[sb in ak]

I am thinking of trying to get into stock photography, anyone on here have any luck with it? Disclaimer: I am not looking to replace my current job (graphic design at a local newspaper); just something to make a few extra bucks here and there. I spend a lot of time shooting on my personal time as it is, so this seems like an opportunity to make a few bucks on it. I understand that it seems to be somewhat tough to get into (or rather, make much on) as there are so many photogs and images out there.

I am interested to hear which companies folks are using and why. Here in Alaska we also have Alaska Stock, which has steeper requirements but better returns (I also need to send them a minimum of 60 shots to start with). There are also companies like istock, etc that seem to pay less but are less strict and require less images to start with. (So it's sell a few for more money, or sell more for less money----IF they sell at all!).

Sounds like images with people sell best; how do you deal with the model release paperwork? Are folks generally receptive to it? I've heard that one way to "give something back" is to get their email and send them a photo. Or is sending them a print better?

Thanks for any advice.

[Docrwm]

We recently had reports that Getty is no longer accepting any submissions that were not done with approved equipment.

[sb in ak]

This seems to have been reversed?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/177017-getty-images-camera-list.html

Anyways, I shoot with a K-5 and 5DM2, so I don't think I have a problem at least meeting camera res. requirements unless I'm cropping.

[Docrwm]

This seems to have been reversed?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/177017-getty-images-camera-list.html

Anyways, I shoot with a K-5 and 5DM2, so I don't think I have a problem at least meeting camera res. requirements unless I'm cropping.

I see that and was not aware of it. However, there is a more recent thread that is here somewhere (and I can't seem to find it but its less than a week old) that indicated that they did have a current equipment list.

[Docrwm]

This seems to have been reversed?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/177017-getty-images-camera-list.html

Anyways, I shoot with a K-5 and 5DM2, so I don't think I have a problem at least meeting camera res. requirements unless I'm cropping.

I see that and was not aware of it. However, there is a more recent thread that is here somewhere (and I can't seem to find it but its less than a week old) that indicated that they did have a current equipment list.

But when I google their submission requirements they do go on to say:

Submission requirements – the main points
• All images must be uncompressed 47.5-52 MB TIFF files, (flattened, with no layers, paths
or channels), 24 bit RGB Color, 8 bits per channel (8 bit file) before importing into the
Getty Images Preflight Tool. This tool will test the TIFFs against the parameters set out in
the Submission Requirements and convert the files to high quality JPEGs that you can
then submit to us without further processing. Final JPEGs must be supplied on a CD or
DVD.
• We do not accept RAW files or JPEGs.

All isolated visible logos must be removed via retouching prior to submission, as must
dust, hair, scratches etc.

Model and Property releases are required with all images where relevant and must be
supplied in digital format.

Metadata (also known as captioning) must also be supplied to us digitally in IPTC, XMP,
Excel or Text File formats.

If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list:
Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11,
Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase
One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.

We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been drum scanned by a
professional scanning house or scanned using the approved desk top film scanners from
the following list: Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan; Creo
Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3

[sb in ak]

Hmm, all I can find when I cruise Getty's website (contributor section) is this...http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2371

No mention of required cameras there or in their FAQ section (which goes on to say that they need at least 3MP images). The above listing all mentions cameras that are somewhat older at this point, leading me to believe that they no longer have a required list, or that list has changed.

[builttospill]

Getty has had a list of approved equipment for as long as I can remember, but they have made exceptions in the past. I've sold stock images since 2006 and have seen some changes and trends since then, especially when the recession hit.

I submit to a number of agencies as I'm not a fan of putting all my eggs in one basket. I have a very small portfolio but it sells well enough to fund all of my equipment listed in my signature and more. I consider most of it residual income and I send them a few new photos about once a year. I work with enough stock and microstock agencies that I don't want to do a big write up here, but if you want more information please send me a PM and I'll send you a message including a bit of my experiences with some of the agencies I like.

Model releases are no problem. I have a pretty good standard release I use for my shoots and it works with multiple agencies as I've kept it neutral. I'd also be happy to e-mail it to you if you'd like.

[sb in ak]

Getty has had a list of approved equipment for as long as I can remember, but they have made exceptions in the past. I've sold stock images since 2006 and have seen some changes and trends since then, especially when the recession hit.

I submit to a number of agencies as I'm not a fan of putting all my eggs in one basket. I have a very small portfolio but it sells well enough to fund all of my equipment listed in my signature and more. I consider most of it residual income and I send them a few new photos about once a year. I work with enough stock and microstock agencies that I don't want to do a big write up here, but if you want more information please send me a PM and I'll send you a message including a bit of my experiences with some of the agencies I like.

Model releases are no problem. I have a pretty good standard release I use for my shoots and it works with multiple agencies as I've kept it neutral. I'd also be happy to e-mail it to you if you'd like.

PM'd!

[jatrax]

I only do micro-stock, currently on 7 agencies. Stock is a completely different ballgame. I see lots of people try to get started with what they have on their computer and usually it just does not work. Stock is hard work, if you think you are going to just take a couple 1,000 images off your computer and make a few bucks forget it, not going to happen. For stock, you have to shoot stock. Images must be technically near perfect and have something that has value to graphic designers and art directors. No logos, no identifiable people or products, perfect lighting and focus. Creative 'artsy' pictures will not work, you are looking for something that conveys a clear concept.

You can make money, though probably a lot less than you think these days as there are so many people in it, but you have to work at it. My goal is 25 accepted images every week, 52 weeks a year.

Model releases are required of course, and while it is possible to take pictures on the street and then ask for a release I doubt you will get many. Most folks doing this seriously hire models for the shoot, use relatives or friends, or work with other photographers and shoot each other. The actual release varies by agency but there are a few generic ones floating around that seem to be accepted most places.

Most micro-stock agencies have requirements for mega-pixels not for equipment. You can get images accepted using a point & shoot and even a cell phone but that is not easy and does not happen often. RM (rights managed) agencies have different requirements and some do check what equipment you use.

If you want info on what agencies to try PM me and I can give more info and links.

[builttospill]

Jatrax summed it up very well. Stock photography is hard work. That's why I don't submit many photos anymore, because I was tired of looking at the world around me everywhere I went thinking "Would that sell?" or "Would a designer like that photographed?" and I started to gravitate away from the reason I started with photography as a young kid: for the artistic beauty. In other words, the artistic stuff doesn't sell. Buyers want simple, clear concepts displayed in photos, similar to the million images you've all seen with the pretty girl with the phone headset on or the "business handshake" picture. It's been done and overdone, but they're images designers continue to demand.

With stock I provide them with full resolution images. With microstock I send them 5 MP resized photos. If I'm selling my photos for that cheap, I won't send them the full size image. Just my thing.

[jatrax]

because I was tired of looking at the world around me everywhere I went thinking "Would that sell?" or "Would a designer like that photographed?"

Agree, I still work at it because I am trying to build a portfolio but I'm long past the stage where it is 'fun'. But if you are looking for a brutally effective way to improve your skills, there is nothing like stock. Shoot something, PP & edit, keyword & title, upload and you get almost instant feedback on how bad your stuff is. You really need a thick skin, especially at first, because people who are not your friends and family are going to be looking at your images (along with 50,000 other images every day) and telling you like it is without pulling any punches. They really do not care if your feelings get hurt, so you learn fast what works or you quit.

[jatrax]

Here is something I wrote on a stock agency forum awhile back after having a particularly frustrating day.


Life Stages of a Stock Photographer

1) Receive a camera (either as a gift or purchase), take photos and impress friends and relatives. Receive many admiring comments on how good a camera you have.

2) Discover photo sharing sites. Post some images and engage in mutually satisfying cross-congratulation sessions. Assume that if you are receiving compliments from total strangers then your images must be pretty good.

3) Discover stock web sites and realize you can actually make money selling your photographs. Ignore the reality that you have no talent, experience, training or equipment, and that there are literally 100's of thousands of other aspiring photographers (some of which actually have talent) trying to do the same thing.

4) Apply at SS and get rejected. Assume that SS is a bunch of snobby elitists that cannot recognize good work and probably would not know what to do with it anyway.

5) Apply at several other stock sites and get rejected at most. Finally get accepted at one or two. Become very disappointed that you did not make enough for a new camera in the first month. Assume these sites are just wannabees and do not know how to market your stuff.

6) Re-apply at SS and get rejected again. Take good advice and post a few images in the critique forum. Get destroyed by the critiquers and assume they are just cranky mean people. Post numerous times arguing with them.

7) Finally realize that your stuff may not rival Michelangelo and start to read a book on photography. Browse some stock critique forums and blogs. Take some new photos and post in the critique forum, get destroyed again.

8) Through blind luck finally improve enough to get accepted at SS. Finally finish the photography book. Take more pictures, and finally make a sale.

9) Ignore sage advice that “getting accepted is easy, getting sold is hard” and assume that since you got accepted you have this figured out. Upload a bunch of images and get most of them rejected. Whine on the forum about the reviewers. Post a few in the critique forum and get destroyed. Post replies arguing with the critiquers.

10) Continue to improve; start to get regular sales, move up to an average of one sale per day. Start to post in the critique forum since you have this all figured out and want to help teach the newbies how it is done.

11) Realize that at one sale per day it will take approximately eleven years to make enough for a new camera.

12) Start to learn about composition, focus, lighting and how stock images are used. Post some new ones in the critique forum and get destroyed. Actually think about what the critiquers are saying and start to improve. Start to get consistent acceptance and assume you now have this figured out.

13) Work up to three sales per day and realize that it will now only take about four years to make enough to buy a new camera. Apply at a bunch of other sites to increase the volume of sales. Get accepted and upload your portfolio. Experience extreme disappointment when sales at all other sites combined add up to only one sale per day.

14) Start looking at other portfolios and follow the discussions in the critique forum. Finally realize that 90% of what you got accepted is pure drek and will never sell despite being accepted. Realize that getting accepted is very easy, getting images accepted regularly is easy, making sales is very hard work.

15) Read another book on photography, buy some lighting equipment. Post some more images to the critique forum and get destroyed.

16) Realize that despite now having some experience and equipment you still have no talent. Decide to make it up in quantity. Start uploading lots of images and get rejected for similars. Post some in the critique forum and get destroyed.

17) Start to wonder if this stock thing is really for you. Post in the forums wondering if the stock fad is over.

[sb in ak]

Agree, I still work at it because I am trying to build a portfolio but I'm long past the stage where it is 'fun'. But if you are looking for a brutally effective way to improve your skills, there is nothing like stock. Shoot something, PP & edit, keyword & title, upload and you get almost instant feedback on how bad your stuff is. You really need a thick skin, especially at first, because people who are not your friends and family are going to be looking at your images (along with 50,000 other images every day) and telling you like it is without pulling any punches. They really do not care if your feelings get hurt, so you learn fast what works or you quit.

Thanks for your comments. Jatrax, I sent you a PM.

Yeah, I can see this getting fairly annoying, especially as my photos gravitate toward a more artistic & abstract style rather than bright and colorful 100% technically correct images that a graphic designer might want to use. Forcing myself to take more mundane photos might hurt my passion for the hobby. At this point, it is still "fun" but I wouldn't mind making a few dollars to try to support a lens purchase here or there...so I guess it doesn't have to be all fun (rarely anything is in life). But maybe trying to get into an art gallery or two might be a better direction.

Still, I think I'll give stock....er rather microstock a shot (or two or three). It would actually help me to get some brutal feedback on my photography.