Selling photos online, any money to be made?

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by PKR

Fred;

I've been on another photo forum a fair amount. The dynamic is very different there. Generally, very bright folks - Polite, etc. The level of technical knowlegde is extremely high and most of those folks have some knowledge of photo history. It's a much smaller community, maybe that's the difference - people know each other. Any AHs are just ignored. Though, I haven't seen but one or two - and they just go away.

pkr

I don't know which forum you were referring to but I like the atmosphere here. People come from diverse backgrounds, and because they don't know each other personally, they say whatever they want without any hold-back. And because people have different knowledges, even if the information might be incorrect, at least you find some new angles and perspectives of looking at things. A closely knit small community usually become just a melting pot with one singular voice or opinion.

[Bike Tourist]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I agree with you here. I can think of a lot of easier ways to raise $3000. Hell a part time job at Walmart would make the money faster and with less work than these guys put in to micrstock

I will defer to you on Walmart, Chris. I don't think I would like it. I was trying to answer the Original Poster's Original Question by way of a real life example. It is possible to make money with photography on the internet, but most people are not going to sell anything or, at most, make a few bucks, by presenting themselves on their own web site.

As to hard work, for me it's not. It is true that the microstocks have arbitrary and strict standards but I don't follow the standard prescription. I photograph what I like when I like. If what I want to shoot goes against their standards, which happens quite often, then I don't submit to them. There is a trend to repping more editorial and journalistic images, which I like.

One other thing worth mentioning. Once your images are up and online they stay there. They just keep selling and reselling for life.

Say "Hi" to the folks at Walmart!

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Bike Tourist

I will defer to you on Walmart, Chris. I don't think I would like it. I was trying to answer the Original Poster's Original Question by way of a real life example. It is possible to make money with photography on the internet, but most people are not going to sell anything or, at most, make a few bucks, by presenting themselves on their own web site.

As to hard work, for me it's not. It is true that the microstocks have arbitrary and strict standards but I don't follow the standard prescription. I photograph what I like when I like. If what I want to shoot goes against their standards, which happens quite often, then I don't submit to them. There is a trend to repping more editorial and journalistic images, which I like.

One other thing worth mentioning. Once your images are up and online they stay there. They just keep selling and reselling for life.

Say "Hi" to the folks at Walmart!

I've never worked at Walmart. I stand by what I said though. Selling on microstock is about the most idiotic thing a photographer can do, short of just giving the photos away. Why should I sell a photo for $1 when I can sell it for a few hundred, or sometimes even more? Why should I settle for $3000 a year in earnings, when I need that much a month just to survive?

[Bike Tourist]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

I've never worked at Walmart. I stand by what I said though. Selling on microstock is about the most idiotic thing a photographer can do, short of just giving the photos away. Why should I sell a photo for $1 when I can sell it for a few hundred, or sometimes even more? Why should I settle for $3000 a year in earnings, when I need that much a month just to survive?

Your experience seems atypical, Chris. Your one of the few who are making a great living from photography only. You obviously should not sell your images for a pitance when you can sell your images for "hundreds". I do it as a hobby. It pays for my equipment and then some. My images have been used world-wide about 25,000 times. It does not appear "idiotic" to me.

(I believe in civil discourse, rare on the net, more common here. I hope you do too.)

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Bike Tourist

Your experience seems atypical, Chris. Your one of the few who are making a great living from photography only. You obviously should not sell your images for a pitance when you can sell your images for "hundreds". I do it as a hobby. It pays for my equipment and then some. My images have been used world-wide about 25,000 times. It does not appear "idiotic" to me.

(I believe in civil discourse, rare on the net, more common here. I hope you do too.)

I'm sorry to offend you, but for you to have let your work be used 25,000 times for such a pittance really is dumb. There just isn't a nice way to say it. It needs to be said though, regardless of politeness. To conceal that truth from you would be far less civil, for knowing a truth that can help someone, and hiding that truth, is a violation of my moral code. I am telling you this to help you, not to be rude.

Consider this: If you had charged merely $100 each, you would have made $250,000! I realize you probably wouldn't have made 25,000 sales at $100 each, since the fact that you charged mere pennies was/is a factor in sales to many potential buyers, but even if you sold just 100 times, you would have made $10,000.

[jpa66]

I tend to agree with Chris here. I feel that selling your photos ( or any type of art or work for that matter ) at such cheap prices is not a good idea. I see it all as a race to the bottom.

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

A race to the bottom isn't always a bad thing, if it achieves what you want. Not everyone marches to the same drum and I say "good luck" to those who find that microstock works for them.

[Araakii]

A lot of people are willing to give their work away for free because all they care is that their photos are used in some way. i.e their photos have a useful purpose. You can view it as "volunteering". I don't think you would consider those who volunteer as "dumb".

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Araakii

A lot of people are willing to give their work away for free because all they care is that their photos are used in some way. i.e their photos have a useful purpose. You can view it as "volunteering". I don't think you would consider those who volunteer as "dumb".

If they're volunteering for a profit-making businesses corporation, then yes, they're drooling imbeciles. Volunteering is something you do for charities and other NON-PROFIT organizations whose cause you support. It is NOT something you do for businesses.

[DominikDUK]

Arakii neither "the volunteers" nor Bike tourist are dumb but they do cause a huge problem for professional photographers I don't know if Bike tourist has another source of income meaning a day job and does microstock for fun and/or to gain some recognition (ego). But the microstock market effectively killed a lot of photographers and quality agencies. Causing unemployment etc...
Chris seems to live from his photography so its understandable that he doesn't really care for microstock neither do I.

Dominik

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

That's a view, certainly. Many people, though, have different values and calling them "drooling imbeciles" seems rather unkind, if not downright rude, to me.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

That's a view, certainly. Many people, though, have different values and calling them "drooling imbeciles" seems rather unkind, if not downright rude, to me.

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth. Anyone who volunteers for a business is stupid. They are. There is just no nice way to say it. Businesses are there to earn profits, and they do. That means they pay their employees and suppliers, because they are not charities. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Tell you what: put up or shut up. Tell your employer you want to work for free. Oh wait, you won't do that, will you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

[135format]

Someone want to tell me how the Intern system works in the US? Are they all imbeciles?

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth.

I'm a little surprised by such an attitude. It seems to me that someone in business on their own account would show more restraint. Still, this is the internet.

I do hope that none of your potential clients perform the, now common, web search before employing you. They might find such a lack of moderation not to their taste.

[Frank Version Two]

Pointing out something that is clearly wrong is not immoderate. Taking assignments from or selling stock to Getty or Corbis is wrong. The only reason someone would do it is desperation, greed, pride... there is no positive to it, other than a short term gain.

I don't think most of the microstock shooters have ill intent but they are ignorantly and/or selfishly contributing to the decline of the industry. But more so, we should direct our wrath at Getty and Corbis for being the mechanism of destruction. They do have ill intent and are truly evil.

Anytime you have a chance to disrupt a Getty sale, do it. The people working for them are sell-outs and should be ashamed, we should call them out and embarrass them.

Thomas Hawk or some other a-hole like that walks by - spit in their face, break their camera, humiliate and stomp them.

[135format]

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus

I'm a little surprised by such an attitude. It seems to me that someone in business on their own account would show more restraint. Still, this is the internet.

I do hope that none of your potential clients perform the, now common, web search before employing you. They might find such a lack of moderation not to their taste.

No one in business cares about any aspect of my attitude other than my willingness to provide them with the image they need, at the quality they need, on time. That's it. Really.

In fact, I have asked clients what they think of photographers who offer work for free, and the clients always laugh at the stupidity of these fools. Sure, they'll take your free photo, but they won't respect you for it. They're in business, and understand that they cannot give their product away and stay in business. They look on people willing to work for free as chumps. Idiots. Fools. Businesspeople literally laugh all the way to the bank when they encounter someone willing to provide photos for free or ultra-cheap. Some of the stuff I've been told by clients is FAR nastier than anything I'm saying about these photographers.

[CameraQuest]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

The truth is often unkind. Too bad, its still the truth. Anyone who volunteers for a business is stupid. They are. There is just no nice way to say it. Businesses are there to earn profits, and they do. That means they pay their employees and suppliers, because they are not charities. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Tell you what: put up or shut up. Tell your employer you want to work for free. Oh wait, you won't do that, will you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Chris,

you have a habit of lambasting others as if your opinion is somehow better or more accurate than other members views. Enough.

RFF to Chris Crawford: your views are just your views, nothing more - and NOT better or more accurate than other RFF members. Get over trying to be right.

Strong belief in for your views is not an excuse for bad behavior. From here it looks like you could benefit from a lot less anger and lot more effort to learn from other members viewpoints.

Stephen

[DominikDUK]

Originally Posted by 135format

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

I don't know but I believe pretty much none for photographers. I resently had a discussion with an agency owner. His agency is pretty sucessful and a few years ago the made most sales with images for book covers. So he started another agency specialising in images for book covers, he used well known, and less well known photographers payed them a good fee etc... so fast forward to 2011 the year he had to close the special agency because the publishing houses were not willing to pay his already low fees. They reason quote "microstock is so much cheaper"
And here we are not only talking small publishers but big ones as well.
He also said that he doesn't believe that the agency market aside from Getty, Corbis will survive and that most photographers should look for another profession. Because a photographer with his own studio or company can't compete with an amateur who is willing to work for next to nothing or even free because his name is written in the byline (ego).

Dominik

[Araakii]

The way the human society system works most of the time is that everyone really only cares about their own well being, with not much regard to the other members of the society, unless their own action also threatens their own survival in the short term.

So in the long run, you can call the "volunteers" short-sighted, stupid, whatever. But their goal is not to generate profits for themselves or the industry as a whole. Their short term goal is just to get their stuff used by others in a "meaningful" way. They might be laughed at by others but they definitely get what they want, and that's all it matters. From that perspective, their behavior is very rational.

[DominikDUK]

Araakii according to the agency guy I talked to and some observation it is more ego driven than getting the stuff used in meanigful way. Although I don't doubt that many volunteers have a higher goal. They are definetely not stupid since they get something call it ego strocking for some and the knowledge of having done something good for others.

Dominik

[Bike Tourist]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Consider this: If you had charged merely $100 each, you would have made $250,000! I realize you probably wouldn't have made 25,000 sales at $100 each, since the fact that you charged mere pennies was/is a factor in sales to many potential buyers, but even if you sold just 100 times, you would have made $10,000.

Okay, Chris, one more once and I'll let it be. Gee, who can remember the original poster's question, which is what I was trying to answer? The most I've ever sold one image for was $400 and that was back in the days of conventional stock agencies repping your transparencies. It didn't happen too frequently. You example of 100 sales at $100 each sounds great as an exercise. But in the real world where do these 100 free spenders come from?

I used to emphatically agree with you and the other "race to the bottom" people. I insisted on my minimum standards for local assignment photography and so forth. But, that was way back in the 20th Century. I fear you're speaking about what "should" be (and I totally agree with you on that) and what really "is" in the present. the problem is not confined to our narrow sector but manifests in all creative media, including music and motion pictures. The new paradigm seems to be that art should cost very little or be free, never mind compensation to the orginator. My heroes, the photojournalists, are being undercut by by all those citizens with cell phones. There are so many, there are bound to be a few in the right place at the right time making bad images considered better than no image.

So Chris, since you consider me "dumb" just two things:

1. Please expand your use of adjectives to include some less offensive terms for those who don't agree with you.

2. Since I've laid it all out there, give us some real-world examples of how you are supporting yourself or a family with your fine art. I'm willing to be convinced.

[Bike Tourist]

Originally Posted by 135format

I wonder how much commssioned work is generated by 25,000 cheap sales? Anyone have a clue?

FYI, Shutterstock is issuing an IPO and going public. To do that they had to release some financials. Do a search for the Shutterstock IPO and you can read all about it.

[Araakii]

Originally Posted by DominikDUK

Araakii according to the agency guy I talked to and some observation it is more ego driven than getting the stuff used in meanigful way. Although I don't doubt that many volunteers have a higher goal. They are definetely not stupid since they get something call it ego strocking for some and the knowledge of having done something good for others.

Dominik

And also, the professional photographers are also businesses themselves. So, they could also be prime targets for the other photographers who are not professionals. So that's another reason why they want to "destroy" them. Some professionals have an obnoxious attitude towards amateurs and this can probably be seen as a revenge for some of them.

[DominikDUK]

To the OP if you want to sell your images via a stock agency (micro or other) look trough magazines, the lady holding a phone for example is a classic example of stock photography and look a the website of the stockagencies.

Stock agencies need illustrative photos (forgettable images). Photographs that stand for say an emotion the laughing girl, or industry a factory.

I wish you luck with your endeavoor

Dominik