Stock Photography. Is it worth it?

[sfb_dot_com]

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.

As already stated above if you buy a Nikon Coolscan V it will give you not only the quoted resolution, but also very effective digital ICE (dust removing widget) They're not that expensive (£425 here in the UK) and sometimes come up on the 'Bay for less. That's in commercial terms a piffling investment, hey it's not even the cost of a half-decent lens. You gotta remember that the guys selling stock images might be taking requests for billboard size blow-ups so need to set the bar somewhere.

Ladies & Gentlemen, that concludes the case for the prosecution! and I think I've just talked myself into buying one 🙄

Regards

Andy

 

[jamiewakeham]

Is it just me, or does their requirement for a 'true' 48MB minimum for film scans (compared to 17MB and then interpolating to 48MB for digital camera images) provide more evidence of film's continued superiority? 😱

And as an aside, what sort of digital camera would you need to provide a 48MB TIFF?

Jamie

 

[daveozzz]

You'd need a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II to get 48ish out of the camera.

 

[daveozzz]

You might be interested in this article about digital captures vs film scans.
Link

It attempts to explain why you need to scan to a greater dpi to match a smaller digitally captured file.

 

[jamiewakeham]

Crikey, Dave - I'd been joking when I suggested a digicam could get 48MB without interpolation - I didnt realise that you could !

But I agree; that's a lot of money to barely equal what, for example, my £25 Canonet and some Velvia comes up with 😀

Jamie

 

[daveozzz]

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

 

[Socke]

Crikey, Dave - I'd been joking when I suggested a digicam could get 48MB without interpolation - I didnt realise that you could !

But I agree; that's a lot of money to barely equal what, for example, my £25 Canonet and some Velvia comes up with 😀

Jamie

With the exception that a 3000 Euro 12MPixel Canon 5D is better in low light than Velvia pushed two stops and a 800 Euro scanner 🙂

 

[Socke]

I just stumbled over an add for some Windows Software, the picture was a man with an Apple 12" iBook. This is certainly stock photography choosen by the add agency.

 

[VinceC]

>> 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.<<

Some bucks, maybe. But not big bucks. The world is awash with photographers willing to sell cheap. And their desire to make a sale, any sale, has been a big factor in devaluing the entire professional photography market. This isn't anything new ... photography was created by hobbyists, and it has always been a field where a hobbyist can have skills equal to -- more often surpassing -- a professional. Those who make their livings as photographers approach it as a business, with an emphasis on providing the customer what the customer wants, needs and asks for.

Stock houses have been in business long before the Internet age, and they cater to the publishing and advertizing industry. For decades and decades, they have, in effect, allowed clients to "surf" through hundreds of images in order to find just the right one to fit the layout, ad plan, etc. Typically, photographers who've built up a good-size portfolio can shop it around to stock agencies, who are mainly interested in a large body of technically excellent work.

As with any field, there are those who get a super lucky break. I read an article some years ago about how the U.S. Postal Service was putting together an ad campaign to promote its new overnight mail service. They found an image they liked of an eagle in profile (shot, if memory serves correct, at a zoo) ... I can't recall if the image of a full moon was superimposed on the eagle or existed in the selected stock image, but the stock photographer's eagle photo became iconic for overnight U.S. postal delivery.

 

[bmattock]

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.

Jon,

It's just beyond my capabilities with 35mm too - my SD IV is 3700 dpi, not 4000.

But I thought Alamy said you could interpolate upwards to reach their stated file size, using something like Genuine Fractals (PS) or Cubic Interpolation (Gimp). Is this not actually true? If so, I misread their webpage FAQ.

However, I could see myself saving for a Nikon V or a ScanElite 5400 II - it's a business expense, tax deductible.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I can see the Nikon CoolScan V on Amazon.co.uk from a Marketplace seller in Germany for £450ish.

 

[jamiewakeham]

A while ago, Bill, Alamy said 'definitely no interpolation allowed for scans'.

Now they still say that in some places, but in others they say 'we prefer that scans are not interpolated'.

Maybe a shift in policy taking its time to permeate the whole website?

Oddly enough, I'm sitting about a mile away from Alamy; they're based here in Abingdon, where I teach. As an MG driver too, it's not a bad workplace 😎

Jamie

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

There's a Minolta Dimage 5400 for around the same price as the Nikon Coolscan V.

Why is the Nikon (4000 dpi) more often recommended than the Minolta (5400 dpi)?

 

[kbg32]

Stock is great, but it is more then just beautiful sunsets, flowers, children, and puppies. I make a significant part of my living from stock, with both Getty and Corbis and some others. It is a lot of work, but immensely enjoyable. You get out of it what you put in. It is not for the casual shooter. Alamy is fine, but there is a lot of "junk" there as well. The images you submit must be keyworded correctly. Keywords are what clients search for when they want images. The more keywords you assign an image, must be done correctly, the better the chances are that your images will come up when a client does a search.

 

[bmattock]

Stock is great, but it is more then just beautiful sunsets, flowers, children, and puppies. I make a significant part of my living from stock, with both Getty and Corbis and some others. It is a lot of work, but immensely enjoyable. You get out of it what you put in. It is not for the casual shooter. Alamy is fine, but there is a lot of "junk" there as well. The images you submit must be keyworded correctly. Keywords are what clients search for when they want images. The more keywords you assign an image, must be done correctly, the better the chances are that your images will come up when a client does a search.

Thanks, Keith. I'm looking forward to it. I signed up with Alamy, and they seem less interested in what I have done in the past than in what I can do now, which for me is good. I looked at Corbis - part of the 'sign up' process seems to be submitting your portfolio of published work for them to evaluate you as a photographer. I have no objection to that - but I haven't one as yet. So Alamy seems to be a good 'foot in the door' route for me, and I hope to one day have that mighty portfolio and maybe even one name!

I'd love to hear any tips, tricks, or 'lessons learned' you could share!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[kbg32]

Is it just me, or does their requirement for a 'true' 48MB minimum for film scans (compared to 17MB and then interpolating to 48MB for digital camera images) provide more evidence of film's continued superiority? 😱

And as an aside, what sort of digital camera would you need to provide a 48MB TIFF?

Jamie

You can see what cameras are required by each agency under contributor information. Minimum requirements are the Canon 5D or the Nikon D200 - 10 - 12 megapixels. These roughly translate into 30-36 mb files. Corbis and Getty will accept uninterpolated files from these cameras. More and more agencies are accepting less imagery that were scanned from film.

 

[Robert Vote]

You could save images in CMYK to increase the image size. So u have 4 instead of 3 color channels.

(My first post in RFF)

Bob

 

[Robert Vote]

I just saw on alamy that they do only accept RGB-Files.

Bob

 

[garyc]

Thanks, Keith. I'm looking forward to it. I signed up with Alamy, and they seem less interested in what I have done in the past than in what I can do now, which for me is good. I looked at Corbis - part of the 'sign up' process seems to be submitting your portfolio of published work for them to evaluate you as a photographer. I have no objection to that - but I haven't one as yet. So Alamy seems to be a good 'foot in the door' route for me, and I hope to one day have that mighty portfolio and maybe even one name!

I'd love to hear any tips, tricks, or 'lessons learned' you could share!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I'd just like to share my (albeit brief) experience with stock photography, based on signing up with Shutterstock and Dreamstime, a couple of so-called 'micro-stock' agencies. RF in that domain means Royalty Free by the way. I have also been accepted at Istockphoto but have not uploaded any yet. You are free to upload the same images to as many of these sites as you wish: unless you sign an exclusive deal, which some offer.

I did look at Alamy, but their entry requirement seemed to onerous and slow. I had no idea if the shots I had were any good or not (in the real world - one way to find out is to give microstock a go.) Plus, from what I hear and read, even these newer agencies are suffering (or not growing any more) compared to microstock. However if you are already cofident of your abilities and know (for sure) your pictures will sell, you might want to by-pass the microstock route.

Ok you can read the contributers FAQs on the microstock sites (shutterstock.com, istockphoto.com, dreamstime.com etc) , but the basic premise is you upload your images (after passing their joining requirements test), they get reviewed and accepted (or not). Their clients download them, and you get paid around 20 to 50 cents per download. Big deal eh?

But consider that I have less than 150 images up (much less on Dreamstime who seem to be much more selective in acceptance, though SS are 'tightening up' of late) I have earned about $100 in 6 weeks. Admittedly I (deliberately) uploaded some cheesey Christmassy images which did well, but I reckon it was not too bad going.

The downside:

1. Its very hard work: not just taking the images, but selecting, de-noising, processing, uploading, keywording and so on. I burned the 3am oil on more than one or two occasions.
2. Be prepared for alot of rejection. The images may only be 'worth' 20c per d/l, but they want 500$ per image quality (like Alamy etc).
3. You have to earn a minimum before they will pay out. SS is 75$, DT 100$. If you don't think you have the time or inclination to get over 100 images up then maybe its not worth bothering.
4. Time spent on using a digital, DSLR or compact ,for ease of upload to microstock is less time spent using RFs.

The upside:

1. Its a lot of fun. Basically taking pictures is fun. And being paid is even more fun.
2. Its instructive. I deliberately aimed some pics knowing they would sell, but have had fun taking some more creative ones and seeing what does sell and what doesn't. Who would have thought a shot while standing in the queue/line at my local supermarket would have been in my top 10 sellers?
3. Time spent on microstock is less time spent on EvilBay acquiring hardware. But there comes a point where you will want to spent your hard earned micro dollars.....


My advice for naive microstock contributers:

1. Don't bother with film and scanning. You will spend an inordinate amount of time compared with the return.
2. Get a bog standard DSLR. Canon 350D/Digital Rebel XT or Nikon D70/s seem to be the most popular weapons of choice. there are more than a few with 20Ds or the odd IDsmkII. It is possible to do it with a digital compact. That's all I have (a Konica Minolta Dimage G600) - the advantage is you can take it everywhere. I process everything through NeatImage noise reduction software though.
3. Unless you spend a minumum amount of time and effort to get a reasonable portfolio (say 1,000 images), you are not going to amount that much cash. My current rate is about 1.5 cents per images per day. If I don't upload any more images i might earn about 750$ in a year with my 140 images. However there is a diminishing ratio: most downloads seem to happen on newly uploaded, fresh images. If you can keep uploading new images you can boost the d/ls of old images.

To be honest, if you are just dipping your toe in the water you cant really go wrong with a microstock site. I suspect Alamy may give a big rush when accepted, but then you may wait months before getting even one sale. With microstock you can monitor your daily downloads and feel as though something is happening all the time. Ok only 20c a time, but they do mount up.

I am in two minds about how all this will pan out - Alamy and other are certainly losing out to microstock, but ultimately pro photographers cant survive on 20c a download. I think microstock may be alot of fun to begin with for amateurs, but in the end they cannot hope to keep the 'machine' fed fast enough with good enough images for it to be worthwhile.

For myself, I aim to make enough cash to buy a DLSR and from then on just subsidise the monthly wine bill (and kids at university).

 

[daveozzz]

Interesting article about Alamy... http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/aafa122005-alamywest.htm
"Figures supplied by several professional, rights-managed stock photographers indicate that quality work produces an average of about $15 in income per image per year."