 Brian Boudrot |
Photostockplus.com -Your opinion please Today I received an email from someone named Peter from Photostockplus.com. A portion of the email is printed below. I'd like your opinion please.
Hi Brian,
My name is Peter and I am a Pro Services Manager at www.photostockplus.com . One of my editors has recently reviewed your work and has brought to my attention that you a great picture of a DOE on your site. We feel you can do very well with our site and we want to encourage you to upgrade your account to PRO status. For only 24.95 a month or $99.95 a year you will be able set pricing to all your images and sell them online from your personal homepage modeled after your user name: www.bboudrot.photostockplus.com [end quote] I should note that I have 4 pictures of a doe but I don't remember which one I submitted to them or which one they are speaking of. I'll upload the picture on this site when I get the chance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Brian - I am not familiar with this particular site; however, recently I received a similar e-mail offering a very similar "deal". In my case the sender claimed to have seen some of my work online and thought that I should try to market my images on their site. Very flattering and all that, but also very smelly if you know what I mean. First; I never heard of the site or the person who wrote me. Second: while I like my own work and feel that I have grown in skill, I know that I am not ready to market yet. I have sold a few images, all locally and all to legitimate groups. This person tried to tell me that my work was so good that they would offer me this wonderful deal so that I could make lots of money. Unha! I think this smells a whole lot like just another scam. Perhaps it is part of picture.com or another one of those groups. Look through this forum and you will see quite a few postings about these type groups.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Deja vu
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
I agree with Irene and Gregory. I checked out their website and did a search on 'medical' (a genre I like to shoot) and their offerings are pretty poor. Any agency worth it's salt will not charge a photographer to upload (host) photos. One route to seriously consider for selling your photos are the microstock agencies. I have decided to go this route and since I started at the end of April (2005), my earnings as of today are $675.42, and I currently only have ~ 140 + portfolio. You can find more information on the link below (you might have to copy and paste in the link) http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 Best regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kathy L. Pollick |
Carolina, checked out the website briefly. If you download these pictures, do you still own all the copyrights to them? Can you still do with them what you want? Or once they use them, they are the sole owner? They don't have the right to resell any of your photos, do they? What do they use the photos for? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
brigitte stahre |
i read everything on the website including the small print.. then I joined... photos without recognizeable people or accompanied by a release are used in ads, as commercial illustrations, billboards, greeting cards or whatever the buyer wants to use them for.. they remain the photographers property and can be sold elsewhere at the same time.. or removed from the site by the photographer.. btw, make sure that your models or their guardians carefully read and understand the release form.. I have seriously re-written the forms for minors and will strictly adhere to them.. my kid pics are not going to be sold to anyone in any forum. they are for contests, galleries and my portfolio only..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I do not recommend shutterstock or anyother photo seller that sells photos for 20 cents payout to the photographer. These are not good sites for photographers. Several 'valid' companies will not even hire you if you have your photos posted on such sites. So, even if you do have your base built up to the amount the other sites require your shots that appeared on these sites you can not even use. This is the reason; your photos will have too much exposure to be worth anything of value, second these sites have a listed payout of $100 or so, so you can not even get paid until you sell over 500 photos! This is not good. I have talked with several people in regards to these sites and several people argue they take advantage of the photographers that are not experianced. There are several arguements that this is 'dumping' of product on the market and so forth and so forth. Personally, I don't know about all the arguements that are out there regarding these sites but, I do know that there are plenty of really valid companies out there that will let you sell at the going price $150-$300 for full digital copy and $75-$110 for web copy use. If you want experiance and the experiance is what you are after, then I do actually recommend the payment sites because you can set your price on most of these sites and you can retain the 'value' of your photos. Obviously, this is not ideal but a lot of times in order to break in to this stock market you need to show your work and that you do have experiance without being associated with a micropayment site. How do you do this? First, you need a web site. That needs to be your first investment because most of the valid sites require a website that is not only up and running but, also that you own the domain name. Second, get loads and loads of photos that are great quality and stock worthy. Landscapes and flowers do not do so well, people, children, business, lifestyle do great. Market yourself to several of the valid sites and give them your website as proof of your commitment to the market, and your skill. Remember, stock is NOT like this competitive competition photo site in a lot of ways. First, you need photos that when you look at them they tell a story or can be understood in a variety of marketable ways, they are technically correct pleasing to the eye, are different and have AT LEAST 3000 pxls on the longest side. You can surf around getty and corbis to get an idea of what a stock photos look like and what they want, it is different, much different than this site. Second, research valid sites that you can easily agree to the terms of use AND payment. You need to look at the download method and if you are willing to do the download in that way for that site. Does the site help you with key wording and acurately maintain the key wording so that your clients will not have to surf and surf for a particular photo. You need to look at how much that site markets your photos. This is very important because I would not sign up ANYWHERE where they are getting a cut of 'my' money and are doing NOTHING for 'me' but posting and hosting my photos. These valid sites need to market your photos in an effective manor. There should be a page on the site that states how they market or at least says something about the companies commitment toward marketing the photos of the site. As for Brigittes comments reguarding the children; I do not personally find anything wrong with this. I have several photos and several hired models that work for me. If you use a good model release the model release almost always will not allow any use of any photo for demeaning purposes and it will spell these uses out. Children, people and lifestyle photos are needed and they do sell, for good purposes. I have several photos that have sold and are listing my own childrens faces on several websites, cd album, magazines and brochures. I find nothing at all offensive about the way my photos have been used. I am sure that there are numerous ways to enter this market but, the research that 'I have found' supports what I said.
|
|
|
|
||
|
brigitte stahre |
melissa, where do you get a good model release? I followed a link from betterphoto and paid to download releases.. the form for minors rather shocked me because it gives the photographer absolute free reign to do whatever they want with these pics.. being new at this, I brought the whole form to the kids parents. they read, blinked, read again and rewrote the release so that I cannot sell these pictures.. as to the microsites, my aim right now is to offer them some of my photos and see if they even get accepted.. I figure if they wont take my stuff, it needs serious help..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Hello Brigitte! I get my model releases through this site: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.php?article_id=991 They have every major release for minor, adult and property in every major language. Also, if you use this release then you can join more agencies in the future without having to worry if they will accept and honor your release. It really is a great release, my husband who is an attorny has checked it out. They also offered a small version that can be padded at a local kinkos for like eight dollars. I really like the spot that they have left for you to attach a photo for reference because when you start getting so many of these it is really hard to keep them straight. If the parents had a hard time with the release then they are just not that knowledgeable about the law. I basically tell people that the release says what it says because of the law these days. I have only had one person refuse to sign and I am not bothered by it it is there choice and I just move on to the next 'subject.' I also carry around business cards with me so sometimes handing them a business card really helps to validate what you are doing. I usually can locate the sale and where it goes based on who I list with.
|
|
|
|
||
|
brigitte stahre |
just went to gettyimages and you are 100 % correct. those are good releases .. I will definitely be switching to them.. I do see that they also have a space for monetary considerationis this for modeling fees if applicable or are people usually paid for allowing their kids photos to be used.. none of my kid pics come from paid models they were taken at the parents request and they paid me for copies..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
For any model release to be valid you have to pay the model. I pay one to two dollars for people on the street. The models that I use I pay different ways depending on their preferences but this has to be stated on the model release or most agencies will not accept the release (or shouldn't). In your case you should just offer them one free copy of the picture and then you can state that on the model release. Other photos, if they want them will cost them money.... I really don't know about your own children, I usually have to bribe mine now to take photos because I take so many. I carry around a roll of quarters and give them a quarter for their time! LOL LOL! They are much more cooperative with me :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Hi Melissa, Just got home from work, thus my late reply... You can read on my website my philosophy regarding why I market through the microsites... While some agencies like Getty, Corbis, etc will not want pix submitted to them that are submitted to microsites... that is not a reason to avoid microsites. My images are averaging way above the $1/photo/year often quoted by stock photographers that upload to the big agencies. I am currently at $5+/per photo/per year just since the end of April, so really, this would equal $10+/pic/year...way better than the big boys agency. And many agencies WILL allow uploading to microsites the same photo that you upload to theirs (where you can negotiate/set your own price.) Two examples are Alamy and Fotolia... The microsite agencies are not really in competition with the big boys as they serve a different clientele, such as non profit organizations, churches, small mom and pop businesses who don't have the budget to afford $300- $2000 photos. So I don't buy the argument that microstocks are displacing the full time professionals who are vested in the bigger sites. To each his own, this is the American marketplace at it's best. Live and let live... You should peruse the Forums where you can learn from others, ask questions, receive critiques and encouragement. With the microsites, YOU the photographer retain the rights to your photos, you can pull out any time, and you are free to continue to market them as you wish. I will say that as much as I like Better Photo , I have not sold ONE photo through my website here that I have had for ~ two years, but I started making money instantly with THE SAME PHOTOS on the microsites. I have been invited by bigger agencies to become exclusive (Inmagine, for instance), but I have chosen the microsites for breadth and the fact that I want to share my photos as widely as possible in this world. This is the legacy I want to leave... not sell far less frequently to Madison Avenue. I feel good that I am helping out by offering an excellent product to those businesses and organizations with smaller budgets. See my website for more of my philosophy regarding the microsite stock agencies. Plus, for those who aspire to the big boys, it can be a great 'training ground'. Copy and paste the link for more information: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 Best regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I understand where you are going. I see that you get 3 Cents on EVERY picture that anyone who joins through your reference number. I choose not to sell this way. I do not care for piramid businesses, never had.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
For one, betterphoto isn't a stock or marketing agency. It's just an easy way to get a website of your own. There isn't anything that makes shutterstock invalid that I see, it's just the return is super low for each photo used. But that site isn't a place that high paying clients are going to look. If you look thru places like getty, workbook, etc. you can find some basic and plain images when you type in keyword searches. But you'll also find very good images that those who are able to take those pictures, and business that are looking to use those types of pictures, aren't going to even have shutterstock on their radar. When you have rights managed images, stock companies aren't going to want identical images in different stock agencies. Asking for headaches, so if you can have your images in more than one stock agency, you shouldn't have identical images in more than one. On the other hand, places that only have a few dollar return, and everything is royalty free, I'm sure don't have problems with the same images on other sites. All agencies have a criteria, and they all have a fee as far as I know. You have to be able to provide them with a certain amount for it to be worthwhile to them, a certain file size.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Hi, Sure, the link I provided is a referral link, never said it wasn't, but that hardly qualifies for a 'pyramid' business. Any photographer can join by logging into the site directly if they want. And they will not ever lose any money by going through another photographer's link. So what's wrong with that? To call bigger agencies 'valid' businesses is a veiled implication that the microsites are not as 'valid'... to bad because that simply is not so. They are here to stay, and Gregory is correct in that they are Royalty Free. Is Rights Managed intrinsically better than Royalty Free? No. They just serve different business purposes and business models. If I am marketing a new auto or line of clothing, sure, I want a unique photo... and I would then even probably hire a photographer for the job and skip the stock photo agencies altogether... But if I am a realtor and want a simple photo of a luxury home for my personal marketing brochure... I'll look to the microsites without hesitation. I have a stock photo of a blank chalkboard that lots of designers have downloaded, and one business person told me he was going to use it as part of his presentation he was creating (a lot more interesting backdrop vs plain text on a slide)... Lots of hobbiests use the microsites to fund their photoraphy habits/desires. Lots join just to get a different sort of photographic education through the Forums. A few are paying their bigger bills including rent/mortgage/car... Some have used the microsites as a stepping stone to get actual jobs and set up their own full time local business, because they had such good exposure and people SOUGHT THEM OUT... The microsites do the marketing for you... It is a fluid business model that is here to stay. If you read the agreement and decide to join, then no one is 'ripping you off'. I provide the (referral)link to Shutterstock because they have a friendly community, they are fairly easy to start off with, and you can do with it as you please. And sure, 3 cents a photo never hurts because all photographers still get their 20c/per download, no matter how they joined. So what's wrong with that? Nothing. BTW, 20c is on the low end, but a buyer can download a photo individually (buy per picture) and can get a few dollars per pic. And with Royalty Free, you can upload the same photo to more than one microstock agencie at a time. Does that 'cheapen' a photo? Not hardly. It provides your vision to a wider audience. It's not just all about the money, as some would have you think is the goal by touting ONLY the larger agencies. How about art for the masses and those who don't have large budgets? Is a Chanel dress more valid than a Walmart special... of course not... different business models, different target audience, all VALID, all venues for your photographic vision, all moneymakers... Cut and paste if you would like... http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=6865 Best regards, Carolina
|
|
|
|
||
|
brigitte stahre |
this is a really helpful and informative thread.. I brought up micro stock companies at a photo society meeting last night.. the members who exibit at big galleries and get megabucks for their photos kinda turned up their noses.. the rest were interested and encouraging.. the 2 who work for the local papers have also been encouraging us to submit to the papers.. with the understanding that anything the paper buys is exclusively theirs..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brian Boudrot |
Thanks for your answers. I've thought about it and I'd rather not have my photos downloaded and used for purposes that I don't approve of. I've found a better and profitable route.
|
|
|
|
||
|
brigitte stahre |
could you share with us what that better and more profitable route is? even if you don't want to be exact just give us a general idea please.. I truly don't want to shoot weddings or open a studio. I would however like to make enough money , if possible, to support my hobby..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
Brian, I understand yours and everyone's desire to get published and/or get involved with some sort of stock agency to make some money from your hard work creating images. This scam from photostockplus.com is just that, a SCAM. You MAY sell something, but I can practically guarantee that they'll make much more on what their yearly fee is than you'll make from image sales. These companies are popping up like an epidemic, preying on novice photographers with optimistic promises of sales, BUT you have to pay them for the opportunity. RULE 1: If someone wants to use your work, THEY should be paying YOU. Even professional big time stock agencies don't ask for a fee from professional contributors. There are many more practical ways to make money in photography aside from photographic "get rich quick" schemes. My advice: Avoid any email solicitations like the plague.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Good advice Tony. :0)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
It's not necessary to post photos on a site that charges you to sell stock. I endorse Carolina's comments about microstock. I'm on shutterstock and istockphoto and have made a few hundred dollars in a 4 months from 150 images. I figure I will average about $6-$10 per image per year. From what little statistics on "traditional" agencies I can gather, that is competitive return to agencies where you might get $200 per sale, but only sell one in a hundred of your images per year. http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=9126
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
Quite simply: If someone wants to use your images THEY will pay YOU. My advice: pitch it and forget about it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I have made close to $600 dollars on two quality stock sites this month. The exposure of my photos is not overly done therefore keeping the value of my images up. I do not care for McDonalds type of stock sites. This is a personal preference. I want to keep my image as a photographer in the hands of people that will not ruin my reputation. I also think that it takes hours to upload and keyword photos appropriately therefore choose your sites that will present your work wisely so you do not have to change in the future. This will be more cost effective in the long run.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carolina K. Smith |
Melissa, Your personal preferences are fine, but the way you state things is disturbing. To say that 'I do not care for McDonalds type of stock sites... and basically follow it with...'I want to keep my image as a photographer in the hands of people that "WILL NOT RUIN MY REPUTATION" is easily read as ... McDonalds type of stock sites could be the hands of people that will ruin a photographer's reputation... Is this what you are saying? It sure is what is implied and that is a great disservice and non truth. Photos will speak for themselves, and a photographer's reputation will be based on their work. I could easily sign with exclusive agencies (I have been approached a few times just this year), but I choose for 'personal preference' reasons to go via the microstock agency route. You can't really say what is cost effective in the long run, unless you have the figures to back it up. I will have made $1000 by next week, in just a few months, and that's just the beginning. I am now one with my camera (a D2x) and I only upload my best and my heartfelt vision. No site, macro or micro is going to ruin my reputation. In any case, I wish you success, I looked through your portfolio and you have a very good eye. Best regards,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
You are stating that~~ "I can not be absolutely sure that it is not cost effective to continuously change agencies" HU???? -- That is just a fact, unless your definition of your time is NOT money and you just have oodles of time on your hands to reupload and re keyword things numberous times as you research your agencies. It is also fact that once an image has been displayed on a micro site it is not and will not be accepted on a 'non-microsite' That ruins your 'images' reputation. Ask a nonmicro site if they will and you will soon discover that ANY image that has been posted on those sites are not acceptable for there images they will represent (due to exposure). Therefore you are building a portfolio that is and always will be limited to a micro site. I mean this with not only exposure but also the content that the sites sell. You are incouraged (by the site) to create images that fit their clients. These are not exactly the images that fit the clients of non-micro sites. So another words you are learning to cook a mcdonalds hamburger not a five star steak. Do you know how to cook--yes, are you providing a service--yes, will you ever learn to cook a five star steak??? Not sure, because you will not learn how to create one if you only cook dollar hamburgers. Maybe you do not like expensive dinners, then that is your choice and you have to live with your choices in the long run. So make your decisions wisely. Marketing is 'one' key to a reputation/branding and is an avenue on how one develops a reputation/brand overtime. If you market your images as a 'dollar store' then no one will ever allow your products in a department store with department store prices. If you choose to market yourself 'now' or brand yourself/images now as a dollar store, then you can not turn yourself/images into a JCPennies or a Neiman Marcus the next. Your choices on stock and how you market your stock WILL effect your roads/doors of tomarrow. So, choose wisely. And no I will never promote a sight that I get kickbacks from. Because all of my information is not money driven.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
Melissa, you have stated a number of incorrect assertions. First, images on micro sites can and are accepted at non micro sites. I believe you have confused rights managed with royalty free and micro vs. non micro. While it is correct that an image that has been offered royalty free cannot be offered as rights managed, that does not equate to an inability to offer the image as royalty free at a non micro. For example, the Alamy agency accepts images for royalty free offering based only on technical merit, not whether the image is offered elsewhere. Second, it doesn't really take oodles of time to upload and keyword. Once you've done it for one site, you copy and paste the keywords for other sites. Uploading in bulk can usually be done by ftp or with java clients. The overall return from microstock is competitive with return from royalty free at traditional pricing levels, on the order of a few dollars per image per year on average. I continue to assert that microstock is an excellent way to begin in the stock photography market, mainly for the instant feedback the photographer gets as to what sells and what doesn't. There are several photographers I know who sell royalty free at microstock agencies and rights managed other material at traditional agencies.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Incorrect assertions LOL!! NOT!! :) Almay any others??? LOL Keywording and typing and researching that image?? Doesn't take oodles of time LOL LOL Even with FTP it does. You might decrease your time by using embedded data inside the image but you still can not get away with this labor! Cost effective in the long run ?? This will be made by where you are and where you will be tomarrow. McDonalds is a very profitable company but you don't earn decent wages there, I believe it is the corporation that is earning the dough, certainly not the guy behind the counter. For a first job, McDonalds is great you learn a lot, I agree with you there. Long term -- I believe that you are stuck in a top heavy organization with no where to go.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
I'll ignore your informative "LOL" as a response to my challenges. As to the McDonald's analogy, to make it more accurate, you would have to compare the corporation to a restaurant serving steaks, not the guy behind the counter. The reason is that the microstock contributor is paid per "hamburger served" not by the hour. In fact, you'd have to say it's the sum of the served at McDonald's + Burger King + others since mosts microstock contributors supply several agencies. Rhetoric aside Melissa, what is your return per image per year? In microstock it's looking like $6-10/image/year. Anyone who wants can examine my portfolio that generates this. http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=9126&rid=9126 According to the figures supplied by C. Borland on this site, that compares well with traditional stock. Howard
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
if its too good to be true, then it probably isnt true! could be a ligit young "start up" site who needs to get things rolling. be carefull, there are allot of shady sites out there and most of them seem to have allot to do with the photography world! Craig-
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I agree Craig, the only way howard above is making money is by providing a link to his services he gets a cut from everyone that uses his ref number. So, you can tell he is speaking his ideas with his wallet and not with data. Well howard, with your figures above then I guess I beat you by far money wise. I just made that in one month. Without the exposure and with being able to locate my images. I also have contact with the customers to increase my portfolio. I also had additional sales last month outside of stock from a person that purchased one of my stock images and is now hiring me for a catalog.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Darlene Christensen |
I have to say this thread is one of the most interesting and informative ones I've read since joining BP. I, too, am researching the stock arena and have been reading all I can on the pros and cons between microstock and traditional agencies...RF and RM. I suspect it may have a lot to do with which side of the street we happen to be on. I'm a "newbie"..therefore the microstock path seems appealing to me. It would be easier to get into and might give me more "instant gratification" to see my photos downloaded....even for 20c a pop! However, if I had been selling my stock as RM for the last 10 years...I may not be so inclined to accept the concept of miccrostock agencies with open arms. In fact, I KNOW I wouldn't! I'd feel my photos were worth more..having worked hard to keep them that way! You all have valid points to consider..both sides. Again, I'm guessing it depends on where you are in your photography career! Me? I'm still on the fence..but, thanks to this thread, I'm getting closer to "the" decision! BTW...Melissa...what macro agency would YOU suggest a newcomer might submit to? Thanks! Darlene
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
Melissa, I believe Craig was writing about the site in the original posting. I don't understand why you continue to malign me and my work; If you like rights managed at a traditional agency, fine, but why do you care how I make money from my images? I've provided complete data about realistic microstock earnings. If you mistrust my comments on shutterstock, well here is another link (by the way, no referal fee) to my istockphoto portfolio. Istock is unique in that they publish the download rates for all photographers and all images. you will see I have over 400 sales since May on what is now 112 images (actually, many are recent additions, so my average portfolio was more like 80 to earn that 400. Downloads earn the photographer between 20 and 60 cents there, depending on resolution; my average sale is about 30 cents per download (this immediately tells you the most popular application of istock downloads is web use, not print) so I've made about $170 since May.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
Forgot the link to istockphoto gallery. here it is: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=489131
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Howard, I think that you are miss reading what I am saying. I am not hounding you and I do see a reason for the site to exist and for photographers to use the site. I am not saying the site is all bad and I am not stating that you can not learn from that site. If you have a great image I would not put it there though and if you have a mission to go to a different agency then save the best for the other sites if you really don't care then go ahead and post that great image. Who knows it might work great for images that do not sell on the sites I work with with such the high fees....... :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nicole Kessel |
Very interesting thread. I just wanted to sign on for notification. I have yet to be swayed in either direction.
|
|
|
|
||
|
brigitte stahre |
i also continue to find this thread very interesting and informative.. I don't think the original poster is participating anymore.. too bad, I really hoped he'd answer my question about what lucrative avenue he found to sell his photos..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
Fair enough. I would agree that for any shots that really took a lot of resources to produce (either time or expense) and were particularly unique, I would tend to go the rights managed route, assuming I had access to a suitable marketing channel. Peace!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I love to debate! My husband is an attorney so I am always in this mode. :) I don't ever mean to come across mean to anyone! PS. How do textures do on that site? Melissa
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
Textures aren't really my thing, but I have one of ripples in water that's had a handful of downloads in a few months. searching istockphoto for keywords "texture AND background" yields 2500 files. One of the most popular with 800 or so downloads is this one of old paper http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/abstract/backgrounds/204654_very_old_paper.php?id=204654 The same search keywords on shutterstock yields about 12000 results (I think because shutterstock accepts vectors, which accounts for a good part of their library). The most popular is this one http://shutterstock.com/pic-144867.html?searchterm=texture+background& but the number of downloads is not public info on shutterstock.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Uyen |
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but thought I'd contribute some more data to the discussion. I now have 150 royalty free images at a traditional stock agency. I signed up with them earlier this year, and for the first three months, no sales. But since June, I've had at least one sale every month, overall averaging about $1 per image each month. This month my profits are at $270. Obviously, this is not my main source of income, and I'm an amateur, not a seasoned pro. So can a beginner make a little side money from a traditional, non-microstock agency? Of course. If people prefer micro-stock and are doing well there, that's great! But I just didn't want people to be left with the impression that it's the only route to go if you're a beginner. Howard, I'm not sure about that statistic you're citing about $1 per image per year? At least, it doesn't mesh with my experience. Also, even if it were allowed, wouldn't it be ethically wrong to sell the same images at a microstock agency that you have listed at a much higher price elsewhere? If I sold a photo to one client for $300, and then turned around and sold the same image to many other customers for $1, I'd feel like I had cheated the first customer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Howard Sandler |
Uyen, I was writing that I expect about $6-10/image/year for royalty free microstock. C Borland in this thread was citing a figure for traditional stock equivalent to about $4/image/year http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.php?threadID=13595 I would not say it's unethical to sell the same photo at different pricing levels at different agencies, only that perhaps its unwise. Royalty free means there is no exclusivity and buyers have to know that the same photo might be available elsewhere. However, I doubt it would sell at $100 if offered for $1 at the same time elsewhere. That was not the point of the original issue--it was whether it could be sold at traditional pricing AFTER it had been previously offered at microstock, not simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ilan Artzy |
Hi, This email is in response to the questions about photostockplus.com. It's unfortunate to see such skepticism about our site. I also notice that there is a lot of discussion about micro sites VS traditional stock agencies. At photostockplus.com we pride ourselves in putting the tools into the photographer’s hands to sell their work online. I would like to point out that photostockplus.com is a completely different concept to traditional agency sales. We provide photographers with a means to sell stock through their own website and the photographers maintain all right to their images. We also promote our photographers on our collective database while photographers keep 85% of the profit. Photostockplus.com also provides fulfillment services for event photographers. Our up loader tools compress images upon upload allowing you to upload hundreds of images in minutes. Full size photos are uploaded only when orders are place by your customers. We have hundreds of photo products that you set markups too so as to earn profits and once again you keep 85% of the profits – the cost of the product and a 3.25% Credit card fee. So in brief, for a small membership fee (99.00 a year) You get a customizable e-commerce enabled website to use as a gallery for your photographs, up loader tools that provide compression when needed, the ability to sell stock, tools to increase profits from events, fulfillment services and much, much more. Trying to put a website together like this on your own would cost a fortune. The hosting fees alone would be more than our service costs. We have worked very hard to provide photographers with what we believe to be an outstanding product at an incredible value and it seems important to set the record straight. For more info and to see some of our sample templates please take a look at the link posted below. http://www.photostockplus.com/info_event.php If you have any questions at all please feel free to contact us at admin@photostockplus.com or visit us at “Imaging USA” in Austin, Texas Jan 22,23,24 (booth number 1311) We look forward to hearing from you. Ilan Artzy
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kristie A. Kinard |
Did you guys know that photostock plus is recognized by the PPA?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
Photographers marketing their own stock libraries is largely an exercise in futility. What makes stock attractive, at least the old stock models currently used by Getty, Corbis, and other major stock agencies, is their ability to place photographers work in front of a world market for sales. Individual photographers don't have the ability to market their work on that level regardless of the tools given to them by agencies such as photostockplus and others. It's a nice idea, but at $99/year I still maintain that photostockplus will make more from the photographer than the photographer will make from sales. If photostockplus has any reliable sales data, I'd like to see it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Irene Troy |
Thank you, Tony, for your wise input! Although many of us are trying to market our images through various media, when a well-known (dare I say, renowned?) photographer speaks with concern on issues such as this, it is a wise newbie who listens with both ears. In the world of freelance writing a wise would be author should understand exactly how a potential piece will be marketed/promoted prior to entering into any agreement with either media or promotional agency. Personally, I want to know circulation details along with payment details prior to signing a contract. I would never hire an agent without knowing exactly how s/he plans to market my work. Too often the beginning writer makes the mistake of jumping into an agreement that ultimately benefits the agent/agency more than the writer. I cannot see how it would be any different with photography. While mini-stock may be a viable tool, I would move extremely carefully until evidence is provided that supports the claims of any group or agency. Irene
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||