istockphoto - I got rejected three times!

photocodo said:
That being said, I have a friend who is making $2000/month on istock. I was shocked when he told me that because my success has been minimal.
Click to expand...

His success is minimal too. To make $2000 a month on iStock you have to sell a lot of images. A lot. For pennies. No thanks. I refuse to give my work away, I have to eat. I like to eat. Every day!

I get hundreds and sometimes much more for each photo I sell off my website for stock. I don't sell 10,000 photos a month but I make enough to live off my much smaller volume.
 
Im not here to say that any one type of photography is better than the other and I definitely agree that there are a lot of problems with stock photography. But, if someone wants to give it a shot, who am I to say that they are selling out or not staying true to the purest form of photography. I say, if you want to try stock, then great, I respect that. If you feel your time is better spent shooting for what you want to sell, then I respect that too. What I love about photography is that its 100% subjective, thats the beauty of it right, isnt that why we all love it in the first place?
 
photocodo said:
Im not here to say that any one type of photography is better than the other and I definitely agree that there are a lot of problems with stock photography. But, if someone wants to give it a shot, who am I to say that they are selling out or not staying true to the purest form of photography. I say, if you want to try stock, then great, I respect that. If you feel your time is better spent shooting for what you want to sell, then I respect that too. What I love about photography is that its 100% subjective, thats the beauty of it right, isnt that why we all love it in the first place?
Click to expand...

I never said there was anything wrong with stock photography. I make a lot of my living from stock. What I said was wrong was giving your work away for pennies when you could, if you were smart, make a lot more from it. If someone asks to license one of your photos, what would you rather get: $2 or $300? To me its a no brainer. Even if you're just a hobbyist trying to bring a few dollars to buy gear...you can buy a hell of a lot more gear if you charge more for your stock photos.
 
Quite enlightening to read this thread. I'm over 40 years into photography and while I've been paid in years past for doing weddings (assisting) and some portrait work, I still don't know what I want to do with the hobby as far as how to make money with it. After spending most of the past 12 years shooting family pictures of my kids like any other new dad I am interested in doing other photography again.

As I looked into all these online stock photo agencies (my wife's company uses iPhoto and others) I started thinking I'd be nuts to seriously pursue this. It's not what I'm interested in shooting and it seems, like in many creative fields, a few are making the decent income and most are lucky to make a couple hundred a year.

So I keep thinking about other ways to try to make money from my work and seeing Chris Crawford's site and approach is, for me anyway, more in line with what I'd like to do. The internet sure has changed everything from back in the day. We can all be rock stars now! ;)
 
Last edited:
Anyone considering 'stock' to be deficient really doesn't undertand how things work. Almost everything is 'stock' really. Even the bulk of the long term and in depth photojournalism. 99.9% is now shot on the photographer iniative and then filed with th respected agency (if your are lucky enought to have one) or istock type outlet. AP, AFP, Reuters, Getty, CP etc. dont have all those folks in the field on assignment. You shoot, you file, the agency pushes it and if you are lucky a media outlet buys. End of the month you get your commission. Not much different from stock except the rates are generally much different. Call it what you want, Getty archives or whatever, it's all stock really.

The amount of people on assignment is frighteningly small.
 
Yikes! If that's accurate reporting it makes me feel even more confident in my decision to stay away from sites like iphoto and more inclined to look at other creative avenues for income.
 
emraphoto said:
AP, AFP, Reuters, Getty, CP etc. dont have all those folks in the field on assignment. You shoot, you file, the agency pushes it and if you are lucky a media outlet buys. End of the month you get your commission. Not much different from stock except the rates are generally much different. Call it what you want, Getty archives or whatever, it's all stock really.

The amount of people on assignment is frighteningly small.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The wire services and photo agency you mention above all have salaried staff employees working and living in the field. When they are out on assignment, their travel and expenses are covered by their employers. They are covered by some sort of insurance if they get sick or hurt. Most media outlets (newspapers and magazines and their online incarnations, Yahoo!, Google, etc.) get the images via subscription.

There may be a stock sales component afterwards.
 
Well you can make a darn good living at it if you know what you are doing and you can get on with a good agency. It's not like uncle Tom is going to get on with Blackstar, Aurora or Redux. You need to know what you are up to.
 
saxshooter said:
Incorrect. The wire services and photo agency you mention above all have salaried staff employees working and living in the field. When they are out on assignment, their travel and expenses are covered by their employers. They are covered by some sort of insurance if they get sick or hurt. Most media outlets (newspapers and magazines and their online incarnations, Yahoo!, Google, etc.) get the images via subscription.

There may be a stock sales component afterwards.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned, outside of the VERY small percentage shooting wire (which is NOT in depth photojournalism, I know as I did/do it) the bulk are working in a stock like capacity. Comparing the numbers would shock you.
 
I am fortunate to be working as a staff photojournalist (read: I make 100% of my living doing this) for a wire service for the past 16 years, and in that relatively short time I have seen how the business has changed with the arrival of inexpensive digital cameras, laptop computers, and internet access.

The reason I posted those links to John Harrington's blog (his book Best Business Practices for Photographers is a must read) regarding istockphoto is that I want people to be aware of how operations such as these are killing the business. They are grossly undercharging clients and underpaying contributors.

In this terrible advertising climate magazines are hurting so I can imagine that they are thrilled to pay $30 for a stock image (rather than $3000). But they are shooting themselves in the foot. Bean counters will see that it can be done with less. If it can be done for $30, future magazine budgets will be cut even further. Already, most of the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc.) have gotten rid of their contract photographers. The "staff magazine photographer" was long gone before that. It has become more difficult to "make a living" as a photographer.

The statement that those of us who are fortunate enough to have a job in this business and are "working in a stock like capacity" is just not correct. If you look at the total number of photographers shooting the news photos -- AP, Reuters, AFP, European PressPhoto Agency (EPA), CP, and Getty Images -- whose images you mostly see in the mass media -- this is not a small number.

And to say those who are shooting for wire services "is not in depth photojournalism" is an insult. Do you mean to tell me that the wire service photographer who lives in some location for years, who covers that country's elections, natural disasters, social unrest, sporting events, daily life, etc. compared to a photographer who parachutes in (and more likely than not calls up the local wire service photographer to see whats going on) and works for a few days and shoots a story or two, is less in depth? Please.

My colleagues and I are paid to cover the news, not to shoot for stock purposes. Covering the news is what a wire service does. The wire services and even Getty Images (who are in the business of selling photos) employs staffers and contracts freelancers (and I say CONTRACTS, because no one should be doing it "on spec") to be situated in certain places so they can be there when the news happens, to provide these news pictures for the news service which most clients get by subscription. And for the few clients that do not subscribe, a space rate is charged.

But I digress.

I think it's great that there are outlets on the internet for people to get their work seen and sold. But in the case of istockphoto and accepting $30 for your work... it undermines it for everyone. Professionals and part-time professionals included.
 
Again you are missing what I am saying. Staff/wire service shooters exist. They get their wage and have insurance etc. etc. I am not saying they don't exist as that would be silly. I do it.

The case is that crowd is an ever shrinking number. It is already an extremely small percentage. The BULK of what appears, at least in my neck of the woods, via services like AP, Getty and CP is shot prospectively in a manner not unlike stock.

If you take the time to read my post you will also see that I state the money is totally different than istock or that lot. I have yet to recieve less than $250 for an image.

I am not, at any point, arguing that staff or wire shooters exist. I never said that. What i did say is that a LOT of in depth photojournalism is produced on spec. Staff and salaried shooters are few and far between, just like assignments. If you are lucky enought to remain in that crowd than kudos to you. Surely though, you cannot be so out of touch to think that what i am saying is still 'incorrect'
 
As a technical writer, I'm a very heavy iStock user (as well as the other microstock sites). They are looking for images that express concepts, represent things, or serve as backgrounds, ornaments, borders, etc. With the huge volume of files they must receive, I expect they can be very selective.

Your work is more in the fine art genre. If your interest is in making a few bucks from your work, have you tried pursuing that avenue? Seems like it would be a lot more fulfilling for you.

John
 
I don't know what your arrangement is as a freelancer with your agencies, but when you say "The BULK of what appears, at least in my neck of the woods, via services like AP, Getty and CP is shot prospectively in a manner not unlike stock." you are addressing my peer group and I need to say that you really are off mark.

In most cases, staff photographers (and many freelancers) shooting for the wires it is considered "work for hire". This is not a stock arrangement. The agency owns the pictures. There is no sharing of profits. Staffers who shoot for AP, Getty, and CP do not own their images. So you cannot call it stock, or shooting it in a manner "not unlike stock".

And to use your terminology, the BULK of what appears in everyone's daily media, be it print or online -- if it isn't produced by the newspaper photographer or freelancer, it is for the majority, produced by AP, Getty Images, Reuters, AFP staff photographers or stringers (freelancers with contracts).

Private message me offline if you'd like, I don't want to bore everybody with this back and forth.
 
If you are shooting for the wire then you are not working propectively.

If you are on staff for a paper then your are not working prospectively.

If you are, like the bulk of folks out there, shooting prospectively for an agency like Redux, Aurora, Blackstar, CPImages, Getty Archives etc. then you are working in a similar fashion as stock photographers. In Getty's case a poorly paid one.

The BULK of work where I am is created in the latter fashion. Even in the national level dailies.

Take a browse through the National Post here in Canada and read the photo tags. A very, very small portion will read Brett Grundlock (or whomever) The National Post. CP Images (essentially a stock type service) will fill the bulk. Perhaps some sunmedia as well.

Forgive me however I will continue to post here as perhaps beween the two of us we can help folks understand a little bit more on how things work.
 
For reference, in my region alone (about the size of a small european country) there are two fulltime wire guys for the National wire service. The number of stringers filing to the 'archives' is in the hundreds.
 
You have many helpers on this forum. Very disappointing for you. I certainly beewn knocked back by many a gallery and many a publication. I post online and if it publishes great, if not at least I think the works ok. Now I am better at seeing what to submit to and what not. I read some comments here that imply that. Good luck anyway and hope this helps a little bit.
 
emraphoto said:
Again you are missing what I am saying. Staff/wire service shooters exist. They get their wage and have insurance etc. etc. I am not saying they don't exist as that would be silly. I do it.

The case is that crowd is an ever shrinking number. It is already an extremely small percentage. The BULK of what appears, at least in my neck of the woods, via services like AP, Getty and CP is shot prospectively in a manner not unlike stock.

If you take the time to read my post you will also see that I state the money is totally different than istock or that lot. I have yet to recieve less than $250 for an image.

I am not, at any point, arguing that staff or wire shooters exist. I never said that. What i did say is that a LOT of in depth photojournalism is produced on spec. Staff and salaried shooters are few and far between, just like assignments. If you are lucky enought to remain in that crowd than kudos to you. Surely though, you cannot be so out of touch to think that what i am saying is still 'incorrect'
Click to expand...

Nope differnt things, I qork s a stringer for AP and a few others, your hired to follow the story they want for a day (Or half) and you hand over your images at the end of the day. They own them and away you go, totally different to stock. There's less and less staff but more and more stringers. But stringers still don't own their images same as shooting staff used to be.
 
Uh, I think you need to read all of my posts. I shot wire, full-time for a long time. Still do it on the rare occasion. I know very well how it works.

What I have said, numerous times elsewhere, and in this thread, is that OUTSIDE of the wire service the process is almost entirely prospective and thus not much different than 'stock'. OUTSIDE of wire.

The staff, stringer, wire crowd is very, very small. If you are lucky enough and content to do it then awesome. I applaud you. I understand exactly how it works, wage, benefits and ownership included.

Please, understand what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with wire service shooters, their merit or how they get paid. To be frank, I have zero interest in that stuff. What I have been talking about, ad nauseum, is that the in depth photojournalism of our world, Magnum, VII, Redux etc. included is rarely assigned. It is shot on spec and sold into syndication via the respected agency. The agency takes a commission and the shooter gets the remaining. Just like stock. The $ is totally different than istock.

1 more time, wire service exists. You folks have explained it's mechanisms well. Thank you. It is, sadly, a very small and shrinking segment. A large amount of what we are seeing in the NYTimes, Stern, Days Japan etc. is shot in a manner very similar to stock. The common held belief that 'stock' is some how deficient or of less credibility ignores how the bulk of work appears.
 
emraphoto said:
Please, understand what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with wire service shooters, their merit or how they get paid. To be frank, I have zero interest in that stuff. What I have been talking about, ad nauseum, is that the in depth photojournalism of our world, Magnum, VII, Redux etc. included is rarely assigned. It is shot on spec and sold into syndication via the respected agency. The agency takes a commission and the shooter gets the remaining. Just like stock. The $ is totally different than istock.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I disagree, most agency work is assigned. Only very small agencies would shoot on spec. Almost all agency work is assigned. Therefore its nothing like stock at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom