Stock Photography Question

Photogmn said:

You know what Mr. Alan G? I have been following this conversation
for quite some time. You strike me as an arrogant egotistical jerk
afraid of the current trend, but too high on his photgraphic
pedistal to admit it...

Click to expand...

Sure that's me if it makes you feel better. Just a jerk who is looking after his own interests. I guess in some minds having high ideals and trying to do what is best for my profession makes me arrogant. I supposed that's why I worked so hard for several years with ASMP - Helping out new photographers by encouraging them to raise their business standards and form the foundations for a successful career. Thanks for making it personal. Have we ever met? Where have I ever insulted anyone? Are you unable to counter any of my points? Is that why you lash out? Why not have a discussion?

As I've said many times, I am not a stock shooter. Microstock does not directly affect my earnings in any way. I probably only have $5,000 in stock sales a year that just fall into my lap. So you have me beat by 19 grand a year. That means you probably sell several thousand photos a month, maybe 20,000 or more per year. That is a staggering number to me. And this is part time work to supplement the advertising photography you shoot for your principal income? Are these outtakes or self assigned projects?

So if you are such a proponent of microstock, talk me into it. Explain it. How can I do it too? How many pictures do I need posted? What kinds of subjects and styles sell the best? How much work do I have to do so that I can net $2,000 per month?

Maybe my advice is not for you. You understand business, know your costs and value of your work. You desrve a livlihood and you say you need the money from your microstock sales. So enjoy your extra income. There is nothing wrong with making some extra money if it is worth the effort to you. But not many people can make a career of stock. And I am talking from the view of photography as a profession not a sideline.

If microstock is so good for you, why do you want so many others in it? Won't this dilute the market and potentially reduce your earnings? How long will it be before a new stock model comes out that sells pictures for fifty cents, or a quarter?

It is funny to me that some amateurs and pros come to this professional forum to seek advice and opinions from other professionals. Then if we say what we really think about what people are doing to the profession, they get angry at us and call us names.

What do you want a professional to say?

Pictures should be sold for a buck or two? Should we say, "Find out what every pro charges in your market and then undercut him/her?" "Don't copyright your images or protect that copyright?" "Accept work for hire agreements and let all the publishing companies own, re-use, and re-sell your pictures?" "Just charge a day rate for your time irrespective of usage?" "Don't join ASMP, APA, PPofA, etc. and ignore any of their advice and professional guidelines and standards of behavior?" "Just aim low?"

Anyone can hang out a shingle and declare himself/herself a photographer. As the entry barrier to this profession is pretty low in some fields, a lot of people are doing just that, aiming low.

Did you ever hear the expression "home piecework?" There was a time in the past where clothing industries and light manufacturing would send work into the home for it to be worked on there. Maybe some light assembly, perhaps a mother and her kids would sew or knit clothing. They'd get paid by the finished piece. It kept the company's overhead down and gave a little extra money for those in need even if it might have been below minimum wage. I wonder why we don't do that anymore?

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

Alan,

I have been reading your threads on the costs of stock shoots for awhile. In the above response you asked what type of photos sell well in microstock sites, basically the same as rights managed sites. That is where I get totally confused with how a microstock photographer can afford to pay 1 to 5 or more people to pose for a series of shots then sell them for a $1.00.

Some of the photos just aren't casual posed stuff but real serious works.

--
Ian the RF Cat.



RFCat (Vee Kay three Y A Y) aka irm
LOVE MY tenD
Have fun while learning photography. Always learning.
http://www.pbase.com/ianm_au
equipment in profile

RF Cat said:

Alan,

Click to expand...

That is where I get totally confused with how a microstock
photographer can afford to pay 1 to 5 or more people to pose for a
series of shots then sell them for a $1.00.

Some of the photos just aren't casual posed stuff but real serious works.

I can only speak for myself, but I've never paid a model, and that's mostly what I shoot for stock. Quite often, a person will inquire about hiring me, but can't afford the full rate. We can generally work out an arrangement where they pay a portion of my fee and give me a model release to cover the remainder. Other times, I simply work with models on a TFP/CD basis.

--
http://www.istockphoto.com/blaneyphoto
http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=11729

Photogmn said:

You strike me as an arrogant egotistical jerk...

Click to expand...

Time for a beer or two?

Wow! Even though this is a very emotionally charged thread I find it very informative nonetheless. It is a bit confusing at times to really understand where the folks are coming from but it almost seem like everyone is saying nearly the same thing.

I have been reading a lot about photography as a business opportunity and it seems like the micro stock is a good, low risk, entry into the field. I completely understand the pennies for a shot, however it truly seems like the primary consumer of micro-stock images are really generic non-specific images. Even within the micro-stock field it really appears if you don’t understand the market and produce good quality images you are not going to sell anything.

It also seems IF you advance in your ability and skill you can then expand into other markets. My “plan” if you could call it that, would be to start in the micro-stock arena teaming with my wife to produce images. The initial goal would obviously be able to sell images and to increase both of our skill and confidence in going from concept to finished shot. I think at that point you could (more) safely expanded into different areas, whatever they may be.

Personally I don’t understand folks, at least the guys I know locally, who do not really have the technical skill (and equipment) to do more commercial photography; be it weddings or product photography. I know I could get some grief on the – equipment isn’t everything – but there is a bit of liability in expanding into other works, such as the work that Alan is doing.

I would like my “business” model to start with “low-risk” (as I define it) stock photograph and move up from there. If stock could provide a semi steady stream of income then it would be another earning potential combine with whatever I (well we, my wife and I) can expand into.

Potentially it would be nice to expand enough to make this a full time career replacing what I am currently doing. However if we could make this into something that my wife does full time and I am her “helper” I would be fine with that as well. In our situation I am the “photograph” (I have been making photographs since the mid 80s) so I have a more experience than her.

Coming from an IT (Communications) field I can see where my industry is heading and the outsourcing we are doing, the same is true in just about anything other field. But I think when you are in a field such as photograph (maybe even wood working or some other type of craft/trade) quality does sell and there is a market for quality work.

I think for me photography is a passion and I enjoy doing it for my own self-gratification. However, from a business standpoint I do not really consider the passion part of it, it is more of a business. I suppose I am feeling if there is a way I could make money at something that I enjoy at the same time that would be truly wonderful. Even now I really get into the moment of shooting something and I am always looking at different ways to shoot things. I would imagine Alan is the same way in his real estate photograph and you (Alan) probably approach each job with an enthusiasm that comes from doing something you truly love to do. If you didn’t I would assume your images would be poor, your clients would find someone else, and you would try to find something you really enjoy to do.

Either way I truly appreciate this discussion and the different ideas and thoughts on this topic.

v/r

Duane...

Think about it logically. You could also join Alamy with no risk and potentially make hundreds of dollars per sale. Imagine what that would do for your confidence... Why limit yourself in this way? I hate this attitude among microstock shooters of always saying that nothing they do is worthy of a respectable payment regardless of the usage.

Well, I'm hanging with this thread despite a post or two that insulted me...
But, I really don't have much more to add about microstocks.

Duane Ellison said:

I know I could get some grief on the – equipment
isn’t everything – but there is a bit of liability in expanding
into other works, such as the work that Alan is doing.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "liability." Do you meant the risk of shooting a job and it not turning out, or the customer not liking it?

Duane Ellison said:

I would like my “business” model to start with “low-risk” (as I
define it) stock photograph and move up from there. If stock could
provide a semi steady stream of income then it would be another
earning potential combine with whatever I (well we, my wife and I)
can expand into.

Click to expand...

OK now I see it. Microstock has a different appeal for different people. So I challenge you to define your goal in advance and then work towards it. I doubt microstock is your end goal and it may not be that helpful in getting you to your goal. The time you spend shooting images for microstock might be better spent elsewhere.

I suggest you see if you can freelance assistant for various photographers. This should give you a better understanding of what the day to day photography business is like before you start making any plans.

Duane Ellison said:

I think for me photography is a passion and I enjoy doing it for my
own self-gratification. However, from a business standpoint I do
not really consider the passion part of it, it is more of a
business. I suppose I am feeling if there is a way I could make
money at something that I enjoy at the same time that would be
truly wonderful. Even now I really get into the moment of shooting
something and I am always looking at different ways to shoot
things. I would imagine Alan is the same way in his real estate
photograph and you (Alan) probably approach each job with an
enthusiasm that comes from doing something you truly love to do.

Click to expand...

I am digressing from stock into what it takes to be a pro: It is not all about the joy of taking pictures and making money. Commitment and a good work ethic are very important if you want to stick around in the business.

Passion is important and so is enthusiasm. I have both in spades. But I also have a professional attitude which means I will do my best on any job regardless of how boring the project may be. Successful pros bend over backwards to please their clients even if the client has unreasonable requests and a ridiculous deadline. Handling pressure and dealing with a "crisis" is standard fare in this business.

As a freelancer, we have to be flexible. I have to work an unusual schedule due to subject and client requirements and my work is greatly affected by the weather. If it has been raining for a week, I may have a lot of jobs stacked up. Once it clears up, I have to work like a banshee no matter what else may have been planned. Sometimes I work 12 hours a day for 10 days straight. Keeping a good attitude and energy level is important. In 30 years, I've only cancelled one job due to illness. (And it had a loose deadline so it wasn't necessary to shoot that day anyhow.)

Some days you feel burned out and the last thing you want to do is shoot pictures. But you stay focused and do a good job anyway. Here is what it takes: About 6 years ago I started having some neck problems. (Disk pressing on my spinal cord.) The last project I did before fusion surgery was a commercial architecture job. I couldn't tilt my head above level without my arms going numb. I couldn't even look up at the building. I had to do all my framing and shooting by looking through a 45 degree angle finder on my view camera. I had to be a real pro that day, because I shouldn't have even been working. The first job I did after surgery I apparently over did it - hand holding a camera. The next day I couldn't lift my left arm, the pain was so bad. I had an advertising shoot that afternoon - a bunch of models and the clients directing a lifestyle shoot at restaurants and other amenities throughout a new community. Well I couldn't cancel this without major hassles so I had to suck it up and work through the pain. (My assistant was a big help that day as I could barely hold the camera.) Or the time I got vertigo in a helicopter but kept working for another hour. (I waited five hours for the spinning to stop before driving home.) We all have many "war" stories. Our clients just want the pictures, not excuses or complaints.

So I crack up when I see apost by someone such as photogmn who first insults me and then goes on to say, "I am PROUD to say that I am a GOOD photographer, self taught, and I can complete against the likes of you, the elistist photographer." (sic)

Well photogm, some of us have a lot more invested in this profession than you have. And we have a lot more to lose if the profession goes downhill. I for one, have been shooting since I was 11. I got a B.S. in professional photography from RIT. (I could list more.) And I practiced and studied a lot of new stuff all the time. My experiences are not that unique. Many many successful photographers spent a lot of money and put in a lot of hard work to get to where they are. It is never as easy as it looks.

So please understand why pros can get a little rankled by the cavalier attitude that so many novices on this forum express when going into this field. Yes it is easy to make a little money at photography - I did it as a kid. But it is much harder to set difficult goals and carve a fulfilling career path that you can be proud of. So if you see microstock as an early stepping stone in that career, then who am I to say no?

Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

Cornishman said:

AlanG said:

So I ask all of you microstockers. If your work is good enough for
someone to use it, why isn't it good enough for someone to pay an
amount commensurate to how they benefit from it. Try to picture all
ads, magazines , brochures and packaging without any photos on
them. Your images are valuable. If you don't value your work, who
will?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I like the "pulling teeth for a dollar a pop".
--
Rudi

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. - Elliott Erwitt

Peter Neubauer said:

Anybody out there making money with Stock Photography? I'm
considering jumping in and possibly making some extra money.

Here is a sample of my work to date: http://www.photonphotography.com

Any suggestions? or stock agencies that may consider my work? Are
the small stock agencies worth the effort?

Any first hand help is much appreciated.

Peter
http://www.photonphotography.com

Click to expand...

Hi, just wondering what you've decided upon or found out?
--
Rudi

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. - Elliott Erwitt

RudivanS said:

Hi, just wondering what you've decided upon or found out?
--

Click to expand...

Did you read all of the maybe 100 posts in this thread? LOL

Hi Rudi,

Quite a response to my question that's for sure. Well it's safe to say the whole stock photography industry is going through significant changes and digital has definitly influnced it.

I don't think the work posted on my website is stock material for the most part. That's ok I never intended it to be. After checking a couple of stock sites I have a better feel for what type of photos they are after. And I can shoot those types of images.

It also appers to me there are 3 main types of stock photo houses. The dollar stock sites that cater to web designers and people putting together news letters and such, the mid range sites like Alamy, and then the high end sites like Getty or Corbis.

I'm thinking about targeting the mid level sites although I never did get a reponse back from World of Stock. Competition seems high and I'm sure there's alot of entries.

For the low end sites like istock it seems it's all about volume. The more you post the higher your percentage of sales. Although as Alan has pointed out the lower cost of images probably does bring down the industry as a whole. As long as amature photographers are willing to sell images for such small amounts without any royality agreements it will cheapen a specific segment of photography. I think that has been a problem for a long time especially since photography is a hobby for many and there are some serious hobbiests out there that have some nice work.

All in all, I got some good responses and a few emails from my website. The input has been great and that's one of the reasons dpreview is such a great site where else can you get so much imput from the pros.

Peter Neubauer
http://www.photonphotography.com

Thank you Peter and best of luck.
Yes, mid-sized stock businesses seem a reasonable option at this point in time.
--
Rudi - http://www.vanstarrex.com

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby. - Elliott Erwitt

AlanG said:

What technological barriers? It has always been pretty easy to use
a camera and get a focused properly exposed image. Representing a
subject properly and adding some creativity is the hard part. Does
new technology somehow give you experience or creativity? Does it
teach you how to arrange and light a still life food setup? Try
composing, proping and lighting a home interior.

Click to expand...

Not to be antagonistic, just to call a point. While many tech advances don't actually help make for a better photographer, just make life easier. One thing that HAS mad a big difference in making sure a scene is properly lit and composed is digital. Before the review screen on a camera a photographer needed to know how their scene was going to look when they developed a negative, and at best could take lots of different shots. With digital the instant feedback certainly allows mediocre photographers (like myself take better shots. Granted I try to apply this feedback to my brain and learn how to do things better next time BEFORE I click the shutter, but it is a tool that truly helps.

But that is about it, if you don't have an eye for it then no amount of instant feedback from the screen is going to tell you that your photo is just plain ugly

newday said:

A good designer can take even the most gruesome image and turn it
into a glamorous, fantastic looking presentation or brochure.
Photoshop etc... allow them to create absolutely brilliant work.
The image itself is just another design element just like the text,
the background chosen, framing...

Click to expand...

Yeah, but in the end you may pay the designer more to fix the image than you would have to get a good image to begin with Good designers aren't cheap.

Market your photos in the higher end market for a while... images that don't sell after a month, six months a year (whatever seems right to you), pull them back and drop them a notch. I see no reason why a person should only do high or low end stock. No matter the photographer some photos just aren't worth more than a few dollars for people to use, but I see no reason to just let that photograph rot.

The trick is to work out a good strategy for deciding how to market each photo to its fullest potential, while still making enough money for it to be worth your effort.

I could be wrong, I don't do this for a living, but from an outside point of view it seems the logical approach to me.

Anthony Ball wrote:
.... The trick is to work out a good strategy for deciding how to market

Anthony Ball said:

each photo to its fullest potential, while still making enough
money for it to be worth your effort.

Click to expand...

That is where I'm headed. Unique and hard to get images are going to Alamy as RM. More ordinary images are being taken virtually shotgun style and going RF on iStock. I think its going to be interesting over the next couple of years seeing how it works out.

Jim, I don't see the disservice that you claim microstock is doing, given that the return to the photographer is not all that different from traditional stock. In an earlier post in this thread, you mentioned you looked forward to building your portfolio on Acclaim and Alamy to about 4000 images and might expect $30-50k a year from that. That works out to about $10/image/year. Well, I'm averaging $9/image/year by posting my stuff non-exclusively at 5 microstock agencies. The much lower commission per licence is compensated by the much higher rate of licencing per image per year.

By all means, continue to licence via traditional pricing if it works for you, especially if the image is the type that might not licence often, but is rare and hard for others to do (your architectural work is great and I imagine you must spend a lot of time on lighting, obtaining property releases, adjusting a view camera and scanning to get those images Such work would definitely fit the RM market more naturally). But also recognize that there is a huge market that never used to exist for budget priced images useful to smaller businesses, non profits and for web use, and microstock serves them well.

Howard

stock portfolio links: http://www.pbase.com/hsandler/stock

shutterstock referral link (I get a commission if you sign up; it is indeed a good agency that has done well for me and I recommend it):
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=9126

The article traces the history of stock photography very well. But the explanation of RM to RF to microstock RF is not good. The simplet explanation the price one has to pay for RM (right management) of a photo is disproptionally to the efferts of taking a photo. Other photographers thought that is the easy money. Do the same. Then there is competition. The price of photo goes down to the level RF. Simple supply-demand equation. Microstock agenies emerge not only as a result of internet, but also the popularization of digital camera. More photos are being taken by many people. Even professional photogapher takes more pictures. Cost per photo goes down. The photos I took within first half a years of owning my first digital camera out number total photos I took prior to that. More photos leads to per photo price to go down, that is exactly what is happening with microstock. Nowdays, unless you have a unique photo others can not do (or few people can do). You are not going to commending a very high price. Just taking a nice photo is not enough because others can supply the same.

Jun

Peter Neubauer said:

Here is a link to an informative essay on Micro Payment Stock
Agencies I came across on Luminous Landscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/micro-payment.shtml

The author makes some very interesting points on the micro stock
industry.

Seems like photographers are there own best enemy sometimes.

Peter
http://www.PhotonPhotography.com

Click to expand...

Howard,

With micro stocks becoming popular with photographers have you noticed a decrease in downloads due to competition?

How long have you been submitting to the 5 stock sites?

Peter

Peter,

No. Each month I compute my rate of return on a per image basis based on that months sales and it has been steady, actually increasing slightly, for the last few months, despite the size of the image bank at these sites having roughly tripled in the 14 months I've been on microstock sites. I hypothesize that 3 factors explain this:

1. I learn more about what is "stockworthy" as I go, so my portfolio gets more marketable as time goes by. This is a combination of uploading better and better images. As well, I cull the images that have few or no sales after many months, unless they depict seasonal themes. This keeps the portfolio lean and mean. Some photographers don't recommend culling anything that's been accepted to an agency; however, my observation is that many buyers download a few of my images at once, meaning they must find something by keyword search initially, then come back and browse my portfolio after that. So I think if I keep everything in the portfolio interesting, they are more likely to find something they want.

2. As my images age, they accumulate more downloads and are listed higher in the image list when sorted by download volume or number of views. This may somewhat compensate the growing image pool size.

3. The market is growing as fast as the image pool size.

A lot of microstock photographers are willing to post their performance stats. See the yahoo microstock discussion forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/

My portfolio link and referral code for dreamstime: http://www.dreamstime.com/resp37007

My referral code for shutterstock:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=9126

Regards,

Howard

Peter Neubauer said:

Howard,

With micro stocks becoming popular with photographers have you
noticed a decrease in downloads due to competition?

How long have you been submitting to the 5 stock sites?

Peter

Click to expand...