Selling photos online, any money to be made?

[kbg32]

Photographers had the chance 12 years ago to do something about the way the industry was headed. Getty was the first to lower the commission rate on stock sales at that time by 10%. Corbis and others had to do so to compete. The photographers in the industry lost their chance to band together and go on "strike" against the industry's business practices. Getty threatened to terminate all contracts against those that refused to sign the new agreements. There were and are many young photographers out there who are itching at the chance to produce work to garner them income. Getty and other agencies paid them a day rate to produce imagery that in the end would be wholly owned by the agencies themselves, thusly cutting off any future income for the photographer that those images would produce. These "younger" photographers, just getting into the business, and not understanding or aware of past industry history, gladly signed these agreements. They got their $500-$1000, whatever, per day, and that is all they were concerned with. Not knowing that these images probably over the next couple of years, netted 2-3 times or more.

Microstock? Shutterstock? Stupid? By no means no. Like it or not, smart industry practice by the way things are going, and the way things are.

Do I like Getty selling my RM images for $1, of which I get 30-40%? Of course not. I have a family. I need to make a living.

Can money be made? In a word yes. But you have to understand where the market/industry are, and where it's going. You can't go in blindly. The industry is extremely oversaturated with imagery. Do something different that hasn't been done. Develop your own style/vision. Get it out there. The world will find you.

Isn't there an old saying, "Change or die"?.

 

[kbg32]

PKR,

Who do you think owns Corbis?

 

[kbg32]

Corbis is a Microsoft company - all owned by Gates.

 

[kbg32]

Gates was making a lot of bids for media and the rights thereof back then.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

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

Unpaid internships are designed to keep out people from middle class or poor backgrounds, because only rich kids can afford to work for free to get in the door for a paying job. The system is evil, not because it exploits the interns (they're rich and don't feel exploited, just as many microstock photogs don't feel exploited because they have good jobs in other fields), but because it sets a glass ceiling based on class rather than merit under many good jobs in todays economy.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Clients willing to pay reasonable rates could care less. They contract based on reputation and referral -- not Google.

Wouldn't that refer to the small group of specialists, such as Advertising Agencies and Publishing Houses? Wouldn't this small group be seeing a constant stream of new potential suppliers? In effect, then, won't this market be shrinking, from the existing photographer's point of view?

It seems to me that any business needs to maintain a steady flow of new customers, just to stay at the same level and these customers will largely be new businesses. I would expect those new businesses to be very skilled with the tools of the Internet and to use those skills as part of their decision making process. I know, from my day job, that it is now common to do web searches on both potential employees and potential suppliers and that the people doing those searches are generally looking for brickbats rather than bouquets.

I don't think it's sensible to harm your potential sales for the short lived pleasure of being nasty about other people. Remember, once it's on the net, it's there indefinitely.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Wouldn't that refer to the small group of specialists, such as Advertising Agencies and Publishing Houses? Wouldn't this small group be seeing a constant stream of new potential suppliers? In effect, then, won't this market be shrinking, from the existing photographer's point of view?

It seems to me that any business needs to maintain a steady flow of new customers, just to stay at the same level and these customers will largely be new businesses. I would expect those new businesses to be very skilled with the tools of the Internet and to use those skills as part of their decision making process. I know, from my day job, that it is now common to do web searches on both potential employees and potential suppliers and that the people doing those searches are generally looking for brickbats rather than bouquets.

I don't think it's sensible to harm your potential sales for the short lived pleasure of being nasty about other people. Remember, once it's on the net, it's there indefinitely.

Absolutely untrue. I sell images all the time to small businesses who want something in an ad or on their website. The market in publishers is indeed shrinking, so I've been willing to sell images to others who want them. Plus, I sell a lot of prints to people who like my work as art, rather than as commercially useful work. I'm not anyone's employee, they don't have to deal with me once they pay me and get the image, so no one gives a damn if I tell some amateur photographer that he's dumb to give his work away. In fact, most of them would agree with me. I've discussed this with a couple of longer term clients in the past, and like I said, they laugh at photographers who will sell stuff cheap. They respect those who have the brains to charge enough to support themselves. They're happy to take the free/cheap stuff, but they think those people are dumb to do it because they, as businesses, wouldn't dream of working free or cheap.

Also, I'm nice to my customers. That's all they care about. Besides, these guys don't have the time to waste looking online to see if someone they're buying a stock photo from is a dick to people who are not his customers. They have businesses to run and work to do.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris, life is inherently unfair. You should get over it. Worry about yourself and try to have a positive attitude. Negativity just repels people.

If everyone had that attitude, the world would be an even worse place than it is now. We'd still have Negro slavery, child labor, 80 hour work weeks, debtors prisons, and segregation. Women, blacks, and the poor would not have the right to vote. Homosexuality would still be a crime. Education would be a privilege of the wealthy, not a basic right....

So, no, I won't "get over it". I'm going to fight you, and those who stand with you, to my last breath, to make the world a better place. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I have done the right thing for myself, my family, my community, and the world.

A positive attitude is warranted in positive circumstance. I am happy that my son is living with me and growing to be an intelligent, thoughtful, educated man. I am positive about him. I cannot, however, be positive when I see so many good friends literally going hungry because the only jobs they can find pay half the most minimal cost of living. I am one of the truly fortunate. Though I am not wealthy (I am the seventh person in my family's history to graduate from high school!), I am making enough to survive, and doing it through work that I love doing.

 

[DominikDUK]

Chris please calm down, you do have a point but I doubt that Mr. Fizzlestick is the enemy

Dominik

 

[Sparrow]

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.

Well, if "amateurs can't compete with you" where is the problem? Designers will clearly choose your work over theirs ... sadly we don't have any examples to see just how superia your photos are, but I'm sure you're correct.

Bollocks also has a Latin etymology but it would be inappropriate to use it here as an adjective and expect an idiot to believe it wasn't intended as a noun ...

 

[135format]

The interweb is an evil thing. Is Tim Berners-Lee the devil incarnate? 😀

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Tim Berners-Lee a fallen angel? Now there's a scary thought! 😀

 

[I Love Film]

I posted something similar to what I will post now, but I will post it again.

In the past, photography was a "black art". Up until the 1980's or so, it was not easy to do well. In the 1920's, it was even harder, and before that, even more difficult. In the 1800's, pre-Kodak, it was near impossible (and dangerous) indeed.

One had to learn developing, exposure techniques, master lighting, chemistry, optical theory, etc etc etc. Cameras were VERY expensive and hard to use, A good photographer was VERY RARE. In the late 19th Century, a common member of the public could buy a Kodak and take snapshots, but it was potluck if the photo would "come out", and amateur photos were obvious.

Even more rare was a photographer who was a good technician who could produce good prints, AND who had a good eye for composition and subject matter.

The world population was smaller too. There was only two or three billion people on earth, and only a tiny fraction of them were excellent photographers. The good photographer could make a very good living.

Magazines and businesses could not get away with paying nothing for photos, because there were not too many good photos around, and a lot of the market was controlled by agencies.

Fast forward to today. There are close to 7 billion people on earth. ANYONE can pick up a modern camera and make a technically excellent image. With digital cameras, it costs nothing to post your image online. You do not have to pay for film, chemistry etc. You can get a used digital camera that makes technically perfect images for $50.

TRILLIONS of excellent images are being produced and put into a form available to everyone every year. People raised in a visual environment have a "good eye", tens of millions of people can create gorgeous, artistic, technically perfect images, and they do.

There is no more "black art". Plumbers can easily make a lot more money than most photographers. Not everyone can fix a boiler, but everyone can make a picture. Photos are a commodity, and commodities are sold by the pound to the lowest bidder.

If I want a photo of a dog for my book cover, in 30 seconds I can find one million photos of a dog. I don't have to hire anyone, don't need to pay a lot of money. I can get perfect photos of dogs for free or for a penny. I would be insane to pay $5000 for a photo of a dog when I can probably find a beautiful one for nothing

There is no injustice here. The world has changed. Reality has changed. Entrenched artisans always wail and gnash their teeth when the world changes, but the smart people adapt, the people who can't adapt cry and die out. That's why Neanderthals are gone and we are here.

So you, as a photographer, have to do something different. Prices are not going to remain high because you want them to.

I can't tell you what to do, you have to invent it yourself. Hundreds of thousands are adapting and thriving as we speak. Leave the penny a pound stuff to the microstocks and the commodity brokers. It is asinine to get angry about them. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

The analogy to slavery, women's rights, etc, is not valid because this has nothing to do with injustice, this is just a sea change of technology. Every sea change completely destroys the old, but the new brings more opportunities.

If everyone had that attitude, the world would be an even worse place than it is now. We'd still have Negro slavery, child labor, 80 hour work weeks, debtors prisons, and segregation. Women, blacks, and the poor would not have the right to vote. Homosexuality would still be a crime. Education would be a privilege of the wealthy, not a basic right....

So, no, I won't "get over it". I'm going to fight you, and those who stand with you, to my last breath, to make the world a better place. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I have done the right thing for myself, my family, my community, and the world.

A positive attitude is warranted in positive circumstance. I am happy that my son is living with me and growing to be an intelligent, thoughtful, educated man. I am positive about him. I cannot, however, be positive when I see so many good friends literally going hungry because the only jobs they can find pay half the most minimal cost of living. I am one of the truly fortunate. Though I am not wealthy (I am the seventh person in my family's history to graduate from high school!), I am making enough to survive, and doing it through work that I love doing.

 

[surfer dude]

Bollocks also has a Latin entomology but it would be inappropriate to use it here as an adjective and expect an idiot to believe it wasn't intended as a noun ...

Ah, yes of course! The study of the testicles of Southern European insects, a fine and noble quest indeed!

 

[Sparrow]

whoops ... that'll teach em not to type etymology before the second coffee

 

[Frank Petronio]

This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them.

If I want a photo of a dog for my book cover, in 30 seconds I can find one million photos of a dog. I don't have to hire anyone, don't need to pay a lot of money. I can get perfect photos of dogs for free or for a penny. I would be insane to pay $5000 for a photo of a dog when I can probably find a beautiful one for nothing

This is not true in the real world, unless your standards are very low. While the print industry is shrinking, ask any of the thousands of remaining art directors, buyers, and editors how difficult it is to find a good dog photo that is unique and not available to a competing title or ad?

People made plenty of bad photos, book covers, and ads back in the pre digital age too, and there were plenty of cheap and sleazy practitioners (sorry to offend anyone with such graphic language!)

What is happening now is that Getty is actually holding back and withdrawing images, shrinking the pool, so they can sell more higher priced rights managed images. They can do this because they now dominate the industry, having put most of the individuals out of business. This was a case of our Justice Department failing to act against an evil monopoly.

 

[DominikDUK]

Sorry Frank 2.0 but I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say with this sentence "This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them." 😕

If you think that europeans think more in long term profits against short term profits than I disagree with you we Euros have been completely Wallstreetarised 🙂

Dominik

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

There is no injustice here. The world has changed. Reality has changed. Entrenched artisans always wail and gnash their teeth when the world changes, but the smart people adapt, the people who can't adapt cry and die out. That's why Neanderthals are gone and we are here.

So you, as a photographer, have to do something different. Prices are not going to remain high because you want them to.

I can't tell you what to do, you have to invent it yourself. Hundreds of thousands are adapting and thriving as we speak. Leave the penny a pound stuff to the microstocks and the commodity brokers. It is asinine to get angry about them. It is not a matter of "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

That seems to me to be a succinct analysis of the current position. I think that there will always be room for those with a flair for self promotion, regardless of their technical competence and I also believe that a few excellent technicians will find it possible to carve out a niche, serving markets which require that service.

 

[I Love Film]

Frank, I'll flatter you by stating (truthfully) that you are one of the better photographers posting here. Your photos of women (and the occasional "dog") are highly unique and generally excellent. I can instantly pick out a "Petronio" photo when it appears in the gallery, just as I was able to pick out a Helmut Newton or Suzy Randall chrome on the light table. If I were still producing magazines, I would assign you shoots (at a good rate scale) without any question.

HOWEVER, you are wrong about the "dog" photo, in at least 90% of situations. Suppose I am a mediocre AD, and I am doing a mediocre paperback cover of a reprint book. I will find and buy the $1 dog photo for it, and it will be pretty good.

If I am the AD of "Vanity Fair", then I will pay the high price for a "Petronio". It will be worth it.

(or if I am not the AD of "Vanity Fair", I can pay someone to do a "Petronio" for me, or an "Avedon" much cheaper. Or find one for $1. It is entirely possible. It's just economics. Someone can do a pretty good job of imitating you. Not great, not a masterpiece, but a creditable job. He can find a tattooed trailer park girl, and mimic your shots.)

It is a matter of supply and demand. But the talented people with the unique vision still have the niche to fill, and they will continue to be paid highly.

We are talking apples and oranges.

This thread is a great illustration of American individuality versus European passivity. The Euros care more about getting long and readily accept loss, at least as long as it doesn't affect them.



This is not true in the real world, unless your standards are very low. While the print industry is shrinking, ask any of the thousands of remaining art directors, buyers, and editors how difficult it is to find a good dog photo that is unique and not available to a competing title or ad?

People made plenty of bad photos, book covers, and ads back in the pre digital age too, and there were plenty of cheap and sleazy practitioners (sorry to offend anyone with such graphic language!)

What is happening now is that Getty is actually holding back and withdrawing images, shrinking the pool, so they can sell more higher priced rights managed images. They can do this because they now dominate the industry, having put most of the individuals out of business. This was a case of our Justice Department failing to act against an evil monopoly.

 

[135format]

I wonder if the OP has slit his wrists yet? He's been very quiet since posting.