20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Elle A

8 Years Ago

Stock Photography

Hey everyone! I'm curious to know about what everyone thinks about stock photography agencies and selling work on there? Thanks in advance!

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Roy Pedersen

8 Years Ago

It's totally different from here.
For a start there is an inspection before your images get accepted.For each sale you only get cents not dollars.
Also the type of images that they need to sell or advertise an item or product can be very different than here.For instance one company do not particularly like artsy images.
Then you need property and or model releases if anyone in the image can recognise themselves.
Like here though it is a numbers game with millions of images for sale.You need quantity and quality.
There is of course much more to it so I would suggest you have a look at the agencies and see what you need to do

 

Martin Capek

8 Years Ago

I have no problem with that, I am microstocker in the first place.

 

Mike Savad

8 Years Ago

its not about liking or not liking.. you have no choice.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

 

Arletta Cwalina

8 Years Ago

Roy, but Elle asked about Stock Photography and not microstock... It's different thing, different images, clients, rules and expectations...

Elle, if you want to sell on micros, keep in mind it's similar to Cafepress, where you get cents for your work. But if you respect and value your work try sumbit to macro, mid and self pricing agencies which offer from 50% up to almost 90% for artist and prices are much more serious than on any micro.

And yes, I say why not sell your work :)

"For instance one company do not particularly like artsy images."

Can't agree. Most of my images are more artsy than commercial and I find them is usage on books cover etc. My bestsellers are images that I never expected to sell them at all ;)

 

Colin Utz

8 Years Ago

Unfortunately, I make much more money with editorial stock photography (not microstock), than here. 😕

 

David Smith

8 Years Ago

The stock industry has been decimated by microstock.

I have friends who, as late as 2007, had gross commissions of $500.000 a year on agency sales of $1 million a year.

Average time to break even on new productions was about a year and images sold solidly for 4-5 years.

Their extensive catalogs are now only generating $10 - 20,000 a year and so much of their new work hasn't made a return on investment that they've stopped producing.

Simply put, stock photography as way to earn a living, not picking up pocket change, is over unless you have a way to produce images at $0 cost.

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

It earns me a lot more than pocket change ( I guess it is relative) , but it is harder now to get established. I don't pursue it much now but it is another outlet and for me and more lucrative than print sales.

 

David Smith

8 Years Ago

Bradford

Yes, it can be if you can get access to subjects that few people can photograph. Industrial stuff like your oil rigs or scientific images like electron microscopy, but if the average person can access it, it's been covered or will be once the agencies put it on a want list.

 

Roy Pedersen

8 Years Ago

Arlette,I didn't say that all of them don't like artsy images.Some do some don't.Each one has their own likes and dislikes and you do need to know them to save wasting time uploading and getting rejected.
Like with everything though it's up to the reviewer you get on the day

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

David I just did an extended license sale for $60 dollars on a picture I took at a farm stand while stopping for gas. Total earnings $140 on that image. Even low hanging fruit can be sweet.Just sayin. As for artsy images. I answered a call for them put out for a new collection by Istock which eventually came to be called Vetta. My first file accepted has earned over $8,000. The other images accepted earned many thousands combined. They were artsy, unique and useful. I won't go out of my way to take stock images unless I am getting fine art at the same time.

 

Valerie Reeves

8 Years Ago

Having been an ad agency art director through the '80s and '90s and bought LOTS of stock photography myself, I have always been very interested in it. However things have changed so much since that time I would have no idea how to go about it now.

 

David Smith

8 Years Ago

Bradford

Ten years ago that extended license would probably have been $800- $1200.

I guess everything is relative

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

Micro was set up to address the small business. You can't really compare the two. Digital cameras, desktop publishing and the internet changed the market. Microstock just met it. I sold images in the film day, privately . I even had a bird image on a wine bottle and book publications. A lot of work and few sales. Now more sales and less work. I get more for an image now on Istock then I got when I started in 07. I have to admit though the subscription sales have a very small payout. But the license is not what you get at Getty, where I also sell. Its 2015 and I deal with the world on it own terms. I am glad I am not mailing slides lol. To start now would be very hard, no matter what level you choose. But it was only easy for a few, for a while.

 

Jim Hughes

8 Years Ago

There's absolutely no money in microstock for someone starting from square 1 today, unless maybe you have a niche, that hasn't been done to death, which will sell in large numbers, and cost you zilch to produce. And good luck with that. The market is completely flooded with tens of millions of images from people who don't really care how little they get paid, they just want to be photographers. Prices are ridiculously low and you have no control over them, it's one size fits all.

 

JC Findley

8 Years Ago

The OP was not asking about selling stock, it was asking what we think about them selling here.

And regardless of the feeling, they are here to stay.

 

Jim Hughes

8 Years Ago

Depends. Did "on there" mean "on here"?

 

Elle A

8 Years Ago

Wowee! Thanks for everyone getting in on the discussion! I'm so happy that I asked on the forum. I'll definitely invest more time on stock photography. Again, thanks!

 

JC Findley

8 Years Ago

My bad, I misread it.

 

JC Findley

8 Years Ago

Carry on

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

There are lots of agencies and many price models. You can even sell from here. The forum www.microstockgroup.com is a good resource. Doing stock teaches you to shoot more carefully as your images are subject to inspection and the standards for pixel quality are often high. As for content, usually the only thing that is important is that it meets legal and it is a useful image for someone. Don't buy into the stereotypes. If you have something unique and can produce it cheap there is still money to be made. Just as here, I like the upload and get money every month model. There is very little that I license for a buck but really if I sell a few hundred of an easy shoot why would I not do that? Typically I will make some sales in the 50-100 range every month. Some come away bitter because they place their art in the wrong market or they just don't have useful images. Others are bitter when they see their work in print. I was in House Beautiful 2x last month and I did not make a lot. But it wasn't like 5 bucks either. The images overall earned me a lot. My corporate stock customers are where the money is. I am meeting a demand that did not exist 15 years ago. For me it is a nice revenue stream and if I get something with high visibility it makes my mom proud. The odds are against you but aren't they always.

 

Edward Fielding

8 Years Ago

Looking at your current portfolio here on FAA I would say that your work doesn't match what the stock buyers demand.

....

Lots of misinformation given here. Like - absolutely no money can be made or you can only make pennies per license. Its like anything. Those who have the talent and put in the work needed to bring to market images that are in demand can make money. Not like the old days when you could post anything and it would sell but still there is money if you have the right product.

Many days I make more on stock then fine art. Stock is about volume and life time earnings of an image, not looking at it as a one time sale.

 

Bradford Martin

8 Years Ago

Yes my lifetime earnings is 60 dollars per image so far. If I do not do a thing that number can only go up. A lot of people would be thrilled with that number. Others only look at the return per sale. Results and expectations vary widely.

 

Jane McIlroy

8 Years Ago

"Doing stock teaches you to shoot more carefully as your images are subject to inspection and the standards for pixel quality are often high."

That on its own is one good reason for at least investigating the possibilities offered by stock agencies.

 

Paul Cowan

8 Years Ago

I think there's very little chance of people who start doing microstock today making any money from it. There were only ever a few who did, anyway, the top1% or so. But now even those of us who have established portfolios struggle to make an acceptable return on new work.

 

This discussion is closed.