I don't want to get involved in the constant argument about this, but I'll offer a couple of alternatives to consider.
Non-"micro" Stock agencies:
* Alamy
* PhotoShelter Collection
Both of them charge reasonable rates for usage and pay out a significant percentage to the photographer. Also, while both support sales of Royalty Free (RF) images you can also choose to sell as Rights Managed (RM) which commands a higher price.
You're really kidding yourself if you think you can "make money" at iStock, et al. Considering the time that you'll spend uploading, keywording, and captioning each image versus your potential payout & it just doesn't make sense. While there are some folks selling a ton of images and making maybe $100k (before tax!! this is not a lot of revenue!) they are *by far* the exception!!!
*** Also consider that the folks selling all these images are submitting very marketable images that they're certainly not producing for free!!! Even if they are, you likely cannot: they must have access to some friends who are willing to model, provide locations, etc.
Justifying this so that you can "pay for the cost of your camera gear" makes about as much sense as taking a job that pays an extra $10k but requires you purchase a new car to get there.
You could more easily pay for your gear by spending the time you save by not uploading and keywording 100's of photos per month and focusing on marketing your services as a photographer. If I can pick up just one more shoot it can mean $1k or more in additional revenue (much more if its a wedding) --- how many photos would you need to sell on iStock to cover that?
...Or, as another alternative, perhaps I would pick up a web design gig for a few $k. Read on to see where I'd likely source my images (if I couldn't get the client to bite on original production & licensing!)....
There are THREE Groups who benefit from iStock:
1. iStock shareholders (though they've been crushed with the decline of Getty's stock... the guy who developed & sold iStock did pretty nicely though!) 2. Designers & Art Directors, since they can now get things that previously cost hundreds of dollars or more for just $25 or so. 3. Scott Kelby, et al. - As much as I appreciate Scott's accomplishments and respect his business accumen, I cringe every time I see that iStock commercial during his shows. He's a photographer - he knows better but is taking the profits instead. Were I in his position I'd likely do the same, but that doesn't make it right.
NOTICE THAT "PHOTOGRAPHERS" DON'T MAKE THE LIST.
When starting this post I didn't mean to get as involved & rant, but it just flowed that way (insert FloMax/Prostate joke here).
If microstock is what you want to do you're more than welcome, but given that this is intended to be a Business Forum I must say that I cannot seem to find a viable scenario where a photographer can make this a profitable venture - or at least one with an NPV greater than that of alternative initiatives you could pursue.
I guess I don't understand why this conversation need be so cantakerous. Nearly all of the instructors I've taken classes with here locally have made good money from stock photography and have gotten contacted from advertisers who later used more of their work based on what they submitted on these stock agencies.
I'm trying to look at this more long term and keeping all of my options open and diversified. A couple of weeks ago, someone was decrying why ANYONE would upload images to Flickr and how useless Flickr and other sites like it are. That's not true...as this very week, I got a random call from a pregnancy center in California who just stumbled upon a pic of mine I had on Flickr and paid me exactly what I asked for to be able to use it for a one-time promotion.
It's about getting yourself out there anyway you can to the public...whether they find you on Flickr, Smugmug or iStock, isn't it? Why would I want to limit the way people can come in contact with me?
I guess I don't understand why this conversation need be so cantakerous. Nearly all of the instructors I've taken classes with here locally have made good money from stock photography...
No, the stock industry can be profitable, though less so than in the past. It's specifically the microstock industry that I'm referring to above.
Also, I'm not trying to be "cantankerous" - you asked for advice on how to be successful (which I presume to mean "profitable") in stock photography. I'm just offering advice that microstock is not the way to be successful (as a photographer).
It's about getting yourself out there anyway you can to the public...whether they find you on Flickr, Smugmug or iStock, isn't it?...
True, kind of. With Flickr, Smugmug, etc. you are presenting your work for others to see & it can be something of a marketing vehicle for you. However, with iStock you're putting your stuff out there for sale at a bargain-basement price. While you *might* have someone contact you for a special shoot, I wouldn't count on it. If they found you on there selling something similar to what they needed... what will they say when you quote a price that's 10-30 times higher for custom work?
The other thing to remember is that once you put a photo out there as RF it is forever RF.... while you can still sell it to others with different terms or prices, you cannot garauntee that no one else is using it in a similar way (including their potential competitors).
I guess I don't understand why this conversation need be so cantakerous. Nearly all of the instructors I've taken classes with here locally have made good money from stock photography...
Sheba:
I think it's quite possible you are doing the best things of anyone. You're putting yourself out there and getting results.
I think too many people, inexperienced in these matters, equate "stock" with "junk" and that of course is completely untrue.
The issue with iStock is that it's a bargain basement source but when you shop other sites, such as Getty, you're purchasing excellent images from top-notch photographers.
I mentioned early on in this thread that I sell on iStock but I do so under a nome-du-plume rather than my real name (not that I'm such a hot shot photographer)
In my opinion iStock is a great place to push your lesser images with little effort.
As a creative director / image purchaser, I agree with "rdlugosz", at iStock I can download images to my heart's content at about $4 a pop for layouts and backgrounds and never feel any budget busting pain.
Would I select most images as primary for an important ad or brochure? Most probably never.
sorry rdlugosz, I didn't mean to point any fingers at you being cantankerous...I'm just talking about this thread in general turning so argumentative.
I think you bring up some great points regarding the difference between microstock and stock....I need to do some more reading up so I too can understand the differences.
The issue with iStock is that it's a bargain basement source but when you shop other sites, such as Getty, you're purchasing excellent images from top-notch photographers.
It seems that the people who are against iStock don't seem to understand this point. Not all stock is of same quality. Not all customers need top-quality. So some people buy and sell Chevy's, and some people buy and sell Mercedes. And I have yet to hear Mercedes complain that Chevrolet devalues the automobile.
I mentioned early on in this thread that I sell on iStock but I do so under a nome-du-plume rather than my real name (not that I'm such a hot shot photographer)
.
That's a good idea. I do think photographer selling on istock risk the stigma of offering cheap product.
Just a quick question though, how do you get paid? For example, how would you cash a check made out to "John Smith"?
I think it's quite possible you are doing the best things of anyone. You're putting yourself out there and getting results.
I think too many people, inexperienced in these matters, equate "stock" with "junk" and that of course is completely untrue.
The issue with iStock is that it's a bargain basement source but when you shop other sites, such as Getty, you're purchasing excellent images from top-notch photographers.
I mentioned early on in this thread that I sell on iStock but I do so under a nome-du-plume rather than my real name (not that I'm such a hot shot photographer)
In my opinion iStock is a great place to push your lesser images with little effort.
As a creative director / image purchaser, I agree with "rdlugosz", at iStock I can download images to my heart's content at about $4 a pop for layouts and backgrounds and never feel any budget busting pain.
Would I select most images as primary for an important ad or brochure? Most probably never.
Angelo, Angelo,
I just spent 15 minutes cleaning coffee off my monitor, keyboard, desk, and bills, and car registration. (For real)
Yes it's your fault. Look for the cleaning bill in the mail.
I can't believe what you wrote. Tell me it ain't so.
You have been a staunch defender of the micro-stock issue, stating that you were not just a user of micro-stock but that you sold there as well.
Then you come clean and admit you don't use your real name???? I'm stunned.
I guess I am just old fashioned, and out of date. Maybe I should start signing my posts with George?
George
No wait! I'll only sign with George when I am ashamed or trying to hide what I have done.
Then you come clean and admit you don't use your real name???? I'm stunned.
You are really, really, really over-reacting to this entire thread. Including the psuedonym part. It is not uncommon for creative types to use them. Happens in literature all the time, as just one example. And lots of times sole proprieterships are setup in a name other than their real name (i.e. Mercury Photography is not listed on my birth certificate).
I just spent 15 minutes cleaning coffee off my monitor, keyboard, desk, and bills, and car registration. (For real)
Yes it's your fault. Look for the cleaning bill in the mail.
I can't believe what you wrote. Tell me it ain't so.
You have been a staunch defender of the micro-stock issue, stating that you were not just a user of micro-stock but that you sold there as well.
Then you come clean and admit you don't use your real name???? I'm stunned.
I guess I am just old fashioned, and out of date. Maybe I should start signing my posts with George?
George
No wait! I'll only sign with George when I am ashamed or trying to hide what I have done.
Sam
George, George, George
Welcome to the 21st century Somehow I think we'd always still know your posts belonged to good ol' Sam.
I do what I do because if and when I ever advance to the level of photographic skill that would allow me to sell fine art prints I wouldn't want anyone to associate my name with the crap I have on iStock
That doesn't change my position that stock agencies, even low quality ones, serve the arts community well.
You know some of what I do in my daily life is product development and packaging. Some ot the things I work with are health and beauty products; bath lotions, moisturizers, etc.
Trust me when I tell you of the 4 laboratories I interact with regularly, three formulate, package and label product for many different brands from very cheap drug store brands to the highest rated names in the industry. In this case the old saying "never judge a book by its cover" applies backhandedly, all the product I speak of is essentially the same crap with differnt colors and names.
Some people shop at WalMart, some at Neiman Marcus, but every once in a while the NM buyer chooses to go to WalMart for the sale on detergent.
not to dredge up an old topic but does anyone have any experience with 'Color-Pic'. They've shown interest in my images and its a "non-exclusive agreement with a 50% commission scale." So that seems reasonable right?
But they also say they're in need of sports photos. And I have a lot of kart and motocross racing photos. A quick search for "kart race" shows a lot of bad, bad photos. But any decent kart is going to have stickers on it and I think that means I can't put up for sale most of what I have, at least not without extensive Photoshop'ing to get rid of the logos. A few examples that I think would be prohibited:
I don't know about istock directly however, at Dreamstime where I sell stock I either have to photoshop out the logos or sell the image as editorial which is a different type of licensing. I would see what istock says about editorial images?
(just my little tid bit for all the back & forth controversy. I bought my pro account here with stock sales $$. To me microstock photography is very different from what I promote personally ie...brochure, flyer, web -very broad basic images v.s. personal photo shoots, lg print landscapes, nature shots and specific campaigns. When I am out and about or shooting something I have two thought process going -microstock or art /specific. I would not set up and spend time only shooting for microstock - some do and make money that way, personally I don't. Also I like to open different avenues and see where they go-microstock has worked for me with images that wouldn't necessarily be used elsewhere and I am following that to see where it leads - in one year selling stock this month I haven't seen a downfall of money -have seen some though and haven't seen any negative of selling micro. Does it stop companies from hiring for a shoot or cheapen images? Maybe, but it is out there and not going away so I think I need to be open, test how it works and take part of developing it if I can).
Amanda It is never to late to become what you might have been. www.behindthezoom.com
Istock photography will not accept anything with a brand name or logo. Not even if it defies all the odds.
Everyone knows that bikers, motors and car sports have numbers and names on them, yet it has to be cloned out. I have been with istock since april, have so far sold 8 images and earned 8 dollar.
For that 8 dollar I have to keyword every image, make it as good as possible, upload it, which is all very time consuming. They have a very random system of accepting, and they have some very famous rejection reasons.
No clear focal point, bad pixel colorization, they just seem to look for a stick to beat a dog.
I find them becoming more and more photographer unfriendly, they seem to forget that the photographers are their long life.
I shoot with a Nikon D300, most of my submitted pics get accepted by Alamy, most of the submitted to istock come back. I don't even bother anymore to resubmit. If they don't get in the first time, after all the time and effort I put in to get them up, I can't be bothered.
It is very frustrating, it seems all they want are those nice, crisp, clean studio shots, with white backgrounds, they are not interested in documentary photography.
I will never tell anyone to try to submit to istock photography because they are so utterly unreasonable...
There is a lot of moaning and groaning on the forums, a lot of their members are very very unhappy.
Try Alamy or another company that does editorial...
Has anyone actually done research into how much they actually get paid for the amount of work they put into it?
I am talking per hour. It just seems to me the average rate on this might be about .10 cents an hour. I am going with Sam on this one. Seems to be much effort in little return.
Has anyone actually done research into how much they actually get paid for the amount of work they put into it?
I am talking per hour. It just seems to me the average rate on this might be about .10 cents an hour. I am going with Sam on this one. Seems to be much effort in little return.
I can say from my experience..I don't put alot of time/effort in it. I shoot when I am out and about or already shooting something. (not extra time there) I download off my camera - when I am doing regular downloads from my camera. (Not extra time there). When I am going through what I shot I might see one to upload for stock- I take it to CS3 do very minor tweaking - if it is covered in logos with banners behind it I wouldn't of considered it as too much involved for final image - I probably wouldn't of taken it with stock in mind at all- then save to my stock flash drive, upload and keyword. If english wasn't my first language then keywording might be a challenge but it really isn't. I might go back and upload a few more keywords here and there as I think of some.
That is all...I check couple times a week to see downloads/solds and request payouts - few minutes if that spent there.
It doesn't seem to be as time consuming to me as alot want to make it. It could be if you made it - just as anything could...
Amanda It is never to late to become what you might have been. www.behindthezoom.com
I am also going to add my stats currently from my site-so I can give real info..I upload whenever- not so many per month so I don't have a huge portfolio or presence. (Very Small fish in a big pond) I have 130 uploads, 84 sales, my current avg price per sale this month (Oct) is $1.36 and in past months end of month avg price per sale has been up to $2.62. I am one year this month. I also rec. .20 per image uploaded since I am exclusive- I do that as I don't want to spend alot ot time uploading to multiple sites.
For the amount of time I put into it I see a return -as I mentioned in previous post I don't let it take alot of time.
Once the images are up the stock site I don't have to do anything...so litterally I could stop uploading for all next year - have no time involved in it other than a minute or two to request payouts and still see close to the above mentioned returns.
Not trying to defend micro or push in any way just putting out there my exprierience in it.
Amanda It is never to late to become what you might have been. www.behindthezoom.com
That is all...I check couple times a week to see downloads/solds and request payouts - few minutes if that spent there.
It doesn't seem to be as time consuming to me as alot want to make it. It could be if you made it - just as anything could...
I am shooting in raw, so therefore have to post process a little bit, but the keywording alone takes up a lot of time. I would say that per photograph to upload I spend around 10 minutes per pic.
That is after all the tweeking is done, if needed. Alamy is less time consuming as you only keyword them after they have been accepted, no lost work here.
Istock makes its photographers do a lot of lost work. Lately they also have started turning pics back to people because of bad or wrong keywording. Istock IS time consuming, and for 50 cent a photograph hardly worth any work put in. I was very keen and enthousiastic when I started, but for now, they totally disgust me with their unreasonable demands. The cloning tool is the most important tool if you believe them... Their people copy right possible infringements date back to the middle ages.
If you for instance take a shot of a priest from the back, no way of seeing what, how old, who, you don't even see if it is a catholic priest or an orthodox, you need a model release. If not, too bad, not accepted.
There are a lot more complaints then good posts on the istock photography forum...
You are lucky or a truly gifted photographer if you can send them your pics straight from the card...
What is your secret? Tell us so we can all enjoy your effort less working with istock photography... ;o)))
I have had it with them!
As I mentioned I can only speak about the stock site I work with which is Dreamstime and in the beginning when I was uploading there was a curve for me to learn what was "acceptable" to them. They are the same as you mentioned with model releases, images refused for "composition" and other reasons.
I too shoot raw but truly don't spend that much time in keywords 10-12 good descriptive words and I am done -(maybe I should to get better sales) a few minutes processing -curves, contrast, maybe clone- and then save as jpg to upload.
Again not for or against but sharing my experiences!
Amanda It is never to late to become what you might have been. www.behindthezoom.com
It seems to me if I wanted to make money selling stock photos, I should start a stock photography business and get cheap pictures from other photographers.
It seems to me if I wanted to make money selling stock photos, I should start a stock photography business and get cheap pictures from other photographers.
Photo approved, now what?
Just got a photo approved by iStock, finally, after two anxiety-riddled tries. Got the email...this image rejected for that reason....that image rejected for this reason...this image, approved. But it doesn't tell me what to do now that that image is approved. Will someone please help, I'm not feeling very clever.
Get creative with key wording. Take one of the kings of stock Seth Rosnick who has a photo of a seal roaring at the camera and he key worded it "Bad day at the office". That keyword alone generated thousands of dollars in revenue. That’s on Getty though; you would be hard pressed to break 1k revenue with an image ever on istock.
I think micro stock sites like istock exist to make amateurs feel self important and in turn provide client with a cheap alternative to hiring a pro thus limiting the amount of photography work available. This won't truly hurt many good pros but it will turn around and wreck havoc on an amateur attempting to become a one.
An ad agency will easily pay a solid pro $10k to shoot a photo but not often will they pay an up and comer even $1000 to shoot something they can probably find on istock for a few bucks. That’s of course licensing needs aside.
I've cancelled my account there
Well, my three sample images were rejected due to poor composition and "not up to the standards" for iStock Photo. I told them to cancel my account and told them that I wasn't willing to give them anything better given the low compensation they offer.
In the absence of a total boycott from every photographer capable of taking a decent image, this side of the industry is sure to stay.
Personally, a consideration of what picture editors, designers look for helps me to critically assess my work, often before even taking the shot.
It also makes flicking thorugh a magazine at the Dentists midly more pleasurable..." So why was that image used in this magazine? "
And of course the prices paid aren't enough... Think of it as an opportunity to share (in a tiny way) some of the pain of the millions of our fellow humans out there toiling away for peanuts so we can buy one of a hundred mildly different varieties of non-essential 'stuff'...
(sorry, got carried away with that last bit)
Anyway - the main reason for posting was to see if I can finally get my profile pic to display.
Comments
www.pictureyourworld.net
http://pictureyourworldphotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.onedayonepicture.com
Non-"micro" Stock agencies:
* PhotoShelter Collection
You're really kidding yourself if you think you can "make money" at iStock, et al. Considering the time that you'll spend uploading, keywording, and captioning each image versus your potential payout & it just doesn't make sense. While there are some folks selling a ton of images and making maybe $100k (before tax!! this is not a lot of revenue!) they are *by far* the exception!!!
*** Also consider that the folks selling all these images are submitting very marketable images that they're certainly not producing for free!!! Even if they are, you likely cannot: they must have access to some friends who are willing to model, provide locations, etc.
Justifying this so that you can "pay for the cost of your camera gear" makes about as much sense as taking a job that pays an extra $10k but requires you purchase a new car to get there.
You could more easily pay for your gear by spending the time you save by not uploading and keywording 100's of photos per month and focusing on marketing your services as a photographer. If I can pick up just one more shoot it can mean $1k or more in additional revenue (much more if its a wedding) --- how many photos would you need to sell on iStock to cover that?
...Or, as another alternative, perhaps I would pick up a web design gig for a few $k. Read on to see where I'd likely source my images (if I couldn't get the client to bite on original production & licensing!)....
There are THREE Groups who benefit from iStock:
2. Designers & Art Directors, since they can now get things that previously cost hundreds of dollars or more for just $25 or so.
3. Scott Kelby, et al. - As much as I appreciate Scott's accomplishments and respect his business accumen, I cringe every time I see that iStock commercial during his shows. He's a photographer - he knows better but is taking the profits instead. Were I in his position I'd likely do the same, but that doesn't make it right.
When starting this post I didn't mean to get as involved & rant, but it just flowed that way (insert FloMax/Prostate joke here).
If microstock is what you want to do you're more than welcome, but given that this is intended to be a Business Forum I must say that I cannot seem to find a viable scenario where a photographer can make this a profitable venture - or at least one with an NPV greater than that of alternative initiatives you could pursue.
I'm trying to look at this more long term and keeping all of my options open and diversified. A couple of weeks ago, someone was decrying why ANYONE would upload images to Flickr and how useless Flickr and other sites like it are. That's not true...as this very week, I got a random call from a pregnancy center in California who just stumbled upon a pic of mine I had on Flickr and paid me exactly what I asked for to be able to use it for a one-time promotion.
It's about getting yourself out there anyway you can to the public...whether they find you on Flickr, Smugmug or iStock, isn't it? Why would I want to limit the way people can come in contact with me?
www.pictureyourworld.net
http://pictureyourworldphotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.onedayonepicture.com
No, the stock industry can be profitable, though less so than in the past. It's specifically the microstock industry that I'm referring to above.
Also, I'm not trying to be "cantankerous" - you asked for advice on how to be successful (which I presume to mean "profitable") in stock photography. I'm just offering advice that microstock is not the way to be successful (as a photographer).
True, kind of. With Flickr, Smugmug, etc. you are presenting your work for others to see & it can be something of a marketing vehicle for you. However, with iStock you're putting your stuff out there for sale at a bargain-basement price. While you *might* have someone contact you for a special shoot, I wouldn't count on it. If they found you on there selling something similar to what they needed... what will they say when you quote a price that's 10-30 times higher for custom work?
The other thing to remember is that once you put a photo out there as RF it is forever RF.... while you can still sell it to others with different terms or prices, you cannot garauntee that no one else is using it in a similar way (including their potential competitors).
Sheba:
I think it's quite possible you are doing the best things of anyone. You're putting yourself out there and getting results.
I think too many people, inexperienced in these matters, equate "stock" with "junk" and that of course is completely untrue.
The issue with iStock is that it's a bargain basement source but when you shop other sites, such as Getty, you're purchasing excellent images from top-notch photographers.
I mentioned early on in this thread that I sell on iStock but I do so under a nome-du-plume rather than my real name (not that I'm such a hot shot photographer)
In my opinion iStock is a great place to push your lesser images with little effort.
As a creative director / image purchaser, I agree with "rdlugosz", at iStock I can download images to my heart's content at about $4 a pop for layouts and backgrounds and never feel any budget busting pain.
Would I select most images as primary for an important ad or brochure? Most probably never.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I think you bring up some great points regarding the difference between microstock and stock....I need to do some more reading up so I too can understand the differences.
www.pictureyourworld.net
http://pictureyourworldphotography.blogspot.com/
http://www.onedayonepicture.com
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
That's a good idea. I do think photographer selling on istock risk the stigma of offering cheap product.
Just a quick question though, how do you get paid? For example, how would you cash a check made out to "John Smith"?
Thanks...
Bill
Angelo, Angelo,
I just spent 15 minutes cleaning coffee off my monitor, keyboard, desk, and bills, and car registration. (For real)
Yes it's your fault. Look for the cleaning bill in the mail.
I can't believe what you wrote. Tell me it ain't so.
You have been a staunch defender of the micro-stock issue, stating that you were not just a user of micro-stock but that you sold there as well.
Then you come clean and admit you don't use your real name???? I'm stunned.
I guess I am just old fashioned, and out of date. Maybe I should start signing my posts with George?
George
No wait! I'll only sign with George when I am ashamed or trying to hide what I have done.
Sam
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I don't. iStock pays "me", I just a fake name in my profile
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I haven't tried any of it yet but I have been researching this idea for at least a month.
Troy
George, George, George
Welcome to the 21st century
I do what I do because if and when I ever advance to the level of photographic skill that would allow me to sell fine art prints I wouldn't want anyone to associate my name with the crap I have on iStock
That doesn't change my position that stock agencies, even low quality ones, serve the arts community well.
You know some of what I do in my daily life is product development and packaging. Some ot the things I work with are health and beauty products; bath lotions, moisturizers, etc.
Trust me when I tell you of the 4 laboratories I interact with regularly, three formulate, package and label product for many different brands from very cheap drug store brands to the highest rated names in the industry. In this case the old saying "never judge a book by its cover" applies backhandedly, all the product I speak of is essentially the same crap with differnt colors and names.
Some people shop at WalMart, some at Neiman Marcus, but every once in a while the NM buyer chooses to go to WalMart for the sale on detergent.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I've been looking over iStock's training manual and I ran across the prohibition on trademarks and logos in photos: http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_7.0_copyright.php
But they also say they're in need of sports photos. And I have a lot of kart and motocross racing photos. A quick search for "kart race" shows a lot of bad, bad photos. But any decent kart is going to have stickers on it and I think that means I can't put up for sale most of what I have, at least not without extensive Photoshop'ing to get rid of the logos. A few examples that I think would be prohibited:
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
(just my little tid bit for all the back & forth controversy. I bought my pro account here with stock sales $$. To me microstock photography is very different from what I promote personally ie...brochure, flyer, web -very broad basic images v.s. personal photo shoots, lg print landscapes, nature shots and specific campaigns. When I am out and about or shooting something I have two thought process going -microstock or art /specific. I would not set up and spend time only shooting for microstock - some do and make money that way, personally I don't. Also I like to open different avenues and see where they go-microstock has worked for me with images that wouldn't necessarily be used elsewhere and I am following that to see where it leads - in one year selling stock this month I haven't seen a downfall of money -have seen some though
It is never to late to become what you might have been.
www.behindthezoom.com
Everyone knows that bikers, motors and car sports have numbers and names on them, yet it has to be cloned out. I have been with istock since april, have so far sold 8 images and earned 8 dollar.
For that 8 dollar I have to keyword every image, make it as good as possible, upload it, which is all very time consuming. They have a very random system of accepting, and they have some very famous rejection reasons.
No clear focal point, bad pixel colorization, they just seem to look for a stick to beat a dog.
I find them becoming more and more photographer unfriendly, they seem to forget that the photographers are their long life.
I shoot with a Nikon D300, most of my submitted pics get accepted by Alamy, most of the submitted to istock come back. I don't even bother anymore to resubmit. If they don't get in the first time, after all the time and effort I put in to get them up, I can't be bothered.
It is very frustrating, it seems all they want are those nice, crisp, clean studio shots, with white backgrounds, they are not interested in documentary photography.
I will never tell anyone to try to submit to istock photography because they are so utterly unreasonable...
There is a lot of moaning and groaning on the forums, a lot of their members are very very unhappy.
Try Alamy or another company that does editorial...
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
I am talking per hour. It just seems to me the average rate on this might be about .10 cents an hour. I am going with Sam on this one. Seems to be much effort in little return.
I can say from my experience..I don't put alot of time/effort in it. I shoot when I am out and about or already shooting something. (not extra time there) I download off my camera - when I am doing regular downloads from my camera. (Not extra time there). When I am going through what I shot I might see one to upload for stock- I take it to CS3 do very minor tweaking - if it is covered in logos with banners behind it I wouldn't of considered it as too much involved for final image - I probably wouldn't of taken it with stock in mind at all- then save to my stock flash drive, upload and keyword. If english wasn't my first language then keywording might be a challenge but it really isn't. I might go back and upload a few more keywords here and there as I think of some.
That is all...I check couple times a week to see downloads/solds and request payouts - few minutes if that spent there.
It doesn't seem to be as time consuming to me as alot want to make it. It could be if you made it - just as anything could...
It is never to late to become what you might have been.
www.behindthezoom.com
For the amount of time I put into it I see a return -as I mentioned in previous post I don't let it take alot of time.
Once the images are up the stock site I don't have to do anything...so litterally I could stop uploading for all next year - have no time involved in it other than a minute or two to request payouts and still see close to the above mentioned returns.
Not trying to defend micro or push in any way just putting out there my exprierience in it.
It is never to late to become what you might have been.
www.behindthezoom.com
I am shooting in raw, so therefore have to post process a little bit, but the keywording alone takes up a lot of time. I would say that per photograph to upload I spend around 10 minutes per pic.
That is after all the tweeking is done, if needed. Alamy is less time consuming as you only keyword them after they have been accepted, no lost work here.
Istock makes its photographers do a lot of lost work. Lately they also have started turning pics back to people because of bad or wrong keywording. Istock IS time consuming, and for 50 cent a photograph hardly worth any work put in. I was very keen and enthousiastic when I started, but for now, they totally disgust me with their unreasonable demands. The cloning tool is the most important tool if you believe them... Their people copy right possible infringements date back to the middle ages.
If you for instance take a shot of a priest from the back, no way of seeing what, how old, who, you don't even see if it is a catholic priest or an orthodox, you need a model release. If not, too bad, not accepted.
There are a lot more complaints then good posts on the istock photography forum...
You are lucky or a truly gifted photographer if you can send them your pics straight from the card...
What is your secret? Tell us so we can all enjoy your effort less working with istock photography... ;o)))
I have had it with them!
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
I too shoot raw but truly don't spend that much time in keywords 10-12 good descriptive words and I am done -(maybe I should to get better sales) a few minutes processing -curves, contrast, maybe clone- and then save as jpg to upload.
Again not for or against but sharing my experiences!
It is never to late to become what you might have been.
www.behindthezoom.com
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Just got a photo approved by iStock, finally, after two anxiety-riddled tries. Got the email...this image rejected for that reason....that image rejected for this reason...this image, approved. But it doesn't tell me what to do now that that image is approved. Will someone please help, I'm not feeling very clever.
I think micro stock sites like istock exist to make amateurs feel self important and in turn provide client with a cheap alternative to hiring a pro thus limiting the amount of photography work available. This won't truly hurt many good pros but it will turn around and wreck havoc on an amateur attempting to become a one.
An ad agency will easily pay a solid pro $10k to shoot a photo but not often will they pay an up and comer even $1000 to shoot something they can probably find on istock for a few bucks. That’s of course licensing needs aside.
Well, my three sample images were rejected due to poor composition and "not up to the standards" for iStock Photo. I told them to cancel my account and told them that I wasn't willing to give them anything better given the low compensation they offer.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
In the absence of a total boycott from every photographer capable of taking a decent image, this side of the industry is sure to stay.
Personally, a consideration of what picture editors, designers look for helps me to critically assess my work, often before even taking the shot.
It also makes flicking thorugh a magazine at the Dentists midly more pleasurable..." So why was that image used in this magazine? "
And of course the prices paid aren't enough... Think of it as an opportunity to share (in a tiny way) some of the pain of the millions of our fellow humans out there toiling away for peanuts so we can buy one of a hundred mildly different varieties of non-essential 'stuff'...
(sorry, got carried away with that last bit)
Anyway - the main reason for posting was to see if I can finally get my profile pic to display.
(3rd time lucky)
...now back to "STOCK LIBRARIES...Evil killers or Saviours of Mankind ?" - You decide.