Stock Photography. Is it worth it?

[ClaremontPhoto]

Yesterday I was choosing images for a new website. And I was struck by how simple so many of the pictures were.

Does anybody here submit pictures to Corbis or similar?

And is it worthwhile?

 

[bmattock]

Yesterday I was choosing images for a new website. And I was struck by how simple so many of the pictures were.

Does anybody here submit pictures to Corbis or similar?

And is it worthwhile?

I'd love to be able to shoot for stock - Corbis or otherwise - but I have no idea how one 'gets in the door' at such places.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[daveozzz]

You could have a look at Alamy - as long as you have the technical quality they'll host your pictures. Some people do very well there - and it pays "proper" rates as opposed to microstock sites like shutterstock etc.
It's not a quick buck though - usually takes aroung 6-12 months after submission for any sales to roll in.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Thank you. i'll look in there.

I found this page at Corbis:

http://www.corbis.com/corporate/Photographers/Submission.asp

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Alamy look as if they're doing nicely on their 35% cut. Flashy offices.

They ask for 48MB or bigger files.

But my 'HIRES' scans at 1800x1200 on a 35 mm negative are well under 1MB.

What the heck do I need to do to get a 48MB scan?

 

[daveozzz]

35% is one of the better cuts - most agencies take 50%.
That would be a 1Mb jpeg you're talking about right? If you saved it as an uncompressed tiff it'd be a lot bigger and that's what Alamy are talking about - maybe not big enough at 1800x200 though.
I found that the minimum spec scanner I could use was a 3600dpi although 4000dpi is better since it allows you some crop space. 4000dpi 35mm scan usually ends up around 50-60 meg tiffs - a Nikon Coolscan V fits the bill.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Thank you. I'll try converting my jpeg to a tiff and see if it gets bigger.

 

[bmattock]

You could have a look at Alamy - as long as you have the technical quality they'll host your pictures. Some people do very well there - and it pays "proper" rates as opposed to microstock sites like shutterstock etc.
It's not a quick buck though - usually takes aroung 6-12 months after submission for any sales to roll in.

Thank you very much for the information! I have registered with Alamy. I can see that it will be a major undertaking for me, but it will also be a test of my abilities to provide photos that they can sell.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

35% is one of the better cuts - most agencies take 50%.
That would be a 1Mb jpeg you're talking about right? If you saved it as an uncompressed tiff it'd be a lot bigger and that's what Alamy are talking about - maybe not big enough at 1800x200 though.
I found that the minimum spec scanner I could use was a 3600dpi although 4000dpi is better since it allows you some crop space. 4000dpi 35mm scan usually ends up around 50-60 meg tiffs - a Nikon Coolscan V fits the bill.

Yes, while reading through the requirements at Alamy for photo file size, I noted that my current equipment may not measure up. The Scan Dual IV produces TIF files in the 22 to 29 mb range from 35mm. My DSLR makes much smaller JPG or RAW files. With the DSLR, it meets Alamy's minimum standards (6 mp), but they say I need to interpolate larger with a tool like Genuine Fractals. Since I run Linux/Gimp, I suspect I'm not going to be able to make my DSLR files larger with the quality they want preserved - so I may be forced to go back to Windows and buy PS / Genuine Fractals. It may be awhile before I have the money for that, though. And then it appears I'll need to step up to the Nikon or the KM SE 5400 II.

In the meantime, my 6x9 shots scanned on a 2400 flat-bed are easily 75 mb TIF files. Hehehehe. I can do this, it just take a little work. And money. And then more work. But it's fun.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Thank you again!

 

[dll927]

I'm not a pro, so agencies don't mean much, but from what I've read, they are essentially leeches. Sign up photographers, then take a cut (50%??) out of each sale. And there are complaints that they, along with banks and oil companies, are very busy consolidating so two or three will rule the roost (and charge higher commissions.)

Who uses them, other than advertisers and calendar publishers??

 

[sf]

I heard of a guy here in Washington (Issaquah area near Seattle) that makes over 2 million a year shooting stock (and marketing/selling his inventory). I don't know if he has assistants, but from what I know, he works without the leechy interference of a firm.

Now, I heard this from a shop-clerk and the now non-existent Rainbow Photo in Issaquah, so that information may have been faked on many levels.

But just think about how many images whirl around us daily, and how most of them are not news images or product images, but rather stock shots.

Someone's got to do it. If you can produce enough, and have the marketing savvy to sell it (which really only requires that you charge a lower price and offer equally dependable service as a firm), then you have a chance at making some bucks. But that requires having tens of thousands of pics ready to go (in some optimal format), having a very organized system of cataloging both the inventory and hte movement of inventory to buyers, and a zillion other business tools. Not to mention, caring for the total legality of each photo. Does some product logo, something trademarked or copyrighted show up in a pic, even slightly?

Very very picky, and very very time consuming. But. very very easy money if you find needy customers.

 

[bmattock]

I'm not a pro, so agencies don't mean much, but from what I've read, they are essentially leeches. Sign up photographers, then take a cut (50%??) out of each sale. And there are complaints that they, along with banks and oil companies, are very busy consolidating so two or three will rule the roost (and charge higher commissions.)

Who uses them, other than advertisers and calendar publishers??

I would guess that this will ignite a flame war, and I'll try to do Joe a favor and not flame on for this one. I do try to avoid it, I don't always succeed.

Every 'middleman' in every industry can be seen as a 'leech' in a sense, but absolutely necessary from other points of view. I have neither the time nor the contacts nor the experience to find a market for my 'stock type' photos - they do. I don't have the lawyers on staff to be sure I get paid if a client wants to take my images and misuse them or violate our agreement - they do. I don't even know what my images are 'worth' to a buyer - they do. I don't know where all the major buyers of stock photography are around the world - they do.

I don't want to negotiate use contracts and learn enough law to avoid getting burned. I don't want to try to keep track of who is using my (hopefully) thousands of photographs and for what at any given time. I don't want to have to keep lawyers and accountants on my payroll to keep track of these things either. I want to take photographs and (ego speaking) I want them to be seen by others. I even like the idea of being paid to do something I love to do anyway.

And being paid 50% of something is better than being paid 100% of nothing.

Ultimately, middlemen of all sorts are paid because of the value that they bring. If others in the chain don't see or value that, then they don't make it. Agencies exist. Photographers and buyers use them. Not everybody is happy, but the system sure seems to work.

As to who uses stock photography; you have to be kidding. Advertisers are HUGE. You cannot pick up a magazine, open a web browser, turn on the TV, etc, etc, without seeing ads. Nearly every still photo you see is from a stock agency, with a very few exceptions. Gadzooks, sir, advertising photography is MOST commercial photography in the world!

And in the final analysis, if one does not like the commission rates, one can choose not to join an agency and try to sell one's photographs directly. There is nothing stopping one from doing so.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[daveozzz]

........................

 

[bmattock]

I heard of a guy here in Washington (Issaquah area near Seattle) that makes over 2 million a year shooting stock (and marketing/selling his inventory). I don't know if he has assistants, but from what I know, he works without the leechy interference of a firm.

Like Hollywood actors, I am sure that once a photographer reaches a certain level, he is in less need of an agency than they are in need of him or her. These worthies can and do negotiate better percentages for themselves. Occasionally they take themselves off and form a new stock agency.

Now, I heard this from a shop-clerk and the now non-existent Rainbow Photo in Issaquah, so that information may have been faked on many levels.

But just think about how many images whirl around us daily, and how most of them are not news images or product images, but rather stock shots.

I tried to spend a whole day seeing not just advertisments, but photographs. We are so immersed, it is a daunting task. I lost count somewhere in the high hundreds of photographs in ads that must have been stock photos. That was ONE DAY.

Someone's got to do it. If you can produce enough, and have the marketing savvy to sell it (which really only requires that you charge a lower price and offer equally dependable service as a firm), then you have a chance at making some bucks. But that requires having tens of thousands of pics ready to go (in some optimal format), having a very organized system of cataloging both the inventory and hte movement of inventory to buyers, and a zillion other business tools. Not to mention, caring for the total legality of each photo. Does some product logo, something trademarked or copyrighted show up in a pic, even slightly?

I think that it is even harder to sell your photos. You market your own photos, that's one thing. Lower your prices, fine (assuming you know what the market normally sells for similar things - I don't). But now - make the potential customers search through your images to find the ones they want - even make them show up at all.

They have their stock agencies that they like and depend upon - in which they can see the best work of hundreds or thousands of photos. And they have X number of hours to devote to this. You want them to spend those hours on YOUR website looking at YOUR photos? You must be mad - they won't do it. Put yourself in their shoes. Deadlines, budgets, and variety. What your photo costs them is a very small part of the convenience of saving the one thing they don't have control over - their time. You can have the best images in the world. So what? If no one comes to look at them, no one will buy them.

Not to mention the fact that the buyers could not possibly care less about how wonderful a photo is. It has to do one thing for them - attract attention to THEM and what THEY are selling. No matter what it is of, it must meet their criteria, and that has precious little to do with how great we all are as photographers - other than the technical proficiency part.

I am digging into this like mad - it's what I do when I get interested. You should read what the stock photo buyers say about WHY they picked this photo or that one when they are questioned. One said he bought a photo because the background would print well on his company's annual stock report, and the trees in the photo would not cover up the lettering they planned to use. The photo itself? Oh, it was nice, of course. But more important was the color scheme and the actual placement of the trees. No doubt that would have deflated the ego of the photographer - but if you're selling product, who cares?

Very very picky, and very very time consuming. But. very very easy money if you find needy customers.

I don't know about easy money. Perhaps steady money - if you can produce to a spec.

I think from my reading that most disappointed would-be stock photographers are unable to separate the difference between great art and great technical quality. Yes, the photos must generally be lovely - they attract the eye. But they are also generally not 'high art'. If you filled an art gallery up with photos from the ads most of us see every day, we'd go 'ehh' at them. Technically proficient, but hardly something that speaks to our artistic souls. Yet that is what most stock photo buyers seem to want.

Just my 2 cents.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bill - how are the results scanning 6x9's on a flatbed? I always fancied using a larger format but was always put off by the price of the nikon 9000 which I thought I'd need. Does the flatbed do well with these?

At 2400 measly bpi, my Epson 2400 produces TIF files that measure some 7700 pixels on the long side, files that are truly huge. Quality? See my gallery, the 'abandoned car' shot was a recent 6x9 (Fuji G690) B&W scanned that way and worked on in The Gimp. I have just printed that at 8x10, it looks wonderful even up close - I suspect I can go 20x30 and have just as good results.

With an even slightly better flatbed, the results should beggar the imagination. I'm happy as a pig in sh...well, I'm happy.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Nikon Bob]

Bill

I think you are right on this one. If you want to swim in certain waters you have to put up with the leeches unless you have the time. talent and money to build your own pool. I think quite a few photogs take photos as a sideline and have not the time to spend on marketing, building a client base and all the myriad of things that stand between taking a photo and selling it. If you get highly successful in the stock photo business there is nothing to prevent you from going as a full time independant if you wish. If I were thinking of testing the waters of the stock photography trade I would go the agency route. As in fashion modeling, not all agencies are created equal and some reasearch as to which is the best for you might be in order.

Bob

 

[bmattock]

Bill

I think you are right on this one. If you want to swim in certain waters you have to put up with the leeches unless you have the time. talent and money to build your own pool. I think quite a few photogs take photos as a sideline and have not the time to spend on marketing, building a client base and all the myriad of things that stand between taking a photo and selling it. If you get highly successful in the stock photo business there is nothing to prevent you from going as a full time independant if you wish. If I were thinking of testing the waters of the stock photography trade I would go the agency route. As in fashion modeling, not all agencies are created equal and some reasearch as to which is the best for you might be in order.

Bob

I've noticed that quite a few photographers use stock photography as something that 'pays the bills' between doing what they love when gigs dry up. They feed it constantly, of course - but they don't count on the money from stock sale to be all they make. They're wedding and event photographers, studio photographers, sports, and so on. They write magazine articles and teach seminars and write books on photography. But when they go on vacation - the best of their holiday shots go into the agency, presuming they meet the technical specs and model/building release stuff, etc.

Hey, if nothing else - if you are a pro photographer and you file as a business for tax purposes - if you go on vacation and take stock photos, you can write off the costs of the vacation as a legitimate business expense, offset by the revenue realized from the sale of the photos. Free vacations, what could be more fun?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[chmeyer]

OT, stock photography

OT, stock photography

Yesterday I was choosing images for a new website. And I was struck by how simple so many of the pictures were.

Does anybody here submit pictures to Corbis or similar?

And is it worthwhile?

You would probably need to put away your rangefinder. Is it worth it?
If that's the bottom line, consider that shooting stock with digital cameras is more cost effective.
With film, you pay for the film, the processing and spend your time scanning with no guarantee that you will get any return.
If you own the proper digital equipment, you are not spending money to shoot, just taking up space and your own time.
In that regard, if you have already invested in gear, most photographers can only gain from stock sales with the right business plan.
Chris

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I looked further into Alamy and they say that a 35mm negative should be scanned at a minimum of 4000 x 6000, real resolution not interpolated.

That's way beyond what I can scan at.

 

[lubitel]

I am just going to throw this out there.

www.whitelife.com is a kind of place where everybody can create an account and upload their Fotos, Illustrations or Design work for sale. Haven't earned a penny myself yet, though. 🙂

I work in advertising and I do have to admit, that 99% of photos we use come from Stock, and although we do try to pick good photos the real reason we pick them is because something (like position of a person or expression, or something else) fits right in our concept. Most of the time for one key-visual we will use a couple of photos, they'll be modified, cut up, mixed up, colors changed, whatever you can imagine (even something like pasting in hands from other person on one's body) to achieve the result that the customer wants. That may be an extreme example but thats not unusual. There is also lots of people in a decision process and everybody will put in their 2cents to change something on the visual.