Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: stock photography comparison  (Read 4919 times)

orc73

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
stock photography comparison
« on: October 10, 2014, 12:52:01 pm »

Hi

I'm looking into stock photography, anybody any recommendations on the different providers?
Which one will be the best way to earn some money for which kind of photos?


I see shutterstock is popular, they pay only 25c per picture.

Here is a comparison:
http://stockphotoadviser.com/royalty_comparison.html

Most of the sites are only described with %, so don't know what that means.

best regards
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
    • advantica blog
Re: stock photography comparison
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2014, 08:32:32 pm »

You are right, different stock agencies pay different royalties. To correct such discrepancies, one enterprising felonfellow decided to aggregate 4,000 of the top selling images from other photographers on various stock sites which pay anywhere between 15% and 25% onto Alamy under his own label where he gets 50% of the proceeds. The name is not Robin Hood, but Adam Fier, however that name may be more fictitious than the portfolio in question will be on next day.

As of now, some 24 hours after the initial detection and warning posting, the stolen and aggregated portfolio is still up:

http://goo.gl/8R0JyT

Lively discussion with many examples of stolen artwork can be found at:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142791

« Last Edit: October 26, 2014, 09:06:49 am by LesPalenik »
Logged

Deardorff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
Re: stock photography comparison
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2014, 12:31:31 pm »

.25 a picture is not "pay". It is theft, it is offensive and it is not a business to be involved in.

How many images would you need to sell or license at that price to make back the cost of one camera body? Insurance and depreciation? Travel expenses?

It is as stupid as the tailor making pants to sell for $5 that cost him $6 to make and figuring he will make it up on volume sales.

If you want to sell stock, market your own.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17798
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: stock photography comparison
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2014, 02:52:38 pm »

I can wholeheartedly recommend ImageBrief. They pay 70% of already high royalties.

Zave Smith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
Re: stock photography comparison
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2014, 03:35:07 pm »

I would need to know a lot more information about what you shoot and what type of images you are planning to supply the stock industry.  While the money in stock is not what it was in the 1990's, there is still money to be made, if you are producing the right type of images.  I would suggest you spend a bit of time on the sites of Corbis, Getty, Offset or Image Source and see what type of pictures they are featuring.  I would then search for the type of images you are producing and see if they handle such imagery.  I will tell you that travel and landscape are the hardest type of images to get any return from.

Getty, Corbis and Image Source share between 30-50% of revenue with their photographers.  The question is not whom has the highest percentage but the highest percentage of what.  100% of a buck is not much.  Also, support from ones agency is helpful.  There was a time when agency gave photographers real life editors with whom a photographer could communicate with and generate ideas.  Except for a few  exceptions this is no longer the case at Getty or Corbis.  The other insult or time suck with Getty and many of the Micro Agencies is that the photographer has to provide fully retouched and keyworded images before the agency decides whether to accept those images.

While I have contracts with Getty, Corbis, Blend, and AgeFotostock, I am currently giving almost 100% of my stock production to Image Source.

Sincerely,

Zave Smith
www.zavesmith.com
Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: stock photography comparison
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2015, 08:59:15 pm »

.25 a picture is not "pay". It is theft, it is offensive and it is not a business to be involved in.

How many images would you need to sell or license at that price to make back the cost of one camera body? Insurance and depreciation? Travel expenses?

It is as stupid as the tailor making pants to sell for $5 that cost him $6 to make and figuring he will make it up on volume sales.

If you want to sell stock, market your own.

Hell, .25? You can get 24 million for free here.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Do it for love or market your own pix. But the world is polluted with pix...zillions of photogs . I'd advise to get a real job and shoot what you love.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up