istockphoto - I got rejected three times!

[LeicaFoReVer]

I heard that site a lot and at the end I wanted to give it a try to sell my photos. I got rejected three times and annoyed with the comments from their judges saying my photos dont measure up the quality, bla bla...then one time telling me that all the photos I uploaded are about the same subject matter and they want to see the diversity of my work bla bla...

Has anyone have any experience on this site? Any one selling on the site?

I know ok stock photography is a different era and photos need to be really good but I believe I have some good work and I see some crappy photos some members post on istock....

So what is going on? Shall I give up?

[LeicaFoReVer]

I will upload the ones I uploaded later on today so we can discuss on them...

I put illustrative ones specifically...

[Mcary]

I heard that site a lot and at the end I wanted to give it a try to sell my photos. I got rejected three times and annoyed with the comments from their judges saying my photos dont measure up the quality, bla bla...then one time telling me that all the photos I uploaded are about the same subject matter and they want to see the diversity of my work bla bla...

Has anyone have any experience on this site? Any one selling on the site?

I know ok stock photography is a different era and photos need to be really good but I believe I have some good work and I see some crappy photos some members post on istock....

So what is going on? Shall I give up?

OK lets pretend I'm istockphoto or another such site. Now I want you to tell me what product, service or idea that your images will help one of our client's sell?

[ethics_gradient]

I personally wouldn't waste my time with microstock.

[Roger Hicks]

There are two reasons for rejections.

One is that you hit the wrong person at the wrong time. This happens to EVERYONE.

The other is that you're not good enough, ever. This can happen too, but I'd not assume it necessarily applies to you. I never have.

Bear in mind also that it's seldom a good idea to submit essentially the same work to someone whose 'corporate culture' appears to be against you.

Cheers,

R.

[swoop]

I've been rejected from ModelMayhem twice. It happens.

[antiquark]

Are you using film? From what I've read, the stock photo agencies don't much care for film.

[anu L ogy]

Wont model mayhem reject you for stupidity, like having the wrong avatar size and what not?

[LeicaFoReVer]

I do shoot mostly film...well I guess I am going to give up the idea...

[LeicaFoReVer]

There are two reasons for rejections.

One is that you hit the wrong person at the wrong time. This happens to EVERYONE.

The other is that you're not good enough, ever. This can happen too, but I'd not assume it necessarily applies to you. I never have.

Bear in mind also that it's seldom a good idea to submit essentially the same work to someone whose 'corporate culture' appears to be against you.

Cheers,

R.

i agree with all of your points here...

[photogdave]

From what I've been told by friends who do sell to stock agencies, it's no longer worth the time. By the time you've edited your images and tagged all the info you're actually working for pennies an hour.

[antiquark]

From what I've been told by friends who do sell to stock agencies, it's no longer worth the time. By the time you've edited your images and tagged all the info you're actually working for pennies an hour.

You hear stories of people who can make a living from it, but it's not something they do in their spare time. They consider stock photography to be their day job.

[photogdave]

You hear stories of people who can make a living from it, but it's not something they do in their spare time. They consider stock photography to be their day job.
Yes, I meant to say that if you already have a full time job it's probably not worth it. I know a few people that have shot stock since the 80s who say it's pretty hard to earn a living doing it full time these days.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Well yeah, you are probably right then...I was thinking for some bucks to support my GAS :)
Then if it is that hard to satisfy them, no more time to waste...

It seems like nobody here does that stock photography, everybody has an example from friends...

[antiquark]

Good, then we are all in agreement!
http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/0/1/large2/104958.jpg (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-104958/stock-photo-corporate-deal-blue-handshake)
(Currently the most popular image at bigstockphoto.com).

[Damaso]

Consider it a sign, they aren't a great place to sell your images...

[nikku]

Good, then we are all in agreement!
http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/0/1/large2/104958.jpg (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-104958/stock-photo-corporate-deal-blue-handshake)
(Currently the most popular image at bigstockphoto.com).

I think that about sums it up.

[Renzsu]

I think that about sums it up.

I'd rather set my car on fire and drive off a cliff than take photos like that for a living.

[Mcary]

Well yeah, you are probably right then...I was thinking for some bucks to support my GAS :)
Then if it is that hard to satisfy them, no more time to waste...

It seems like nobody here does that stock photography, everybody has an example from friends...


I gave it a try a few of years back and the getting accepted part was easy.
I started with Shutter stock by taking about 30 minutes to pick out 10 random images from Lightroom then applied keywords exported them to a folder and uploaded them. Received approval with a score of 9/10 about two hours later during the next year or so I submitted about 700 image with an success rate of about 88%. During this same period I sucessfully applied for most of the other main microstock agencies including istockphoto, Bigstockphoto, Dreamtime plus a few more that I don't recall as sells were so low. I still get a random payment of $100.00 or so from Shutterstock once or twice a year but decided that I already had a job and decide I'd rather spend my off time shooting what I enjoy, which is primarily available light nudes, followed by street.

[LeicaFoReVer]

that is a good story Mike, but even with that success rate...yeah, unless you really devote yourself to do that stuff...

[umcelinho]

Good, then we are all in agreement!
http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/0/1/large2/104958.jpg (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-104958/stock-photo-corporate-deal-blue-handshake)
(Currently the most popular image at bigstockphoto.com).

a true powerpoint presentation classic!

[David Murphy]

I just looked at your flickr stream -- your photos look very good to me! Probably some snobby judges over there.

I heard that site a lot and at the end I wanted to give it a try to sell my photos. I got rejected three times and annoyed with the comments from their judges saying my photos dont measure up the quality, bla bla...then one time telling me that all the photos I uploaded are about the same subject matter and they want to see the diversity of my work bla bla...

Has anyone have any experience on this site? Any one selling on the site?

I know ok stock photography is a different era and photos need to be really good but I believe I have some good work and I see some crappy photos some members post on istock....

So what is going on? Shall I give up?

[swoop]

Wont model mayhem reject you for stupidity, like having the wrong avatar size and what not?

I don't know what their deal is. But a friend told me to sign up and I didn't have enough people pics. And I was like of course not, that's why I signed up so I could start doing that kind of work. And the second time I think I actually did upload a bunch of people pics but again they weren't up to snuff. These were all street style photos mind you. So yeah, I see the point that my images aren't in line with the typical model mayhem thing. But again, that's why I wanted to join so I could start photographing people in that way and get more experience. A Catch 22 scenario if there ever was one.

[swoop]

You hear stories of people who can make a living from it, but it's not something they do in their spare time. They consider stock photography to be their day job.

I think there was a whole story about this in PDN. About a handful of people who actually made a decent living on one image that sold thousands of times over. A total fluke situation. Like these people didn't even intend for it to be stock stuff but put their work on the site just because.

If you do it don't expect a fortune. I think the majority of people just get a $50 check in the mail every few months or something like that from what I remember about the story. It's extra money for stuff you did in your spare time.

As for doing it 40 hours a week. I'm sure there are people trying but I imagine the effort outweighs the reward.

[leicashot]

Sorry to hear, but the stock industry is been ruined by it's parent company (who shall remain nameless) and it's no longer about quality, but about images that sell, even for as little as they sell for.

If they rejected your images don't take it personally it's a reflection on subject matter, not quality of your work.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Here are the last 3 photos I uploaded:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HTsPKHm-o1I/TGqM529krnI/AAAAAAAADrc/TUkyqQDqSIg/s640/IMGP1703.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_HTsPKHm-o1I/TGqM7UVH1TI/AAAAAAAADrg/Fendh-j6Ahk/s640/img052.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_HTsPKHm-o1I/TGqM7wBthTI/AAAAAAAADrk/azNC6jbiveQ/s640/img022_psp2.jpg

[reiki_]

its just slavery.

[filmfan]

Those last three photos look very "stock". They would go well with the handshake photo. I am surprised they did not get accepted.

[Mcary]

Those last three photos look very "stock". They would go well with the handshake photo. I am surprised they did not get accepted.

Not to be blunt but I'm not at all surprised that these didn't get accepted. Simple fact is these are easy stock shots that yes would have been accepted when micro stock was first starting out. But not today as they already have more then enough similar images to meet current demands.

[filmfan]

Not to be blunt but I'm not at all surprised that these didn't get accepted. Simple fact is these are easy stock shots that yes would have been accepted when micro stock was first starting out. But not today as they already have more then enough similar images to meet current demands.

My comment was an attempt to call the photos bland/generic without being so blunt. I guess I failed to pull it off.

[antiquark]

Here are the last 3 photos I uploaded:



They might already have enough pictures like that. For example, I searched for "jellyfish" at istockphoto, and they already have 700 photographs.

Also, the images are oversaturated, which makes them hard for the buyer to postprocess.

[Brian Legge]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the second shot has dust marks or something on it? All of the stock places I've looked at call that out as a specific issue they'll turn down shots on.

The door shot has some appealing characteristics but doesn't leave much space for adding text, etc. Personally, the shot would have been a bit more appealing if it were more symmetrical or less straight on but thats just personal aesthetic.

The jellyfish shot is likely too much like images they already have in their catalog. I still can't sort out how shots like this work from a release standpoint. The release issue alone is what drove me away from anything stock related.

In the end, I think you may have started out with one strike against you and nothing which was exceptional enough undo it. Thats just my guess though.

[antiquark]

To succeed at stock photography, you will have to change how you look at the world. When you're walking around you must constantly ask "how would this look in a powerpoint presentation?"

Then, when you raise the camera to your eye, make sure to frame so there's a little clear space near the top corner, for some overlaid text. Ideally, you would think of a business cliche and visualize the text along with your image. So if you took a picture of someone smiling, you'd visualize the text "the customer is always right!" or "people first!"

After practising like that for a few months, you might start selling stock photos... however, you would also grow to hate your hobby. :)

[LeicaFoReVer]

Thank you very much for the comments...The dots in the second photo are the reflection of sand particles on the beach sand not dust...well some oversaturation might be present in the first one but third is how it really looks like...First one is digital from a pentax dslr, second is from leica iiif and third is from M6 and canon 50mm f1.2 (kodak ultramax 400) in vancouver aquarium, available light. It might be true that they already have lots of similar photos...

[antiquark]

Thank you very much for the comments...The dots in the second photo are the reflection of sand particles on the beach sand not dust...well some oversaturation might be present in the first one but third is how it really looks like...First one is digital from a pentax dslr, second is from leica iiif and third is from M6 and canon 50mm f1.2 (kodak ultramax 400) in vancouver aquarium, available light. It might be true that they already have lots of similar photos...

Their response would have been chosen from an "A,B,C" list of rejection reasons. So, not precisely applicable to your pictures.

Their page says they need the following shots:
http://www.istockphoto.com/needed.php
Corporate shots
Groups & Teams
Concept Stock
Sports
Rare Artifacts
...etc...

So if I were to get into stock photography, the first thing I'd do it gather up my photogenic friends, put them in business suits, and take pictures of them sitting in offices, shaking hands, and standing in groups or teams. :)

[Mcary]

Their response would have been chosen from an "A,B,C" list of rejection reasons. So, not precisely applicable to your pictures.

Their page says they need the following shots:
http://www.istockphoto.com/needed.phpCorporate shots
Groups & Teams
Concept Stock
Sports
Rare Artifacts
...etc...
So if I were to get into stock photography, the first thing I'd do it gather up my photogenic friends, put them in business suits, and take pictures of them sitting in offices, shaking hands, and standing in groups or teams. :)

Also get the ones with kids to meet you at the local park and or play ground as kids and family pics sell very well as stock.

[LeicaFoReVer]

:))

well too much headache for 100$...then you need model appearance papers bla bla...

Their response would have been chosen from an "A,B,C" list of rejection reasons. So, not precisely applicable to your pictures.

Their page says they need the following shots:
http://www.istockphoto.com/needed.phpCorporate shots
Groups & Teams
Concept Stock
Sports
Rare Artifacts
...etc...
So if I were to get into stock photography, the first thing I'd do it gather up my photogenic friends, put them in business suits, and take pictures of them sitting in offices, shaking hands, and standing in groups or teams. :)

[LeicaFoReVer]

Also get the ones with kids to meet you at the local park and or play ground as kids and family pics sell very well as stock.

I have very nice examples of this kind of shots but dont I need model approval or whatever it is, paper or not? It is impossible to find those people and kids I shot :)

[coelacanth]

Probably it's safer to get a release signed if kids are involved even the shots were taken in public place.

And be sure to check the aquarium (if you took the jellies shot in one) website or documents if you could use material taken at the aquarium for commercial use. Many don't let you.

I use stock photos including istockphoto regularly for work. There are types of photos that I can find too easily and have to spend long time choosing the right one, and there are photos that I have hard time finding any at all. Maybe you can come up with some scenarios, try to find photos, then see what type of photos are lacking thus needed? Kid/family photos are definitely one of them.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Probably it's safer to get a release signed if kids are involved even the shots were taken in public place.

And be sure to check the aquarium (if you took the jellies shot in one) website or documents if you could use material taken at the aquarium for commercial use. Many don't let you.

I use stock photos including istockphoto regularly for work. There are types of photos that I can find too easily and have to spend long time choosing the right one, and there are photos that I have hard time finding any at all. Maybe you can come up with some scenarios, try to find photos, then see what type of photos are lacking thus needed? Kid/family photos are definitely one of them.


Do you know if I submit some examples of kid photos for approval if they are going to ask for permission papers at the first hand? Or those examples I submit to apply are just for application purpose if I dont sell them...

[antiquark]

With stock photography, it's 100% necessary to get model releases. That's because the pictures can end up anywhere... literally!

Your picture of grandpa with a big smile on his face could end up on a Viagra billboard in Times square! No joke!

[Mcary]

Do you know if I submit some examples of kid photos for approval if they are going to ask for permission papers at the first hand? Or those examples I submit to apply are just for application purpose if I dont sell them...

Most stock agencies require you to submit the release(s) for review at the same time as you submit the images. Its also a good idea to use one of the released from one of the larger sites like Shutterstock just remove the any wording related to that site and you should have a good generic release.

[coelacanth]

Found this: http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php

Many stock photo sites let you choose what use/industry/nature your photo can be used (e.g. No porn, no illegal drug ad) but you'll just never know. I assume that's a big part of the reasons why you can't find many kids/family type of photos.

Ask your designer/marketing friends what type of photo they have hard time finding.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Found this: http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php

Many stock photo sites let you choose what use/industry/nature your photo can be used (e.g. No porn, no illegal drug ad) but you'll just never know. I assume that's a big part of the reasons why you can't find many kids/family type of photos.

Ask your designer/marketing friends what type of photo they have hard time finding.

Yes it is hard to have a control on that...you never know where it will end...:eek:

[Mcary]

Probably it's safer to get a release signed if kids are involved even the shots were taken in public place.



It really depends on the usage of the image(s) For images that will be used for commercial purposes a model release is required for each recongizable person in a picture. One the other hand images can be used for editorial purpose without having a release, but the market is tilted to 99% commercial 1% editorial.

[coelacanth]

I'm speaking from customer's point of view.

Photos I need (hard to find)

• Natural kids/family shots (reasons listed above)
• Shots with white/black background (quicker to use in presentations)
• Animals
• In-motion shots without photoshop job (real motion blur, etc)
• Anything that I have better control in short time
- No cropped elements
- Background easier to manipulate
- Good exposure with no clipping, etc


Photos I don't need (too many out there)

• Hard to manipulate shots (see above)
• Composed photo like dollar sign, 1&0 all over
• Meeting shots, anything office related, two people handshaking
• Blondie with inter-com and smile.
• Fake motion blur or pretty much any photoshop effects you can think of

[LeicaFoReVer]

I'm speaking from customer's point of view.

Photos I need (hard to find)

• Natural kids/family shots (reasons listed above)
• Shots with white/black background (quicker to use in presentations)
• Animals
• In-motion shots without photoshop job (real motion blur, etc)
• Anything that I have better control in short time- No cropped elements
- Background easier to manipulate
- Good exposure with no clipping, etcPhotos I don't need (too many out there)

• Hard to manipulate shots (see above)
• Composed photo like dollar sign, 1&0 all over
• Meeting shots, anything office related, two people handshaking
• Blondie with inter-com and smile.
• Fake motion blur or pretty much any photoshop effects you can think of

Thanks for referencing me :)

"Hard to manipulate shots (see above)". If I am a photoshop geek, I would be easily manipulate above photos. Actually I did some for the jellyfish photo. I erased some reflections on the glass. It was pretty easy even if I am not familiar with photoshop...


Though they say they dont need animal photos anymore and they need more corporate photos.

Just have a look at people's photos and tell me what percentage of them fit the above description. That is the ideal case you are giving.

[coelacanth]

"they need more corporate photos."

LOL.

I specialize in fixing super cheesy marketing materials, presentations, UI, web presence, etc and I have more than enough clients to help out. That means the market is filled with people looking for more typical corporate shots and handshaking interracial man and woman in bright futuristic office. ;)

I certainly don't need smiling customer service rep shots any more than we have right now.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Images that iStock does need:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.1.jpg Corporate shots
Everyone looks a little more handsome when a suit's involved.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.2.jpg Groups & Teams
One person is great, two, three, four… just gets better and better.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.3.jpg Concept Stock
Leave it to others to shoot the obvious.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.4.jpg Sports
Cycling, ping pong, soccer, skateboarding, kung-fu, bocci ball, the list goes on.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.5.jpg Rare Artifacts
The more rare, the better.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.6.jpg Illustrations
Vector and not rasterized.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.7.jpg Holiday & Seasonal Themes
Christmas, Valentines, Easter: don’t wait until the last minute.

Fashion
Leave the jeans behind, unless they're couture...

Analogue and Grunge
Intriguing textures, effects, & treatments – not for the amateur of style.

Food and Beverages
Preferably with someone holding the edible item.

Images that iStock does not need:

Your dog or cat
He's adorable. Send a picture to your mom.

Flowers
iStock now possesses the definitive online collection of files called ‘flower’.

Flags
We can now proudly say we have every country covered.

Photos of your feet, socks, etc.
Try looking up with your camera instead.
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_images/5.15.jpg Your immediate environment
Get up, move around a little. Keyboards, mice, cables, compact discs, floppy discs and monitors are covered.

Light Blurs
Great for fun and experimenting...

Brick walls
The Wall came down in 1989. Get over it.

Close-ups of fire
It's for your own safety.

Close-ups of eyes
They scare small children.

Symbols (!$%@)
You see it in every e-mail.

Sunsets & clouds
Very pretty, but...

Forest Snap Shots
We love nature, but...

Airplane Wings (& out the window shots)
In the end, they seem to all look the same.

Your Shadow
Try another route of dodging the model release.

Overly simple 3-D & Bryce renderings & Photoshop backgrounds
Challenge yourself a little.

Photoshop Backgrounds
Fun to experiment, but they're not quite stock.

Overly simple text
Let people pick out their own fonts.

[coelacanth]

the questions is,

Do you want to shoot those you listed they need? :D

[LeicaFoReVer]

probably no :)

It is too much restricted...I should be able to put descent shots and sell to someone likes...few or many, does not matter..So that is why I better continue my zenfolio...

[coelacanth]

And I love your photos on zenfolio a lot more than any stockphotos. :D Don't give in to the darkside, and enjoy what you love, right? :D

[LeicaFoReVer]

And I love your photos on zenfolio a lot more than any stockphotos. :D Don't give in to the darkside, and enjoy what you love, right? :D


Ok thanks a lot!! I am glad that you liked my zenfolio!

[kbg32]

From what I've been told by friends who do sell to stock agencies, it's no longer worth the time. By the time you've edited your images and tagged all the info you're actually working for pennies an hour.


One does not "sell" to stock agencies. If you do, you've picked the wrong one. Stock agencies basically license imagery for a certain usage for a particular amount of time. That is how they get paid. Of which you earn and get paid a percentage, a royalty, of that sale.

[Pico]

They are a slick photo agency. It helps to get a feel for their needs. As a former picture editor, I can tell you that there are only a few standard rejection comments to make.

They are probably overwhelmed with submissions and have a push-button batching process for rejections. I would. After a while particular photographers would be rejected without even looking at the work.

[shadowfox]

probably no :)

It is too much restricted...I should be able to put descent shots and sell to someone likes...few or many, does not matter..So that is why I better continue my zenfolio...

Aykut (btw, your name is very intriguing, I'd love to know its origin and meaning),

Truthfully, your images are too artistic and personal to be a stock-image.
Just in case it's not clear, I *like* your photographs :)

I played that game of pleasing-the-reviewers a few years back, and I got accepted (istockphoto, and another one whose name escapes me now), but I hated the whole experience.

I don't want to spend a lot of time getting an image just so I can measure up (or down) to the reviewer's "standard." I stopped the whole thing and never looked back.

Keep shooting the way you enjoy, make an honest effort to create a good photobook (now, that's an exercise of editing that will make your head hurts).

And don't expect miracles ;)

[LeicaFoReVer]

Hi Will,

Thanks for your time to review my photos and I am glad you like them. My name is Turkish by the way :)

[coelacanth]

How do you pronounce your name? (If you don't mind me asking)

I have a coworker from Turkey. His name is written Cuneyt but pronounced "june-eight" according to him. :)

[LeicaFoReVer]

more or less sounds like "I could" without the L pronounced :)

June-eight is not a bad method. only thing is "u" must be turkish "u" with dots, which is pronounced like in "jude"

:)

[photocodo]

I recently started putting my work on istockphoto. I have found it to be very discouraging and they are very picky in their selection of photos. That being said, I have a friend who is making $2000/month on istock. I was shocked when he told me that because my success has been minimal. His suggestions are that your images HAVE to be simple, not over processed, not too much clutter... just simple. Conceptual images are the only ones that sell on there.
The image is only half the battle, if people cant find your image, then they wont buy your image. You have to be proficient at key wording. Here are the tips he gave me.
1. The first 10 keywords should be conceptual, if possible (eg. teamwork, stewardship, compassion etc) then use words to describe your image (eg. man, sky, hand, dog, etc). The search engine searches from the beginning of your keywords first and most people are looking for those conceptual images.
2. You dont need 50 keywords because the search engine searches from the front of your list to the back, the last 30 words will never even make it to the search engine. So keep your keywording simple but very accurate.
3. Dont use multiple versions or words (eg. hand and hands), the search engine will automate these variations for you.

I have seen many people who only have 800 or 1000 images be more successful than those with thousands of images, simply because they know how to keyword to get their images to the front of the results page.

When it comes to actually shooting the images, again keep it simple. Ive read a couple people on this post say that stock sites like free space, which I absolutely agree with. So give them free space. My friend sets a goal for himself to shoot and upload 5 great images per week that are keyworded well. It does seem like a lot of work but I have found that with keywording, the more you do it, the easier it becomes. When you search the istock site, look at the first few images that come up and see how they keyword, thats a good indication of how you should do it too.

If you want to make $10,000/month doing stock, then it will be a full time job, but with a little practice and patients you can generate a handsome supplemental income for yourself in no time.

When I go out to shoot for personal assignments, I try to capture at least 1 or 2 images just for stock. I try to browse the istock website every now and then just to see what people are buying and selling. Conceptual images really do sell on these sites. My advice is to stick with it and try it for a year, if your not happy with the results then you can walk away from it.

It is difficult to get the hang of the process (I am still just a beginner) but once you understand what they want and how to effectively get the image to the front of the search pages, I think you will be happy with your results.

Dont let anyone tell you that your not a "real" photographer if you shoot stock, and dont fall under the impression that if you shoot stock you can't shoot anything that you want. What is great about stock, especially if it is not your only income, is that it is supplemental, which makes it a hobby. Plus it is a great feeling to be flipping through a magazine or walking down the street and unexpectedly see your image.

Keep it up and I would love to talk with people about stock so send me a message or something

Photocodo

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

That being said, I have a friend who is making $2000/month on istock. I was shocked when he told me that because my success has been minimal.

His success is minimal too. To make $2000 a month on iStock you have to sell a lot of images. A lot. For pennies. No thanks. I refuse to give my work away, I have to eat. I like to eat. Every day!

I get hundreds and sometimes much more for each photo I sell off my website for stock. I don't sell 10,000 photos a month but I make enough to live off my much smaller volume.

[photocodo]

Im not here to say that any one type of photography is better than the other and I definitely agree that there are a lot of problems with stock photography. But, if someone wants to give it a shot, who am I to say that they are selling out or not staying true to the purest form of photography. I say, if you want to try stock, then great, I respect that. If you feel your time is better spent shooting for what you want to sell, then I respect that too. What I love about photography is that its 100% subjective, thats the beauty of it right, isnt that why we all love it in the first place?

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Im not here to say that any one type of photography is better than the other and I definitely agree that there are a lot of problems with stock photography. But, if someone wants to give it a shot, who am I to say that they are selling out or not staying true to the purest form of photography. I say, if you want to try stock, then great, I respect that. If you feel your time is better spent shooting for what you want to sell, then I respect that too. What I love about photography is that its 100% subjective, thats the beauty of it right, isnt that why we all love it in the first place?

I never said there was anything wrong with stock photography. I make a lot of my living from stock. What I said was wrong was giving your work away for pennies when you could, if you were smart, make a lot more from it. If someone asks to license one of your photos, what would you rather get: $2 or $300? To me its a no brainer. Even if you're just a hobbyist trying to bring a few dollars to buy gear...you can buy a hell of a lot more gear if you charge more for your stock photos.

[CSG123]

Quite enlightening to read this thread. I'm over 40 years into photography and while I've been paid in years past for doing weddings (assisting) and some portrait work, I still don't know what I want to do with the hobby as far as how to make money with it. After spending most of the past 12 years shooting family pictures of my kids like any other new dad I am interested in doing other photography again.

As I looked into all these online stock photo agencies (my wife's company uses iPhoto and others) I started thinking I'd be nuts to seriously pursue this. It's not what I'm interested in shooting and it seems, like in many creative fields, a few are making the decent income and most are lucky to make a couple hundred a year.

So I keep thinking about other ways to try to make money from my work and seeing Chris Crawford's site and approach is, for me anyway, more in line with what I'd like to do. The internet sure has changed everything from back in the day. We can all be rock stars now! ;)

[saxshooter]

this istockphoto thread caught my eye and i thought some may find these blog posts by a colleague of mine enlightening:

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-new-frugality-time-style.html

and this

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2010/09/istockphoto-wait-its-about-money.html

[emraphoto]

Anyone considering 'stock' to be deficient really doesn't undertand how things work. Almost everything is 'stock' really. Even the bulk of the long term and in depth photojournalism. 99.9% is now shot on the photographer iniative and then filed with th respected agency (if your are lucky enought to have one) or istock type outlet. AP, AFP, Reuters, Getty, CP etc. dont have all those folks in the field on assignment. You shoot, you file, the agency pushes it and if you are lucky a media outlet buys. End of the month you get your commission. Not much different from stock except the rates are generally much different. Call it what you want, Getty archives or whatever, it's all stock really.

The amount of people on assignment is frighteningly small.

[CSG123]

Yikes! If that's accurate reporting it makes me feel even more confident in my decision to stay away from sites like iphoto and more inclined to look at other creative avenues for income.

[saxshooter]

AP, AFP, Reuters, Getty, CP etc. dont have all those folks in the field on assignment. You shoot, you file, the agency pushes it and if you are lucky a media outlet buys. End of the month you get your commission. Not much different from stock except the rates are generally much different. Call it what you want, Getty archives or whatever, it's all stock really.

The amount of people on assignment is frighteningly small.

Incorrect. The wire services and photo agency you mention above all have salaried staff employees working and living in the field. When they are out on assignment, their travel and expenses are covered by their employers. They are covered by some sort of insurance if they get sick or hurt. Most media outlets (newspapers and magazines and their online incarnations, Yahoo!, Google, etc.) get the images via subscription.

There may be a stock sales component afterwards.

[emraphoto]

Well you can make a darn good living at it if you know what you are doing and you can get on with a good agency. It's not like uncle Tom is going to get on with Blackstar, Aurora or Redux. You need to know what you are up to.

[emraphoto]

Incorrect. The wire services and photo agency you mention above all have salaried staff employees working and living in the field. When they are out on assignment, their travel and expenses are covered by their employers. They are covered by some sort of insurance if they get sick or hurt. Most media outlets (newspapers and magazines and their online incarnations, Yahoo!, Google, etc.) get the images via subscription.

There may be a stock sales component afterwards.

Like I mentioned, outside of the VERY small percentage shooting wire (which is NOT in depth photojournalism, I know as I did/do it) the bulk are working in a stock like capacity. Comparing the numbers would shock you.

[saxshooter]

I am fortunate to be working as a staff photojournalist (read: I make 100% of my living doing this) for a wire service for the past 16 years, and in that relatively short time I have seen how the business has changed with the arrival of inexpensive digital cameras, laptop computers, and internet access.

The reason I posted those links to John Harrington's blog (his book Best Business Practices for Photographers is a must read) regarding istockphoto is that I want people to be aware of how operations such as these are killing the business. They are grossly undercharging clients and underpaying contributors.

In this terrible advertising climate magazines are hurting so I can imagine that they are thrilled to pay $30 for a stock image (rather than $3000). But they are shooting themselves in the foot. Bean counters will see that it can be done with less. If it can be done for $30, future magazine budgets will be cut even further. Already, most of the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc.) have gotten rid of their contract photographers. The "staff magazine photographer" was long gone before that. It has become more difficult to "make a living" as a photographer.

The statement that those of us who are fortunate enough to have a job in this business and are "working in a stock like capacity" is just not correct. If you look at the total number of photographers shooting the news photos -- AP, Reuters, AFP, European PressPhoto Agency (EPA), CP, and Getty Images -- whose images you mostly see in the mass media -- this is not a small number.

And to say those who are shooting for wire services "is not in depth photojournalism" is an insult. Do you mean to tell me that the wire service photographer who lives in some location for years, who covers that country's elections, natural disasters, social unrest, sporting events, daily life, etc. compared to a photographer who parachutes in (and more likely than not calls up the local wire service photographer to see whats going on) and works for a few days and shoots a story or two, is less in depth? Please.

My colleagues and I are paid to cover the news, not to shoot for stock purposes. Covering the news is what a wire service does. The wire services and even Getty Images (who are in the business of selling photos) employs staffers and contracts freelancers (and I say CONTRACTS, because no one should be doing it "on spec") to be situated in certain places so they can be there when the news happens, to provide these news pictures for the news service which most clients get by subscription. And for the few clients that do not subscribe, a space rate is charged.

But I digress.

I think it's great that there are outlets on the internet for people to get their work seen and sold. But in the case of istockphoto and accepting $30 for your work... it undermines it for everyone. Professionals and part-time professionals included.

[emraphoto]

Again you are missing what I am saying. Staff/wire service shooters exist. They get their wage and have insurance etc. etc. I am not saying they don't exist as that would be silly. I do it.

The case is that crowd is an ever shrinking number. It is already an extremely small percentage. The BULK of what appears, at least in my neck of the woods, via services like AP, Getty and CP is shot prospectively in a manner not unlike stock.

If you take the time to read my post you will also see that I state the money is totally different than istock or that lot. I have yet to recieve less than $250 for an image.

I am not, at any point, arguing that staff or wire shooters exist. I never said that. What i did say is that a LOT of in depth photojournalism is produced on spec. Staff and salaried shooters are few and far between, just like assignments. If you are lucky enought to remain in that crowd than kudos to you. Surely though, you cannot be so out of touch to think that what i am saying is still 'incorrect'

[johnwolf]

As a technical writer, I'm a very heavy iStock user (as well as the other microstock sites). They are looking for images that express concepts, represent things, or serve as backgrounds, ornaments, borders, etc. With the huge volume of files they must receive, I expect they can be very selective.

Your work is more in the fine art genre. If your interest is in making a few bucks from your work, have you tried pursuing that avenue? Seems like it would be a lot more fulfilling for you.

John

[saxshooter]

I don't know what your arrangement is as a freelancer with your agencies, but when you say "The BULK of what appears, at least in my neck of the woods, via services like AP, Getty and CP is shot prospectively in a manner not unlike stock." you are addressing my peer group and I need to say that you really are off mark.

In most cases, staff photographers (and many freelancers) shooting for the wires it is considered "work for hire". This is not a stock arrangement. The agency owns the pictures. There is no sharing of profits. Staffers who shoot for AP, Getty, and CP do not own their images. So you cannot call it stock, or shooting it in a manner "not unlike stock".

And to use your terminology, the BULK of what appears in everyone's daily media, be it print or online -- if it isn't produced by the newspaper photographer or freelancer, it is for the majority, produced by AP, Getty Images, Reuters, AFP staff photographers or stringers (freelancers with contracts).

Private message me offline if you'd like, I don't want to bore everybody with this back and forth.

[emraphoto]

If you are shooting for the wire then you are not working propectively.

If you are on staff for a paper then your are not working prospectively.

If you are, like the bulk of folks out there, shooting prospectively for an agency like Redux, Aurora, Blackstar, CPImages, Getty Archives etc. then you are working in a similar fashion as stock photographers. In Getty's case a poorly paid one.

The BULK of work where I am is created in the latter fashion. Even in the national level dailies.

Take a browse through the National Post here in Canada and read the photo tags. A very, very small portion will read Brett Grundlock (or whomever) The National Post. CP Images (essentially a stock type service) will fill the bulk. Perhaps some sunmedia as well.

Forgive me however I will continue to post here as perhaps beween the two of us we can help folks understand a little bit more on how things work.

[emraphoto]

For reference, in my region alone (about the size of a small european country) there are two fulltime wire guys for the National wire service. The number of stringers filing to the 'archives' is in the hundreds.

[Haigh]

You have many helpers on this forum. Very disappointing for you. I certainly beewn knocked back by many a gallery and many a publication. I post online and if it publishes great, if not at least I think the works ok. Now I am better at seeing what to submit to and what not. I read some comments here that imply that. Good luck anyway and hope this helps a little bit.

[JayGannon]

Again you are missing what I am saying. Staff/wire service shooters exist. They get their wage and have insurance etc. etc. I am not saying they don't exist as that would be silly. I do it.

The case is that crowd is an ever shrinking number. It is already an extremely small percentage. The BULK of what appears, at least in my neck of the woods, via services like AP, Getty and CP is shot prospectively in a manner not unlike stock.

If you take the time to read my post you will also see that I state the money is totally different than istock or that lot. I have yet to recieve less than $250 for an image.

I am not, at any point, arguing that staff or wire shooters exist. I never said that. What i did say is that a LOT of in depth photojournalism is produced on spec. Staff and salaried shooters are few and far between, just like assignments. If you are lucky enought to remain in that crowd than kudos to you. Surely though, you cannot be so out of touch to think that what i am saying is still 'incorrect'

Nope differnt things, I qork s a stringer for AP and a few others, your hired to follow the story they want for a day (Or half) and you hand over your images at the end of the day. They own them and away you go, totally different to stock. There's less and less staff but more and more stringers. But stringers still don't own their images same as shooting staff used to be.

[emraphoto]

Uh, I think you need to read all of my posts. I shot wire, full-time for a long time. Still do it on the rare occasion. I know very well how it works.

What I have said, numerous times elsewhere, and in this thread, is that OUTSIDE of the wire service the process is almost entirely prospective and thus not much different than 'stock'. OUTSIDE of wire.

The staff, stringer, wire crowd is very, very small. If you are lucky enough and content to do it then awesome. I applaud you. I understand exactly how it works, wage, benefits and ownership included.

Please, understand what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with wire service shooters, their merit or how they get paid. To be frank, I have zero interest in that stuff. What I have been talking about, ad nauseum, is that the in depth photojournalism of our world, Magnum, VII, Redux etc. included is rarely assigned. It is shot on spec and sold into syndication via the respected agency. The agency takes a commission and the shooter gets the remaining. Just like stock. The $ is totally different than istock.

1 more time, wire service exists. You folks have explained it's mechanisms well. Thank you. It is, sadly, a very small and shrinking segment. A large amount of what we are seeing in the NYTimes, Stern, Days Japan etc. is shot in a manner very similar to stock. The common held belief that 'stock' is some how deficient or of less credibility ignores how the bulk of work appears.

[JayGannon]

Please, understand what I have been saying. It has nothing to do with wire service shooters, their merit or how they get paid. To be frank, I have zero interest in that stuff. What I have been talking about, ad nauseum, is that the in depth photojournalism of our world, Magnum, VII, Redux etc. included is rarely assigned. It is shot on spec and sold into syndication via the respected agency. The agency takes a commission and the shooter gets the remaining. Just like stock. The $ is totally different than istock.


I'm sorry but I disagree, most agency work is assigned. Only very small agencies would shoot on spec. Almost all agency work is assigned. Therefore its nothing like stock at all.

[emraphoto]

I have friends who are on board with Magnum, VII and Redux. I am on board with Redux.

Last year, one of the fellas (widely considered one of VII's rising stars and recipient of a Gugenheim) had 3 assignments.

Speaking with Perrie Wardell, Redux management, last week I learnt that the assignment flow has dried up to a trickle. "it's just not the way the
industry works anymore".

These are not small agencies.

[saxshooter]

Half of the VII founding members and a couple of Magnum photographers are friends of mine and I have worked with them in the field on various news stories, and have even taught workshops with some of them.

I can assure you that while these guys have ongoing personal projects (which is what I think you are incorrectly describing as "shooting on spec" or shooting "in a manner that is very similar to stock"), most of them WHO ARE MAKING A LIVING AT PHOTOJOURNALISM are rarely just showing up at a location without some sort assignment or outside means of getting there (ie, a grant, a corporate job, foundation work, an invitation to a show opening or speaking engagement).

You are making some valid points. But when you say the work "is shot in a manner very similar to stock", I can't agree with that.

[JayGannon]

I couldnt agree, Redux is not the average business model and is not really representative of the agency market to be honest.

I have worked at a number of agencies over the years, in various roles, and the suggestion that the majority of their work is done on spec is not my experience at all. Some photographers take time out from assignments to shoot long term projects but these are not as stock. Stock is very different.

I would estimate that 80%+ of agency work is for NGO and Periodicals of various sorts, and the other 20% is made up of spec work, usually long term projects whoch are not really comparable to stock. Not saing your experience is wrong just that I dont see it as representative of the market out there at the moment, certainly not the agency market at any rate.

Shooting on spec shouldnt be considered the same as shooting a long term personal project.

EDIT: As all said above while I was typing this.... must type faster in future.

[LeicaFoReVer]

Well, nice to see the discussion on this thread fired up again...by the way I completely gave up the idea of doing stock! Good luck to who wants to do...

[emraphoto]

You are right. Folks are not just showing up and shooting. A lot of work is funded through grants, awards, revenues from prior pieces put into syndication via the agency, gallery representation etc.

the fellow running Magnum's New York office two years ago was shocked when I explained I was no longer focused on CP and wire. "How do you survive relying on assignment work in this day and age. It's simply not there" he went on to say. That was my epiphany.

Since then, I have made a pretty good living shooting in the prospective model. It just be added that I do write a lot of grant applications to assist in this process.

to be totally honest, not to be mistaken with rude, I am a bit surprised that you appear to believe assignment work is a healthy segment of the industry?

I am not trying to be argumentative for no particular reason. I do think it would help folks in the beginning stage to be privy to some of this information.

[emraphoto]

I must also now head out to shoot. I loom forward to the input fellas.

Jay, I have found the NGO circuit to be pretty much dried up as of late. Where they are helpful is for reducing cost in the field and entry into stories. As far as funding work the Pulitzer foundation and likewise endeavors have proven far more helpful than any of the NGO's.

This is of course my personal experience.

[JayGannon]

Erm I wont say thats its live a nice life healthy but its pay the bills and weather the storm healthy. Particularly the NGO work I've found is still relativly strong. Periodical work is through the floor unless your a 'name'. Grant funding is pretty strong particularly the 'we'll cover your international travel and board if the NGO pays you a day rate' ones.

I think the days of walking through as a mediocre photojournalist (Not referrring to you at all) and living a relativly cosy life doing easy work is over, people need to find a good niche and capatalise on it, they need to go back to working on people and contacts, not relying on fixers on the ground so much, building their own contact base, increasing their own skills beyond photography (I'm learning Arabic at the moment), people need to move into being able (if not willing at least able) to shoot cut and deliver a 3 minute video segment for a website (What I specialise in helping agencies dead with) and do do in the field ambiesnt recording and interviews to back up their photography. I think we hear the cry of photojournalism is dead every few years but in reality its usually photojournalism is dead long live photojournalism.

Its been and going to be a hard few years, but spend the time wisely and keep your head down, make contacts, improve your versatility and flexibility and the market will recover soon, in fact I'm see ing recoverly already in my part of the world, not enough to make me happy yet but 'green shoots' at least.

[sirius]

Hi, I'm a graphic designer. Ignoring the discussion and emotion that comes with trying to define quality, I'd like to point out that subject matter and story is what's really important. Your photos just are not what I would go to stock photography to find. Answer the question of what your market is looking for and you'll probably have more success. You might need to get serious about it if you want to do this professionally, hire models, and have all your model releases ready. I'm guessing that's not the kind of photography you want to do, but remember, people buy stock because it's photos that they can not take themselves easily and because they need a specific subject matter.

[JayGannon]

I must also now head out to shoot. I loom forward to the input fellas.

Jay, I have found the NGO circuit to be pretty much dried up as of late. Where they are helpful is for reducing cost in the field and entry into stories. As far as funding work the Pulitzer foundation and likewise endeavors have proven far more helpful than any of the NGO's.

This is of course my personal experience.

Thats weird I've found NGO work is still strong enough, I dont know where your based though so maybe different circumstances Europe/Asia/USA etc.
I see that they are not conducive at all these days to you shooting your story on their dime, they want a lot more control over the final product and a lot more of what they want in the pictures, but still relativly receptive.

[JayGannon]

Hi, I'm a graphic designer. Ignoring the discussion and emotion that comes with trying to define quality, I'd like to point out that subject matter and story is what's really important. Your photos just are not what I would go to stock photography to find. Answer the question of what your market is looking for and you'll probably have more success. You might need to get serious about it if you want to do this professionally, hire models, and have all your model releases ready. I'm guessing that's not the kind of photography you want to do, but remember, people buy stock because it's photos that they can not take themselves easily and because they need a specific subject matter.

Heheh thats exactly why I will never shoot Microstock. I have no interest in whoring myself for 2 dollars for a photo. Its devalues the indutury and devalues photographers as a group and a profession. If a designer needs a photo he should hire a photographer to maek him that photo, gaah no I'll leave it at that before I start ranting about how I would like the world to be and how its not at all the way it is =):angel:

[sirius]

I looked through the tread now and see the person who posted answered his questions. The other discussions are very interesting but I don't have a lot of experience with that.

Jay, I'm in no way defending stock photography. I would prefer the use of a dedicated photographer any time. In my experience, it is always better and more personal. Most people can tell when a photo is from stock, and that's a really bad quality.

[JayGannon]

I looked through the tread now and see the person who posted answered his questions. The other discussions are very interesting but I don't have a lot of experience with that.

Jay, I'm in no way defending stock photography. I would prefer the use of a dedicated photographer any time. In my experience, it is always better and more personal. Most people can tell when a photo is from stock, and that's a really bad quality.

Thats why I stopped I was going to take my personal frustrations at the people who shoot stock out on you, decided better not to :P

[gnuyork]

His success is minimal too. To make $2000 a month on iStock you have to sell a lot of images. A lot. For pennies. No thanks. I refuse to give my work away, I have to eat. I like to eat. Every day!

I get hundreds and sometimes much more for each photo I sell off my website for stock. I don't sell 10,000 photos a month but I make enough to live off my much smaller volume.

Chris, I would be interested in learning how you market your photos to customers/clients.

I have considered trying to do the iStock thing, but I'd rather sell my own images through my website (which doen'st exist yet) like you mentioned.

The advantage of some of these micro sites, however is the exposure to people looking to save money on stock images - which I am sure is huge simply due to popularity of iStockPhoto.

[sirius]

So, for those photojournalism experienced photographers out there...how does using a service like Photoshelter work for selling you stuff online? Does that generate much interest? I imagine that there needs to be a lot of promotion to drive the right people to look at the site.

Well, David Alan Harvey once posted a sorrowful note about the demise of the stock income on his blog. I think I might have offended him responding vehemently against the practices of companies like Getty and Corbis...saying they deserved what they got.

I don't want to deny quality work fair reward, but the licensing and restrictions for the work which, in my case is for pretty minimal distribution, was really absurd. It was only large magazine or corporate funding that could afford these services. If I could get work of the quality that DAH produces through, I would pay more for it...but only within reason.

How does $300 USD for an image to be seen by 150 students (which comes to about 3-5 years use) sound? The university would probably renew it indefinitely too. Nope, Corbis would routinely ask $500 for only 3 months use, period. If they are so inflexible then they don't deserve my business!

Working in the education and non-profit sector, I can find almost all the online-use images I need for free through licensed databases like ARTstor or through creative commons / GNU licenses found on Flickr and Wikimedia. Which is a good thing for education.

There needs to be something like Flickr for professional photographers...where they can share, form groups, and have access to the larger market the internet provides. What could the iTunes model do for images?

[tom.w.bn]

There needs to be something like Flickr for professional photographers...where they can share, form groups, and have access to the larger market the internet provides. What could the iTunes model do for images?

In my eyes istockphoto and photos is the same as iTunes and music.

[JayGannon]

How does $300 USD for an image to be seen by 150 students (which comes to about 3-5 years use) sound? The university would probably renew it indefinitely too. Nope, Corbis would routinely ask $500 for only 3 months use, period. If they are so inflexible then they don't deserve my business!

Working in the education and non-profit sector, I can find almost all the online-use images I need for free through licensed databases like ARTstor or through creative commons / GNU licenses found on Flickr and Wikimedia. Which is a good thing for education.

What could the iTunes model do for images?

The iTunes model is the Istock model and only rewards the photogrpaher with pennies.

300 USD a year would be fair use for commercial low volume work, however you said your non profit so I would factor that into my pricing. However 300 for 5 years usage? Nope I have to make a living off of this and that just doesnt pay the bills unfortunatly. Theres a difference between flexibility which is good, and selling work for pennies (Whch Im not saying 300 is). It all depends on the image. I would price accorinding to how difficult the image was, how much it cost me to produce and its value in the marketplace. A picture of two people shaking hands on a white studio background might only cost me 300 to shoot incuding models, so I would price that differently to a reportage photo taken in the Congo basin of a rare tribal ritual that cost me 5,000 to get there and back to shoot.

[sirius]

Yeah, I said that it was 150 students though...that's all the people that would see between those years. Low enrolment courses can have a dozen students per semester. How about $300 for 20 years if only 5 people SEE it over that period? I'm just talking about distribution because that is a factor in stock pricing. The time shouldn't really matter. Not to argue with you, but it's the difference between charging each student $2 to see that photo and something that is unreasonable to ask for the educational value.

- - - I'd just like to add that I really love quality photojournalism and I do want to see it survive.

[sirius]

Actually, we've licensed with Magnum before and they are really reasonable. They understand that situations are unique. Corbis and Getty won't even talk to the small-fry when it comes to licensed photos (which is where the real quality work is as opposed to the royalty free).

Yeah, I said that it was 150 students though...that's all the people that would see between those years. Low enrolment courses can have a dozen students per semester. How about $300 for 20 years if only 5 people SEE it over that period? I'm just talking about distribution because that is a factor in stock pricing. The time shouldn't really matter. Not to argue with you, but it's the difference between charging each student $2 to see that photo and something that is unreasonable to ask for the educational value.

[emraphoto]

Perhaps of interest? Perhaps common? Maybe the editors or folks who work/worked in that whole machine could chime in?

The new Geographic has a lot of work picked up from image banks. AP in particular. Is this a common occurence or on of those 'every once in a while'.

Doe anyone know the photographers? Know if they were assigned to fill the image banks? On a story? Shooting speculative? Genuinely interested.

[saxshooter]

AP Images has an assignment service where their top photographers can be hired for specific work. I haven't seen the new Geographic yet but this may be it.

[emraphoto]

This particular print has quite a few images credited from image banks, what I can only assume is a local daily and an individual under the business name/ personal name sort of affair. Jimxxxxphotography.com thing.

[Bike Tourist]

Here's one microstock guy who won't be uploading any more. I have over 3000 images on Shutterstock and over 2600 on Big Stock. I've been quite successful for someone who refuses to submit conceptual images on a white background (not that there's anything wrong with that) but the increasingly stringent restrictions on editorial images has finally convinced me to stop. Besides, the general trend will be down as the image pool constantly increases, the photo prices decrease and, in fact, one can get all the free images one would like and not bad quality, either.

I've sold my pro lenses (that's a good way to make money in photography) and left myself with just a D300 + 35/1.8 — as low a tide as has ever been with me. It should be fun to see what I can extract from this one lens/one body combo.

Meanwhile, the royalties are still being paid. That should be interesting, too, to see how quickly they diminish.

[Frank Petronio]

I didn't read all the blather but please don't do business with iStock or any of it's ilk. Or for Getty if you can help it. They are immoral pigs.