# interested in stock photography.... selling photos online



## Photoform (Feb 12, 2013)

I've read a few short articles online about stock photography selling, but it's pretty unfulfilling and, to be quite frank, I felt like they were probably more marketing articles than informational.

Basically, I want to get "into" stock photography. Does anyone know of any sort of definitive resource on the matter? I'm certainly not looking to get rich quick, but photography is a hobby of mine and I'd like to see if I can take it to another level.

So really, just looking for some dialogue here, perhaps from people who partake in the practice; or just some information to share. 

Thanks a ton.


----------



## bfabian (Feb 12, 2013)

dont do it


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 12, 2013)

Read this thread from a week or so ago...awesome info in it.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rying-start-stock-photography-coming-art.html


----------



## Photoform (Feb 12, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Read this thread from a week or so ago...awesome info in it.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rying-start-stock-photography-coming-art.html


Thank you for this. I will look now.


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 14, 2013)

Curious...what kind of money are we talking about if a photo ends up being popular on istockphoto,com? Are we talking 100's or 1000's? Thx.


----------



## Parker219 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well after reading the thread that Bitter posted. I'm thinking...not worth my time. I mean, think about how hard it is to get 1 photo accepted. Well that one guy had something like 150 pictures accepted from one site, and he makes 8 dollars a day from it. 

So if that is $240 a month, it just seems like you could do 1 wedding, an engagement shoot, or something that would take 1 day and you would make a lot more. It took him YEARS to get to 8 dollars a day.

Just my opinion, but dont let me hold you back. If that is what you want to do, go for it.


----------



## IconicPhotosUK (Feb 14, 2013)

I tried it once but the market is saturated with photographs. Even if you sell an image you are likely not to get much money for it.


----------



## nycphotography (Feb 14, 2013)

Parker219 said:


> So if that is $240 a month, it just seems like you could do 1 wedding, an engagement shoot, or something that would take 1 day and you would make a lot more. It took him YEARS to get to 8 dollars a day.



The difference between shooting stock and shooting weddings is between a laid back approach to making specific images with the consequences of shoot that goes south being, well, nothing vs the consequences being lawsuits and lasting drama.

As a hobbyist photographer, I think what stock offers is...... wait for it.... motivation, direction, and feedback.   You are motivated and rewarded to keep shooting every week, every day even. You have editorial guidelines to steer your work.  And you get the only kind of feedback that always 100% honest... people spending money to buy your images.

Are you going to get rich and retire?  not anytime fast you aren't.  But don't poo poo $300 month after 3 years of effort.  Here's why:  do it for 9 more years, and it's $900 a month.  Supplemental to whatever else you are making.

What is that $300 a month "worth"?  Figure a 10% (high) rate of return on investments or savings, and it would take $36,000 to make that $3,600 a year.  At 8% (more reasonable) it would take $45,000.  So the pictures he has taken in 3 years are "worth" $45,000.  Did YOU save up $45,000 over the last 3 years?  What income are you making from your savings?  And every penny _I_ manage to save has already been taxed to death before I get to save it.... while the government doesn't tax his pictures as he makes them, they only tax the residual income from them.


----------



## Parker219 (Feb 14, 2013)

^If that income keeps coming in for years, then that makes sense.  Thats also assuming he gets up to $900 a month.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 14, 2013)

I know professionals that send photos in to stock agencies when they already being paid to shoot the assignments, they have spare images they use, not crap, but good solid images and in most cases after years of submitting the images they are making almost nothing off the stock.  As an amateur trying to sell stock and competing against  a million photos that all look the same, the pay off is being able to tell someone "ya, I'm a photographer, I have photos in a stock agency"   When some agencies are charging less than a $1 to use a photo, it isn't something people make much money from.

Unfortunately digital is part of the reason behind the well paying stock agencies closing their doors.  Some of he big ones used to pay pretty well for good stock, they also had a limited number of photographers contributing to the files, which meant bigger pay days.


----------



## KmH (Feb 14, 2013)

The stock photography industry has changed in a way that has made photographs a commodity.
Most of the stock agencies didn't close their doors, they got bought out. (see below)

There are 2 stock photography markets - Stock and micro-stock - and there are 2 stock image licensing models - Royalty-Free (RF) and Rights-Managed (RM).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty_free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_managed

There are a lot of micro-stock agencies. Micro-stock relies almost exclusively on RF licensing. RF isn't free. The license terms are such that the buyer doesn't pay royalties, just a time time fee.
The basic RF licenses generally do not allow using an RF image for commercial purposes. Micro-stock agencies generally offer a more expensive RF license that does included limited commercial usage.

Stock agencies offer both RF and RM licensing. 
There are essentially only 3 stock agencies left - Getty Images, Corbis, and Alamy. Over a period of about 15 years the 3 bought up almost every independent stock image agency in the world.
Corbis is owned by Bill Gates. Both Getty and Corbis are based in Seattle.
Getty Images - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Corbis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## imagemaker46 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bought up or closed their doors, basically the same situation.  I know a lot of great photographers that owned agencies until Getty started to poach all their clients by offering to cover events for very little money.  The agencies were forced out of business when their long time clients went with the cheaper and promises of better coverage from Getty.  The photographers Getty were using, very average and paid  little to do the work.  They started to drive the fees down buy flooding the market with the good, bad and ugly photos.   Getty is the fast food photo agency.


----------



## amethyst201190 (Feb 15, 2013)

Photoform said:


> I've read a few short articles online about stock photography selling, but it's pretty unfulfilling and, to be quite frank, I felt like they were probably more marketing articles than informational.
> 
> Basically, I want to get "into" stock photography. Does anyone know of any sort of definitive resource on the matter? I'm certainly not looking to get rich quick, but photography is a hobby of mine and I'd like to see if I can take it to another level.
> 
> ...




Stock photography selling online is a good idea. Maybe you can keep trying to search some more ideas in the internet. You can visit ezinearticles.com, maybe they have some articles which contains ideas about stock photography and could be a great help to you.


----------



## KmH (Feb 15, 2013)

What should I shoot and what sells well? | Yuri Arcurs
Basic Stock Photography Terminology ? for Photographers | Yuri Arcurs
Microstock Agencies ? An Overview for Beginners | Yuri Arcurs
Legal ABC for stock photographers | Yuri Arcurs


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2013)

Look how much you have to spend on equipment to make it pay big
My New Studio. How to Spend 300k Euro on lighting Equiptment | Yuri Arcurs


----------



## KmH (Feb 15, 2013)

It's my understanding Yuri wasn't able to make enough from stock to justify it as a sole source of revenue.

Note that the Arcurs links I provided are about 5 years old.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 15, 2013)

KmH said:


> It's my understanding Yuri wasn't able to make enough from stock to justify it as a sole source of revenue.
> 
> Note that the Arcurs links I provided are about 5 years old.



_I'm sure  i read he has a turn over of $6.5 milliom last year_


----------



## KmH (Feb 15, 2013)

OK. How much of that was from stock?


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2013)

Eh if you're the "worlds top selling stock photographer." chances are you get a lot more of your stock photos sold than anyone else even using the same stock companies, can dream of. In much the same way that the average footballer can't expect to get anywhere near the same fees or advertising bonuses that David Beckham got in his hayday. 

That said I suspect you've got more chance of turning a good earning in football than you do with stock or microstock.


----------



## shinycard255 (Feb 24, 2013)

Stock isn't for everyone. It takes research to find out what will sell on the sites, the time to shoot, the time to retouch, the time to post them on all the different sites out there and keyword all your images. 

Granted I'm only making $240 a month, but that's almost $3000 a year off it. For me, that's a new camera or a new lens to add to my collection. Or it's a vacation that me and my wife could take. I don't post new images too often either, only when I find time or can actually think of an idea that I might be able to make money off of. 

Yuri has been doing micro stock for a while and makes a killing off of his images. He has the eye for what a people want to buy when they go on those sites. He's also on the bigger stock sites that are out there.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 25, 2013)

gsgary said:


> I'm sure  i read he has a turn over of $6.5 milliom last year



I like how on his Facebook page he incorrectly spelled influential with a 'c'

On his banner photo...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 25, 2013)

Maybe he used the Urban Dictionary?

Urban Dictionary: influencial

Or maybe he used the Canadian spelling?


I really can't talk though.
The "hours" sign on my door, that has been there for 8-9 months, says "SATURAY: CLOSED"

2 people LAST WEEK brought that to my attention.
!!!


----------



## rjessc (Jan 8, 2014)

I think there is a need for stock photos of Asians. We find it hard to find stock photos of people that closely resembles the Filipinos.


----------

