Selling Stock Photos?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by vjekoslav antic on July 2, 2008 at 12:26pm

I am a member on istock.You must be a member first,that is easy part.Then you give permission to upload 3 best photos.
Istock commission looks are they have minimal standard for stock photo.If commission say yes,you have permission to upload photos which you wish sell it.But stock scout looks every photo very carefully if you to much post processing in PS.
Your thinking as photograph is not important,you must thinking as graphic shaper.What buyers want?It is very hard,many good photographs not pass.Best is Istock very well pay you.When you sell first 250 photos,give you contract for exclusive.
http://www.istockphoto.com go on this link and look.I wish you good luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vjekoslav antic on July 2, 2008 at 12:48pm

I look yours photos and you have ability for istock if consider rules.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tobin on July 25, 2008 at 5:06am

istock is an absolute rip-off for photographers! By submitting images to this "micro-payment portal", you dramatically reduce everyone's chance at making a living as a photographer!!! If your goal is to become a professional photographer, you are cutting your own throat with a severely big chainsaw by submitting images to istock.

"Micro payment" essentially defines what you will receive in return (if you're lucky). With a few images sold, photographers receive zero – nothing – the big goose egg – not a penny. Even if you sell many photos, you will NEVER receive enough to cover your cost of business. A lot of amateurs perceive any chance at "exposure" as a positive thing, but believe me, after 20+ years experience, all photos published for the return of “exposure” have cost me dearly in the long run.

Back to istock, this is a numbers game that favors istock far more than Vegas favors the big casinos. Except for your money going into istock's already rich pockets, there are absolutely no "money winners" in regards to photographers (and the future of professional photography), and I highly doubt that anyone will “rake in the cash” with this outfit. If companies such as istock succeed, the market will be fed primarily by amateurs who can afford good equipment and a hefty vacation budget. Essentially, no one will have an opportunity to earn enough money to cover even minimal shooting expenses!

istock relies entirely on uninformed hobbyists and amateurs who are willing feed their online library in return for bragging rights and chump change. They only pay if your earnings reach X amount of dollars, which is very difficult to achieve when your image might sell for less than $2.00/pop. With this system, photographers that don’t reach the break point (possibly 200+ photos sold) will never receive a dime. In essence most photographer receive $0, even if images are sold!

There are plenty of pro blogs regarding istock's damage to the industry and the resulting hurdles to aspiring photographers. Even Getty, who owns istock, says micro-payment portals are killing their traditional stock outlets. Please do your homework before moving forward on with a foolish endeavor such as this! There is nothing good about istock! Just don't do it! Please don't bring an entire industry down for the purpose bragging rights and feeding your ego!

I’ve encountered a number of photographers in the field who claim to be professionals or “semi-professionals”. It’s hard to describe the sensation upon hearing they publish to istock. I guess the sensation falls somewhere between laughing and crying, but in the end I harbor a nasty feeling of disrespect for the person who claims to be a photographer.

I’m absolutely amazed at what the micro-payment industry is feeding to photographers! FYI, “give you contract for exclusive” (mentioned above), an exclusive sales venue is not a good thing with royalty-free (RF) images, especially micro-payment stock! In fact, “exclusive” is WAY far in the opposite direction from good business! If you intend to market RF images (not a great idea), you must spread them out among many venues (e.g. agencies). Even with this strategy, just face it, you will never earn a living selling RF images unless you have thousands upon thousands of good images, and if you do have this many good images you can make a ton more selling in the rights-managed market.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jessica Sisam on July 25, 2008 at 6:34am

Thank You everyone for there input about stockphotos.
I have a degree in comercial photography and so I have thousands of pictures that I have done that I will never do anything with. For the most part they are just sitting there doing nothing. So my thought was if I have all of these images just sitting there I should make them do something seems how I don't really have the time to do anything else with them I'm so busy with all my other work. and maybe make acouple bucks here and there on the side.
I have heard alot of positive feed back and a lot of negative feed back. For most part it looks very promising. My brother is a graphic designer so he know of alot of good places I can put my pictures.
So again thank you for all of your help.
I would like to make one comment though a statement was made in someones responces that people who do stock photos prob aren't even real professional photographers. But I would just like to make it known that I have been doing photography for 4 years now this is my only job and this is how I make my living and I am doing very well. I also have a degree in Commercial and in Wedding Portrait, and on top of that I am an incorporated. So all of that being said in the eyes of the photography world that makes me a professional photographer, and by me choosing to sell some photos on a stockphoto sight is not lowering myself or making myself anything less then what I am and that is a professional Photographer.
Again thank you everyone for all your advice and i'll keep you posted on how it goes for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tobin on July 30, 2008 at 1:49pm

My apologies. I said, "istock relies entirely on uninformed hobbyists and amateurs...", where I should have said, "istock relies primarily on uninformed hobbyists and amateurs...".

While you may see this as an opportunity to "maybe make a couple bucks", it's actually the exact opposite. The winners here are companies like istock and buyers seeking cheap royalty free images. Overwhelmingly, the artists are the big losers here. Over time, money will be coming out of your bottom line, because the perceived value of an image will be based on prices offered by companies such as istock. Unfortunately, the emergence of micro-payment portals will make it virtually impossible for an artist to earn a living in the already competitive field of stock photography.

My agency works hard at marketing, and receives hundreds of stock photo requests annually, but less than 5% of inquirers actually purchase an image. In most cases, the potential buyer's perception of value is based upon rates published by micro-payment portals, so our rates, which are based upon the cost of running our business, are generally too high in the buyers' minds.

Although I am very passionate about the viability of the photography industry as a reasonable source of income, my intention is not to step on anyone's sense of pride. However, I hope that people will educate themselves and think about the consequences before participating in the micro-payment industry.

Please see the following for more...

Cheap Photo Sites Pit Amateurs vs. Pros (BusinessWeak)
New Threat to Stock Photo Sales (BBC News)
The Rise of Crowdsourcing (Wired Magazine)
Microstock and the Rise of the Crowd (abouttheimage.com)
The Problem with Microstock (photocritic.org)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tobin on July 30, 2008 at 3:00pm

Follow-up...

Although my feelings about microstock are obvious, I would be remiss in disregarding the success stories:

World’s Most Successful "Crowdsourcing" Stock Photographer... (stockphototalk.com)
From Microstock to Megabucks (photocritic.org)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Lindenberg on August 1, 2008 at 7:47am

Hey Jessica, Yeah, I agree with what's been said about iStock®. It's a no-win situation, that's why you don't actually see any 'big' names participating. See allposters.com for a cool example of how its done. Ok, now to my point - it would be far better to sell your images from your own website. This really works. All you have to do is market your website, and that's pretty easy. My friend http://www.scottchu.com/prints.html does a wonderful job with his most simple website. Yours of course could be a bit more complex if you are selling electronic copies of you images. See also www.d65.com for an eye opener.
Regards

• ▶ Reply