Jamie123
Veteran
Sounds like someone needs to start a stock image website/company which deals only in very high end/fine photography...(at a price,of course...)
There is Trunk Archive, Gallerystock and of course Magnum. I'm sure there are a few more.
There's also quite a lot of money to be made on syndication of celebrity portraiture. I know a guy who makes up to $500'000/year on syndication but of course he's also one of the more successful celeb shooters out there.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
John, I think you are talking about microstock. I have been selling microstock for a little over five years. I am retired and a few hundred dollars a month allows me to pursue my hobby whereas I would not otherwise be able to do it. I also engaged in "conventional" stock for many years, sending transparencies to agencies. The old way only resulted in a few sales per year and, even though the pay per image was much, much greater than microstock rates, the skimpy sales just did not translate to much income.
These days, the small per image sales of microstock add up to significant dollars each month. Another advantage is the ability to upload pictures rather than packaging and mailing them — a significant cost, especially if you're sending them out of the country.
One thing I miss about the old agency model is that they would send you tear sheets of your stuff in print. The volume of microstock would preclude their doing that. One can use the search engines and find a few examples of use, but not all.
Recently, I sold my D700 + lenses and bought an M6 + 35/1.4, determined to leave that stock business behind and just be a "fine artiste". But, I actually miss it and keep thinking that the income would inevitably tail off if I didn't keep submitting. So . . . . I just ordered a used D300 + 18-200 lens which should allow me to keep feeding the beast for awhile.
One other thing. The reason I can't use the Leica for stock is that these microstock kids probably don't know what film is, let alone grain, which they equate with "noise" or "digital artifacts". I sometimes sneak a few film scans by the reviewers by Photoshopping the hell out of the image, then reducing it to about half the pixel dimensions.
I participate in stock on my terms. I don't shoot isolations on white and I don't play with anyone who does!
I hope this will help you in your decision, John.
mobilexile
Well-known
I work in advertising and buy a lot of stock. As a consumer I believe the stock world first benefitted from the internet then was murdered by it.
When I first got into the business we'd received dozens of stock photo books every week. Going through them was time consuming and inefficient. For a brief time we went to CDs, then came the internet. The change meant we could keyword search and streamline the process, a welcome development for sure. More photographers were able to offer up imagery for purchase and the possibilities exploded.
Then corporations got involved and, for a time, improved things. Getty quickly bought up the hot stock properties and tied photographers down with arcane compensation agreements and they filtered what could be added to their sites. They watered down the best stock libraries as they folded them into GettyImages.com.
Everyone knew prices Getty was getting were, in some cases, insane. In others they were a bargain. The system was not perfect. Then along comes iStockPhoto, ShutterStock and other bargain sites. They killed the market for good stock once clients caught on. After all, why pay hundreds or thousands for a stock shot when you can get a usable image for a few dollars? From my perspective -- the person selecting and incorporating the imagery into my work -- these budget sites are hell. Many times you find an image to be lacking proper resolution and / or prepped incorrectly. And quality runs the gamut.
I've seen friends who shoot for living literally priced out of the business. I'm talking about people who were once a serious force in the world of professional photography. Others have changed their business model -- things like a prominent car shooter who now travels the globe shooting road scenics that cars are then retouched into. If you know what such photography costs you know that means a dramatic drop in income for those guys. For me it often means a lower quality end product.
If folks want to get into stock photography and make a living of it do know that you're traveling a popular and difficult road. Unless you have a unique style, subject or approach you'll be a commodity, not a valued resource. If you just love to shoot that may suit you well. But do know it's an abusive business that does not favor the person with the expensive camera equipment.
This is a bit of a ramble, sorry for that.
When I first got into the business we'd received dozens of stock photo books every week. Going through them was time consuming and inefficient. For a brief time we went to CDs, then came the internet. The change meant we could keyword search and streamline the process, a welcome development for sure. More photographers were able to offer up imagery for purchase and the possibilities exploded.
Then corporations got involved and, for a time, improved things. Getty quickly bought up the hot stock properties and tied photographers down with arcane compensation agreements and they filtered what could be added to their sites. They watered down the best stock libraries as they folded them into GettyImages.com.
Everyone knew prices Getty was getting were, in some cases, insane. In others they were a bargain. The system was not perfect. Then along comes iStockPhoto, ShutterStock and other bargain sites. They killed the market for good stock once clients caught on. After all, why pay hundreds or thousands for a stock shot when you can get a usable image for a few dollars? From my perspective -- the person selecting and incorporating the imagery into my work -- these budget sites are hell. Many times you find an image to be lacking proper resolution and / or prepped incorrectly. And quality runs the gamut.
I've seen friends who shoot for living literally priced out of the business. I'm talking about people who were once a serious force in the world of professional photography. Others have changed their business model -- things like a prominent car shooter who now travels the globe shooting road scenics that cars are then retouched into. If you know what such photography costs you know that means a dramatic drop in income for those guys. For me it often means a lower quality end product.
If folks want to get into stock photography and make a living of it do know that you're traveling a popular and difficult road. Unless you have a unique style, subject or approach you'll be a commodity, not a valued resource. If you just love to shoot that may suit you well. But do know it's an abusive business that does not favor the person with the expensive camera equipment.
This is a bit of a ramble, sorry for that.
Last edited: