I was wondering if any of you sell your images?
Do you sell them as stock images etc? which is the best stock company to use?
What are other ways to earn money (not a living just some pocket money) other than weddings, portraits events etc?
If you have sold a shot from your project please share it here for us to admire :D
@tracywilliams All I know is your work is crazy amazing GREAT and you should be able to make a fortune selling it. I love following you and I can't wait to see what creative masterpiece you come up with day to day ;)
@tracywilliams Tracy sites like smugmug, Fine Art America, 500px all allow you to sell your work. 500px is going through some changes atm but worth looking at.
Fine Art America you set the price then they make their cut off framing printing etc..
I have a SmugMug account, which I love. They make it super easy to customize your site, share images on various social networks, and they partner with some great businesses, so things like ordering business cards are really easy too. http://www.melissapikephotography.com/
A fella at the photography club I go to posted on our forum today that a greeting card company just emailed him through flickr to ask if they can use some of his photos - for a fee of course. So it would appear that just sitting around doing nothing may work. Hasn't worked for me yet, like....
I've sold photos at exhibitions and also sell through Getty Images via Flickr. Getty are the biggest stock photography company, but it's also quite difficult to list with them -- for amateurs you have to be selected to participate, and even then you can only sell the photos that they want.
They also determine what the image sells for, and take 80% of that as their cut, leaving you with just 20%.
However, they do get your images exposure with companies looking for stock photography. As an example, this photo (which I don't actually particularly like) has been on Flickr for over four years, and I've never had the slightest sniff of interest in it, in terms of selling:
In the two months it's been listed with Getty it's sold five times, to companies like Verizon and Viacom, and to advertising firms (including one which, from the name, appears to advertise on New York taxis...)
Bear in mind you're unlikely to make a fortune from an image sold through Getty (or any stock photography site). People (both non-photographers and photographers) often think when they hear your image is used on a billboard or as a book cover that you must have earnt a 5 figure sum -- that's not how stock photography works. Most of the time you are selling images as a convenience to the buyer.
Take my photograph above -- depending on the resolution it's sold at, it sells for about $250 (earning me $50). How much more would it cost to phone up a professional photographer in LA and hire them to go and take that shot one evening? Not a crazy amount more, and they could then specify exact framing to fit copy around it as they wanted, etc.
If you have a unique image that cannot be reproduced easily (and that doesn't just mean having, for example, a cute animal in it -- there's millions of cute animals) then a good stock photography site will offer that as a rights-managed image, which means that the buyer gets to buy exclusive use of that image if they want. Price for those images is charged based on usage time and number of impressions, so if you get a rights-managed image on the front of a best-selling book then yes, you'll have a pretty awesome year (but certainly won't be retiring!). For other photographs, making decent money through stock photography sites means quantity of sales, nothing else. There are people who make a living through selling with Getty, but you need to have hundreds or thousands of photos listed in order to get a reliable and respectable monthly income.
@tracywilliams, you seem to have a number of photographs that I think would sell well as stock photographs (more so than me -- landscapes don't sell that well). A number of your people shots are particularly good (conveying emotion well, and with clean backgrounds) -- if you are interested in pursuing this and you are photographing strangers, you should start to investigate carrying around model release forms -- you will need one of these for any photograph you want to use on a stock photography site that contains a recognisable person.
For anyone interested, you may see my full Getty portfolio here:
@abirkill Thanks So much Alexis, I really appreciate that. I have model release forms and ask anyone I photograph to sign them aside from my hubby and kids. I had no idea that Getty take 80% that is a huge cut. I appreciate all your advice.
@beeblebear I haven't been on flickr for long but I have had 2 images on fkickr feature on the flickriver explore page that was cool. There has been no word from anyone about buying anything though.
@ozziehoffy As far as I know Jeff sold a print from facebook and I remember a while back someone contacted him about creating posters etc. Lucky man! Jeff is so talented :D I will try and find the links to both discussions later.
@abirkill I appreciate you explaining the business side of stock photography, especially how it works with Getty. From discussions I've had with Pros they commented that stock photography is a difficult biz to be in now, considering the over-saturation of digital cameras - everyone has one. I've also heard the same thing about landscape shots- difficult to sell due to the excessive quantity of shots available. I do think your shots are remarkable and I can see why Getty selected you. Question- I've been told in order for Getty to accept your shots (even when your selected by them) the shots have to be perfect - meaning no imperfections such as a speck of dust or over processing/editing; otherwise they reject it. Is this true? This one pro photographer I know told me he spends 45 minutes per photo reviewing @ 110% for imperfections before submitting to Getty. He also told me that blacks have to be a true "black"...same for "whites".... or Getty will reject it. Have you experienced anything like this with Getty?
@tracywilliams Since I started following you I've been always impressed with your shots and your editing abilities. I do think you have an opportunity at the stock photography biz considering your photos are so unique. You've got a gift. You should really try for this.
@brianl Certainly your shots have to be technically good -- Getty's customers might want to buy your image to print in a magazine, but only have the web-sized preview to go on.
If your image is advertised as being a 16 megapixel photo, but is, for example, oversharpened to the point where it can only be printed at half size, that's not desirable. Similarly with photos that don't have true blacks and whites -- unless it's clearly done for effect (e.g. a foggy scene over a lake) then again I would expect them to reject it.
However, they also understand the limits of the technology, and that photos taken in low light will often have noise in them, for example.
I've never had a shot rejected by Getty on technical grounds yet -- I do try and ensure that my 'good' shots (which are typically the ones selected by Getty) are as perfect, technically, as I can get them, but I'm not at the level of a pro in terms of image processing.
All of my rejected shots so far have been rejected for removal of identifying or copyrighted features, such as removing the names of boats in harbour shots -- this generally results in rather too much time spent with the cloning tool, fixing the issue!
@abirkill Advertising on the board. jacket and helmet - at first glance. Thanks for the quick response. Good info here. Your comments regarding blacks and whites makes sense. Food for thought....
@brianl Yup. There's another one with boats in a harbour and the San Diego skyline behind it -- I had to edit out 50+ names on the back of the boats -- that was a boring 90 minutes in Photoshop!
I was surprised the snowboarder shot got accepted -- even with the advertising removed I would still expect the snowboarder and his friends could recognise him from that shot, which is generally around the cutoff where you need a model release (which I don't have). Not complaining though!
I think there are two ends to the spectrum of stock photographers -- those who go out looking for stock photography shots, and work on compositions that will accept copy around the subject of the image etc., and those who take the photographs they want, and if they work as stock images that's great. I'm definitely more towards the latter end.
I regard myself as doing my "photography internship" at the moment, while I develop and improve my photography skills (a LONG way to go) and editing skills (none existing) ... I decided on getting exposure by publishing my photos on sites that provide me with 'free' marketing and distribution of my photos, whilst I retain the copyright ... I watermark my photos ... I started doing this in 4Q12 - 20 of my photos are currently being used by 23 public web domains - I am accredited as the photographer - PS: these are the ones that are complying with my copyright and accrediting me ;-) ... you can access my Commercial Inventory @ http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.443683275698801.101020.419382311462231&type=3#!/media/set/?set=a.443683275698801.101020.419382311462231&type=1
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.392288520791068.96069.124639260889330&type=3
Fine Art America you set the price then they make their cut off framing printing etc..
http://www.melissapikephotography.com/
They also determine what the image sells for, and take 80% of that as their cut, leaving you with just 20%.
However, they do get your images exposure with companies looking for stock photography. As an example, this photo (which I don't actually particularly like) has been on Flickr for over four years, and I've never had the slightest sniff of interest in it, in terms of selling:
In the two months it's been listed with Getty it's sold five times, to companies like Verizon and Viacom, and to advertising firms (including one which, from the name, appears to advertise on New York taxis...)
Bear in mind you're unlikely to make a fortune from an image sold through Getty (or any stock photography site). People (both non-photographers and photographers) often think when they hear your image is used on a billboard or as a book cover that you must have earnt a 5 figure sum -- that's not how stock photography works. Most of the time you are selling images as a convenience to the buyer.
Take my photograph above -- depending on the resolution it's sold at, it sells for about $250 (earning me $50). How much more would it cost to phone up a professional photographer in LA and hire them to go and take that shot one evening? Not a crazy amount more, and they could then specify exact framing to fit copy around it as they wanted, etc.
If you have a unique image that cannot be reproduced easily (and that doesn't just mean having, for example, a cute animal in it -- there's millions of cute animals) then a good stock photography site will offer that as a rights-managed image, which means that the buyer gets to buy exclusive use of that image if they want. Price for those images is charged based on usage time and number of impressions, so if you get a rights-managed image on the front of a best-selling book then yes, you'll have a pretty awesome year (but certainly won't be retiring!). For other photographs, making decent money through stock photography sites means quantity of sales, nothing else. There are people who make a living through selling with Getty, but you need to have hundreds or thousands of photos listed in order to get a reliable and respectable monthly income.
@tracywilliams, you seem to have a number of photographs that I think would sell well as stock photographs (more so than me -- landscapes don't sell that well). A number of your people shots are particularly good (conveying emotion well, and with clean backgrounds) -- if you are interested in pursuing this and you are photographing strangers, you should start to investigate carrying around model release forms -- you will need one of these for any photograph you want to use on a stock photography site that contains a recognisable person.
For anyone interested, you may see my full Getty portfolio here:
http://www.gettyimages.ca/Search/Search.aspx?assettype=image&family=creative&artist=Alexis+Birkill&Language=en-US
@beeblebear I haven't been on flickr for long but I have had 2 images on fkickr feature on the flickriver explore page that was cool. There has been no word from anyone about buying anything though.
@melissapike @flagged Thanks I will be sure to check out these sites.
@shirljess aww you're so very sweet :D
@ozziehoffy As far as I know Jeff sold a print from facebook and I remember a while back someone contacted him about creating posters etc. Lucky man! Jeff is so talented :D I will try and find the links to both discussions later.
@tracywilliams Since I started following you I've been always impressed with your shots and your editing abilities. I do think you have an opportunity at the stock photography biz considering your photos are so unique. You've got a gift. You should really try for this.
If your image is advertised as being a 16 megapixel photo, but is, for example, oversharpened to the point where it can only be printed at half size, that's not desirable. Similarly with photos that don't have true blacks and whites -- unless it's clearly done for effect (e.g. a foggy scene over a lake) then again I would expect them to reject it.
However, they also understand the limits of the technology, and that photos taken in low light will often have noise in them, for example.
I've never had a shot rejected by Getty on technical grounds yet -- I do try and ensure that my 'good' shots (which are typically the ones selected by Getty) are as perfect, technically, as I can get them, but I'm not at the level of a pro in terms of image processing.
All of my rejected shots so far have been rejected for removal of identifying or copyrighted features, such as removing the names of boats in harbour shots -- this generally results in rather too much time spent with the cloning tool, fixing the issue!
Spot the difference:
I was surprised the snowboarder shot got accepted -- even with the advertising removed I would still expect the snowboarder and his friends could recognise him from that shot, which is generally around the cutoff where you need a model release (which I don't have). Not complaining though!
I think there are two ends to the spectrum of stock photographers -- those who go out looking for stock photography shots, and work on compositions that will accept copy around the subject of the image etc., and those who take the photographs they want, and if they work as stock images that's great. I'm definitely more towards the latter end.