# earn money from your photos



## lynch512 (Jan 10, 2005)

I've made about $75 from my photos so far. the site is actually pretty sweet. Everytime one of your photos is downloaded, you get $.020.  When you make $100 they send you a check, however you can change this amount to whatever you want. So if you want every $50 dollars you can just set it up that way and get a check everytime you sell $50 worth of pictures. 

http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=462 &lt;- go there to sign up
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=462&lt;- or go here to check out my gallery[/url]


----------



## Unimaxium (Jan 10, 2005)

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure if this post is spam or not, but nonetheless that site does sound intriguing. Maybe I'll set up an account to see if I can sell some of my photos. PS those are some nice photos you have in your gallery.


----------



## Karalee (Jan 11, 2005)

Love the referral number though


----------



## oriecat (Jan 11, 2005)

2 cents per photo?!  You have got to be kidding me..


----------



## fadingaway1986 (Jan 11, 2005)

I just looked - its actually .20c a photo...


----------



## tmpadmin (Jan 11, 2005)

There was another thread in in Personal and Prof Photo sites http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16080 and http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15550

All are referral links.  Can't blame anyone for wanting to make a few extra bucks but these days, the internet is a mess of this type of thing.  I'm courious to see how this works out Unimaxium.  Let us know if you can, know how it goes.  I'm sure most of everyone's bloopers or random shots would move - if this is legit.


----------



## Canon Fan (Jan 11, 2005)

I smell a


----------



## Digital Matt (Jan 11, 2005)

Istockphoto.com also gives 20 cents per photo.  Yeah it's not much, but look, you can download them for cheap also.  It's meant more for the freelance graphic designer.  Lots of students get stock from there, and I have as well.  That being said, there are some amazing photos on that site, and if you put the right photo up there, you do stand to make money.

If you want to make money at it, it's not going to happen from bloopers or random shots.  Carefully planned studio shots of common everyday items are what sells on there, or pictures of business persons in suits drinking coffee, or on the phone, etc....  A lot of these stock photos are downloaded for use in websites.


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

Thanks Matt, I was just about to mention istock.


----------



## Unimaxium (Jan 11, 2005)

tmpadmin said:
			
		

> There was another thread in in Personal and Prof Photo sites http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16080 and http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15550
> 
> All are referral links.  Can't blame anyone for wanting to make a few extra bucks but these days, the internet is a mess of this type of thing.  I'm courious to see how this works out Unimaxium.  Let us know if you can, know how it goes.  I'm sure most of everyone's bloopers or random shots would move - if this is legit.



I'm not yet sure if I'm going to sign up. I prolly don't have anough shots worth selling, at least not yet. But maybe sometime in the future.


----------



## metroshane (Jan 11, 2005)

These type of sites, while may be legit at making you a few bucks, devalue the entire market.  Not only to you cheat yourself, but you make everyone trying to make a living suffer.


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

metroshane said:
			
		

> These type of sites, while may be legit at making you a few bucks, devalue the entire market.  Not only to you cheat yourself, but you make everyone trying to make a living suffer.


I beg to differ. There will always be a market for Porsche and there will always be a market for Corolla. Yup, the Corolla is made in bulk and Toyota is one of the biggest names in the auto business, but that does not mean it will eat up Porsche's value. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## metroshane (Jan 11, 2005)

What if I start selling my porsches for $.20?  No one is going to buy your porsche or corolla.  So, soon I'll be out of business because I can't maintain a business like that, but wait there's another sucker who thinks he only deserves $.20 for his porsches.  Still no one is buying your cars.  And the cycle continues.  We are all working very hard at trying to make it as photographers and the biggest mistake we all make is undervaluing our work.  That's what the music industry has done to itself.  Look at how many great musicians can't survive on the money from their craft because there are 20 other musicians lined up to do it for free.  It's no different than outsourcing work to cheaper countries.  And it's why we have a federally mandated minimum wage.  

But many people do believe the way you do, and so be it.


----------



## Artemis (Jan 11, 2005)

Do you have to be 18 to sign up?

I personally do alot of work for charity and free at the moment, its how you get known...


----------



## metroshane (Jan 11, 2005)

> I personally do alot of work for charity and free at the moment, its how you get known...



noble.



> and free at the moment, its how you get known...



Really?


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

When I posted my images at istock, my intention was not to put bread on the table. I was merely a freshie (I still am pretty much). But over the period, _if_ my skill level happens to get any better, and _if_ I want to earn serious money from stock, I will be positioning my products from firms like Corbis, getty, ipn, comstock etc. Ever heard of any big time advertising companines (Y&amp;R, saatchi &amp; saatchi...)buying from ".20 stock agencies"? Ever heard of TIME buying from .20 companies? I have not heard, thus far. And I don't think Corbis is threatened by any of these .20 stock companies. 
If I think my work is top-notch, my next step would be to seek the platform that would sell my work at a premium. If they reject my portfolio, it just means that I'm not good  enough yet (according their market standards). I will have to work hard until I have a Porsche to offer. The .20 companies simply serve a different sect of the market. Those who have Porsches should not worry about that market.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 11, 2005)

And if a pro is on istock, they probably just upload thier 2nd's that are not so good that would normally just be collecting dust on the hard drive.  And keeping the great shots for the pro stock companies.

The majority on istock probably cant get on a real stock company at this time, so this is a good way to improve your skills.


----------



## Rob A (Jan 11, 2005)

you speak wisely!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Rob A (Jan 11, 2005)

how would i contact a real stock company? i mean i know at the moment im nowhere near good enough, but just for far future referance? would i email them a portfolio or send it to them or ....

thanks!


----------



## Artemis (Jan 11, 2005)

I believe doing local free work will get me known yes, and I am now, ive been asked a few times to do some pics, and have joind a sub photography group (As head photographer) who are going to do weddings and stuff...

Plus...is I stock for under 18's?


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

Rob A said:
			
		

> how would i contact a real stock company?


::
Get this  for starters. The market is much broader than the stock. 

::
Corbis
Comstock
I don't have the links to similar pages in gettyimages.

::
Get registered with Blackbook. It is on the desk of all the big time Talent seekers.

I'm sure there are plenty more links related to this which I am not aware of yet. I hope someone here could help you.


----------



## Rob A (Jan 11, 2005)

excelent!! thanks danalec!! :thumbsup:


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

YW


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

Artemis said:
			
		

> is I stock for under 18's?


I'm not aware of any age or country bar.  But you might want to email (service@istockphoto.com) their Customer Service personnel before you sign up.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 11, 2005)

metroshane said:
			
		

> These type of sites, while may be legit at making you a few bucks, devalue the entire market.  Not only to you cheat yourself, but you make everyone trying to make a living suffer.



I agree.  $0.20 is a joke for image usage, but unfortunately it's a sign of the times with the digital revolution.  As photography gets easier, and there are more photographers, and the bar gets lowered as the market floods.  I suppose if an amateur has never gotten a check in the mail, then $100 seems like a lot.  Of course if you are going to pay taxes on that income in the states, you can take 40% away from that right away which turns it into 12 cents per image use, and I can't imagine making a living on that.

Point-n-shoot digi cams have spelled the demise of the photographer for the local newspaper too.  Why would they pay for both a reporter and a photographer, when the reporter can just snap a shot for the story with his cell phone?  It's too bad, because as I watch the old photogs from my local paper retire, I've noticed a serious lack of interesting photos in the paper.    

Art is valuable, and a common problem with all sorts of artists is that they devalue their work.  Personally I feel like I'm giving commercial interests a heck of a deal when I allow single usage rights to an image for $200.00.  20 cents pays for just over 1/3rd of a sec of my time at my minimum commercial rate, and according to the photogs I look up to, I'm still too cheap.


----------



## metroshane (Jan 11, 2005)

Absolutely.  

Let's expand this into a value thread since we're talking about it.  People often think that if I charge $200 for an hour of work, then I'm getting paid $200 an hour.  Not true.  First, I shoot with a 10D...and while it's not top of the line, I have about 5k tied up in the body, various lenses, flashes, lighting kits, etc.  So there is maintenance cost, depreciation and most importantly liability cost.  What if I drop my camera shooting a $.20 job?  Not worth it.  What if it gets stolen while I'm shooting somewhere.

Next we have transportation to lug all this equipment around to various locations.  Electricity to power 600W lights, strobes, battery recharges, etc.  Taxes.  Medical insurance...something most jobs incorperate into a pay scale.  Liability insurance in case something happens at a shoot....someone gets hurt, I damage something, etc.

Most people have no idea how to value the things I've listed and therefore they undervalue themselves.  You CANNOT stay in business this way.  It's impossible unless you're independantly wealthy and don't mind a massive leak in your bank account.

So let's see.  I make $200 for an hour shoot.
$80 to the gov (hey I'm a business now, got to pay extra taxes).
$6 for health insurance (yep, no group plan here)
1.20 in gas
.20 electricity
$5 depreciation of equipment (lamps are expensive, so are computers)
$12 liability insurance so I don't get sued if a light falls over on someone...even if it is thier fault.
$5 various supplies, CD-R, postage

That's not mentioning the things I'm forgetting like years of study and practice.  And I only wish I were booked every hour! :roll:


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 11, 2005)

Your making it sound like once you sell the image for $0.20 you cant ever sell it again.  :0)  There are people on istock that have had thier picture downloaded 500 times, at say an averge 20 cents per download thats $100 from the one picture.  And they usually have other pictures from that series on there as well.  A few on istock make a very good income, but most dont.

I think it comes down to do what you want.  If you want to do istock and are happy with what your getting paid, great.

If you dont like the pay and you dont wnat to do it, then dont do it.  No one is forcing you.

If a company wants an average picture, they can use istock.  If the site is a low budget thing, they probably cant afford a $200 stock image.

If your a big company and you want quality, they probably go to corbis or a company known for quality.

I think were just going in circles here, heh.


----------



## metroshane (Jan 11, 2005)

You're right about selling an image mulitple times, Gerry David..that's why I wanted to discuss value as a whole as it relates to the professional photog...not the amatuer that's selling his hobby surplus.

But also don't forget one other thing...the company that's paying .20 for your image is making money from it.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 11, 2005)

Everybody should feel free to place whatever value on their work that they want, but I'm telling you, I don't care how much of a newbie you are, if your image is worth selling, it's worth more than $0.20 for commercial use.


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 11, 2005)

The market knows whom they need, which is why I say there is no reason for worry.

Say for my sister's wedding, I'll have two options when it comes to hiring a photographer: 
1. Hire a top-of-the-line- PJ who charges around US$5K and above (leather album and all the frills inclusive). 
2. Hire a newbie who is building his portfolio. His fee - US$900 (album of 4x6).
_(This is merely a hypothetical scenario, and obviously there are more options that these two)
_
My point is, there will ALWAYS be a crowd for Option 1 as long as mankind is there. I cannot even comprehend the idea that digital newbies who undervalue their work would affect the business of the likes of Joe Buissink, Bambi Cantrell, Dennis Reggie or a bunch of the pros listed here. The market is too smart for that.

Peace


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 11, 2005)

Ive also heard people like to brag about how much they paid for thier wedding and the wedding photographer.  :0)  Cant do that if you go cheap unless you lie.


----------



## celery (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah, .20 is just too little.  I'd rather just print out an 8 X 10 and sell it for $20 once rather than wait for 100 downloads.  If you have good images, it's easier to find a handful of buyers than to find hundreds of people who want to download your image.


It costs about $5 -$8 to print an 8 x 10 at home (ink and really high end photo paper).

That leaves you with about $12 profit (not counting the cost of camera and computer . . . etc).  That means you need an image to be downloaded 60 times to make $12.  

So, basically it's 60 downloads VS one person buying directly from you.

BTW, even $20 is really cheap for a photograph, but it suits my example.


----------



## cmptrdewd (Jan 12, 2005)

I've been doing photography off and on for two years and I'm still kind of in the expermenting phase. I never really thought about selling prints. I have a web site and maybe I could sell downloads (for more than .20 cents each of course) on my web. I really don't think that all the time and energy put into one good shot should be reduced to 20 cents.

I wanted to do an inhome portrait biz, but was wondering how in the world am I going to pay for all the equipment I need like backgrounds and lights and all that jazz. I think I'll get all my best shots and print some out and sell them... I think... ummmm..... but where would I sell them?

O I'm glad I fould this thread! Thx everyone! :thumbsup:


BTW my avatar is not one of my best shots, just thought it was cute. It's my chinchilla.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jan 12, 2005)

Celery, who would pay $20 for an 8x10 of a fork?  :0)

And why not have some images on istock, and then offer them as prints as well on your website.  People that buy prints may not ever know about istock, and as far as I know, your allowed to sell your istock stock as prints as well.  You just might not be able to sell the same images to another stock site.  I know the bigger stock sites dont want your images on any other stock sites.

The stuff that does well on istock isnt usually the stuff that would do well as prints, and vice versa.

I think it just matters what level your at.  Starting out, then you will probably only be able to get on those cheap sites.  If your really good, go for the more pro sites.  And I think the pro sites need huge files, so those using p&amp;s cameras cant get on a real stock site anywase.  So your gear limits you as well.


----------



## cmptrdewd (Jan 12, 2005)

GerryDavid said:
			
		

> Celery, who would pay $20 for an 8x10 of a fork?  :0)



If I were to go right now and grab my camera, get a fork out, lay it on the table and take a picture, it would cost about .20


----------



## tmpadmin (Jan 12, 2005)

I'll disagree a bit here.  Have you even looked at some of those images on the stock web sites?  Heck, most of us here can do that by dropping our cameras.  Beside I don't think that stock photography is the same as something you would want hanging on the wall.  Why would I want a photo of a keyboard on my wall?  But that same photo would be perfect for a web page.  I honestly don't see much artistic about stock photography, there are exceptions, however for the most part they are of forks, keyboards, hand shaking and so on.  Most of the photos posted here would never get downloaded at a stock site - they just don't serve the purpose, but they would get some good money to hang on a wall.


----------



## Rhubarb (Jan 12, 2005)

Great thread.

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=fork&amp;anyorall=all&amp;searchtermx=


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 13, 2005)

GerryDavid said:
			
		

> Celery, who would pay $20 for an 8x10 of a fork?  :0)



Who cares who will pay $0.20 for a photo of a fork.  What you guys need to be asking yourselves is who will pay $200 for a photo of a fork.    

Who will pay $2000 for a photo of a fork?      There are people that will.

Don't crawl with the bugs.  Fly with the eagles!!


----------



## Artemis (Jan 13, 2005)

I dont know, im confused...I mean....Cant I just put some up there anyways? and sell them as prints to others anyways?


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 13, 2005)

what is the gain from selling stock photos? arent you proud of your work? your name is no longer attached to that photo once you sell it to these people.

its just my opinion, but thats the antithesis of why i take pictures.


just my .02 cents


md


----------



## Artemis (Jan 13, 2005)

Lol, your 2 cents has convinced me, and given me an idea..


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 13, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> what is the gain from selling stock photos? arent you proud of your work? your name is no longer attached to that photo once you sell it to these people.


Good point! 

Personally, stock photography does not interest me. I have a "personal relationship" with my work and I am not comfortable with the idea of someone _using_ my work to get _their_ end product.  I feel it is so impersonal (the fact that they would use it); more like prostitution. 

This is just *my* opinion.

PS: Thanks Matt. Lately I have been thinking about taking down couple of pictures that I personally like, from istock. Your words just allowed me to make the decision.


----------



## celery (Jan 13, 2005)

Ok, here's some math-lite for those who are still thinking of selling their work for .20.

The guy who "trolled/advertised/spammed/posted" the original link stated that he has made around $75.  He has 67 pictures in his gallery.

Now, most of us know that most photographers take multiple shots and pick the best one out of the bunch.  So, if you wanted to make 67 great shots, you might have to take between 120 - 200 shots in order to get the *best* shots possible.

That's a lot of work for $75.  

Now, we also don't know how long it took to make $75.  It could have been one month or 3 months.

The other horrible thing about these cheapy sites, is that you're in competition with thousands of other photographs.  So, in order to get your .20 the person downloading has to look through a thousand or so pictures to get to yours (unless you're on one of the front pages).


And chances are, if you are a hobby photographer or an art photographer, you won't want to take time out of what you enjoy doing in order to take pictures of keyboards, forks or businessmen shaking hands . . . etc.


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 13, 2005)

im glad that you and arty are taking pride in your work. i think stock photog is great for graphic designers and companies on a limited budget, but for me personally, and alot of others on this forum...we all take these pictures to remember, not to dish out to a stranger so that his kitten in a jar website will be springing to life with top notch photography. ive seen your work dan, and its amazing, so is arty's. you both take pictures for the livelihood of your soul, not for .20 cents.



md


----------



## danalec99 (Jan 13, 2005)

Its not the .20 cents Matt. I did not post my images in istock to really "earn" money. .20 is nothing! Istock was and is just a fun thing for me, but no more fun with photographs that I love. 

And thanks for the kind words re. my work. But I know I have miles to go.


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 13, 2005)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Its not the .20 cents Matt. I did not post my images in istock to really "earn" money. .20 is nothing! Istock was and is just a fun thing for me, but no more fun with photographs that I love.
> 
> And thanks for the kind words re. my work. But I know I have miles to go.




haha, if you have miles to go, then that means im on the wrong continent.  


we will ALL get there sooner or later.

md


----------



## Artemis (Jan 13, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> im glad that you and arty are taking pride in your work. i think stock photog is great for graphic designers and companies on a limited budget, but for me personally, and alot of others on this forum...we all take these pictures to remember, not to dish out to a stranger so that his kitten in a jar website will be springing to life with top notch photography. ive seen your work dan, and its amazing, so is arty's. you both take pictures for the livelihood of your soul, not for .20 cents.
> 
> 
> 
> md



MD your words have really inspired me, and screw Istock (sorry for the harsh words) no art, even my rubbish art, is worth just .20, for me thats about 9P, and...NO! lol 

I still have a few lightyears to go just to reach you MD.

(Congrats on having a strong opionion against this, sometimes I wish I could see the tree's through the forest)


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 13, 2005)

i have a strong opinion about everything. :twisted: 


arty, keep snapping dude, youll get there.



md


----------



## tmpadmin (Jan 13, 2005)

Let me just get this straight.  If you snap off 100 photos and like 10 of them, work with them then sell them for $XXXXXXX (whatever), you made your money that you wanted to make on that lot of 100 Photos.  You still have 90 other shots that you do not like for one reason or other and don't want to spend any time on.  This is all assuming 100 different photos...  You see it as a prostitution of your art, hobby (insert other here) to post those 90 on a stock site and MAYBE make .20?  We can get technical and say that the hour or so it takes to upload 90 photos is not worth .20, I agree.  However, think of someone who is just getting started or is advancing, especially if they have a dslr they are snapping photos of everything in sight.  If 1% of them are uploaded and 1% of those uploaded are downloaded that budding photographer just make a few bucks on his work that would normally chew up hard drive space or even be deleted.  This leads to confidence in his work, which fosters the art.  Than that lot of 100 photos he takes he like 15, then 20 and so on.  Soon who cares about the .20 on the stock sites?  I don't think stock photography is for those who have made it or are making a living off of their art, however, I see no issue with someone using it in my example.


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 13, 2005)

completely disagree.

but its whatever you are into the hobby for...are you wanting to make money? or take pictures to preserve better days?


whatever


md


----------



## tmpadmin (Jan 13, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> completely disagree.
> 
> but its whatever you are into the hobby for...are you wanting to make money? or take pictures to preserve better days?
> 
> ...



Sounds like you are done with the thread   Personally, I don't have the time to bother with the stock sites plus most of what I take just wouldn't move.  Not now anyway.


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 13, 2005)

i think its really great that we can talk about it and get it out in the open without becoming dorks and acting like children. but i guess it all amounts to what you want to do with your art. even though i am against this, im no one to deny anyone else there chance to make some dough!



md


----------



## metroshane (Jan 13, 2005)

> (Congrats on having a strong opionion against this, sometimes I wish I could see the tree's through the forest)



Um, yeah.  Way to go McD. :roll:


----------



## railman44 (Jan 15, 2005)

Just checked out their most downloaded pics.  These are the types of pictures used in Powerpoint presentations and well worth the cheap cost.  That's a deal if you're responsible for putting together a legal (owned pics) presentation for your company!


----------



## MDowdey (Jan 15, 2005)

metroshane said:
			
		

> > (Congrats on having a strong opionion against this, sometimes I wish I could see the tree's through the forest)
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  Way to go McD. :roll:




tastes the hint of sarcasm in the air...


it was shane that first opposed the idea. i would give him the credit.


md


----------



## metroshane (Jan 15, 2005)




----------



## ruxa (Aug 16, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Istockphoto.com also gives 20 cents per photo. Yeah it's not much, but look, you can download them for cheap also. It's meant more for the freelance graphic designer. Lots of students get stock from there, and I have as well. That being said, there are some amazing photos on that site, and if you put the right photo up there, you do stand to make money


 
as a matter of fact, dreamstime.com offers 50-65c/image, while the costs are 1-5 USD/image. not bad, ha? they also have some interesting prizes each 10k milestone. last time thay gave a Mini Mac to some Kentucky photographer for posting the image no. 100.000.. !
ruxa


----------



## MDowdey (Aug 16, 2005)

ok first of all, quit bringing up old threads just to spam them...again.

secondly, post them in the right section...or die.


ADMIN


----------



## fadingaway1986 (Aug 16, 2005)

I enjoy visiting the places people suggest...

Without clicking their referer links.. Hehehe. I type it in myself to make sure no one makes money off me... Woo.


----------



## Dweller (Aug 16, 2005)

The referral links is whats bothers me most. This thread was started by a spammer. He has a post count of 1. He posted his referral links and never came back 

I did not read the etnire thread but it seems obvious when you post once and the post is a referral link that you had one purpose.


----------



## ruxa (Aug 18, 2005)

fadingaway1986 said:
			
		

> I enjoy visiting the places people suggest...
> 
> Without clicking their referer links.. Hehehe. I type it in myself to make sure no one makes money off me... Woo.


 
that's great, because THAT was the purpose! and the referral it's an internal one, just to know how many people would enter Dreamstime after reading threads on one forum or another. it's a PR evaluation referral and no one makes money out of it! 

and that's for all the comments my thread raised: 
I don't actually understand what's this fuss al about. so what if would have been a real referral, not just an internal one? what would have been the harm done? 
if you would have bothered to just go and take a look you would know it's not just some small stock imagery website that struggles to spam everyone around. but it's sooo much easier to stand up there and criticize everything, isn't it? event though I posted some piece of information! 
you know something, I'm Romanian... Marketing and all connected may not be so well developed in here, but at least people don't panic over interests when someone offers a piece of information. 
NOW you can "kill" me, admin, if that's what you think best! 
Sorry I got mad, but sometimes... guys, it's 2 much! 

ruxa


----------



## fadingaway1986 (Aug 18, 2005)

You know you really should get a life. 

You whinge because no one is nice to you. But your only two posts have been pathetic, worthless SPAM. 


You couldn't give a damn about this forum, just your own "studies"...


----------

