but great in words and deeds.
I got out of wellfare a long time ago, they were so happy to see me go as I was one of the ungratefull ones, who gave them a hard time when they were looking down on us... I could not afford a D300 if I still would be on wellfare.
I got out by bluffing myself into a newspaper and learn Quark on the job and staid there for 13 years till Mr Wonderful found me and married me. I am sooo off topic here...
I did hear you though, you are right, 25 cents is nothing, I am hoping though that the prices will get higher, I suppose the two I sold were small for web versions, who obviously don't go as high.

Angelo, I am so happy to hear that you can get more for a pic then the 0.25 as it did indeed depress me deeply. Maybe it is better to both have a smugmug account and doing istock in combination, to have the benefits of both.

I guess photography and selling it is all about being stubborn and never give up. Not to forget hard work!

I hope that all our little thoughts are helpful to the original poster, I would like to say to her: Keep trying! It will be worth it in the end.

Angelo

photocat wrote:

Maybe it is better to both have a smugmug account and doing istock in combination, to have the benefits of both.

When I was a kid, a loooooong time ago, my mother owned a small "candy store" (that's what we called them in the Bronx)... for every 1 person who came in for a cup of coffee and toasted muffin (about $1.00), 30 people passed out front and picked up a $0.10 newspaper on the way to the subway.

Where do you think the greatest profit was?

Good old fashioned economics tells us; take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves

kygarden

Well...SOMEBODY is making money on istock. Check out the most popular photos for the last 3 month period: http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php

11,000 sales of that photo of a girl and dandelion!!!??? Wow. You can certainly at least fund your camera gear purchases if you even get one great seller. The key is finding that one photo that sells very well. Business photos seem to sell the best and I am not in the position to take those kinds of photos with models, etc. I've done reasonably well for the nearly 1 year I've been on there for the effort I put in (which is not much!). My reasonable may seem like a waste of time for others. But at least it's better than my photos just sitting on my hard drive doing absolutely nothing but taking up space. I'm trying to focus more on print sales though these days.

Shutterstock shot me down big too even though istock took the photos Shutterstock rejected. Oh well.

By far, the biggest reason any of my photos get rejected is because of what istock considers "artifacts". For the life of me, I can't see the artifacts they speak of most of the time. I've got more artifacts than an ancient Egyptian dig site according to them!

Anyway, good luck. I'll keep adding photos on there (occasionally) as I get time and have worthy subjects. My other issue is I usually only shoot what's around me so having the right subjects for stock usage can be challenging.

P.S. You know you're a "stock" shooter when your kids gets a new motorized ride-on toy and you INSIST on making the kids ride it and smile BEFORE you slap on all the stickers they send with the rider that has brand names on it and so on....so you can take pictures... (if you've ever submitted stock photos that accidentally had brand names in them, you know what I'm talking about)

photocat

Shutterstock shot me down big too even though istock took the photos Shutterstock rejected. Oh well.

By far, the biggest reason any of my photos get rejected is because of what istock considers "artifacts". For the life of me, I can't see the artifacts they speak of most of the time. I've got more artifacts than an ancient Egyptian dig site according to them!

Anyway, good luck. I'll keep adding photos on there (occasionally) as I get time and have worthy subjects. My other issue is I usually only shoot what's around me so having the right subjects for stock usage can be challenging.

P.S. You know you're a "stock" shooter when your kids gets a new motorized ride-on toy and you INSIST on making the kids ride it and smile BEFORE you slap on all the stickers they send with the rider that has brand names on it and so on....so you can take pictures... (if you've ever submitted stock photos that accidentally had brand names in them, you know what I'm talking about)[/QUOTE]

---

O yes, the artefact thing got me too. I wondered how big they blew up the pics as in the beginning, I did not see anything wrong with my pics. After a while you learn how to see it, it is a habit to create to look at photographs at a true 100 percent.
I think that the brand name policy is horrendous. I had a kid holding a camera (fisher price) in front of his face, you did not see the kid. Yet I needed a model release, and after that one I got rejected because they knew it was a fisher price camera, even if I had carefully removed the brand.
I wonder if this is what companies want, that we don't photograph their stuff being used, as if I would be the children's camera producer, I would be chuffed that a kid is using it and a photographer shot it. I took a scene in Paris of the financial district with the high rise buildings with names of insurances (HELLO!!!! they want to be seen and recognized), yet the picture was rejected for "possible" copy right infringement. Drives me nuts at times.
Anyway, after a while you just don't post stuff like that anymore.
I had a box with pastel colors in the Montmartre quartier, with of course brand on the pastels, a big nope... They do take it too far I find... But then, with my 50 cents of sales so far, don't think they will care for my opinion.
I am in the same boat as you though, I think they could better be on istock then on an unseen disk... And who knows, we might one day snap a winner.
If I have one pic that sells 110000 times, I will go to Nikon HQ on my knees, a pilgrimage...

Sam

Angelo posted:

First of all contributing members at iStock earn more than $0.25 per image.

Not only do I sell images there but I purchase a great many too. I respect people trying to break into the business and give them a fair shake every chance I get.

I purchased four images today for a brochure I'm designing and paid an average of $20 per image for which the artists will receive approximately $15.
That's more than you'd get from a print sale.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

First I would like to preface my comments with the fact that I have the greatest respect for you, and no comments made should be taken as a personal slam on you. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/iloveyou.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Since this thread started I have gone to the istock site several times to learn more.

I have never seen such a whacked out convoluted non-liner backward non-system in my life.

I have no idea what a photographer would be paid for a photo. I can’t for the life of me figure out what an image would cost. It seems that the cost is relative to the alignment of the planets divided by the square root of the number of UFO sighting in Nova Scotia in February.

I also forgot, US currency isn’t accepted, you have to buy what they call their istock currency? Do the feds know there is a US based business that won’t accept US currency?

The very highest price / cost I could see was 20 credits which if I understand the conversion nonsense is somewhere between 24 cents, and 96 cents per credit. It further looks like it would take 16MP camera to meet the requirements of an XXL image. That means most of you will be offering the XL at a max of 15 credits. That looks like a sale price of between $3.60, and $14.40. How much of that does the photographer get to keep? My guess is it would be less than $15.00.

Also if $15.00 were more than I would get from a print, I would stop printing.

Sam

Angelo

Sam I never took your comments personally or demeaning! I consider you a forum buddy (where's that marriage thread again?)



you have to be a contributing photographer to access the rate scale.

as a buyer: you purchase credits either "pay as you go" or as a "subscriber"

the payout formulas are convoluted but fair and and based on the value of your "canister" (or piggy bank) which fills up based on several different formulas.

the payout generally ranges from 20% - 40% but you also earn benefits of their, sort of, co-op plan for subscriber system. You could earn as much as $26.40 for an image on a single download

http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

Sam

Angelo wrote:

Sam I never took your comments personally or demeaning! I consider you a forum buddy (where's that marriage thread again?)



you have to be a contributing photographer to access the rate scale.

as a buyer: you purchase credits either "pay as you go" or as a "subscriber"

the payout formulas are convoluted but fair and and based on the value of your "canister" (or piggy bank) which fills up based on several different formulas.

the payout generally ranges from 20% - 40% but you also earn benefits of their, sort of, co-op plan for subscriber system. You could earn as much as $26.40 for an image on a single download

http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

Would never work, who would be the wedding photographer?

Cool, do these guys work for the government?

I mean the highest price I could decipher was $20.00 for an XXL which is beyond most folks cameras, and they are willing to pay out $26.40??

Sign me up!!

All I gotta do is buy my own photo a thousands times each month. Yahoo!!!!!

Sam

photocat

I also forgot, US currency isn’t accepted, you have to buy what they call their istock currency? Do the feds know there is a US based business that won’t accept US currency?

---

That's interesting Sam, do you mean that we can never get paid in dollars?
Which would be a bummer first class.
What if you never need stuff from them, what use have the credits then?
(I am on the slow side with maths and calculating)

mercphoto

Sam wrote:

I also forgot, US currency isn’t accepted, you have to buy what they call their istock currency? Do the feds know there is a US based business that won’t accept US currency?

My electric utility won't accept US "currency" either -- no cash, even though the cash does state it is legal tender for all debts. Just checks or money orders. Shame on them, huh? Most businesses won't accept bills larger than $100, even though larger bills still say they are legal tender for all debts.

Angelo

oh lord! this is becoming tiresome




you use dollars to buy "credits"

each image is valued by a number of credits.

photogs are paid in dollars.

kygarden

For the record (since nationality came up), I believe iStockphoto is a Canadian company.

I just wish they'd quit having party after party for their photo inspectors that take them away from their job of inspecting photos...so they can reduce the ridiculous backlog of photos waiting approval.

Sam

mercphoto wrote:

My electric utility won't accept US "currency" either -- no cash, even though the cash does state it is legal tender for all debts. Just checks or money orders. Shame on them, huh? Most businesses won't accept bills larger than $100, even though larger bills still say they are legal tender for all debts.

While I understand your utility company may have a no cash accepted policy, federal law is pretty clear, (I think ), if one wanted to push the issue I believe you would win in a court of law, but of course why bother.

Sam

Sam

kygarden wrote:

For the record (since nationality came up), I believe iStockphoto is a Canadian company.

I just wish they'd quit having party after party for their photo inspectors that take them away from their job of inspecting photos...so they can reduce the ridiculous backlog of photos waiting approval.

With a little more practice those Canadians will be able to fit right in with our Washington DC crowd.

Sam

Sam

photocat wrote:

I also forgot, US currency isn’t accepted, you have to buy what they call their istock currency? Do the feds know there is a US based business that won’t accept US currency?

---

That's interesting Sam, do you mean that we can never get paid in dollars?
Which would be a bummer first class.
What if you never need stuff from them, what use have the credits then?
(I am on the slow side with maths and calculating)

Photocat,



While they do have a whacked out system that requires you to first buy credits, then use those credits to buy images. They will pay out in some type of real currency. Don't know how that works with UK, or other countries.

So not to worry you'll get your 50 cents.

Sam

Troy Raymond

I have been studying these site recently. Shutterstock requires a monthly membership limited to a certain number of downloads. Each download is 0.25 cents until you have made $500 then it jumps to 0.33 cents. I don't remember what happens after that.

I can also tell you just a couple weeks ago a successful microstock photographer team (2) released a downloadable book that lists details of what sells the best, how to keyword, etc. I am in no way affiliated with them but I did purchase the book and found it very enlightening. Their site is flash so I can't link directly to the page, just click on the books link at the top.

http://www.rindersmithphotography.com/

I am soon to try shutterstock as I've heard it's the hardest one to be accepted. I'll give them a go first, then try the rest.

This is an attempt for a suppliment income that does not require using fuel.

Troy

Sam

I went and took a look at Shuterstock, and at least I understand the terms, costs, and payouts.

A step up in terms of clarity.

Sam