Selling photos online, any money to be made?

135format said:
I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?
Click to expand...

I don't know but I believe pretty much none for photographers. I resently had a discussion with an agency owner. His agency is pretty sucessful and a few years ago the made most sales with images for book covers. So he started another agency specialising in images for book covers, he used well known, and less well known photographers payed them a good fee etc... so fast forward to 2011 the year he had to close the special agency because the publishing houses were not willing to pay his already low fees. They reason quote "microstock is so much cheaper"
And here we are not only talking small publishers but big ones as well.
He also said that he doesn't believe that the agency market aside from Getty, Corbis will survive and that most photographers should look for another profession. Because a photographer with his own studio or company can't compete with an amateur who is willing to work for next to nothing or even free because his name is written in the byline (ego).

Dominik
 
The way the human society system works most of the time is that everyone really only cares about their own well being, with not much regard to the other members of the society, unless their own action also threatens their own survival in the short term.

So in the long run, you can call the "volunteers" short-sighted, stupid, whatever. But their goal is not to generate profits for themselves or the industry as a whole. Their short term goal is just to get their stuff used by others in a "meaningful" way. They might be laughed at by others but they definitely get what they want, and that's all it matters. From that perspective, their behavior is very rational.
 
Araakii according to the agency guy I talked to and some observation it is more ego driven than getting the stuff used in meanigful way. Although I don't doubt that many volunteers have a higher goal. They are definetely not stupid since they get something call it ego strocking for some and the knowledge of having done something good for others.

Dominik
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Consider this: If you had charged merely $100 each, you would have made $250,000! I realize you probably wouldn't have made 25,000 sales at $100 each, since the fact that you charged mere pennies was/is a factor in sales to many potential buyers, but even if you sold just 100 times, you would have made $10,000.
Click to expand...

Okay, Chris, one more once and I'll let it be. Gee, who can remember the original poster's question, which is what I was trying to answer? The most I've ever sold one image for was $400 and that was back in the days of conventional stock agencies repping your transparencies. It didn't happen too frequently. You example of 100 sales at $100 each sounds great as an exercise. But in the real world where do these 100 free spenders come from?

I used to emphatically agree with you and the other "race to the bottom" people. I insisted on my minimum standards for local assignment photography and so forth. But, that was way back in the 20th Century. I fear you're speaking about what "should" be (and I totally agree with you on that) and what really "is" in the present. the problem is not confined to our narrow sector but manifests in all creative media, including music and motion pictures. The new paradigm seems to be that art should cost very little or be free, never mind compensation to the orginator. My heroes, the photojournalists, are being undercut by by all those citizens with cell phones. There are so many, there are bound to be a few in the right place at the right time making bad images considered better than no image.

So Chris, since you consider me "dumb" just two things:

1. Please expand your use of adjectives to include some less offensive terms for those who don't agree with you.

2. Since I've laid it all out there, give us some real-world examples of how you are supporting yourself or a family with your fine art. I'm willing to be convinced.
 
135format said:
I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?
Click to expand...

FYI, Shutterstock is issuing an IPO and going public. To do that they had to release some financials. Do a search for the Shutterstock IPO and you can read all about it.
 
DominikDUK said:
Araakii according to the agency guy I talked to and some observation it is more ego driven than getting the stuff used in meanigful way. Although I don't doubt that many volunteers have a higher goal. They are definetely not stupid since they get something call it ego strocking for some and the knowledge of having done something good for others.

Dominik
Click to expand...

And also, the professional photographers are also businesses themselves. So, they could also be prime targets for the other photographers who are not professionals. So that's another reason why they want to "destroy" them. Some professionals have an obnoxious attitude towards amateurs and this can probably be seen as a revenge for some of them.
 
To the OP if you want to sell your images via a stock agency (micro or other) look trough magazines, the lady holding a phone for example is a classic example of stock photography and look a the website of the stockagencies.

Stock agencies need illustrative photos (forgettable images). Photographs that stand for say an emotion the laughing girl, or industry a factory.

I wish you luck with your endeavoor

Dominik
 
Whenever I read these arguments about cheap images and amateurs that do it for their ego I think about the Time magazine cover a few years ago. If I remember the story correctly, they found the image on Flickr and only paid the guy $50 for it when a cover on Time typically went for around $5000. He was happy as a clam in mud since his picture was on the cover of Time and Time had $4950 more in its pocket. There are many designers and agencies that use idiots (sorry that is the only way to describe them) for their cheap images. Often these images are charged to the client at far many multiples higher than the amateur received. It is a nice profit item for them. There is no way around this unfortunately because there are a lot of idiots in the world who have a fantasy about being a photographer.

I am with Chris and Frank on this one.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
Whenever I read these arguments about cheap images and amateurs that do it for their ego I think about the Time magazine cover a few years ago. If I remember the story correctly, they found the image on Flickr and only paid the guy $50 for it when a cover on Time typically went for around $5000. He was happy as a clam in mud since his picture was on the cover of Time and Time had $4950 more in its pocket. There are many designers and agencies that use idiots (sorry that is the only way to describe them) for their cheap images. Often these images are charged to the client at far many multiples higher than the amateur received. It is a nice profit item for them. There is no way around this unfortunately because there are a lot of idiots in the world who have a fantasy about being a photographer.

I am with Chris and Frank on this one.
Click to expand...

... perhaps the answer is to take better photos than the idiot amateurs, do you think?
 
Can we please stop using the word idiots to describe people who sell their images at low prices or give them away for free. And Mr. Fizzlesticks as you said yourself the guy was extremely happy about his pictures being used as coverimage for Time magazine so he did get his payment, his ego was stroked and he probably bought a thousand issues of the magazine.

Sparrow the the images of amateurs in microstock agencies are often not the best but the cheapest and that what counts in bean counters mind. Not Quality price.

I am of mostly with Chris on this one but I wished that he had used a different language.

Dominik
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
So what you get from my statement above is that amateurs can take better photos than me? Interesting. I don't compete with amateurs and amateurs can't compete with me. If someone wants to sell an image for $50 I say have at it. If that is all your image is worth then it means there is nothing special about it or you are too ignorant to know what it could be worth.

I love how people attack on the internet when they read something that affects their ego. If you look up the word idiot in the dictionary you will see that its derivation is from Latin idiota meaning an ignorant person. An ignorant person would sell an image for $50 when he could have sold it for $5000. He was ignorant of the difference. Designers or agencies like ignorant people. They can take advantage of them and make a decent amount of money off of their work at the same time. I hope that clears it up.
Click to expand...


Even $50 is a lot by Microstock standards. On sites like iStockPhoto, photos sell for as little as a dollar or two, and are often used by multinational corporations that would have paid thousands for an image if the photographer had demanded it.
 
CameraQuest said:
Chris,

you have a habit of lambasting others as if your opinion is somehow better or more accurate than other members views. Enough.

RFF to Chris Crawford: your views are just your views, nothing more - and NOT better or more accurate than other RFF members. Get over trying to be right.

Strong belief in for your views is not an excuse for bad behavior. From here it looks like you could benefit from a lot less anger and lot more effort to learn from other members viewpoints.

Stephen
Click to expand...


I can handle Chris's opinions because that's all they are ... opinions and we can all decide whether to accept them or reject them and it is the internet after all! On that basis he's no different to the rest of us!

My issue is more with the language of humiliation involved in driving these opinions home:

'dumb' ... 'drooling imbecile' ... 'stupid' ... 'idiot' ... and so on!

That ... I am totally over!
 
Frank Version Two said:
Pointing out something that is clearly wrong is not immoderate. Taking assignments from or selling stock to Getty or Corbis is wrong. The only reason someone would do it is desperation, greed, pride... there is no positive to it, other than a short term gain.

I don't think most of the microstock shooters have ill intent but they are ignorantly and/or selfishly contributing to the decline of the industry. But more so, we should direct our wrath at Getty and Corbis for being the mechanism of destruction. They do have ill intent and are truly evil.
Click to expand...

Well I wonder how many people use free software such as facebook, tumblr, wordpress because they are too tight fisted to pay a web developer. That has driven down what web developers can expect to get paid for creating a photography web portfolio site. Those same people decrying the microstock companies are using free software. A lot of them anyway and I know you pay for some of your web hosting but it's the pot calling the kettle black. What's the saying about casting the first stone...
 
Now I am glad that there are so many "idiots" out there driving down the prices of photos. As Mr. Fizzlesticks said, professionals like him are not in the same playing field as amateurs who sell their stuff for $50. So why get mad over someone playing in a school league when you are in a major league? Just do your own thing and how much others want to sell their stuff for is their own business.
 
Ha that's a stretch of an example since Facebook, Tumblr, etc. are not replacing any serious person's bonafide need for a website, they serve a different social and marketing purpose. If I want a custom website then I'll pay an ~onshore~ developer their usual rates for quality work. As it is, paying APF $1000-plus is hardly cheaping out.

But yes, developers have gotten screwed by off-shoring, typographers have disappeared thanks to desktop publishing and Fontographer, etc. I fear that photography is going the same way and ultimately, Getty and the microstock industry will win. But I don't have to like it.

I'm not stopping anyone from giving their photos away or selling them for pennies. Go for it. Just don't expect me to like it, or to go out of my way for their benefit based on those actions. I'm not going to be all chummy with someone like that.
 
135format said:
Well I wonder how many people use free software such as facebook, tumblr, wordpress because they are too tight fisted to pay a web developer. That has driven down what web developers can expect to get paid for creating a photography web portfolio site. Those same people decrying the microstock companies are using free software. A lot of them anyway and I know you pay for some of your web hosting but it's the pot calling the kettle black. What's the saying about casting the first stone...
Click to expand...

Not me. I designed my own site, built it in Dreamweaver (which was expensive software!), and the shopping cart software I use (Cartweaver) is about $300, which I paid because it is very good and the license allowed me to modify/rewrite it as I please (I did to add some features specific to selling photos) and build sites for others with it (which I have done).

I do have a Facebook fan page for my work, which has been a good marketing tool. Sold a lot of prints to people who found my work on Facebook, but its not my main website, just a tool to drive traffic to my own site.
 
CameraQuest said:
Chris,

you have a habit of lambasting others as if your opinion is somehow better or more accurate than other members views. Enough.

RFF to Chris Crawford: your views are just your views, nothing more - and NOT better or more accurate than other RFF members. Get over trying to be right.

Strong belief in for your views is not an excuse for bad behavior. From here it looks like you could benefit from a lot less anger and lot more effort to learn from other members viewpoints.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Bad behavior? Seems overstated to me. Chris's arguments made sense to me.

So. Back to the OP's question: Selling photos online, any money to be made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom