Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Stock photography  (Read 11807 times)

fionathehun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Stock photography
« on: November 15, 2007, 05:48:44 am »

Dear discussion board members,

I attended a workshop last year on stock photography and the instructor said that stock photography companies only accept images that are 10MP or higher these days.

I was shocked as I have a Canon 20D, which takes great photos as far as I'm concerned, but is only 8MP.  I am now considering purchasing the 40D, which is 10MP, in order to be able to submit my photos to stock companies.

Can you tell me:
1. Does anyone know if this information is accurate?  

2. How safe will I be buying a 10MP camera?  Are they likely to up the minimum again in the near future making all 10MP cameras obsolete for stock purposes?  Obviously, we can't read the future, but if you have a sense about these things, I'd appreciate your feedback.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Logged

mahleu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
    • 500px
Stock photography
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2007, 06:23:32 am »

The only stock agency i've dealt with wanted 50mb jpegs which meant up-ressing images before submission anyway. They specified 6mp as their minimum.

I'm fairly sure you can upres your pics slightly so they're 10mp without anyone complaining.
Logged
________________________________________

fionathehun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Stock photography
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2007, 07:22:21 am »

Quote
The only stock agency i've dealt with wanted 50mb jpegs which meant up-ressing images before submission anyway. They specified 6mp as their minimum.

I'm fairly sure you can upres your pics slightly so they're 10mp without anyone complaining.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks, that's interesting.
Logged

Diapositivo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
    • http://
Stock photography
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2007, 12:13:50 pm »

Requirement vary among agencies.
Until let's say two or three years ago many agencies would not consider anything else than slides.
Getty Images broke a taboo when they said they would accept digital submission (digicaptures) provided they were taken with a professional DSLR with at least 10 MP (at the time there was only one Canon model able to do so and very expensive).

This is what concerns very traditional agencies, who deal with clients who do offset printing etc.

But in the last years, starting with Alamy, and arriving to "Microstocks", the stock market has undergone a series of transformation, or should I say earthquakes.

Alamy has all the images online (most traditional agencies had only the catalog online, and plenty of slides which the client would see only if he made a particular subject request to a seller of the agency) and since Alamy the focus for many stock photographers has moved to digital. Alamy accepts both scans and digicaptures, but you have to give in digital material anyway (they don't accept slides).

Most microstock generally tend to accept only digicaptures.

In the last couple of years, I have seen agencies which accepted mainly slides who begun working in digital format, so they accept digicaptures or scans, and/or maybe slides.

Those moves have happened in part for the pressure applied on the market first by Alamy and the "Alamy clones", then by the "Microstock" agencies.

So agencies now tend to be much more elastic on what they deem acceptable.

As an example, Alamy asks for at least 6 megapixels for digicaptures, that gives a file of 18 MP which must be upsized by the photographer up to at least 48 MP.

The Travel Library asks for 8 Mp for digicaptures (24 MB) and 60 MB for scans (that is what a 35mm slides unframed gives when scanned at 4000 ppi).

In the Alamy forum somebody reports his pictures taken with the Olympus E-1 (four-thirds and 5 MP if I remember well) are accepted.

So it depends on which agency you want to place your pictures with. Some are very much slide- or scan-oriented (less and less of those) and some are not, some have a strong preference for digital capture. Generally speaking a DSLR with 8MB will not be an obstacle anyway, if not maybe at Getty.

Cheers
Fabrizio
Logged

Andy M

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 333
    • http://
Stock photography
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2007, 12:34:49 pm »

Quote
The only stock agency i've dealt with wanted 50mb jpegs which meant up-ressing images before submission anyway. They specified 6mp as their minimum.

I'm fairly sure you can upres your pics slightly so they're 10mp without anyone complaining.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

50mb jpegs?!  
Logged

luong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
    • http://www.terragalleria.com
Stock photography
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2007, 12:54:29 pm »

It depends on agencies. You should check their websites.

Getty images (the leader) lists  specific pro/semi-pro levels cameras.

Unless you temper with the EXIF data, upres won't help you there.

The requirement is not only for technical reasons, but also used to weed out photographers (on the basis that if you are serious about shooting stock in a high-end market, you use a high-end camera),  so it might evolve in the future.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 12:56:07 pm by luong »
Logged
QT Luong - author of http://TreasuredLandsBook.com, winner of 6 national book awards

mahleu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
    • 500px
Stock photography
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2007, 01:42:44 pm »

Quote
50mb jpegs?! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153105\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I mean tiffs  And it was 48, for alamy.

Quote
Uncompressed file sizes of between 48MB and 200MB. This means you should make your JPEG file from an 8 bit TIFF file that is at least 48MB. Our maximum size for the uncompressed file is 200MB.

I never did submit anything to them, realised that stock is a bad idea and i'd rather sell my photos directly.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 01:49:00 pm by mahleu »
Logged
________________________________________

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Stock photography
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2007, 02:01:14 pm »

Quote
I mean tiffs  And it was 48, for alamy.

I never did submit anything to them, realised that stock is a bad idea and i'd rather sell my photos directly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was with Tony Stone ( became Getty) for many years and it worked okay as long as I was able to use offtakes from commissioned shoots. (I was in the model girls market.) Once that fell away due to political correctness and rubbish like that, I did float a trip at my own expense - the lesson I learned agrees with the one from mahleu: forget it. It took two years for me to get my money back, so when you factor in loss of interest on capital had the same money just been left in an account, it took even longer to get into profit. And don´t forget: I only got 50% on sales so the work had to raise twice what it cost to shoot for that break-even point to drift slowly into focus.

Today, I believe, 50% is the stuff of dreams, so less attractive an option than ever if shooting expensive work.

On the other hand, if an amateur and submitting pics shot at no great personal cost, then what have you to lose other than the love of the pro trying to do it for a living? That´s one of the main reasons I stopped working: much of the pro market has been washed out by cheap input.

I have no wish to enter into the rights or wrongs of the situation: suffice to say that I think people should have one goddamn job and call it a halt there.

Rob C

Quentin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1222
    • Quentin on Facebook
Stock photography
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2007, 04:16:53 pm »

The Getty approved camera list was way out of date last time I checked.

Microstocks accept scans from slides, but they have to be good scans with minimal grain.  

Alamy's file size is 48mb uncompressed, but as with many agencies you can uprezz to get to 48mb if the original data are high enough quality - which they should be from an 8mp modern dslr.  More original data the better, however.  Alamy has recently adopted the technical approach of the microstocks - much more emphasis than before on technical perfection, meaning minimal noise or grain, proper exposure etc etc, and a new upload facility.

In the face if increasing competition and rising technical standards, you'd be better of with more than 8mp.  For serious stock use, I'd suggest 12mp and up.

I make several hundred $$ a month from part-time stock

Quentin
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 04:19:47 pm by Quentin »
Logged
Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, Arbitrato

luong

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 259
    • http://www.terragalleria.com
Stock photography
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2007, 05:07:28 pm »

Quote
I was with Tony Stone ( became Getty) for many years and it worked okay as long as I was able to use offtakes from commissioned shoots. (I was in the model girls market.) Once that fell away due to political correctness and rubbish like that, I did float a trip at my own expense - the lesson I learned agrees with the one from mahleu: forget it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is also what Pickerell (a stock photo industry expert for those who don't know him) says: forget about self-financed stock. However, note that although I do exactly that, in no less than travel/nature/landscape with no released imagery, I am making a decent living at it. So the conclusion is not to be discouraged from pursuing your dreams,  if you are creative enough, you'll make it work... but maybe not with microstock.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 05:08:37 pm by luong »
Logged
QT Luong - author of http://TreasuredLandsBook.com, winner of 6 national book awards

nicolaasdb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://
Stock photography
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2007, 12:24:56 pm »

I have been thinking of shooting stock and looked into it a little over the last couple of months.

The stock agencies are not that smart....If you provide them with a fully retouched images, and you resize it photoshop to 16M..they would never be able to tell..just take all meta date and other image information off...like what camera you photographed it with and make sure the images look professional...no one would be able to tell what size it was originally shot in.
I mean I had several billboards in LA and NYC and some of the images used for the billboards were resized for catalog only (8x10 at 300dpi) they used it on a billboard 48x12 and it looked razorsharp (from where I was standing on the street) and that really amazed me.
Logged

nicolaasdb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
    • http://
Stock photography
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2007, 12:30:01 pm »

Luong....you are right...the stock agencies try to discourage you...knowing very well that you CAN make a good living of shooting stock..... don't forget they take 50-60% of the money! I get calls for purchase of non-stock images and the amount of money people are willing to pay is astounding!
Logged

CJL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
    • http://www.imageswest.ca
Stock photography
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2007, 12:49:21 pm »

Quote
In the Alamy forum somebody reports his pictures taken with the Olympus E-1 (four-thirds and 5 MP if I remember well) are accepted.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alamy has accepted - and sold - some of my images taken with an EOS 1D (4MP).  If I recall, the client was National Geographic Traveller.
Logged

fionathehun

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Stock photography
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2007, 08:15:30 am »

Quote
Alamy has accepted - and sold - some of my images taken with an EOS 1D (4MP).  If I recall, the client was National Geographic Traveller.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks everyone - all very interesting!  I will definitely be able to put this information to use.   Thanks for your input.   Fiona  
Logged

KAP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
    • http://www.kevinallenphotography.co.uk
Stock photography
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2007, 10:55:13 am »

Quote
Luong....you are right...the stock agencies try to discourage you...knowing very well that you CAN make a good living of shooting stock..... don't forget they take 50-60% of the money! I get calls for purchase of non-stock images and the amount of money people are willing to pay is astounding!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the Alamy's of this world are so concerned with being cheap, they just don't get the best prices. I get more per image when I make a sale than Alamy ever gets for an Image and I don't have to give anyone else a percentage other than the Government.
Online stock agencies have a philosophy of a sale at any price, the market is stronger than you think.
Also at which point will the microstock's etc implode with all the millions of images they have, will it not be better to go to someone you know has the quality and the stock you need rather than plough through pages of  pointless images. Isn't that where we the photographer comes in, target your market and let them know your open for business.

Kevin.
Logged

CJL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
    • http://www.imageswest.ca
Stock photography
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2007, 07:28:11 am »

Quote
I think the Alamy's of this world are so concerned with being cheap, they just don't get the best prices. I get more per image when I make a sale than Alamy ever gets for an Image and I don't have to give anyone else a percentage other than the Government.
Online stock agencies have a philosophy of a sale at any price, the market is stronger than you think.
Also at which point will the microstock's etc implode with all the millions of images they have, will it not be better to go to someone you know has the quality and the stock you need rather than plough through pages of  pointless images. Isn't that where we the photographer comes in, target your market and let them know your open for business.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154120\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The difference is, photo buyers know Alamy have images for sale... but buyers having to search through thousands of other photographer's web sites just to find yours puts you at a disadvantage.

It's probably not fair to lump Alamy in with the microstocks, either... their license fees are several hundred times higher than the typical microstock rates.  
Logged

photomaker123

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Stock photography
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2008, 03:20:44 am »

Here you will find all details about how and where to sell photos on internet or in your town !

www.how-to-sell-photos-online.com

Best Regards!

Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Stock photography
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2008, 05:35:05 pm »

Alamy takes JPEGS now.  At the UNCOMPRESSED stage, they need to be 48MB MINIMUM.  If you upload JPEGS, they need to be at a MAXIMUM size of 25MB.  So the JPEG can be any size equal to, or less than 25MB, but must be around 16 megapixels, which is 48MB in size as an 8 bit TIFF.  It's lame, and kind of confusing, but at least you can upload files now, instead of sending in CDs/DVDs.

This DOES NOT mean you need a 16MP camera.  They allow interpolation (I always thought this part was the worst).  I have several images with Alamy shot with a 20D.

You shouldn't worry about requirements until you actually CHOOSE an agency to shoot for/apply for.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 05:37:20 pm by T-1000 »
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Stock photography
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2008, 04:26:32 am »

I think it's funny because this is market economics at it's worst--best for those who are money manipulators, like the stock agencies.

First, it turns photography into a stock market of sorts and creates a sort of feeding frenzy for anyone who can afford a point and shoot camera and has PS skills.

Second, it makes professional photography less and less possible because everyone with with a point and shoot or Rebel can submit pictures, and using the shotgun affect, like the stock business does, they are bound to get a few from each 1, 000 persons who submits everything they shoot.

Third, it lowers overall prices, which is really good for other corporations, like National Geographic, because then they don't need as many full time photographers.

Fourth, like the web link above, books and other marketing techniques tell everyone that they too can be professional photographers in 72 hours--you ever see the books like that, such as "Speak German in 3 Days!"? People suck that get rich fast and smart quicker crap up like a vacuum.

So either way, and there are two outcomes to this marketing technique, stock photography, and photography in general as a profession suffers: (1) People get their 40Ds, or whatever, and buy the get rich fast books and give it an honest go. After a year or so they've taken hundreds of images and submitted them, made a few hundred dollars, maybe, and then they lose interest because they aren't rich and famous yet and move on to the next thing, such as "You to Can Make a Million in the Stock Market, In 3 Days! with only 10 dollars." The problem here is that there are hundreds of thousands of people running this circuit, which gives the stock agencies, and the marketers, a steady influx of income and images. (2) Someone with talent, time, brains, and perseverance, plus the money to invest properly, really does take off. The problem here is that many more "professional" level photographers really do enter the market, spreading the possible profit ever thinner, since they can do it "on their spare time."

I'm not passing judgment here, just showing what is completely predictable process in any market system--where there is money, real or not, people will flood in to stake their claim on the free gold--just like in the gold rush days in the early days of the United States. And just like the gold rush, 90% of the people looking for riches will make very little money, simply because of the numbers doing exactly the same thing, and 10% will make lots of money--the marketers and corporations. (Look where all the gold ended up, Fort Knox, jewelry, etc.)

In days gone past, people already in business could weather these waves of pie in the sky searchers because they would soon go broke and leave the market. Here now we have a market that everyone can get into and stay in for almost nothing, that is, everyone who can afford a 600US camera, which is a LOT of people--most people already own one. So even though Jimmy may only submit 100 photos a year from his P&S or Rebel, thousands more are doing the same thing, and when Jimmy stops, a thousand more will take his place.

A related example: Microsoft hired hundreds of photographers for a year and told them to go out and take all the pictures they could of specific categories, such as landscape, commercial, etc. They paid them for their time and when all the dust settled, Microsoft had 100,000s of thousands of images they put on DVDs and sell, and resell, and reresell--because while those photographers were working, they were giving up all the rights to their images. So if I'm a designer and need photography for my design needs, and I can buy 10 MS DVDs for 60US with the rights to use the images for pennies, why should I hire a photographer, or buy them from individual photogs for much more money? And the images on the disks are as good as you will find anywhere, since the photographers were all professionals.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 04:56:22 am by dwdallam »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Stock photography
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2008, 04:57:58 am »

dwdallam

Absolutely on the button!

It has got to be said, or, to please the more conservative, it is my opinion that photography can once more be pronounced dead. Aside, that is, from those talented and still-working photographers who engage in the product and fashion/beauty genres who will always - I hope - find their services required.

Stock used to be a beautiful thing. It was also once thought of as providing a photographer with a worthwhile pension... however, on the monkey writing Shakespeare principle, sheer volume of product from a worldwide supply of monkeys has reduced it to little more than a vanity venture. And there is a delicious irony at play: the very agencies whose greed for greater share of the photographer´s talent´s  returns made stock less viable are now killing each other.

Have fun, boys, and let´s hope the fairer ones still around will survive.

Rob C
« Last Edit: February 26, 2008, 05:21:08 am by Rob C »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up