I sold $1.40USD in one week on Shutterstock !!!

CelsoDiniz · January 14, 2005

Ok, I know $1.40 USD in a week is not much... But if you consider one year has 52 weeks that could be 1.40x52= $73 USD / Year that was sitting on my Hard Drive anyway !

But I'm looking to expand my business ;-) Any proved ways to sell Amateur photos more effectivelly ?

Please, visit the SELL YOUR PHOTOS and share experiences with other photographers about how to sell amateur photos and make money...

Thanks !
Celso.

gus · January 14, 2005

Steel Dawn i have a lock N - 44.3314 W - 102.0511

dkapp · January 14, 2005

That doesn't seem like a good deal? A magazine can download your picture & run it in any ad they like, for how long they like & you make .20?

Right.

Dave

cmr164 · January 15, 2005

CelsoDiniz wrote:

Ok, I know $1.40 USD in a week is not much... But if you consider one year has 52 weeks that could be 1.40x52= $73 USD / Year that was sitting on my Hard Drive anyway !

But I'm looking to expand my business ;-) Any proved ways to sell Amateur photos more effectivelly ?

Please, visit the SELL YOUR PHOTOS and share experiences with other photographers about how to sell amateur photos and make money...

Thanks !
Celso.

Yea.. your only post is a SPAM for a ripoff site... I guess that the ISO for Panatomic-X and your IQ are kissing cousins

wxwax · January 15, 2005

CelsoDiniz wrote:

Ok, I know $1.40 USD in a week is not much... But if you consider one year has 52 weeks that could be 1.40x52= $73 USD / Year that was sitting on my Hard Drive anyway !

But I'm looking to expand my business ;-) Any proved ways to sell Amateur photos more effectivelly ?

Please, visit the SELL YOUR PHOTOS and share experiences with other photographers about how to sell amateur photos and make money...

Thanks !
Celso.

:spam

Celso, you're welcome to join us in other discussions on dgrin, we'd love to have your contribution.

Unfortunately, your post has the classic symptoms of a spammer: it's your first post on our site and you use it to endorse a commercial endeavor, in this case a business of questionable value to photographers.

I don't think 20-cents a shot is much of a deal. If you're serious about making money from your photos, you can do a lot better than that "service."

Will we hear from you again?

I'm moving this to the Flea Market, seems a better location for it.

marlinspike · January 16, 2005

I think photographers everywhere should boycott shutterstock, istockphoto, and other similar sites. All those do is ruin the market and take jobs and money away from photographers. Even if ome amatuer wants to do it, get a real site and do it proper with proper prices.
Richard

GraphyFotoz · January 17, 2005

BRAVO Marlin!!!!
I'm with you 150%!!!

dragon300zx · January 17, 2005

$1.40 doesn't even buy me a cup of coffee.

evil eggplant · January 18, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

I think photographers everywhere should boycott shutterstock, istockphoto, and other similar sites. All those do is ruin the market and take jobs and money away from photographers. Even if ome amatuer wants to do it, get a real site and do it proper with proper prices.
Richard

I couldn't disagree more. I am an engineer, I also have images on istock, as well as selling through other outlets and my own website. I make a few bucks.

The photographers on istock don't complain, the designers that can purchase a 8 X 10 @ 300ppi sure don't complain. Those who complain the most are the "pros" who resist change.

The istock business model is a success, it won't go away. Enthusiasts will upload image and make a few dollars. The Alamy, Corbis, Getty business won't go away, but for those who *don't* need drum scanned medium format images, and simply need a decent image for website design or brochure, an istock image will work just fine. Istockphoto and the like will chip away at agencies like Alamy.

The same thing is happening in wedding photography, only low-end and exclusive photograhers are making money. The "middle of the road" photographer is facing obsolecesence. Blame digital for this. Digital has put the means to producing high-quality imagery in the hands of hobbyists and enthusiasts.

No, we don't require your services, Uncle Leo will take the wedding pictures.

Of course the "pro" will make better pictures than Uncle Leo, but the truth is that Uncle Leo may be capable of taking decent pics and printing them large.

There will always be clients who want the $12,000 wedding package, just like Alamy will continue to sell stock at $250 (or more) an image, but the average bride doesn't want to spend that kind of money on a wedding, and the typical designer would rather not spent $250 for an Alamy image.

Thus, the success of the istockphoto business model.

Those photographers who accept the changes in the industry, and who embrace change and recognize new opportunities will thrive. the cream will rise to the top.

Digital is in it's infancy, those with vision will make fortunes. Those who cling to days gone by will be swept away. This is the very nature of change.

mercphoto · January 18, 2005

Job protection doesn't work

marlinspike wrote:

I think photographers everywhere should boycott shutterstock, istockphoto, and other similar sites. All those do is ruin the market and take jobs and money away from photographers. Even if ome amatuer wants to do it, get a real site and do it proper with proper prices.
Richard

While I would like to agree, the problem is you can't protect jobs like that. It just doesn't work. Nor can you stop things from changing.

Unfortunately for photographers, the "all these do is ruin the market..." is not accurate. The flip-side is it provides less expensive images for people buying images. For everything good, there is something bad, and vice-versa.

If there was a fundamental problem, its not istockphoto. Its that the perceived value of things is going down. Its happened to music, is happening to movies, now its photography. As already mentioned, "Uncle Leo can take my wedding photos for me". After all, just listen to that HP commercial about how utterly easy it is for anyone to take fantastic photos with new technology. And people believe.

Sing along with me: "Picture book, pictures of your momma...." I forget the rest of the lyrics.

Want to survive as a photographer? Find a new way to add value. Do something the person with that HP camera and printer can't do. And stock photography might not be it anymore.

marlinspike · January 18, 2005

Eggplant, are you the guy pushing it on the dpreview pro forum or something? Sounds very similar. Why do I say boycott and why do I like some protectionist policies? Because this lowest cost is best mentality is leaving us with nothing but junk. You see it in our hardware store, our clothing stores, our computer stores. People who know hardware know those made in china tools stink. People who know clothing now those made in Indonesia clothes stink. People who know computers know all that made in Taiwan ram stinks. Why are those three countries of origin doing the best in those fields? Because they're the cheapest. Nevermind that they are so junky the cost savings are really false savings. People don't conside the long run when they buy things The less of this that happens, the better off we'll all be.

mercphoto · January 18, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

Nevermind that they are so junky the cost savings are really false savings. People don't conside the long run when they buy things The less of this that happens, the better off we'll all be.

I'll agree with nearly everything you said. Its one reason I'm a Macintosh advocate. Yes, its more expensive. But it is worth it, in ways that are hard to quantify. Just like a better tool that is more expensive is sometimes hard to quantify. How do you quantify how a Snap-On open end wrench just feels better in your hand, how the metal is curved just right to put less pressure against your hand as you tug on a bolt? Or, from my own industry, how do I convince my own employer that my programming skills really are worth my salary compared to someone in India?

I don't know how you make people think long-term. I don't know how you make them recognize quality. All I know is protectionist ways, and refusing to change with the times, is a recipe for failure.

evil eggplant · January 18, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

Eggplant, are you the guy pushing it on the dpreview pro forum or something? Sounds very similar. Why do I say boycott and why do I like some protectionist policies? Because this lowest cost is best mentality is leaving us with nothing but junk. You see it in our hardware store, our clothing stores, our computer stores. People who know hardware know those made in china tools stink. People who know clothing now those made in Indonesia clothes stink. People who know computers know all that made in Taiwan ram stinks. Why are those three countries of origin doing the best in those fields? Because they're the cheapest. Nevermind that they are so junky the cost savings are really false savings. People don't conside the long run when they buy things The less of this that happens, the better off we'll all be.

No, it's not mo on the DPR Pro Forum, it's another guy. I have followed those threads with interest, though. I have also replied to comments posted by some pompous windbag, but that may be a different story. Either way, I am not the antagonist you may be mistaking me for.

Without appearing confrontational, I do consider your comments rude, as I have images on istockphoto that are high quality, useful images.

To suggest that my work is low-quality trash, without even looking at it, is somewhat insulting. There are many,many excellent images available as royalty-free stock imagery, at rock-bottom prices.

Like I said before. Digital has changed everything. The entire paradigm has shifted. Digital is in it's infancy. There are fortunes to be made by those with vision. Those who resist change and choose to play the "blame game", or defend the status quo while resisting change will be swept away.

marlinspike · January 18, 2005

EE, you're right about the DPR post, I was mistaking you with the OP of that thread. As far as my comments being rude, surely you know I'm not saying EVERY photo on their is junk, just as not EVERY shirt made in Indonesia stinks (my dry cleaner ranks Nordstrom as one of the top brands, and they're made in Indonesia...however J. Press's shirts - formerly Hathaway USA, now Hathaway Canada - are substantially better, and by even more when they were made in the US, but I digress). I'm just saying there is a lot of junk there, and the reason companies buy photos their is simply because they are cheap and get the job done.
Richard

Andy · January 18, 2005

marlinspike wrote:

Eggplant, are you the guy pushing it on the dpreview pro forum or something? Sounds very similar. Why do I say boycott and why do I like some protectionist policies? Because this lowest cost is best mentality is leaving us with nothing but junk. You see it in our hardware store, our clothing stores, our computer stores. People who know hardware know those made in china tools stink. People who know clothing now those made in Indonesia clothes stink. People who know computers know all that made in Taiwan ram stinks. Why are those three countries of origin doing the best in those fields? Because they're the cheapest. Nevermind that they are so junky the cost savings are really false savings. People don't conside the long run when they buy things The less of this that happens, the better off we'll all be.

i recently bought some stock images from istockphoto.com ... way cool, easy, and the price is a fraction of alamy. so, let the free markets work i say!

and if it works for the evil eggplant, then that's cool, too

evil eggplant · January 19, 2005

You're right, there is a lot of junk therem but there is also some real good, Alamy quality imagery available. The search tools lack the sophistication of Corbis, and there is indeed a bunch of junk you hae to sift through to get to the good stuff, but there is a lot of good stuff there.

I take back my comment about your being rude. I thought you were suggesting that it was all junk, sorry...

I don't know why that guy on DPR PRO forum is such an antagonist, he may have locked horns with a forum "pro". Some of those "pros" can be a bit abrasive :-)

Cheers

marlinspike wrote:

EE, you're right about the DPR post, I was mistaking you with the OP of that thread. As far as my comments being rude, surely you know I'm not saying EVERY photo on their is junk, just as not EVERY shirt made in Indonesia stinks (my dry cleaner ranks Nordstrom as one of the top brands, and they're made in Indonesia...however J. Press's shirts - formerly Hathaway USA, now Hathaway Canada - are substantially better, and by even more when they were made in the US, but I digress). I'm just saying there is a lot of junk there, and the reason companies buy photos their is simply because they are cheap and get the job done.
Richard

evil eggplant · January 19, 2005

Hi Andy...

andy wrote:

and if it works for the evil eggplant, then that's cool, too

Mike Lane · June 20, 2006

sorry to dredge up such an old thread...
buuuuuut...

Crowdsourcing, A Billion Amateures Want Your Job. From Wired...

Blurmore · June 22, 2006

I honestly have never visited istock photo or any other untill now. My opinion of it is that if all you need is crap, and you have time to wade through crap to find something useable, it may be for you. The real professional stock photo companies have nothing to worry about. I see the value for low end web design, I see the value for cheap advertisements, and I see use for zines and small publications, but that is where I see the use end. A quick browse yielded 5 pictures of a glass of orange juice, from every angle, some poorly shot portraits of couples, and various other doo-dads photographed only for the purposes of using on that site. It is like a photography clip-art site. For people like my wife and my mother clipart is the greatest invention since the PC, and that is fine for them, but it puts you in a certain class, as using images from istock would put your product in a certain class. If you want consistency, unique branding, and creative control you are going to choose a professional and for the photographers if they are happy getting a couple of bucks for ther crap, more power to them, but my efforts are worth more than that to me.

Andy · June 23, 2006

This thread can stay - if you all keep the discussion to the pros & cons of such services.

Thanks

dogwood · June 23, 2006

i agree

marlinspike wrote:

I think photographers everywhere should boycott shutterstock, istockphoto, and other similar sites. All those do is ruin the market and take jobs and money away from photographers. Even if ome amatuer wants to do it, get a real site and do it proper with proper prices.
Richard

There is no way you can even cover your expenses (equipment, time, software, digital storage, post-processing, gas, creative skills, etc) for 20-cents a photo. Sounds to me like selling on these sites is the road to bankruptcy.

Khaos · June 23, 2006

dogwood wrote:

There is no way you can even cover your expenses (equipment, time, software, digital storage, post-processing, gas, creative skills, etc) for 20-cents a photo. Sounds to me like selling on these sites is the road to bankruptcy.

It's people with a hobby making pocket change. Some people willing to search for cheap stock will pay and both parties are happy. The photog isn't doing this as a main source of income. If they were, they would go with a major stock agency, and that agency will be picky.

I can understand the issue pros have, but the only thing to do is adapt and change to make sure your work will survive at the prices you want.

I think wedding and event photography is probably getting hit hard also and worse when the cheap rookie photog really botches the job. Then it gives all pros a bad name. At least in stock you pick the quality first.

bham · June 26, 2006

Well I think in Wedding photography you also somewhat pick the quality first also. Usually price and quality go together. Sometimes you may find a decent price and find great quality but then demand will go up and thus price.

Like was said earlier. I don't really have a problem with it because anyone who wants or needs a decent income from their pictures won't use it so, in general those who submit are doing it more for the fun of saying, hey I sold a image that was used in a magazine ad, etc. I mean who would spend a significant amount of time and effort to take a picture, upload, etc then to only make a $1.40. Well if your willing give me a call I got a lot of work for you.

rainforest1155 · June 26, 2006

To chime in on the discussion. The beginning of the last year I also tried to get some photos on sites like istock and shutterstock. I just uploaded around 15 pictures, but didn't do much about it anymore aften than. It was because of time issues - I intended to upload more stuff. My first picture on istock got rejected for noise reasons and I tried it again after cleaning it up a bit. Now it's my best seller - it got downloaded 143 times since February 2005 and brought me 42.80$ so far. Another one sold 34 times bringing in 12.90$.

It's not much and you really have to pursue it on these sites by uploading a lot of stuff in order to get more out of it, but it's a lot of money for doing nothing. The good thing is that my best seller steadily is sold ~7 times per month. This shows if you've uploaded a batch of popular pictures they can create a constant flow of money. This is what many photographers over there do. It's a one-time effort to get a solid portfolio uploaded, but then it constantly generates money.

Sebastian

Khaos · June 26, 2006

$42.80 in one year?
I get way more from saving the change from my pockets everyday. Hell, I probably would find close to that much if I kept my eyes on the ground and walked around the city for a couple of days.

Sorry, I don't see the attraction of allowing my photography being used for pennies.

mercphoto · June 26, 2006

rainforest1155 wrote:

To chime in on the discussion. The beginning of the last year I also tried to get some photos on sites like istock and shutterstock. I just uploaded around 15 pictures, but didn't do much about it anymore aften than. It was because of time issues - I intended to upload more stuff. My first picture on istock got rejected for noise reasons and I tried it again after cleaning it up a bit. Now it's my best seller - it got downloaded 143 times since February 2005 and brought me 42.80$ so far. Another one sold 34 times bringing in 12.90$.

I'm curious. I'd like to see the photos you have uploaded. I have to tell you though, $42 doesn't really get me excited.

rainforest1155 · June 26, 2006

mercphoto wrote:

I'm curious. I'd like to see the photos you have uploaded. I have to tell you though, $42 doesn't really get me excited.

Not having expected much for a snapshot I found this quite exciting how it sold so constantely. Then I haven't sold anything else before. Here's the $42 photo and this is the other one.
It's nice pocket money and more I would earn on interests, but I'm not pursuiting it at the moment - I'll just leave it the way it is.

Sebastian

mercphoto · June 26, 2006

rainforest1155 wrote:

Not having expected much for a snapshot I found this quite exciting how it sold so constantely. Then I haven't sold anything else before. Here's the $42 photo and this is the other one.
It's nice pocket money and more I would earn on interests, but I'm not pursuiting it at the moment - I'll just leave it the way it is.

Sebastian

Next question is why sell photos that good for a few dimes at a time?

rainforest1155 · June 26, 2006

mercphoto wrote:

Next question is why sell photos that good for a few dimes at a time?

Good one. I don't know any better and can't figure out how to do it any better. The big stock photo agencies won't accept anything like my point&shoot-like 5mega pixel and offering photos on my page isn't very likely to bring in the big $ either. Neither have I a target market. It has been said around here a lot that creating a local market is the way to go, but I'm just not the salesman-type of guy that likes to bargain a lot. I'm also not comfortable with shooting local sports events or something like that. I guess selling stuff is just not my cup of tea.

Sebastian

PS: dgrin seems to be down again - didn't work for about half an hour and then I lost the post. Now it seems to work again for the moment.

dogwood · June 28, 2006

but...

Khaos wrote:

It's people with a hobby making pocket change.

... my point is you actually aren't making money because your expenses in the end (equipment, time, digital storage, internet connection, etc, etc) cost more than the pocket change you make. So it's actually costing you money to sell on these sites. Digital isn't free-- last time I checked I still needed a camera, a CF card (or whatever), a card reader, a computer, a monitor, a hard drive to store the images, software to process them, an internet connection to upload them... you get my point. Not to mention time. If you don't mind paying someone to "sell" your images, this is a great deal.

Greg13th · July 3, 2006

rainforest1155 wrote:

Good one. I don't know any better and can't figure out how to do it any better. The big stock photo agencies won't accept anything like my point&shoot-like 5mega pixel and offering photos on my page isn't very likely to bring in the big $ either. Neither have I a target market. It has been said around here a lot that creating a local market is the way to go, but I'm just not the salesman-type of guy that likes to bargain a lot. I'm also not comfortable with shooting local sports events or something like that. I guess selling stuff is just not my cup of tea.

Sebastian

PS: dgrin seems to be down again - didn't work for about half an hour and then I lost the post. Now it seems to work again for the moment.

Sebastian - seems to me that you are doing fine. I enjoyed your "best seller" As you point out, a picture like that would not make any revenue for you simply sitting on your hard drive. And it would truly be hard to create a market for it elsewhere. Believe it or not - five or six best sellers like that and you really have some viable income started - and it will probably be more than many are earning. It may not pay the mortgage, but it is a start.

Such an approach may not be the choice for many, but that doesn't make you approach any less worthy. And the amount received may not pay for you camera, lenses, flash, and cards etc., but it is still money!

One writer noted: Yes, I may want to purchase the finest quality tools for my everyday home use. But that back-up emergency set of pliers for the glove compartment of my commuter car? That can be second rate. Same for the pair in my office.

Most people want a "good" deal. And when we want top notch - most are willing to pay for it. Some have difficulty applying that to the services they offer. If you value your services and skill at a certain rate, then go for it. But recognize the realities if your income increases or decreases. If you don't want to do "low end" stock photo - don't. An former professor used to say - music composition field - compared to many, I charge 3 times as much as some other composers. But then, I only work 1/3 of the time!

Wow. Did I get on a soapbox? Didn't really mean too. I thought that Sebastian was getting shots from all direction and wanted to help him out (not the he asked for it or needed it - it was my own perception). Take care all. Greg.

I sold $1.40USD in one week on Shutterstock !!!

Comments