Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Selling photos

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

clintQB
clintQB  351 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 - 5:50 PM

Today i had various people asking if i sell my photos, i haven't said anything to them yet because ive never sold any before........Does anybody have any advice on selling photos....e.g how do i come up with a price, payment methods, postage?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
15 Aug 2012 - 5:50 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

779HOB
779HOB  21020 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 - 6:20 PM

Pick a price you are happy with not one you think they will like - bank transfer works well - charge for P&P it depends on the size of the prints. I send out in a tube.

clintQB
clintQB  351 forum posts United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 - 6:47 PM

Thanks Focused

martin174
martin174 e2 Member 8martin174 vcard United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 - 8:06 PM

If you fancy selling thru a stock agency have a look at :-

http://www.local-stock.co.uk/

regards

Martin

monstersnowman
15 Aug 2012 - 8:38 PM

Try to be honest with yourself about the quality of image and presentation when then valuing it. I have tended to under-price my photos and some helpful customers have said they were too cheap (yes, they were actual buying customers as well)). Sometimes you devalue and remove some desirability factor for work by under-valuing it (selling things in the 'art' world can be funny like that), but you can also easily price yourself out of your specific market or area as well. Good luck.

Last Modified By monstersnowman at 15 Aug 2012 - 8:46 PM
Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
16 Aug 2012 - 9:05 AM

You can also try Alamy.com

There is no contributor fee but selection of images is very strict with over efficient (on occasion) quality control.

On two occasions pictures have been rejected - I uploaded them again after a further quality check, no changes made - lo and behold they were accepted.

BarrieNeilPhotography

Alamy do not QC a whole batch of photos but selected images from a batch so a batch might be rejected because of a problem with just one and resubmission might result in a different sample being checked.

It's not 'clever' to get round Alamy or anybody else's QC. The library is in the business of licensing images - they don't reject just for the crack. If they reject it's because the image isn't saleable as it is or might cause issues for a buyer. An image buyer who decides on an image from Alamy (and this process can take months from initial selection of candidate images to getting one to the proof stage) then they find the image needs work because of dust spots or other image issues such as poor focusing etc., then they may well think twice about using Alamy again.

I know the QC process can appear heavy handed at times but it's done for very good reasons. Submitting images that are well exposed, focused and dust free is pretty straightforward. If a photographer can't achieve that level of competence, then perhaps they need to rethink their position with regard to submitting to a stock library

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
17 Aug 2012 - 9:20 AM


Quote: It's not 'clever' to get round Alamy or anybody else's QC.

I wasn't getting around the system, I sent an email asking why the image had been rejected as I could find no fault and other similar images had sold! No dust spots whatsoever, good focussing no reason whatsoever. For you to suggest my image was faulty by lousy focussing, dust spots or other issues without seeing the picture in question, is another matter. One should see the image before making such a comment. Even Alamy can be at fault on occasion you know! As a result they passed the resubmission. Uploading quality images is straightforward as you say and I have done that for may years.

However generally I agree with your comment about maintaining quality images and I always do.

thewilliam
17 Aug 2012 - 11:08 AM

Alamy is just using a long-established QC method.

The first duffer is hard luck but means that we need to check another. If the second is a duffer, it tells us that there might be something wrong with that batch. Picture libraries have so many images submitted that they can afford to never take risks. This is why they just reject the batch.

GlennH
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
17 Aug 2012 - 12:24 PM

I don't believe over the years there's been a single QC failure that's been proved a poor decision, at least in the eyes of the 'second-opinion brigade' over on the Alamy forums.

Alamy QC is manned by experienced photographers. Their batch rejecting method isn't commonly adopted by other libraries, however, because generally other libraries are much smaller, and they don't allow all and sundry through the front door in the first place, plus they first edit for contentónotoriously heavily some of them.

Last Modified By GlennH at 17 Aug 2012 - 12:26 PM
Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
17 Aug 2012 - 2:49 PM


Quote: I don't believe over the years there's been a single QC failure that's been proved a poor decision, at least in the eyes of the 'second-opinion brigade' over on the Alamy forums.

Well here is the first one after many years. I checked these four picture over a number of times and found absolutely nothing.

thewilliam
17 Aug 2012 - 3:11 PM

Most libraries ask potential contributors to submit a small number of images for QC and every one of these is examined carefully. Experienced photographers can appraise images for IQ very quickly because it's something we have to do after every shoot.

A greengrocer would reject a case of apples if he found a couple of bad ones on the top layer. I don't blame Alamy.

GlennH
GlennH  91918 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
17 Aug 2012 - 4:05 PM


Quote: Well here is the first one after many years. I checked these four picture over a number of times and found absolutely nothing.

Without seeing the picture in question I have little reason to believe you or disbelieve you, but looking at your website the first thing I see is a flower with massive loss of textural detail because you've blown the saturation to smithereens. Doesn't exactly present a case for careful processing Frank?

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
17 Aug 2012 - 4:52 PM


Quote: Well here is the first one after many years. I checked these four picture over a number of times and found absolutely nothing.

Without seeing the picture in question I have little reason to believe you or disbelieve you, but looking at your website the first thing I see is a flower with massive loss of textural detail because you've blown the saturation to smithereens. Doesn't exactly present a case for careful processing Frank?

I just wanted a bright opening pic, in fact it was taken with a small compact and not really saturated to smithereens, come on now. That is the colour of a normal petunia flower head.

Last Modified By Focus_Man at 17 Aug 2012 - 4:54 PM
User_Removed
17 Aug 2012 - 4:53 PM


Quote: Well here is the first one after many years. I checked these four picture over a number of times and found absolutely nothing.

Without seeing the picture in question I have little reason to believe you or disbelieve you, but looking at your website the first thing I see is a flower with massive loss of textural detail because you've blown the saturation to smithereens. Doesn't exactly present a case for careful processing Frank?

That's an interesting comment, Glenn. It made me go and look at the website in question and also at some of the images in Frank's portfolio. I wouldn't have used the phrase "you've blown the saturation to smithereens" but he does seem to have a tendency to boost the saturation a bit with some consequent loss of detail. It made me wonder if his monitor was maybe incorrectly calibrated or if, perhaps, he was shooting in Jpeg rather than Raw.

But as the image in question was accepted second time round, it could not have been too bad to start with.

(and there are some nice ones in his portfolio that have not been over-processed as far as I can tell)

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 17 Aug 2012 - 4:54 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.