?

Log in

Stock · Photographers

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
Hi! I have a question. I read about what kind of photos I can upload to stock_sites. I understood that if on a picture a person is identifiable then i have to sign for him a Model Release. Hence a question - if a person is from the back and all you can see is his hair and clothing - is it it possible to post this photo without model release ?
* * *
I am posting a guide to submitting stock images and vector art to Not for Zombies. This applies to all graphic designers and photographers who are submitting stock :)
Submitting Stock Images (Guidelines)Collapse )
* * *
Hi there guys, just an introduction! We are a microstock company called notforzombies.. our site can be viewed at http://www.notforzombies.com
Here you can register and submit your images also. If this is any interest to you guys, it will extend your earning potential with a number of stock sites.

It's free to register with the site and submit. After you have uploaded images (jpegs, 5700x3800 max 300dpi) you need to add a title and some metadata before they can be reviewed and launched on the site. Hopefully i will see some images soon as I like what i have seen so far in this community.

As with many others you get your own unique URL, you also get a personal portfolio section, where you can upload images without the need for review. All profiles do get checked so any profane, sexual or violent images will be removed.

This will be cross posted to another community

Current Location:
Ze Office
Current Mood:
chipper chipper
Current Music:
Fat Boy Slim
* * *
Cushy Stock is an application for stock photographer.

Download trial version now!  - http://www.cushystock.com

Brief description of the program:
    * images cataloging
    * associating keywords with catalog categories
    * vast embedded catalog with keywords sets
    * ability to create own catalog categories and add new keywords
    * viewing images from every catalog category
    * displaying all images available at the specified photostock (images are grouped by statuses)
    * searching for photos by keywords
    * viewing thumbnails of all images on your computer
    * ability to set and update statuses for every image and every stock
    * ability to set an image title, copyright and description
    * adding, deleting and editing image keywords
    * adding keywords from categories an image is assigned to
    * synchronization of keywords for different images
    * ability to view EXIF and IPTC image tags
    * displaying information on every photostock
    * showing images grouped by statuses
    * file operations (copy, move, delete, rename)
    * working with Model release
    * automated image upload to photostocks via FTP protocol
    * automated tracking of image history after it's been renamed or moved to another location
    * vector EPS format support
    * RAW format support
    * full screen viewing mode
    * ability to install the application on portable devices, e.g. USB Flash Drive
    * EPS to JPEG conversion
    * ZIP archive support
    * and much more...

Please, write your comments and suggestions here.
* * *
Well, I just sent off my first ever submission to Alamy. You have to send 10 images and pass their QC test to be accepted. The only thing I'm really worried about it the softness of the images. They stressed NOT to sharpen the image, and while I know the slides themselves are sharp, I'm not too sure about the scans. I used a good scanner, but I ALWAYS sharpen before I print. So against my better judgement, I did what they said and didn't sharpen anything. Wish me luck!!!
* * *
* * *
Hi - I am just recently getting interesting in selling through a stock agency. I haven't checked the totallyphotos.com yet, but I will. Have you heard anything about Alamy? I've been studying photography for about 6 years now, and I think I'm ready to take it to the next level. Any advice on how to get started?
* * *
It seems there's a fair number of sites that pay out very little.  25% -35% of a dollar.  Holy crow but that seems like underselling. 
Especially when it's means $0.25. 

I decided that I'd stick with a place like totallyphotos.com where the payout seems much more reasonable. I've sold a few photos there and gotten $7.50/per - even if I were getting a dollar per image it would take seven sales to make that up. 

Perhaps the market is changing - or it is time for the market to change? If microstock photographers started "asking" for a greater share - by moving their work to higher paying sites - what might happen?  Is it time to start a micro-site revolution?  I've thought about that.

Would a place like istock (for example) notice a huge drop in uploads from photographers? What would they do if several of their photographers emailed and said: decided you guys paid too little...  bye!   multiply that by 100s?
If the quality went elsewhere perhaps it might take time - but I think the designers would as well. I know what most places allocate for their design budgets - $100s and or $1000s of dollars. 

I think that as photographers we are really the people with the control. At what price do we want to market our work? If you were a buyer and needed a specific photo - how much are you willing to pay? 

I work in the internet-industry - but as tech support - and know the cost of the bandwidth and hosting. Certainly not cheap. But certainly nothing compared to a $200 million dollar profit -http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002383784 

Where is the fairness in that? 

Personally, I would rather earn nothing for a photo than a dollar or less. (i'll take $5 thanks :wink: ). I fritter away more than a dollar a week - on coffee, chocolate or just giving out spare change. I don't though want to imply any disparagment towards sites that pay out 25% - or a few dollars. I'm glad to hear that people are making money at it.  I just like to wonder if there isn't a way to earn more? 

There really should be a balance between what a site pays out and a person earns for their work. I still think that the people that ultimately control this are the photographers - we have the product. Our product is sold to a unique group of buyers who have specific needs. When we tailor our work to those needs we can sell it to the higher paying microstock sites.  I know that we can become exclusive to some places which earns us more.  And certainly there is the bulk-sales-per month appeal.  I just wonder if perhaps more people didn't move up from the really small paying sites to the larger ones that it wouldn't result in higher profits for the people who produce the work.

Its the great numbers debate.  Dollar stores vs department stores vs smaller specialty shops.  I won't buy/shop at walmart - and I wouldn't sell my work there either given their employee practices.  I'd really like to see people move their shots towards exclusive sites - and spend their time drawing the buyers to those sites.  It would be all around better business for the photographers - and a lot of the newer small stock sites too.

Just some thoughts.
* * *
So, one of the first biggest questions I had when I got into stock photography was:
what the heck is this Royalty Free stuff?  

At first I actually thought it was free photos - that you didn't get paid for them.  It took me a while to understand that buyers and designers still have to pay for the stock - so its not really free. Still - even if you are selling "Royalty Free" Stock - it doesn't mean you lose your rights to your photo.  You keep your image - you still are the artist.

As far as I can figure out it, royalty free, means bascially that many buyers can purchase the photos - and pay a one time fee for its use - and they can use it as often as they like.  Multiple buyers can purchase a photo - so that photo I took of a dog might get used for 101 uses.  It means the photographer can sell and resell their work - earning their slice of the pie while the stock company takes their share. But with royalty free licensing there is no option for getting exclusive usage rights...
So conversely - there is the Rights Managed agencies.  Buyers purchase "exclusive" rights, prevent other customers from using the same image for a specified length of time or in the same industry.  If someone has a big budget they might look at buying some of these - which sell at $1000s of dollars sometimes.  Alas, for someone like me it will be very unlikely that I'll reach the point of selling Rights Managed work - I'm not at that stage yet.  But... maybe one day Getty will come knocking on my door. ;)
* * *
Well, as a founder of this community I feel its a good idea to make a few posts. I'll start it with an Introduction. I've only recently started selling stock photos with www.totallyphotos.com  - been several months now.  I've invited some of the people I've met from totallyphotos to come and start blogging or to update here - to get this community going.  I thought it would be good to gather some people together to talk about the industry.  When I first looked into selling my work I really didn't know where to go.  A lot of the bigger sites were quite intimidating.  I knew my work probably didn't stand a chance at Corbis or some of the Big Stock Agencies.  And I thought that it was kind of unfair to get paid out at less than 50% or more for commission, and then only receive pennies per shot.  I also wasn't sure how to get into them.
When I started out I had a lot of questions and really not too many (or far too many) answers.

When do I need a model releases? 
Whats the difference in Right Managed vs Royalty Free?
Whats Cut out?  Whats Isolated?  What's the difference between Copy Space and Cutout?
Which agency should I choose? 

If you had some of the above questions - so did I!  So welcome to the Stock Photos community.  Got questions?  Need answers?  Just curious?  do come on in and post.  We look forward to meeting you all...

regards,
Zero.

* * *