Hi Pentaxian friends.
Of all my endeavors over the years, I never tried to sell stock photos through a Stock Agency. Maybe I should have. In the film era, there was a lot of money to be made, but the process was more complicated than it is today. Gone are the days that agencies like Corbis or Getty would sell your images for hundreds or even thousands. The Digital revolution has changed all that.
Nowadays, with luck and taking thousands of photos, anyone can produce decent images. Let's face it, the modern DSLRs are better "photographers" by themselves that most of us are as photographer. With an good DSLR, anyone can get great results by simply using the auto-modes. Of course that takes care of correct exposures, but someone still has to have an eye for photography to produce well composed images.
So, assuming that you have good images and that you are accepted by a stock photo agency. You get a small percentage per file downloaded, which usually amounts to as little as .25 cents per download. Yes, many claim to make a reasonable profit from new generations of Stock agencies such as iStock. Some apparently have quit their day job and are now making a living from selling stock images.
Is that a reality or is that another marketing trap? To make a living earning say: $50,000.00 per year, one would have to sell 200,0000 (Two hundred thousands) downloads @ .25 cents each. That's 548 downloads every day for an entire year. Is that really attainable?
Unfortunately, some businesses make huge profits by making you believe that you can become a millionaire if you just join their organization, buy their books or CD's full of proven methods to get rich, etc. To some extent, some prey on people's dreams of becoming rich and famous.
With iStockphoto and other similar agencies, you don't actually have to pay anything to join. You supply the images, and if accepted, you get a commission for every download. Can you verify how many of your photos are downloaded? I'm not sure that there is a full-proof method of doing that. I think you could sell enough images to pay for your equipment, but I'm not sure one could make a decent living at it. I would love to be proven wrong.
Here's my point, If you are using stock agencies, let all of us know how it is working for you, in the comments section of this blog. In fact, if I can download and pay for one of your image from a stock agency I will post it here as example that it does indeed work, I will. buy a photo (up to 20 from different photographers) from your stock agency (provided I can buy one and not sign a contract for hundreds of dollars). That would make an excellent blog subject and would certainly help many photographers wanting to sell their images. It will also be a free advertisement for your images listed with your stock agency.
I hope to hear from many photographers using stock photos agencies to sell their images. 1001 Noisy Cameras site has agreed to simultaneously run a survey about Microstock photography to complement this blog. I will publish the results and comments from both sites. Visit them as well. Let's get the truth about Microstock photography. Can you make a substantial income?
The above is what the survey on 1001 Noisy Cameras looked like Sunday January 31, 2010 @3:00 PM California time.
The above seems to be the final results. 80% never tried Stock Photography. Of the people that tried, 42% were disapointed. There you have it. Of course this is only a survey and it's only as accurate according to the people that took the survey.
Thank you for reading,
Yvon Bourque
We support this site by selling e-books for the Pentax Digital SLR cameras, including theK100D, K10D, K20D, K-7 and the K-x. This site does not ask for contributions. We sell real tangible merchandise that can improve your photography. Our free Auto-focus adjustment charts have been downloaded thousands of times by Pentaxians as well as Nikon and Canon users.
11 comments:
Interesting subject. I signed up to iStock about 4 months ago. Once I had three examples of my work approved then I became a member, after that every photo I submit is vetted and either rejected (for a variety of reasons) or accepted into the iStock catalogue.
I now have 40 photos available and have sold 12 images so far generating about $20 income, hardly a fortune, but it's something. Also the process of having my photos scrutinised encourages me to try harder to achieve good results. Big incomes are possible..I personally know of someone who is into a 6 figure income after about 2-3 years.
Anyway, here's a link to my current iStock portfolio so you can see the sort of images they accept (my artistic works have to find a different outlet): http://tinyurl.com/ydgue7x
Mark,
Thank you for your comments. That will surely help our Pentaxian friends in deciding what to do about stock phohography. It looks like there is a good potential to make an income. I hope we get lots of comments like yours. The beauty of stock photos, is that you can build up an inventory while keeping your day job. If your stock photo income surpasses your day job, change career.
Yvon,
I signed up with www.fotofil.no in 2006. One of the first online-only agencies (est. 2003 i think), and with pricings comparable to the old conventional agencies. It has earned me a total of 5 sales from a portfolio of about 800 images, but my kind of photos are not much in demand through general-purpose stock agencies.
I'm signed up to various microstock agencies also, but haven't really tried to submit anything. I find that the effort of categorising and setting keywords to my photos in accordance with what the agencies want is a real PITA. It's simply too much job for the prospective income. If I quit my daytime job I would have the time, of course, but... :-)
You can see my tiny stock photo portfolio here. Total earnings in ~2 years: $28.82.
You probably can make a living with microstock photography if your standards of living are low, and if you work hard at it. Microstock's reasons for accepting or refusing your photographs are close to random, and one must throw away all prior notions of what a nice photo is. They don't want nice photos, or artistic photos, they want utilitarian photos. My highest selling photo is this one, which should tell you something.
Alunfoto,
Jostein, that surprises me. Your photos are some of the best I have seen. You have so many of them on the pentax photo gallery that it surely indicates that your work is great.Your photos should be sold and displayed in an art museum. Perhaps you should submit a portfolio to magazines such as National Geographic. I think ther're that good. Anyone wanting to see his pictures, take a look at the Pentax Gallery, Jostein has 100 photos that have been accepted. cut and paste the following: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=230961&subSubSection=0&language=EN
Miserere,
$14.41 per year is a very low standard of living! Maybe this is just the agency you have signed with? I know that pretty landscape photography and artistic images do not sell that well through Microstock photo agencies. They usually want real life situations, and preferebly with people in the image. The problem is that you need a release from each person recognizable in each photo. Then, these people want a percentage of your profits, etc. You need to take pictures of family members.
I signed with stockxpert more than one year ago (http://tinyurl.com/krgnss). Till now I have sold 760 photos with an income of 320 $.
Sure not enough for living.
What stockxpert accepted, fotolia (http://tinyurl.com/yc43wp4)and dreamstime (http://tinyurl.com/yejks7o) refused. With these two latter companies I earned only around 30 $ each (virtual money, since I have to sell for more than 50 $ to be payd ...).
But if things go that way with microstock, I do not think they are going better with other companies: I am also with Alamy and Getty (via flickr), but I do not think I'll become rich anytime with them...
I've been thinking about joining one of this agencies for a couple weeks. I know my brother is currently making around $200-$300 a month. It certainly is not a fortune, but it's a good way to have a hobby that pays for it self. I looked at the pics this sites sell and obviously the main focus is commercial. Great artistic pics won't make it. And remember, you can submit the same photograph to more than one site. And for sure, you must keep updating your stock continuously . By doing this you will increase your chances to buy that lens you've been craving for.
I don't doubt it's possible to earn a living from microstock. Some people do make huge money at it, but the "superstars" cited as examples of this are running what amount to stock photography factories, churning out hundreds of shots all day every day with people employed to process, keyword and upload them. It's not just a full-time job, it's a full-time business.
What microstock could be good for is earning a small side income or covering at least some of the cost of photography as a hobby. My problem there is that I only have limited time to devote to the hobby and the amount of that time I'm willing to put into shooting and processing microstock type images isn't really enough to make it worthwhile; especially when you have to hit a minimum payout threshold to see any of that income at all.
Nice dispatch and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you for your information.
One thing to be aware of is that many of the microstock web sites appear to be Amway-style scams -- that is, you can't make any real money at the "bottom level". You make money by referring customers, and get a percentage of their income. So, it becomes not a job about photography, but a job about convincing other people to sign up.
Post a Comment