| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/14/2006 04:14:24 PM · #1 |
Please no macro vs. micro discussion in this post, there are plenty of other threads to discuss that.
I would like to know of the Macrostock agancies out there what people are using and what do you like / not like about them. Are there any you would flat out avoid? Are there some that are better for people starting out / doing it for years? Which one is your favorite? If you don't mind, what kind of return are you seeing from the agencies (approx photos online, approx sales volume over how much time).
Thanks :) |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 05:29:46 PM · #2 |
I use...
//www.alamy.com
//www.myloupe.com
//www.photographersdirect.com
//www.photonewzealand.com
Success so far is only with Alamy (11 sales since May 05, currently 1600+ images on there).
1600??? Yes, but these are mostly travel shots throughout Europe and the Middle East, so the market is pretty saturated.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2006 06:46:05 PM · #3 |
cool, thanks WGF
Anyone else?
(bump) |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 08:01:41 PM · #4 |
We have used...
Corbis Awesome, fair pricing, if you get used its usually for some good bucks..but hard to get on
Comstock They really know how to market to agencies and marketing people...have catalogues that go out
Getty One of teh oldest and most respected sites out there.
All of these are sorta industry standard and well established. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 08:10:21 PM · #5 |
hokie,
I've heard scary tales of minimum library sizes of 10,000 images to even apply to these agencies - what is your experience.
Another photog told me that if my images are too leading edge, Getty will steal the ideas and have their "in-house" photogs shoot the same things - any experience there.
C'mon, we're dying of thirst here, and you just dropped a drop of water on our tongues! Any more complete descriptions would be very appreciated - heck, I might even buy you dinner!
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
01/14/2006 08:28:56 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
hokie,
I've heard scary tales of minimum library sizes of 10,000 images to even apply to these agencies - what is your experience. |
I wonder who said that? I think my company didn't have more than maybe 2 or 3 thousand images but we have been in business for 20 years.
Originally posted by digitalknight:
Another photog told me that if my images are too leading edge, Getty will steal the ideas and have their "in-house" photogs shoot the same things - any experience there. |
I'll have to ask about this. I do know that Bob Lewellyn and Allan Young...two nature photogs who have been in plenty of magazines like National Geographic still post to Getty and they are hard core crazy about protecting their rights. I just can't imagine how getty could get some of the photographers they do if they did rip photogs off.
My company hasn't submitted photos to these sights for years since this big royalty free thing has hit. We are not a big photo agency. Almost all of our stuff is used for our graphics, display and design business. But...my boss said that when we were at our peak at these sites he made maybe $70,000 a year combined from these sites. Not a lot of money if you could see how he has invested in camera gear, studio and production equipment :-/
But, when I took Manny's photos to my boss and Bob Lewellyn, they encouraged me to submit them to an agent they knew at Corbis, and they knew Manny did not have thousands of photos. (but maybe he does :-)
Message edited by author 2006-01-14 20:30:27. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:01:57 PM · #7 |
I have to admit I'm a little disappointed by this thread.
For months now people have been arguing that micro stock hurts the market and macro stock is the only way to go for the future of stock photography. Ok, I'm buying into it. I'm ready to go and start build up my portfolio - I believe I have all the equipment I need to get started. So where are all the Macro Stock photographers? There's hundreds of posts that can be found discussing all the various micro stock agencies but no definitive threads discussing the various ins and outs of macro stock agencies.
Hokie and WGF, I greatly appreciate the information you have been able to provide on the topic - but where are all the others? So far this thread is really making it appear that trying to work with and really make money from macro stock agencies isn't really worth it anymore.
If the market really is dead or it really is that exclusive of a "club" maybe I should re-evaluate where my focus is headed...
Or did I just title this thread and word it poorly, I know I don't always come off as clearly as I would like. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:19:35 PM · #8 |
Not sure what you're looking for Dan.
Whatever you can do, or believe you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." -
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
There is money to be made - I've paid for my gear many times in one year through stock and assignment photography - making $750 in one sale of a shot I already had on my hard drive.
If you think this is something that might work for you...
Just do it.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:26:30 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
So far this thread is really making it appear that trying to work with and really make money from macro stock agencies isn't really worth it anymore.
|
It's worth it, you just have to work harder. The market is saturated, you need to be great at what you do.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:28:06 PM · #10 |
[quote=digitalknight] hokie,
Another photog told me that if my images are too leading edge, Getty will steal the ideas and have their "in-house" photogs shoot the same things - any experience there.
Getty is one of the top stock agencies in the world - they have no need to steal ideas. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:33:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
If the market really is dead or it really is that exclusive of a "club" maybe I should re-evaluate where my focus is headed... |
This "big" sites like Getty and Corbis have libraries based on hundreds of thousands of film images -- they have a huge headstart over either digital micro- or macro-sites.
Most of the established pros who shoot fim and submit to these companies do not frequent the DPC forums ... I think most people's experience with the digital macro sites (as is the sites' own experience) is too short to be truly meaningful. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:39:53 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
I have to admit I'm a little disappointed by this thread. |
forum traffic is always a little slow on the weekends. it might pick up tonight around rollover time. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:41:54 PM · #13 |
I'm just looking for a little insight into the industry and the market a bit from those with experience in it.
Are all the larger agencies the same? Is there no real difference between Corbis and Photographers Direct?
I'm interested in knowing what a typical kind of return is photos uploaded vs. photos sold per month. I know a lot of it depends on the quality of the photo, how much interests there is in the subject, how saturated the site is with that subject etc etc... but there are numerous people here that are doing it right now that could perhaps share a little insight as to how it's working for them. I'm not asking to see anyone's bank statements, I'd just like to get a general idea.
I have ideas of where I would like to be and end up with photography and I am trying to set goals for myself. Without any information I have no way of knowing where to set those goals - should I upload 10 AMAZING pics or 100 great ones? Should I try to get into Getty or would I be better off submitting to Alamy starting out? Should I quit my day job today, a year from now or is it likely I'll always have to have a day job?
I'm not asking anyone to make my goals for me, just share a little insight so I have a little insight as to where I might set those goals.
If people do seriously consider making the switch from micro stock to macro stock (as many people advocate) I believe these are the kinds of questions people are going to be asking.
So this thread is intended to help people get a better understanding of what they may get out of the larger stock agencies. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 04:42:25 PM · #14 |
well just to repeat what has been said earlier... but it is at least another voice.
check out alamy and myloupe.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 05:03:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
[quote=digitalknight] Another photog told me that if my images are too leading edge, Getty will steal the ideas and have their "in-house" photogs shoot the same things - any experience there. |
ASMP had a warning about this practice by Getty. If they can easliy reproduce the shots, they will.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 05:51:43 PM · #16 |
From what little I've learned, it's important to have a marketing plan BEFORE you begin (at least part of one). Can you market to a specialty site or do you want to go with the sites that take anything (Alamy, etc.). To any beginner except some protege, I would not recommend starting on Corbis or Getty, they are harder to get into. Any time you start on any agency, you always submit your best for the first submission. Most agencies will only want 10-15 for the initial quality control. When I was a complete beginner, I submitted to Alamy, it's hard to go wrong there. There are too many stock sites to be counted, unless you have a certain specialty you excel in, like law enforcement shots ( //www.copshots.com ), etc., etc..
Message edited by author 2006-01-15 17:52:05. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 06:16:45 PM · #17 |
always best to have a plan before action
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 06:45:26 PM · #18 |
I'm submitting to Alamy, MyLoupe, PhotographersDirect, and Acclaim.
So far I only have about 100 images online with Alamy and MyLoupe, and about 40 or so with Acclaim. Only a couple with PD as I just got on with them.
So far I've had one sale, with Alamy, and it wasn't for much ($41 will be my cut). However, my images have only been up for a few month now, so to have sold anything at all so far is kind of encouraging. Especially considering the really low number of photos I have online.
Here are my impressions of each so far:
Alamy- Hey, I got a sale. What can I say but that I like them so far :)
MyLoupe- Not even a nibble here. I'll keep some images there for a time, but at present I'm not planning on adding anything more to them because if things pick up elsewhere I may drop them. Why? Well, in addition to no nibbles, their site content and layout is stale and unchanging, and I can't really explain it, but I'm just not getting a warm fuzzy from them. But really, I havn't given them half a chance yet.
Acclaim- I have at least had inquiries here, but no sales yet. I like the site ok, at least the lead image changes regular, but the 50/50 split is a bit of a bummer. I'm playing a waiting game with them as well.
PhotographersDirect- Just got on, so I can't really say much. I like the payout plan for the comission based service (80/20) but I'm a little concerned about exaclty how this site will work. I do like the "idea" of being placed in touch with the buyer and dealing with them directly, but I'm dubious that it will be much fun in practice. But, if nothing else, it should be a great learning experience.
My goal for the year is to get stable with about 3 different agencies, and no more. I really don't want to keep up with more than that, and it gets real confusing real quick when you start dealing with all the different file size requirements, etc... Im also working hard on developing a solid "one shot" workflow so that all my images are identical from place to place. In the past I worked in a VERY unorganized manner (years of practice) and have diff versions of all my pics all over the place. I work in RAW and constantly "redo" them.
ALso, do not quit your day job, at least not until you get established well enough to see how it will go for you. When you figure in keywording and workflow and file prep, etc..., this stuff is damned hard work. Anybody that says its not is probably not putting enough into it. I personally hope it can become at least a workable fraction of my income over the next few years, but I have no idea how many images it will take to do this. I do plan to work more for quality, than quantity. And more for Rights Managed than Royalty Free. These things will probably keep my sales rather low, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 08:56:56 PM · #19 |
Maybe you need to ask a new question in Macro - Macro: "How much time to have to devote to stock photography?"
First, this is a numbers business and regardless of who you go with, you will eventually need 1000+ photos in your library to make consistent sales. If you are not seeking your living expenses from stock photography today, that is not a problem if you are patient and work.
Second aspect of time is do I want to be tied into an expectation of x # of new images per month.
Conclusion: If you want to slowly build images and not have an expectation of producing x images per month, alamy and myloupe (tssphoto) are your answers. I've read hours of info on the topic from a variety of books, forums, and yahoo groups and consistently alamy emerges as the most consistent of the online agencies that are OPEN to new photographers. I was sold last week when my wife was reading a current issue of a health magazine she subscribes to and she noticed an image similar to one of mine and the byline was an alamy photographer. (name and alamy stated). The image was next to images by Corbis and Getty. SOLD!
Now, if you are willing to be held to an expectation of regular production, which is the historical standard for stock, there are many smaller agencies, many of which offer better customer service than alamy. Most of the smaller agencies are run by a photographer and you can have direct access if you are good and produce regularly. Further, depending on the agency you'll also get requests for photos, feedback, key wording help, critique on composition, and more. As an outsider, I don't believe you get any of these from Alamy but in return Alamy takes a smaller cut of the sale. Another option, is looking for a niche agency (medical, industrial, etc.) and specializing.
Short list: (no endorsement implied)
Acclaim Images
Photographers Direct
Age of StockRobert Harding
Other links of interest:
StockPhoto.Net
Stock Artists Alliance
Message edited by author 2006-01-15 21:03:50.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 09:25:30 PM · #20 |
alternatives...
shutterpointis an option. A friend has some images up there and has sold a few.
fotolibra is similar in concept.
some sites i have seen recomended but know nothing about. Supposedly middle ground options
//www.totallyphotos.com/
//www.acclaimimages.com/
//www.imagevortex.com/
|
|
|
|
01/15/2006 09:42:08 PM · #21 |
That was wierd, those photos actually were of someone I travelled with and were taken at the same time, I had not seen their photos and WOW were they like mine... my sincerest apologies....no theft, just my extreme ignorance.
Message edited by author 2006-01-15 21:56:40. |
|
|
|
01/15/2006 09:47:04 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
I was just checking out the vortex site, and someone has my photos cropped and selling them!!!! GRRR |
You've got to be kidding?!
Unbelieveable...this is the 'worst' case of image theft i have heard of yet - what file size do they want for uploading? Did they grab your off the web and upsize them? I would think the quality would suck taht way.
Got links???
|
|
|
|
01/19/2006 01:11:12 AM · #23 |
| There is one Stock Photography option that has just started that nobody has mentioned here, yet. Photosource International ( //www.photosource.com ), run by Ron Engh (author of very popular "Sell and Resell Your Photos", and "Sellphotos.com") has just started a service called PhotosourceGroup. It might be a good time to get on board with them, Photosource International is metioned in about any material that covers the stock photo field. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 11:58:40 AM EDT.
