Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: getting started with stock selling

11:03 AM |

I've read through this thread and I do appreciate the insight on selling to stock sites. And while it's true the middle man controls the stock market prices, it's not their fault. The problem is the millions of people are overjoyed with nothing more than a byline for the use of their images. It's a hobby and not a money making venture. We all should realize by now with the arrival of digital photography even the worse photographer gets lucky once in a while and that equates to millions of lucky shots a year to sell.

Questions to think about

· What's the goal of the photographer to sell on stock sites?

· What's the goal of the stock site?

· Is this a hobby or career?

· Would you rather have your images hanging on a wall or used in an ad?

· Do you want to be recognized by your name or images?

I think RK has a point about creating a new kind of site. That's something that I've been contemplating for over a year now. More than just a stock image shoebox approach to selling images, but one with a fine art twist. I think for now sites like Getty, iStock and the others will continue to rule and you're not going to get them to change their business practices. If you're fine with the occasional $1 per image sale and that fits your goals than great. But if you're looking to strike it rich in stock photography, buy a lottery ticket as a backup plan. Until a viable new online market opens up, it's all about volume and insight in to what's selling so we can be more proactive.

· When's the best time to upload holiday images?

· What types of images are selling; landscape, family, lifestyle, glamor...?

· What are the top word searches, by day/week/month/year?

· What are the top name searches, photographer names?

From: RK <rolf.krohna@gmail.com>
To: selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: getting started with stock selling

I agree with Angie, its the power of the middle man, if the next bastard get away with ripping off the photographer, why can't I do it too as long as the photos keep coming.

I still think the trick to Beat the Bastards by doing it differently. I have put forward such ideas before previously, would it be possible to create a photographers conglomerate of sites, I mean sites that the photographers themselves open, as often is the case now, put a portal in front of them, and use something like the Goggle tailored search engine and classified department, I mean travel, medical, by country and by topic and by location etc.

As they say, stop moaning, don't get angry, just get even.

My 2 cents.

On 09-Jan-2012 10:57 PM, angiephotographer wrote:

"few photographers get $500 or $1000 per photograph anymore. Those are bygone days."

How do you know this? Have you tried RM for a consistent amount of time, or did you come to this conclusion by the influence of others? I sell through traditional RM, and I still sell a fair amount of images for $500-$1500. I recently had a very average type of image license for $1500 on Alamy. It still does happen.

I have tried macro and micro. Tried it as an experiment, and didn't see the potential in micro for long term.

I find it upsetting that Shutterstock provides usually a flat 25 cents where whey often sell an image for $10. Bigstockphoto sells some stock photos through sub agents that charge $70 per image, and what trickles down to the photographer is a dollar or two. Maybe I'm too emotional, but this stuff upsets my sense of justice. If you can follow the trail, microstock agencies do not always sell for such a micro price...there is a chain of subagents each taking a cut, and the photographer is getting the smallest piece of the pie. I've tried to rationalize the acceptance of microstock by photographers, but I just can't wrap my brain around it.

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "John" <john@...> wrote:
>
> Shaun,
>
> You don't look like you need much help, but here's my two cents worth.
>
> First, if you haven't already, check out the web sites of a couple of the top stock photographers in the world: Yuri Arcurs (http://www.arcurs.com/) and Lise Gagné (http://lisegagne.com/). I especially like Yuri's tour of his studio (in videos). These people really make money at stock photography.
>
> I don't make lots of money. I just make enough to cover expenses. But, that's OK with me. I do it for fun and for a "retirement" vocation.
>
> I contribute to several microstock agencies, the top producing being iStockphoto and Shutterstock. It took me 5 years of really uploading photographs to get to where I am. You can find stats of istockphoto photographers at http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ (how many files they have uploaded, how many sales they've had, etc.). Very interesting.
>
> Getting accepted is a matter of following an agency's submission rules and seeing what happens. I wouldn't give up if I were rejected once. Keep trying.
>
> And I wouldn't listen to anyone badmouthing microstock agencies. Unfortunately, few photographers get $500 or $1000 per photograph anymore. Those are bygone days. Know today's markets and what people want (web-based, brochures, online news, image messaging...you tell me as I'm past my prime). It still is supply and demand, after all.
>
> So, just go for it. Keep trying different things. See what works for you. And be sure to have fun.
>
> John
>
> John Sfondilias
> http://sfondilias.com
> john@...
>
>
> --- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "ramsayshaun115" <shaun.ramsay@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've been in business for about a year and a half and am looking to take the plunge into stock selling, though I don't have experience with it.
> >
> > My website is www.shaunramsay.com. I'm also on flickr at www.flickr.com/photos/shaunramsay. If anyone has suggestions about stock companies that are accepting new photographers, I would be interested to know and appreciate any tips and advice.
> >
> > Thanks and Happy New Year!
> > Shaun
> >
>