Selling on microstock sites

[DanK]

Has anyone here had any experience selling on microstock sites? I hadn't given them any thought until recently, but I have been thinking about uploading a bunch of the ones I currently have hoarded in my "second tier" galleries (not viewable on my Smugmug site except for folks who have the links). I'm curious about others' experience with these.

Dan

[deetheturk]

Never tried it myself Dan, but keep us posted if you have any success

[NorthernFocus]

I've looked into it a couple of times and know others who use them. There is a good bit of effort involved to get started. It's definitely not simply free cash waiting to be picked up by all comers. If you have to time and energy to get over the initial hump it can be "steady work". Many struggling pros blame their woes on the world of stock photos.

[DanK]

Thanks, all. Very helpful.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

I have no expertise in the topic being discussed but I do wonder if your post doesn't pertain mostly to stock agencies as opposed to the microstock agencies that Dan asked about. The reason I mention this is that I've seen pieces published at PetaPixel that make me think there might be a substantial difference between the models used by stock agencies and microstock agencies.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Nor do I have any expertise, just a little bit of insight to share.

The link that Dan included refers to Shutterstock, I Stock etc as microstock agencies... And Istock is owned by Getty images a stock agency? Similarly Corbis (stock) by Shutterstock (microstock)? If this is incorrect just let me know and I will delete my post.

Thank you.

Christina,

I have no expertise in the topic being discussed but I do wonder if your post doesn't pertain mostly to stock agencies as opposed to the microstock agencies that Dan asked about. The reason I mention this is that I've seen pieces published at PetaPixel that make me think there might be a substantial difference between the models used by stock agencies and microstock agencies.

[tbob]

I sell on three sites; iStock, Dreamstime and Shutterstock. Nonexclusive on all three sites. Which for iStock really cuts down on the sales as they really push you to be exclusive. However exclusive means I cannot sell any image commercially which I am giving them exclusive rights to. Too restrictive as the local tourist board and several small companies have bought images to use and I want that freedom in the future. Might be an entirely different kettle of fish if you are shooting images specifically to sell as stock but I shoot local landscapes for fun and my own self gratification. Stock is not what I am shooting, just a minor aspect in my mind.

Definitely will not be able to retire on my earnings. Probably close to $1000 CDN in the four years I have been doing this. Granted, old barns and prairie fields have minimal use for stock so it quite feasible to do better. Remember; stock images are used by other artists or in advertising so the largest number of sales are for people doing things or specific images of items or symbols. However I am content with my minor niche. I have no interest in setting up to shoot in studio or in lighting beyond what the sun provides.

Stock "artists" can get a little cranky over the presence of people like me. I had one interaction several years ago where I was told my stuff was trite, amateurish and of no commercial use. My response that "perhaps the marketplace was the best judge of that" was not taken well. I am still confused over the outrage. I am not creating images remotely the same as the three people who went off the deep end so was not a threat to their incomes. Just be aware that for some photographers microstock is evil incarnate. Best to not mention it in some circles.

I will say submitting images for stock will hone your technical side. Noise, dust spots, blown out highlights, posterization, poor colour balance, over (or under) saturation, poor focus for the subject, camera shake, sharpness (or over sharpness), poor lighting and exposure issues are the first criteria for screening. Any of the above and the image is chucked out. Then screeners assess it for that nebulous quality: marketability.

Good luck. Always a nice ego boost to sell an image.

[Saorsa]

I have worked with Dreamstime for a few years and have had some good and bad times.Dreamstime I've had over 500 accepted but if they don't sell they ask you to remove them or move them to the free image area.

You really need to get a lot of images accepted before you start showing up in searches.

Once that happens, the buyers often look at other work by the same photographer. They have a subscription plan that means that you get 42 cents per subscription sale. I didn't care for that much at first but have found that some folks use the subscription process to build their own in-house libraries and then buy larger versions if they decide to use it in a campaign or article.

To date I have made a couple of thousand dollars over a few years. They only pay out when your account balance reaches $100 so I've made a few hundred dollars a year. I've made more from local publishing and art shows but I figured I would let them sit on their computer where somebody will be looking.

The link above with the stonehenge image is a referral link if you don't like the referral, just go to dreamstime.com. There are plenty of other agencies though if you look. Just search for Microstock ratings. Dreamstime is usually pretty high.

[Mike Buckley]

No need to delete your post, Christina, especially not based on anything I understand, which might be flawed.

I'm just having a difficult time comprehending the real difference between a stock agency and a microstock agency other than that it seems to be a lot easier to be represented by a microstock agency than a stock agency and that the average price paid to a photographer per photo is going to be a lot less by a microstock agency than a stock agency. I could be wrong about all of that, but that is what I gather.

Your point that stock agencies own microstock agencies and vice versa is irrelevant in my mind for the same reason that it's irrelevant that premium-fare airlines own discount-fare airlines; the primary product or service being bought and sold are the same though the business models are fundamentally different.

As I read this thread, it seems that people are using the terms microstock and stock interchangeably, so that's especially confusing to me when trying to comprehend the real difference between a stock agency and a microstock agency.

[Saorsa]

There are a couple of operational differences. Microstock has been driven by digital capabilities. There are millions of folks taking pictures. Every one of them can submit a small portfolio to a microstock agency and be accepted or rejected as a contributor. The big stock agencies developed their business model prior to the digital photography and communications and storage capabilities of today.

The old stock agencies were archives of prints. If you wanted a photo you needed to describe your need and the staff would pull actual prints or slides from the archives to present. This often meant making multiple copies of prints and filing them appropriately and accurately. For example, you might need a picture of a soccer star in the sports collection and another by name in the celebrity section.

Another difference is selectivity. Some of the major stock agencies started as collectives. Photo journalists were out journaling, not operating a business so Magnum was born.

Microstock selects on the actual image, not the photographers name (I have seen some of that coming about though).

[Brownbear]

I'm just having a difficult time comprehending the real difference between a stock agency and a microstock agency other than that it seems to be a lot easier to be represented by a microstock agency than a stock agency and that the average price paid to a photographer per photo is going to be a lot less by a microstock agency than a stock agency. I could be wrong about all of that, but that is what I gather.

Hi Mike,

I decided to delete my post because it was based on a couple months of personal experience and after reading your reply I came to the realization that I just don't know enough about the subject matter.

Here are a couple of links...

http://stock.miklav.com/stock2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography

I'm heading out but after a quick glance at the info in the links it seems to me that yes, the main difference is that stock image companies such as Getty Images are at a higher standard in terms of the level of photography (established professional photographers with a large portfolio) and the fees paid to the photographer than microstock companies which seem to be based on low cost images and volume sales.

When I think of a Getty Image I think of your "Boardroom" image... Technical perfection, artistic and conceptual.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks to the first link provided by Christina, I have a better handle on the difference between microstock and traditional stock agencies. For the first time, I understand the difference in business models as they pertain to the benefits they offer to their customers. Keep in mind that the piece was written four years ago, so it's likely that there has been some shift if not changes in both business models since then.

Perhaps most important, if that piece is accurate, it confirms everything I have seen (which isn't much) about the primary benefits of microstock agencies to photographers. They provide an opportunity to:

• experience the thrill of having your photos purchased even though the monetary reward on its own might not justify the time required to manage the process
• enjoy the artistic and administrative process of supplying microstock agencies with photos

I'm still not convinced the microstock model is going to succeed in the long term. If it doesn't, the implications for photographers making an investment in time will be important. It's easy to be misled about the news of a purchase of a microstock agency for tens of millions of dollars. As an example, GoDaddy.com has raised hundreds of millions of dollars over the years including nearly $500 million for its recent public offering. All of that for a company that is 18 years old and has never made a profit.

My hunch is that microstock and traditional stock models are going to become closer to each other with:

• the microstock companies offering more services to customers, more revenue per photo and lower volume to photographers
• the traditional stock companies offering fewer services to customers, less revenue per photo and higher volume to photographers

[DanK]

Thanks, all. I think this is enough to dissuade me. I thought it might be a way to get the validation from selling stuff, but it sounds like it is more trouble than it is worth.

[Brownbear]

I just read the article in the link I shared and I found it to be informative and interesting in how complicated it is. I didn't realize how little about the subject I knew.

I found it somewhat disheartening to read that the requirements for some stock companies are portfolios with 1000's of images in a definite style... Yet, some photographers do very well (albeit likely in the minority) with micro stock images through volume and repeat sales but results unknown unless you put in the time and effort.

Midstock... Never heard of the term until today but it sounds like a nice in between place.

[Mike Buckley]

I found it somewhat disheartening to read that the requirements for some stock companies are portfolios with 1000's of images in a definite style...

About ten years ago I came in contact with a salesperson who had previously represented a traditional stock agency. His biggest sale was a photo that was licensed to Nike. He explained that his employer wouldn't consider representing any photographer that didn't have a quality portfolio of at least 10,000 images.

[audriusm]

Has anyone here had any experience selling on microstock sites? I hadn't given them any thought until recently, but I have been thinking about uploading a bunch of the ones I currently have hoarded in my "second tier" galleries (not viewable on my Smugmug site except for folks who have the links). I'm curious about others' experience with these.

Dan

I am microstock contributor for about 3 years with more than 2500 images in me portfolio. I think microstocks are quite good place if you want to add some photos and not to care about them as well as get some money. I like that from travelling perspective. If you travel somewhere and take photos it is quite clever to add them to stocks. In this way you have them in your collection as good memories but it have a chance to be sold as well. 2 years ago I went to Oslo to spend some of me holidays and one photo of Oslo Opera House have almost cover my travelling expenses at the moment. This thing I guess is most valuable, but this don't earn a lot. I am working with stocks for me free time and that generates more income.

If you interesting in stock photography you can check me small report of my incomes from 6 stocks here:
http://www.amphoto.lt/stocks.php

I am working with these stocks agencies, but I gues Shutterstock, Fotolia and 123RF works best for me:
Shutterstock: http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=1865198
Fotolia: http://www.fotolia.com/partner/204297204
123RF: http://www.123rf.com/#audriusmerfeldas
Deposit photos: http://depositphotos.com?ref=1756291
Dreamstime: http://www.dreamstime.com/register#res6959677

[mastamak]

I have contributed to iStock, Dreamstime for some years now. I used to contribute to Shutterstock but found their rejection criteria vague, arbitrary and slightly insulting. In addition their payment per image was only 25 cents and on a number of occasions I managed to sell the same image on iStock for up to $3.
There is a lot of work involved in keywording and uploading your photos but once you get a routine going it is not too bad. If your photos are rejected both Dreamstime and iStock will provide relevant reasons for rejection which is helpful in honing your photographic skills. Images must be clean, sharp and with no artifacts and after a few rejections you soon learn what is acceptable and what is not.
As to income, as Trevor says above, there is no way I will retire on my stock income, but it is great to sell an image that otherwise just resides unlooked at on my hard drive and every now and then $100 or more gets deposited into my Paypal account which gives me some funds to re-invest in my photography. Once you get a few hundred images posted and make some sales, a pattern will emerge as to the sort of image you are able to sell and this allows you to concentrate in one area. Magazines, newspapers and travel brochures all use stock photography and with a bit of experience you can recognise stock photos at a glance. This is also a good source of material when you are trying to decide where to concentrate you stock portfolio.

[Steaphany]

What turned me off with the stock photo market was finding a mass produced calendar in a book shore a few years back featuring landscapes. Not a single photographer's name was given credit, instead each photo listed a stock provider as the "photographer". I forget what stock site it was, but I later searched and found their licensing rates and calculated the costs for the calendar publisher being about $500 in total.

I felt it was pretty sad for the photographers receiving no credit. They were paid pennies per image while their work was being selected for a mass produced calendar priced for sale at $12 to $15 in a print run in the thousands to tens of thousands. The total expense for the publisher being a few hundred dollars and the cost of paper and press time.