Selling photos online, any money to be made?

[I Love Film]

I personally could not mount such an intense effort for $3000.

If this is something that gives you pleasure and earns you some spending money, more power to you, but this would not be my cup of tea. It sounds nightmarish.

To answer your original question, I believe there is only one practical avenue for generating income from the internet — stock photography and, if you are not established and well known, MICROstock photography.

If you just have a web site, you might make a sale every now and then. Depending on your format you might have to sweat payment and you might have to produce and ship a print. I know there are sites that handle all this for you but it's hard to conceive any real money being made. The limiting factor is how you get your work to come up on searches. I don't think you can compete with the big boys in that regard.

Microstock takes quite a bit of hard work and patience. First, your work must be accepted — not an easy thing. Then you must build your portfolio. I have been at it on my best site for six years. I shoot what I want and don't go in for isolations on white, the seeming bread and butter of these sites. Even so, out of about 335,000 photographers on that site I am at about 840th in quantity of approved images. I sell my photos all over the world and it's fun to see the map of where they are used.

I make about $3000 a year — enough to keep me in photo gear and help out my retirement. A very few dedicated microstock shooters make over $100,000 per year, but they are in the minority.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I personally could not mount such an intense effort for $3000.

If this is something that gives you pleasure and earns you some spending money, more power to you, but this would not be my cup of tea. It sounds nightmarish.

I agree with you here. I can think of a lot of easier ways to raise $3000. Hell a part time job at Walmart would make the money faster and with less work than these guys put in to micrstock :bang:

 

[Araakii]

Fred;

I've been on another photo forum a fair amount. The dynamic is very different there. Generally, very bright folks - Polite, etc. The level of technical knowlegde is extremely high and most of those folks have some knowledge of photo history. It's a much smaller community, maybe that's the difference - people know each other. Any AHs are just ignored. Though, I haven't seen but one or two - and they just go away.

pkr

I don't know which forum you were referring to but I like the atmosphere here. People come from diverse backgrounds, and because they don't know each other personally, they say whatever they want without any hold-back. And because people have different knowledges, even if the information might be incorrect, at least you find some new angles and perspectives of looking at things. A closely knit small community usually become just a melting pot with one singular voice or opinion.

 

[Bike Tourist]

I agree with you here. I can think of a lot of easier ways to raise $3000. Hell a part time job at Walmart would make the money faster and with less work than these guys put in to micrstock :bang:

I will defer to you on Walmart, Chris. I don't think I would like it. I was trying to answer the Original Poster's Original Question by way of a real life example. It is possible to make money with photography on the internet, but most people are not going to sell anything or, at most, make a few bucks, by presenting themselves on their own web site.

As to hard work, for me it's not. It is true that the microstocks have arbitrary and strict standards but I don't follow the standard prescription. I photograph what I like when I like. If what I want to shoot goes against their standards, which happens quite often, then I don't submit to them. There is a trend to repping more editorial and journalistic images, which I like.

One other thing worth mentioning. Once your images are up and online they stay there. They just keep selling and reselling for life.

Say "Hi" to the folks at Walmart! 🙂

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I will defer to you on Walmart, Chris. I don't think I would like it. I was trying to answer the Original Poster's Original Question by way of a real life example. It is possible to make money with photography on the internet, but most people are not going to sell anything or, at most, make a few bucks, by presenting themselves on their own web site.

As to hard work, for me it's not. It is true that the microstocks have arbitrary and strict standards but I don't follow the standard prescription. I photograph what I like when I like. If what I want to shoot goes against their standards, which happens quite often, then I don't submit to them. There is a trend to repping more editorial and journalistic images, which I like.

One other thing worth mentioning. Once your images are up and online they stay there. They just keep selling and reselling for life.

Say "Hi" to the folks at Walmart! 🙂

I've never worked at Walmart. I stand by what I said though. Selling on microstock is about the most idiotic thing a photographer can do, short of just giving the photos away. Why should I sell a photo for $1 when I can sell it for a few hundred, or sometimes even more? Why should I settle for $3000 a year in earnings, when I need that much a month just to survive?

 

[Bike Tourist]

I've never worked at Walmart. I stand by what I said though. Selling on microstock is about the most idiotic thing a photographer can do, short of just giving the photos away. Why should I sell a photo for $1 when I can sell it for a few hundred, or sometimes even more? Why should I settle for $3000 a year in earnings, when I need that much a month just to survive?

Your experience seems atypical, Chris. Your one of the few who are making a great living from photography only. You obviously should not sell your images for a pitance when you can sell your images for "hundreds". I do it as a hobby. It pays for my equipment and then some. My images have been used world-wide about 25,000 times. It does not appear "idiotic" to me.

(I believe in civil discourse, rare on the net, more common here. I hope you do too.)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Your experience seems atypical, Chris. Your one of the few who are making a great living from photography only. You obviously should not sell your images for a pitance when you can sell your images for "hundreds". I do it as a hobby. It pays for my equipment and then some. My images have been used world-wide about 25,000 times. It does not appear "idiotic" to me.

(I believe in civil discourse, rare on the net, more common here. I hope you do too.)

I'm sorry to offend you, but for you to have let your work be used 25,000 times for such a pittance really is dumb. There just isn't a nice way to say it. It needs to be said though, regardless of politeness. To conceal that truth from you would be far less civil, for knowing a truth that can help someone, and hiding that truth, is a violation of my moral code. I am telling you this to help you, not to be rude.

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.

 

[jpa66]

I tend to agree with Chris here. I feel that selling your photos ( or any type of art or work for that matter ) at such cheap prices is not a good idea. I see it all as a race to the bottom.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

A race to the bottom isn't always a bad thing, if it achieves what you want. Not everyone marches to the same drum and I say "good luck" to those who find that microstock works for them.

 

[Araakii]

A lot of people are willing to give their work away for free because all they care is that their photos are used in some way. i.e their photos have a useful purpose. You can view it as "volunteering". I don't think you would consider those who volunteer as "dumb".

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

A lot of people are willing to give their work away for free because all they care is that their photos are used in some way. i.e their photos have a useful purpose. You can view it as "volunteering". I don't think you would consider those who volunteer as "dumb".

If they're volunteering for a profit-making businesses corporation, then yes, they're drooling imbeciles. Volunteering is something you do for charities and other NON-PROFIT organizations whose cause you support. It is NOT something you do for businesses.

 

[DominikDUK]

Arakii neither "the volunteers" nor Bike tourist are dumb but they do cause a huge problem for professional photographers I don't know if Bike tourist has another source of income meaning a day job and does microstock for fun and/or to gain some recognition (ego). But the microstock market effectively killed a lot of photographers and quality agencies. Causing unemployment etc...
Chris seems to live from his photography so its understandable that he doesn't really care for microstock neither do I.

Dominik

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

That's a view, certainly. Many people, though, have different values and calling them "drooling imbeciles" seems rather unkind, if not downright rude, to me.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

That's a view, certainly. Many people, though, have different values and calling them "drooling imbeciles" seems rather unkind, if not downright rude, to me.

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth. Anyone who volunteers for a business is stupid. They are. There is just no nice way to say it. Businesses are there to earn profits, and they do. That means they pay their employees and suppliers, because they are not charities. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Tell you what: put up or shut up. Tell your employer you want to work for free. Oh wait, you won't do that, will you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[135format]

Someone want to tell me how the Intern system works in the US? Are they all imbeciles?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth.

I'm a little surprised by such an attitude. It seems to me that someone in business on their own account would show more restraint. Still, this is the internet.

I do hope that none of your potential clients perform the, now common, web search before employing you. They might find such a lack of moderation not to their taste.

 

[Frank Petronio]

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.

Anytime you have a chance to disrupt a Getty sale, do it. The people working for them are sell-outs and should be ashamed, we should call them out and embarrass them.

Thomas Hawk or some other a-hole like that walks by - spit in their face, break their camera, humiliate and stomp them.

 

[135format]

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm a little surprised by such an attitude. It seems to me that someone in business on their own account would show more restraint. Still, this is the internet.

I do hope that none of your potential clients perform the, now common, web search before employing you. They might find such a lack of moderation not to their taste.

No one in business cares about any aspect of my attitude other than my willingness to provide them with the image they need, at the quality they need, on time. That's it. Really.

In fact, I have asked clients what they think of photographers who offer work for free, and the clients always laugh at the stupidity of these fools. Sure, they'll take your free photo, but they won't respect you for it. They're in business, and understand that they cannot give their product away and stay in business. They look on people willing to work for free as chumps. Idiots. Fools. Businesspeople literally laugh all the way to the bank when they encounter someone willing to provide photos for free or ultra-cheap. Some of the stuff I've been told by clients is FAR nastier than anything I'm saying about these photographers.

 

[CameraQuest]

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth. Anyone who volunteers for a business is stupid. They are. There is just no nice way to say it. Businesses are there to earn profits, and they do. That means they pay their employees and suppliers, because they are not charities. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Tell you what: put up or shut up. Tell your employer you want to work for free. Oh wait, you won't do that, will you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

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