[MrTopher2]

Hey all,
I searched around and didn't see any discussions on stock photography here on l4p. I've been doing some research today looking at websites Stock Photography: Search Royalty Free Images & Photos | iStockphoto.com and Stock Photos | Shutterstock: Royalty-Free Subscription Stock Photography & Vector Art

I've got a question to put out there - does anyone have experience working with these websites as a photographer/contributor. I'd like to hear your thoughts and experiences with selling microstock photos.
Are there any better options out there?

Basically, I'm looking to get a little extra income on the side and start having my photos work for me and build income selling them as stock. I'd be using some of my editorial photos that haven't been used in publications. I also have some other photography that would be very marketable as stock.

I'd appreciate any helpful input on this, as well as good up-to-date literature to refer to on getting into stock photography.

-Chris

 

[bludevl80]

Photo Business News & Forum: Search results for microstock

there is some good reading.

here are some interesting quotes:

Now all the microstock photographers can pile on here in the comments, with sentiments like "I just want to see my photo in print, who cares about the money..." and "...for some of us it's not about the money it's about the fame..." and other equally idiotic sentiments. go ahead and subsidize multi-national corporations and mega-corporation quarterly reports with your EOS Rebel or D90 photos. Some day, you'll tire of all the work and the market will be so flooded you'll lose interest. Go ahead - I'll wait.....that's right, patience is a virtue, and while I have more than I need of it, clearly one "virtue" of these microstockers is that they couldn't care less about the profession of photography as a sustainable endeavor. SpiderPic's results demonstrates just one more manifestation of that.

and....

How long does it take for those 10 accepted photos to make $75? Quite awhile, when the average per-sale figure is about $2, according to Jim Pickerell, in this article.

The numbers could be even worse. According to the iStock Contributors site here, the TOP contributor, Yuri Arcurs, in 4 years only has 5,006 files uploaded, which equates to 104 images a month, on average, that are accepted. the site lists Arcurs as having 136 new files in the last 30 days. In his profile here, it is suggested he shoots "hundreds of 39mp files per day...", so assuming he shoots 5 days a week, and let's say 200 images a day, that's 1,000 a week, 4,000 a month, and he's only getting 136 accepted - and he's the TOP guy? That's a 3.5% shoot-to-acceptance ratio.

Stock photography is not for me.. thanks.

 

[MrTopher2]

Thanks for the reply! It seems that if you're shooting exclusively to sell stock photos, the time commitment it takes to create marketable images just isn't worth it.

 

[Pendulum]

Thanks for the reply! It seems that if you're shooting exclusively to sell stock photos, the time commitment it takes to create marketable images just isn't worth it.

Not only that, but you also have to figure out how to make your shots more than marketable. They have to be more marketable than the next guy or gal.

Stock WAS good, until the microstock agencies and digital photography cheapened it.