Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-31-2009, 06:23 AM   #1
Pentaxian
Arjay Bee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bamaga, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,066
List Your Stock Photo Company

Some one has to be the first to post here so here goes.

Please list the stock photo companies you use and the special features of that company that you like or dislike.

I have just started with OzImages and the learning curve is being greatly eased by the excellent online tutorials and regular emails. One feature I like is that the company uses a membership serviceas opposed to the comission service. This means that you may have to pay a bit before you sell any images but if your images are strong and sell well then you get to keep all the income.

There are a large range of extra services that the subscription provides. Two weeks in and I am a very happy camper and look forward to adding to my portfolio.

A big tip from Matt, the owner manager, is if you are intending to sell images or have sold an image you are a professional and to consider yourself as such and never label yourself as "keen amateur". I think that attitude should be held for any poster to this forum. Think of yourself and act in the professional way that you want to be treated.

01-31-2009, 10:32 AM   #2
Veteran Member
jamonation's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 364
Funny you started this thread, I was reading this page the other day and am hesitant to think about selling stock to getty & corbis (I'm not ready yet, but when I am). Tales from the IT side PicScout, Getty Images and Goodbye iStockPhoto..!

A friend of mine works for Masterfile Stock Photos: Home I plan on using them since they have rights managed and royalty free options, and are based out of Toronto. Pretty compelling reasons for me to use them notwithstanding any arguments one could make for getty/corbis/istock wrt to number of eyeballs. That being said, I'm not planning on selling for any meaningful amount of income.
02-01-2009, 12:26 PM   #3
Veteran Member
MJB DIGITAL's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: st. louis
Posts: 1,173
There is a book out there called 'The Photographers Market' I have the 2006 edition, and it is FULL of different kind's of agencies for stock and more. Plus it has great info about each agency such as submission guidlines, phone numbers, addresses, etc. its really good.

I HIGHLY suggest checking it out. Although I don't sell stock, I will someday. I'll be back in this thread and in my book to find out the best places to sell.

Thanks
02-12-2009, 08:25 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,133
I submitted some images to iStockphoto, made a bit of money out of it. I just don't have the patience to follow the necessary process to submit photos.

Also - you really need to submit and get accepted a good load of photos so you can actually start making enough money for it to be worth your effort.

I'm just too impatient for that

03-03-2009, 02:39 PM   #5
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: China
Posts: 69
Alamy, MyLopupe
04-14-2009, 10:27 AM   #6
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 83
I have three or four images on Dreamstime and BigStockPhoto, and they do sell . . . but I'm annoyed at the microstock model and think it's insane that a photographer gets $0.35 on a photo someone downloaded at 8MB. (i.e. clearly using for print and not just a quick shot on a blog) I submitted them before I learned about the different rights models, and I won't be submitting more.

From this point forward, I am only planning to work with RM sites. In the past, I had a K110d, and most of the larger agencies wouldn't accept the small files. I had great luck with The PhotoShelter Collection who overlooked file size and focused more on subject matter and composition, but it closed. Now I've upgraded to the K20d and am building a better portfolio of higher-res images so that I can submit to a collection of boutique stock houses.

Would anyone recommend a certain RM library? Monsoon, Fototeca, First Light, etc. look like they may be promising. I wonder what the ratio of submitted portfolios to active photographers is with these outfits? I'd also be curious to see the average earnings per image.

Alamy turns me off completely. They'll deny a shot that other stock agencies take without question . . . giving an obscure technical reason. And yet the composition of many of the shots accepted and posted there are just unusable. They may be technically sound as in no dust, no interpolation, etc., but they look like accidental snapshots taken by someone who picked up a D300 set on AUTO and pointed in the general direction of the subject without regard to lines, cluttered backgrounds, etc. I'd rather work with an agency who is more selective about content, genre, etc. Any suggestions?
04-14-2009, 02:43 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
i am sorry to kind of hijack this thread (moderators may forgive me and separate the post in a new thread if apropriate), but i would like to understand: why sell (micro)stock at all? i don't see any good side of that. maybe i am missing something.
04-14-2009, 08:41 PM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 83
Nanok, I don't mind Microstock in two or three instances:

- If you're selling small, web-only image files which are used for non-commercial purposes (i.e. illustrating a blog post)

- If you're selling small, web-only image files which are used for classroom presentations (i.e. PowerPoint visuals)

- If you're selling small, web-only image files which are used for non-profits to use on their info pages (i.e. cute photo of a cat for an animal shelter)

Such uses don't bother me in the slightest.

Unfortunately, with Microstock, it's impossible to know who's buying your photos and what they're using them for. The first photo I uploaded to BigStockPhoto was a plate of hot wings. That crazy little shot (certainly not art) has been downloaded dozens of times -- always in a web-only size. I assume mom & pop restaurants are using the shot for their sites . . . or perhaps sports blogs are illustrating the menu of a Super Bowl party. I really don't care. What I care about is when someone downloads an 8 MB file which is obviously going to be used for printing -- and from which I'll make a whopping $0.35. At 8MB file size, we could be talking about a major ad campaign, a billboard, etc.

Because of this, I just left the handful of images I had uploaded in the beginning and haven't submitted anything to microstock in more than a year. I'd pull them, but they're now useless for RM since they've been marketed as RF.

I understand that many professional stock artists will place their best shots with RM and their also-rans with RF. I suppose that's one way to diversify your inventory, but I'd still feel dirty and completely ripped off after making a Microstock sale in print sizes. It's really too bad you can't upload to iStock, BigStock, Dreamstime, etc. and check a box saying "web size ONLY." If that option were available, I'd have many more images placed there.

04-15-2009, 03:37 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
exactly. the point is that microstock is not designed for such things, as, if i am not mistaking, you cannot even upload files which are too small (some consider even 6MP small) or grainy or whatever. the requirements for acceptance are obviously designed for selling big, good quality files at ridiculous prices, what you describe is decent common sense, and is exactly what microstock is _not_ intended to be.
04-15-2009, 10:14 AM   #10
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 83
QuoteQuote:
exactly. the point is that microstock is not designed for such things, as, if i am not mistaking, you cannot even upload files which are too small (some consider even 6MP small) or grainy or whatever. the requirements for acceptance are obviously designed for selling big, good quality files at ridiculous prices, what you describe is decent common sense, and is exactly what microstock is _not_ intended to be.
Totally agree! Let's go start our own agency which only offers 72 dpi shots of 1 MB or less designed for use only online. Shots all cost $4 each. Photographer gets $2. Collection is edited for composition, content, and basic technical quality, although a little noise won't result in an automatic rejection. Really . . . why would we turn down a perfect shot of the new First Puppy just because it had a benign artifact in the bottom left corner that can only be seen viewed at a 100% crop on a 32MB file? We'll call this site CommonSenseImages.com.

You heard it here first .
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
company, images, list, photo, photo industry, photography, stock, stock photo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A company asking me for a quote on full rights photo. how much to charge? CRPhoto Photographic Industry and Professionals 13 02-21-2013 02:55 AM
Vincent Laforet's Olympic Photo Equipment List alohadave General Talk 6 08-27-2008 07:46 AM
Prom Photo List PHOTOCOP Photographic Technique 0 05-04-2008 08:39 PM
Text book stock photo rate? Bud Photographic Technique 1 02-22-2008 07:27 AM
stock-photo blurb d.bradley Pentax News and Rumors 4 01-11-2008 12:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top