Stock Photography

[djarvik 0]

Anyone here in to stock photography??

 

I have a nice ammount of photos sitting in my hard drive, thought I'd give it a shot, any suggestions?

 

I got this one

ShutterStock

 

do you have some other oportunities?

 

yes, I know my ref id is in the post if you don't like it, cut it, I won't get upset lol

 

let me know please.

 

Thanks

 

Alon

[djarvik 0]

anyone?

[scubamarli 5]

Stock photography is a tough business. There are some other online ones, such as Painet

www.painet.net

My feeling is that the quality of the images in some of these "open" photo sites is not well controlled when basically anyone with a computer can upload images to the database. You would also lose control of how your images are used. If you want to be serious about it, you will need to submit images which are 55MB in size (only minor interpolation allowed), and submit a sample of your images to a stock agency. Submit only your top quality images. Many stock agencies require a minimum number of submissions per year. Also, remember that they take 50% of all sales made. There are often other fees as well, such as catalogue insertion fees.

Good luck!

Cheers,

Marli

[Craig Ruaux 0]

Weeeeeeelllll,

 

 

If you want another outlet and have not yet visited Dreamstime, I'd be happy to send you there via this referral link, seeing as your post for Shutterstock has your referral ID in it B) B).

 

I do reasonably well on Dreamstime, better on Shutterstock.

 

Another player that you may want to consider is Alamy in the UK. I would point out, though, that essentially the same files are on all three sites from me personally, and I have made ~10x as much via Shutterstock than via Alamy. Alamy is a more traditional rights managed environment rather than a microstock site.

 

As Marli says, the quality of a lot of the work on the microstock sites is very much suboptimal. Plain wildlife and plain'ole underwater work does not sell well there. The only underwater shots that sell with any frequency from my collection are those with people doing things in them.

[djarvik 0]

I got six of these small stock agencies in my collection now, interested?

 

all I ask in return is to use my ID when signing up lol lol

[djarvik 0]

got 7 now!

[John Bantin 101]

I want to tell you a story. It is set in the UK.

 

In the 1960s a young cockney tike with some talent called David Bailey opened the door to people like me to make a living from photography. Provided you had some talent, took some risks and above all worked hard, you could make a good living. I know I did. In London there were probably around 30 others like me who had been assistants to the original pioneers of the 60s. Then our assistants became photographers and so on. We all still made a good living although it became frantically competitive. But we knew our stuff and did some good work.

Then computer retouching came along. It suddenly meant that art directors could plan their retouching even before the photograph was taken. Before that retouching was an expensive process only used to save the day. Our finely honed skills became not really so necessary.

Then digital photography came along. Suddenly photography skills were not so needed, more computer retouching skills. Photographers became computer retouchers.

Then digital cameras for the masses arrived. Suddenly everyone could take a picture without any skills required whatsoever. The world is now awash with images.

 

I am now a writer. I take a good snap to illustrate what I write but I would no longer call myself a professional photographer. There simply is no money in it anymore.

 

Stock libraries know this. They organise to get access to millions of images. Images sell for virtually nothing now (Unless you are Mario Testino or Terry O'Neil with access to unique subjects).

 

So my advice is to concentrate on supplying one client with pictures - yourself. I work harder now than I ever did (and I love what I do) but I made last year one eighth of what I made in 1989. I am technical editor of a diving magazine that pays around 160 bucks for a full page and pro-rata (words and pictures) to freelancers. It is nice to see your work in print but do not give up your day job - and don't give your work away to libraries!

 

Just my opinion, of course!

[danschmitt 0]

I want to tell you a story. It is set in the UK.

 

So, is the jist of the story that everybody can afford equipment and processes that used to cost a lot of money and now your skills aren't that outstanding in comparison?

 

Stock libraries know this. They organise to get access to millions of images. Images sell for virtually nothing now (Unless you are Mario Testino or Terry O'Neil with access to unique subjects).

 

So my advice is to concentrate on supplying one client with pictures - yourself. I work harder now than I ever did (and I love what I do) but I made last year one eighth of what I made in 1989. I am technical editor of a diving magazine that pays around 160 bucks for a full page and pro-rata (words and pictures) to freelancers. It is nice to see your work in print but do not give up your day job - and don't give your work away to libraries!

 

Just my opinion, of course!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've seen the "dont't give your work away to libraries" here before, but I never seem to see a list of contacts for people who would want articles written. There are lots of web pages, and lots of people getting money to make them, and some buy nifty images; there aren't so many dive magazines. I'm sure you could keep all sorts of people out of the stock libraries if you told them they could sell 4 articles a year for $400 total vs trying to upload a bunch of stuff to a micropayment site and hope for 2000 downloads @ 20 cents for that same year.

[John Bantin 101]

So, is the jist of the story that everybody can afford equipment and processes that used to cost a lot of money and now your skills aren't that outstanding in comparison?

 

Correct. It used to be a skilled business but now it is not.

 

 

 

I've seen the "dont't give your work away to libraries" here before, but I never seem to see a list of contacts for people who would want articles written.  There are lots of web pages, and lots of people getting money to make them, and some buy nifty images; there aren't so many dive magazines.  I'm sure you could keep all sorts of people out of the stock libraries if you told them they could sell 4 articles a year for $400 total vs trying to upload a bunch of stuff to a micropayment site and hope for 2000 downloads @ 20 cents for that same year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am sure you can make a few bucks but as I said do not give up your day job! I freelanced for four years before I worked out I was actually out-of-pocket by about GB£4000 per year. Your first uninsured flood will make you pause for thought!

 

I was lucky that I had insinuated myself into a magazine as a regular contributor by that time so when I decided to stop, the owners offered me what some would call an iniquitous contract. The magazine was unique in that it had a monopoly of the market so it was lucky timing. I doubt I would have got away with it now.

[danschmitt 0]

So, is the jist of the story that everybody can afford equipment and processes that used to cost a lot of money and now your skills aren't that outstanding in comparison?

Correct. It used to be a skilled business but now it is not.

 

Some people might say that if your competetiveness in a market was dependent on a high cost of entry for equipment then it's not really based on your skill compared to others, rather prohibitive up front costs.

 

I am sure you can make a few bucks but as I said do not give up your day job!

 

I don't understand this context; do you mean upload to the stock sites and

make a little money, or even writing articles won't make much money.

 

Previously you wrote:

 

- and don't give your work away to libraries!

 

I'm still wondering why you discourage this. So it's only $300 a year, that's better than nothing (it covers my flood insurance.)

[John Bantin 101]

I am warning that there are a lot of people with a lot of good pictures on their hard drives. Taking into account the commercial law of supply and demand, they are not worth much. I have more than half a million trannies in my library but apart from fulfilling one regular contract (the one I gave myself) there is little demand and little money available to satisfy that demand. That said I probably get as many pictures published as anyone.

 

So enjoy underwater photography. If you manage to sell some pictures so be it. But I just wanted to post a warning before some enthusiastic and well-meaning person raised everyone's hopes. If you want to make a small fortune from underwater photography, start with a large one.

[Paul Kay 62]

Can I add my bit to this discussion?

 

Many years ago to be an 'amateur' photographer meant being a craftsman, honing away at a skill for the sheer joy of it. Many amateurs then, and perhaps a few now, produced outstanding photographs because they had all the time that they could afford to devote to their hobby. And they produced them because they WANTED to.

 

Now speaking as a professional photographer, I have specific shots to produce, deadlines to meet, costs to be met etc., etc., etc.. I do shoot stock images and have had many thousands of underwater photographs published and this has been a part of my income. I have specialised in terms of what I photograph and to be honest I sell photos of subjects I understand, can caption and describe and for which there is a modest market for.

 

I am constantly baffled why everyone with a camera wants to make money from their photography. Sometimes its kudos (no idea why this should be, as professional photographers are hardly ever celebs or anything), sometimes its because people want to see their images published (as I freely admit do I) and sometimes it is to make a few dollars/pounds on the side.

 

If its the latter, can I suggest that in terms of the time and effort, there are far easier ways of doing so!

 

I have a friend who is an outstanding nature photographer. He has retired from his occupation and now devotes a lot of time to his photography. He refuses to sell photos, only occasionally producing a print (for a charitable donation). His reasoning is sound - he enjoys photography and doesn't want to spoil his enjoyment by having to think about whether a shot is saleable when he takes it.

 

I

[Paul Kay 62]

Speaking as a professional photographer myself I have to fully agree with John here!

 

Although I have had many thousands of underwater images published, this is only a part of my income as I shoot extensively topsides aswell (pays better).

 

Given that in many areas you need extensive public liability insurance to operate professionally in any capacity and some areas such as the UK have draconian diving legislation (I have to jump through a myriad of pointless hoops over here if I undertake a commissioned underwater shoot), I'd suggest that just enjoying underwater photography should be a good enough reason for doing it.

 

Lastly, if you shoot quality material and submit it to a library, taking time over how you deal with files, callibration, etc, etc., etc., then there are probably better paid part-time jobs to help pay for your underwater photography.

 

I doubt that this will be a popular view though!

[danschmitt 0]

I am warning that there are a lot of people with a lot of good pictures on their hard drives. Taking into account the commercial law of supply and demand, they are not worth much.

 

You are only looking at the supply side. The demand side is very different these days as well. There are more "designers" out there doing web pages for every little mom and pop operation that has a newsletter or needs a url for a yellowpages ad than there have ever been for print outlets. Look at the number of websites around, count how many times you have seen one "redesigned".

 

If you google "web page design service", you get 165,000,000 results. If 1% of those folks want some inexpensive underwater photos in their library in case a client or design idea hits them, that's 1,650,000 customers. 10 cents (1 image at a really crappy license rate) from 1.65 million people adds up. I can see how you don't like it, since writing for diving magazines becomes just writing (since the expensive images you need to shoot can be grabbed from any number of 100s of vacation divers that slap them up on stock photo sites by a competitor.) I still don't see any compelling reason for the vaction diver not to step up to the broader stock market (of all the "I'd pay a doller to see that" people) just because it hoses your niche.

 

As for pkg's view of part time jobs paying better, if you have one where I get to review my dive trips and make things to hang on my wall as a side effect, I'm interested.

[John Bantin 101]

If you are really set on this, the best advice I can give is to ditch the underwater photography idea and start shooting mainstream subjects. A good agency (that is well-used) is Getty Images (www.gettyimages.com). Good Luck.

[Paul Kay 62]

My last comment on this topic. Depending on where you operate, the moment you try to make money from operating underwater many agencies and others may become interested. In the UK diving for profit without relevant qualifications/safety systems/dive team may result in very heavy fines (£X000s). Insurers hike premiums and life policies usually exclude your diving activity. This may or may not apply, and you may get away with it if you don't tell anyone and make some money, but if anything goes wrong you will almost certainly cop it!

[JamesWood 0]

Some comments for discussion:

 

Many people still view anything on the web as free and won’t pay for images as they are already “available for free†(despite copyright notices). Slowly people are becoming educated about copyright issues.

 

Just like you can buy zillions of email address to spam people for almost nothing, you can buy large libraries of stock images for almost nothing. Many of these images are very good and are more than big enough for web applications. Web development companies know this and use these sources extensively. There are also libraries of free images (for some applications) from NOAA and other agencies/projects. This is the competition.

 

I started selling my images when I was in graduate school. After eating rice for a year to pay for my Nikonos it was the only way to recoup costs and buy film. I have pictures of all kinds of things but what I sell is pictures of octopuses and squid, my PhD work and career is studying them and I can provide images and knowledge about them that you just can’t get from a stock agency. For me, the value added method is the way to go. However, I’m very glad this isn’t my main source of income or I’d still be eating a steady diet of rice and living under a bridge somewhere. . .

 

Dr. James B. Wood

Scientific Photography in Bermuda

http://w3.bbsr.edu/Education/summercourses...tog/photog.html

[Kelpfish 15]

Digital makes it even harder to make a living since everybody is becoming an expert photographer. You need to find a cash cow niche and keep it to yourself.

 

Joe