# How on earth can a photographer make money without stock?



## Jen2174 (Jan 14, 2011)

I have been looking around for a few years now. ive also tried a few stock sites. i dont qualify b/c they are looking for commercial photos mostly. im so sick of hearing the word stock as if that is an only option as a photographer. ive started a website a few months ago again. this time knocking my prices way down to 1.00 per download for wallpapers and still cant get business.. its very hard advertising a site. what am I doing wrong? what does it take to sell pictures? mostly, i do landscape and nature, its just what calls to me. maybe their is no market for that. anyone have any ideas other than stock?

i have no money, cant invest, cant do art fairs, or anything like that. im broke. cant do much of anything except sell online somehow..


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 14, 2011)

Jen2174 said:


> I have been looking around for a few years now. ive also tried a few stock sites. i dont qualify b/c they are looking for commercial photos mostly. im so sick of hearing the word stock as if that is an only option as a photographer. ive started a website a few months ago again. this time knocking my prices way down to 1.00 per download for wallpapers and still cant get business.. its very hard advertising a site. what am I doing wrong? what does it take to sell pictures? mostly, i do landscape and nature, its just what calls to me. maybe their is no market for that. anyone have any ideas other than stock?
> 
> i have no money, cant invest, cant do art fairs, or anything like that. im broke. cant do much of anything except sell online somehow..



The days of stock photography as an income are over. I am still getting checks but they are so small I could use them to light my cigarettes and not cry about it. And my photos are with a top notch agency.

The problem is that everyone today is willing to give their work away because they are willing to listen to the wrong people. The wrong people are: 1/ the buyers telling photogs they can can get the same image for 50 cents
2/ the photogs themselves, so eager to see their shots in print they'll give them away and talk new photogs into doing the same thing 
3/ the publications/magazines/whatevers playing people against each others so they don't have to pay for images.

There was an article posted on the forum a few months ago about the best selling micro/macro stock photog. He was the best selling in terms of numbers only. This guy had a staff of 12-14 photogs and had sold an amazing amount of photos.

Only problem was: he had not yet made a penny...

That article was posted by someone who, I think, was trying to say you can still make money from stock but had unfortunately not read the article.

All that to say, don't waste your time with stock. Especially since you say you have no money to invest. Stock, to me, was exactly that: an investment. I would go to an area, shoot the hell out of it and spend quite a bit of money in the process knowing I would make that money back.

This is just not true anymore.


----------



## orljustin (Jan 14, 2011)

Jen2174 said:


> what does it take to sell pictures? mostly, i do landscape and nature, its just what calls to me. maybe their is no market for that. anyone have any ideas other than stock?
> 
> i have no money, cant invest, cant do art fairs, or anything like that. im broke. cant do much of anything except sell online somehow..



It "calls" to everyone, because it is relatively easy to do, and it is right outside your back door.  It does take work to make money in stock.  When there are 6 million images of robins on a branch, it is unlikely yours will be found.  Sorry.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 14, 2011)

The more common way to make money with photography, is to sell the service of professional photography...weddings, portraits, commercial etc.  

There is money to be made with nature, landscape, fine art...just as there is money to be made in painting such things.  But have you heard the term 'starving artist'?    There may be money but it's not easy to get...especially if you are unable or unwilling to put any money/effort into selling it (selling yourself).

You might be able to derive some business by maximizing the SEO of your website...but even then, the chances that someone will buy photos just because they happened upon your website, is extremely slim.


----------



## usayit (Jan 14, 2011)

Unfortunately, the market simply doesn't place a high value on such work.   Its not a judgement on your work (or anyone elses).  Its just the way it is.  There's a lot of people doing very difficult or very unique work which earns very little.   THere's a lot of people doing very common very simple work and getting rich.   

Move on... do your research and find out the services that the market is willing to pay for.   As big mike said, many photographers are earning a living selling a service not just a photo.  I found that many successful photographers are not photographers in the pure sense.   There are journalists and writers that just happen to take photos for their assignments.


----------



## Jen2174 (Jan 15, 2011)

Thanks for all these great responses. what c.cloudwalker said was interesting about how people dont want to pay for images and such. the whole thing is depressing. as far as moving on goes, that was my whole point of the post. I am not interested in doing other forms of photography if it does please me. if i cant be happy doing it, I wont. plus, my camera sucks right now. its not professional enough to be considered for bigger leagues, yet.


----------



## flightless_beaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Jen2174 said:


> Thanks for all these great responses. what c.cloudwalker said was interesting about how people dont want to pay for images and such. the whole thing is depressing. as far as moving on goes, that was my whole point of the post. I am not interested in doing other forms of photography if it does please me. if i cant be happy doing it, I wont. plus, my camera sucks right now. its not professional enough to be considered for bigger leagues, yet.



You shouldn't get discouraged because you don't think your camera is "professional enough". I've seen some amazing shots on consumer model SLRs and even point and shoots. I remember reading about one pro who went to Africa to document the people there and he was shooting with I think a Canon Powershot (wish I can remember the name but I read about it a couple years ago). Its what you do with the camera, not the camera. Also, part of being an artist is working with what you have and figuring out how to overcome your limitations.

Also there's nothing wrong with exploring different aspects of photography. I love shooting nature because it gives me a chance to get some fresh air and be creative at the same time (not to mention a little exercise, lol). But there's not a lot of money to be made in it unless you can sell them. I like portraiture. That's what I'm basing my business on. Don't like events but hey, I'll do them if I can please my client and get paid from it. I just know I have to do it in order to achieve some success. I have no desire to shoot any weddings but I'm sure I'll have to at some point.


----------



## epp_b (Jan 15, 2011)

The real question is: how can a photographer make money _with_ stock?  The supply is so much higher than the demand that the pricing drops to pennies.

The money is now in custom work; providing a service.  Weddings, portraits, commercial and otherwise commissioned works are the only real way to make money at this.



> But have you heard the term 'starving artist'?


This guy isn't one of them... 

It's a very nice photograph, but it's nowhere near the best or the most compelling photograph ever seen.  However, there's an inspiring story behind it, it was created by an esteemed artist and it will most likely be the only print of this photograph ever to exist.

People buy art primarily because of the artist, not the art.  Or maybe somebody needed to blow a million bucks on wall art to pad their business expenses for tax season


----------



## Overread (Jan 15, 2011)

Many landscape photographers will make prints; frame them and then spend time going round local cafes, coffee shops and tourist spots (the latter only if their photos are of local landscapes) and will offer to put those framed prints on the shops wall in exchange that the print will also have a marked price upon it and that people can buy the print (in the frame) from the shop. The shop gets a cut from the sale and the photographer gets to advertise and (hopefully) sell their wares. Another method is to do the same with postcards and calenders. 

These might or might not net much regular income but they area start in both getting your work out there and also instarting to get some income from it. 

In the nature line unless you can attach yourself to something like nat geo or the BBC where you are providing your services as a photographer chances are your best bet isn't in the sale of photos; but instead in the running of workshops and tutorials. Most of the nature photographers I know make most of their income this way rather than through the sale of their photos.


----------



## Formatted (Jan 15, 2011)

> Many landscape photographers will make prints; frame them and then spend time going round local cafes, coffee shops and tourist spots (the latter only if their photos are of local landscapes



I follow a photographer, on twitter who is a fine art photographer. He does make a living, but he doesn't own a car, takes the bus to the shops and is out every day taking photos.

It can be done, but its a hard life. You can find his work - Lake District Photos : Stewart Smith



> In the nature line unless you can attach yourself to something like nat geo or the BBC where you are providing your services as a photographer chances are your best bet isn't in the sale of photos; but instead in the running of workshops and tutorials. Most of the nature photographers I know make most of their income this way rather than through the sale of their photos.



I was talking to a BBC Photog the other day, about another project he was working on. Long story short, its a labour or love they get paid absolutely nothing....


----------



## SlickSalmon (Jan 15, 2011)

The New Age adage "do what you love and the money will follow" turned out not to be true.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 15, 2011)

To sell landscapes you need to be able to shoot like this guy 
JoeCornish Galleries


----------



## dupek (Jan 16, 2011)

I venture in jigsaw puzzle. Spend $30 on software and countless hours to convert my photos to puzzles. Set up shop on line with paypal account. Shop is set for digital download. The store is on line for 6month and is idling. No sale. The puzzles are cheap ($2). Have few visitors, but not buyers. It is hard to sell anything this time. When I get bored, I play my own puzzles.
Printing, framing photos is expensive too. Depend on size, the frame will run from $10 to $25, plus ink for printer. Can not print on cheap printer. I have Canon i9900. Had few clients that wanted to me fix damage photos and made few bucks. I have full time job. No way in hell, I could pay the bills from my photography or photo editing. Tough times.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 17, 2011)

> Many landscape photographers will make prints; frame them and then spend time going round local cafes, coffee shops and tourist spots (the latter only if their photos are of local landscapes) and will offer to put those framed prints on the shops wall in exchange that the print will also have a marked price upon it and that people can buy the print (in the frame) from the shop. The shop gets a cut from the sale and the photographer gets to advertise and (hopefully) sell their wares. Another method is to do the same with postcards and calenders.


Another way is to have your own gallery/store.  If people can actually walk into a store and look at a well printed & framed photo, they are much more likely to spend money on it, than if they just see it on a website.

Of course, you have a lot more overhead expenses with a studio/store, so you'd have to have something working in your favor...like really good marketing and/or a really good location.

There are also those who sell photos at flea markets, craft/art shows.


----------



## Jen2174 (Jan 17, 2011)

Thanks for the store idea. I would love to do something like that one day.

the jigsaw puzzle thing sounds really good, ive never heard of that. its unique. i think being creative is a big deal in this business


----------



## montyrakusen (Jan 18, 2011)

network, network, network, and supplement your stock photography with commission work. Some paid work will make the 'art' easier.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 18, 2011)

I forget who's blog I read this on (I think it was Zack Arias), but there was a quote from one of the people in charge of one of the big Microstock sites that said they were running an unsustainable business.

Found it.

Entire article: zarias.com :: The blog of editorial photographer Zack Arias  Microstock :: SIM Cards in Cameras & Big Foam Fingers




> Now images starting for $1 are the &#8220;norm&#8221; and these companies can not sustain themselves. iStock CEO, Kelly Thomson, has a post on their forums about changes in contributors payouts. Check out this quote&#8230;
> Since roughly 2005 we&#8217;ve been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it&#8217;s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.​




​


----------



## KmH (Jan 18, 2011)

Arias' web site has crap attached to it.


----------



## Overread (Jan 18, 2011)

KmH said:


> Arias' web site has crap attached to it.



oddly only some people seem to get warnings from his site and others don't. I've often wondered if his site isn't just giving out a false positive (eg like the incident TPF had recently with a link to bad site getting TPF badlisted) to some virus detection setups


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 19, 2011)

KmH said:


> Arias' web site has crap attached to it.


 
What are you getting again and is it just from one page? I'll e-mail him and let him know.


----------



## wesd (Jan 19, 2011)

Bottom line selling your work through stock agencies is not worth it.  Even if you remain the rights to your work they will pay you very little for even top not h work because the field is so flooded with photographers.  So you are better off blazing you own path nd finding you own way.
  It's a very hard business if you are planning in selling work that you have already shoot.  I hate shooting weddings and stuff but it seems like it is where the money is at.  Find out what you want to do and keep running wig it.
Peaceout
Wes


----------



## SimpleFoto (Feb 18, 2011)

wesd said:


> Bottom line selling your work through stock agencies is not worth it.  Even if you remain the rights to your work they will pay you very little for even top not h work because the field is so flooded with photographers.  So you are better off blazing you own path nd finding you own way.
> It's a very hard business if you are planning in selling work that you have already shoot.  I hate shooting weddings and stuff but it seems like it is where the money is at.  Find out what you want to do and keep running wig it.
> Peaceout
> Wes



well it all depends on the site.  Some agencies such as Alamy give 60% to the photographer which I feel is quite fair.  It is a big job trying to find buyers - if it was easy the photographers would do it themselves.


----------



## StevenW (Feb 18, 2011)

Stock is out too many haystacks not enough needles and the needles aren't bringing in much money.  I thought for a while about doing some speculation art work for a couple of local furniture stores.  One specializes in western decor and here in Texas there ought to be plenty of western scenics to photograph.  So, that idea got me thinking.  Other than the specialty shop why would anyone from around here buy photographs of things from around here?  We really don't need a photo of an oil well when we can look out the window and see three of them.  What we don't see is snow capped mountains, sugar sand beaches, and light houses.  I know the OP doesn't have capital but someone else might benefit from this notion.  Take some artsy pictures from your neck of the woods then go somewhere that the topography is different and sell them.  While you are there, take pictures from that region and peddle them in another.  There are small town arts festivals all across the country and booth rentals are usually fairly inexpensive.  I was at the state fair of Texas and a photographer had a booth showing exclusively wild horse pictures.  He had about 300 different pictures taken in all seasons and areas, mountains plains and ocean fronts.  He had about half a dozen frame styles, from rustic to elegant and modern.  All the framed pictures were 16X20 and 20X24 and were marked $1500 and $1900 and of course were very limited.  The smaller 11X14 of the same images were so much more avoidably priced in their shrink wrapped cardboard backed packages.  I didn't see anyone take the framed pictures, the "sold" or "reserved" signs were probably there for effect, like the one obviously empty spot.  People were snatching up the smaller pictures like they were a cure for the common cold.

Best wises on your endeavors
Steven


----------



## KmH (Feb 18, 2011)

No one has pointed out that there are 2 stock photography markets:

MicroStock
Traditional Stock photography.
Microstock is characterized by Royalty-Free (RF) licensing, which doesn't accord the buyer very much in the way of use licensing, which keeps the price low, which means the photographer won't make much money either.

Traditional stock photography is characterized by Rights-Managed (RM) licensing. RM licensing is where some money can be made.

If you want to make more than just pennies per sold photo, you have to be with an agency that does RM licensing.


----------



## orljustin (Feb 18, 2011)

KmH said:


> No one has pointed out that there are 2 stock photography markets:
> 
> MicroStock
> Traditional Stock photography.
> ...


 
Wow, that is so incorrect. Royalty-Free licensing tends to give the buyer perpetual usage for a wide variety of commercial uses.

Traditional priced stock includes RF, and RM, which can net tiny amounts or large amounts based on the usage, location, etc.


----------



## dnavarrojr (Feb 18, 2011)

I got into Microstock many years ago because it was easy, I had a day job, and the extra income was just "extra income".  So there was no performance pressure for me.  Even now, the money I earn from Microstock is still just "extra income" as it's no where near enough to be significant (read, I don't work hard enough at it to make any real money from it).  Still, I get enough from it that occasionally it pays for a new lens, or a light stand, or some other gadget I think I need.  However, the best agencies to sell through are EXTREMELY picky about the images they approve and most of what I tend to shoot has been covered a few dozen times over.  I have found more success shooting editorial content (concerts, police incidents, fires, accidents, etc...).  They're much more forgiving of bad camera settings if the subject is right.  I have a very noisy, wrong white balance, overexposed image on Shutterstock with over 600 downloads, including an Extended License sale to USA Today.

I am constantly on the "hustle" to make money.  So I sell prints through some local Cafes and I found a local gallery willing to put up my prints and sell them on consignment.  I also pay $20 occasionally for a booth at the local farmer's market in the spring/summer and sell prints there.  I'm really big on doing one new type of job for free in order to expand my portfolio and then using that to get others to pay for similar work.  Like you, I'm on a near-zero budget, so most of what I do for promotion doesn't cost money.

I'd suggest joining the local Camera Club in your area to meet and network with people.  Take a stack of business cards with you to a park and take pictures of the kids playing, families doing stuff together and give them your business card with a link to where they can find your photos online and order prints.  Find a Cafe and offer to do some "professional" food shots for free and give them web sized copies at no charge and sell them prints.  I did that with a little Cafe in town that had a bunch of landscape and non-food related still life photos.  I shot pictures of their signature dishes, coffee in their mugs, a milkshake, etc... and they replaced all the pictures on the walls with those I took of their food.  A lot of customers now point to stuff and say "I'll have that".  I also stuck a business card in the lower right corner of each frame and got calls from some other local restaurants.

I do 3D rendering and I did a series of skeletal renders.  X-rays, spines, etc...  I made a few of them into post cards, mailed them to every doctor's office I could find and sold about 35 prints that way.  But I am thinking about hiring a model or two and doing some commercial type medical photos (smiling kid getting examined by a doctor, etc...) and seeing if I can get doctors' offices to buy those.  You just gotta keep hustling and not give up.


----------



## SimpleFoto (Feb 19, 2011)

orljustin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > No one has pointed out that there are 2 stock photography markets:
> ...



Agreed.  Additionally the RF license that the micro's offer is much more restrictive than the very open RF license in the traditional market.  The two markets are merging as well so it will soon be tough to distinguish between the too.  
The reason RF is 'often' lower priced than RM is because you don't have exclusive use to the images, the images can sell multiple times and you could end up sharing the image with a competitor.  That said if you don't need any exclusivity on a RM image and your print run isn't very large it can very easily be much cheaper than a RF image.


----------



## KmH (Feb 19, 2011)

orljustin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > No one has pointed out that there are 2 stock photography markets:
> ...


Only if they pay more for the commercial usage.

This is from the microstock agency Dreamstime: (my emphasis).


> Web templates, greeting cards or postcards especially designed for sale, similar print-on-demand services, canvas, t-shirts, mugs, mouse pads or any other items incorporating the image in an essential manner, intended to be sold or given for free, are considered redistribution (if the image is used in an essential manner) *and may not be created using the Royalty Free license*. Instead you will need to use one of our *Extended Licenses* that grant you extra rights. For Web use, you must not use the image at a width exceeding 800 pixels.


 
From iStockphoto, essentially the same thing saying Extended licensing (not RF) has to be purchased for commercial usage.


> iStockphoto offers two types of licenses: the complimentary Standard and a set of Extended Licenses to suit your specific needs.


----------



## epp_b (Feb 19, 2011)

> i think being creative is a big deal in this business


That's half of it.  The other half is being willing and able to market yourself.


----------



## Tryfan (Feb 19, 2011)

My experience so far ( I have around 200 images on various stock agencies) is that I don't think I will be able to give up my day job in the foreseeable, Not a bad little earner, and the most surprising images seem to generate the most money.
Most sites give you the chance to see which images have been downloaded the most which is a great guide to what's selling.

Good luck ... it seems to me , to be all about numbers.


----------



## SimpleFoto (Feb 20, 2011)

Tryfan said:


> My experience so far ( I have around 200 images on various stock agencies) is that I don't think I will be able to give up my day job in the foreseeable, Not a bad little earner, and the most surprising images seem to generate the most money.
> Most sites give you the chance to see which images have been downloaded the most which is a great guide to what's selling.
> 
> Good luck ... it seems to me , to be all about numbers.



Actually, I think it is all about quality.  Generally 90% of sales comes from 10% of your portfolio. If you could upload more of the images that sell you wouldn't need a very large portfolio.  Some photographers are able to do this (not me) and have great sales with a relatively small portfolio size. Kelly Cline (a very successful iStock food photographer) said at PhotoPlus something I love to quote.  More images don't make me more money, more of the best images is what makes me more money.


----------



## dnavarrojr (Feb 20, 2011)

Unfortunately, most agencies are stuck on what is currently selling and are afraid of approving new experimental stuff.   Otherwise, you're just stuck shooting the same stuff over and over and over again.


----------



## orljustin (Feb 21, 2011)

KmH said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that is so incorrect. Royalty-Free licensing tends to give the buyer perpetual usage for a wide variety of commercial uses.
> ...



Ah, there's the problem.  You're not defining "commercial" correctly.  Yes, the micros tend to require an extended license for items for resale and such, but "commercial" refers to being able to use the content in a promotional way, in ads, in posters, calenders, postcards, etc.  Anything that can help someone create business for their business.


----------

