What is the value of our photos?

M

marlinblue

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Edit My Images
No
Not long ago, I signed up on a site to try and see if my shots would sell as stock photos. The site seemed promising and they claimed that I can set my own price for photos. Today, I get a newsletter from them saying they are starting to sell members' photos for low prices (starting at 99 cents USD).

I'm not sure what to make out of this. It's a membership site, so I paid money to put my photos there, but now should I offer my images for $0.99? Would this devalue my work?

The site I'm referring to is www.shutterpoint.com.
 
I've not really looked in "stock" sites too much, although I know many people have good success with them.

I certainly wouldn't even consider selling my shots so cheaply though, you're giving them away. I'd rather not sell anything

Simon
 
I have my shots on some stock sites and I'm pretty happy with results. Photography is not my main income, but I love it and it helps to get some extra cash for new photo equipment. I signed up on shutterpoint but was skeptical because membership is not free. Maybe I'll take another look at it again.

I don't feel that I'm giving photos away at microstock sites because of volume. My shots are not top-notch so I have less chances to sell at high price, but at low price I sell an image 50 times for a dollar. So instead of my images just sitting on the hard drive, I got cash in the pocket.

Image prices already came down and it's no use to fight it. I dont see a reason why image buyer would pay more if he can pay less for the same thing. I suggest give it a shot with that site since you are already a member, see how it goes.
 
I have to admit, I've sold a few photos through one of these micro stock sites. I have since removed all the photos that haven't sold and placed them elsewhere which will sell them for a more acceptable fee. I may not make as many sales, but one small sale on a proper agency would equal 50+ sales with a micro stock site.
 
natjag said:
one small sale on a proper agency would equal 50+ sales with a micro stock site.
Click to expand...
Very very true. But, a so called proper agency will take 100 times longer to sell one image than a microstock site will to sell a 100 of them. That's just my experience. I personally know a guy who makes over a thousand a month from 3 microsites. While it's not enough to make a living, I'm yet to see a traditional agency that beats these numbers.
 
I'm sure some professional stock photographers make over a thousand a month, harriscup.
But you are right, although I hate to admit it, prices of images are very low now and sometimes I feel like if I don't adapt to the change, I'll get shoved by all the newcomers and they'll end up selling their images, while mine will be sitting on the shelf with the high price tag. I think I'm going to set up some images on shutterpoint to sell for cheap, while others that I value more will remain with higher price. Just as an experiment.
 
I am a Almany member but also have pictures in a micro stock site, I put all my best picture on Almany and the ones Almany wont touch on the other. The pictures on the micro stock site are not that great but I make around £200 a year from them. So it's better then nothing, as I would never use the pictures for anything.

www.markheywood.co.uk
 
After checking out shutterpoint for second time, I decided to give it a try and signed up. What do you know? I sold a photo today, 3 days after signing up. The funny thing is that I sold full license, which is puzzling since the photo is available for $4.99, but they bought it for $59. Anyway, sorry to brag :) This is the photo I sold: Link
 
harriscup said:
After checking out shutterpoint for second time, I decided to give it a try and signed up. What do you know? I sold a photo today, 3 days after signing up. The funny thing is that I sold full license, which is puzzling since the photo is available for $4.99, but they bought it for $59. Anyway, sorry to brag :) This is the photo I sold: Link
Click to expand...

Good photo it is too - A company or business may be using it for commercial reasons, $60 for full use is a bargain to them !!

BTW - the link states photo submitted on 14th May 2007 ?

I guess these are exactly the type of shots that do well on stock photography, I shoot 99% Landscapes & I'm not so sure they would do well on the stock sites, would be interested to know if other "landscapers" have any success ?

thanks

Simon


http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com/
 
so what are the best micro stock sites?
 
For me the best sites financially are Fotolia I think this takes you directly to my portfolio (they no initial submission restrictions) and Shutterstock (send your ten best images with NO NOISE - I stress this because this is one of their strictest policies. They need to approve 7 out of ten of your first set of images or you have to wait a month to reapply).

There are a lot more if you are interested and some do better for some people than others. I have included my affiliate link in the above but this will not cost you anything (but may benefit me at some point).

The earnings do look, and are, minimal for individual images but mount up if you are prepared to put enough effort into it.

Christine
 
Hi thanks you fotolia photos look great. Can i ask which ones do ou sell the most of?
thanks
Mark
 
you must have made a £££. looking at your number of downloads
 
Christine,

Great selection of shots on Fotolia - I can see why you sell !!.

Looking at your shots suggests to me though that if you want to succeed in the "stock" area variety is essential. I don't think it's for me personally as I'm really only interested in Landscape Photography and don't get the same pleasure from other areas

Simon
 
Hi Kerioak. I remember you from fotolia.

This is a very interesting subject. I do have a limited number of images with fotolia, but have taken off some and placed them elsewhere (non micro stock). As Harriscup mentions in response to my earlier post a traditional library will sell less than a micro stock library, but the fees are smaller. Micro stock will attract customers than may not otherwise use pictures. I now sell a few with fotolia, but sell through other agencies including getty, which do much better for me. I may sell less (per volume of pictures) but I make more per picture. But what works for some doesn't work for others. However I have since moved to editorial photography which isn't suitable for microstock. I have one picture published this week, which with a microstock site would either still be waiting approval or declined due to noise, but I had the only picture which the magazine wanted.
 
Hi

Hummm , I am not exactly quiet on Fotolia, which is probably why they made me a *forum moderator there as you are supposed to behave once they do that :-)

I just love taking pictures and I have found that the more I do the more subjects there are that interest me, and I have learned a lot more about my camera and its potential than I would probably have ever done otherwise. One of the benefits of stock is that you can shoot whatever you like or whatever takes your fancy at the time. Like here, the stock site forums can be very generous with advice which does not happen in any other environment I can think of where people are, in effect, competing for the same customers.

Natjag, I think I have also seen you at TM, well done on your recent accomplishments.

*I had maybe better point out that I am an unpaid moderator :) my only commercial link is selling images through the site.

Christine
 
That;s ok christine. I'm only on fotolia, but haven't really been active for quite some time. I kinda started to lose heart when I realized images wern't showing up in searches. Obviously your name is very frequent on there, so we'd know you more than you knowing us.
 
Not long ago, I signed up on a site to try and see if my shots would sell as stock photos. The site seemed promising and they claimed that I can set my own price for photos. Today, I get a newsletter from them saying they are starting to sell members' photos for low prices (starting at 99 cents USD).

I'm not sure what to make out of this. It's a membership site, so I paid money to put my photos there, but now should I offer my images for $0.99? Would this devalue my work?
Click to expand...

I would say no, as they have changed their business model since you joined, and also i think $0.99 is way too low.
 
Hi Christine, I remember you too from Fotolia and I'm afraid my experience there was frustrating - mainly rejections for "the wrong type of photograph" was the reason given. I guess it suits some people but tends to "steer" you towards certain subjects and that is not what I want to do - like Simonkit I find myself taking landscapes which appear to little appeal to microstock sites.

I have recently started to use www.photographersdirect.com, here the returns are more reasonable to the photographer, 80/20 split in favour of the photographer, but you cannot deal with microstock sites. Your photographs are vetted before you can join and each submission is scored after upload - its worth a look.

Season greeting to all

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top