Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Selling photos


clintQB 3 51 United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 5:50PM
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?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

779HOB 2 1.0k United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 6:20PM
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 3 51 United Kingdom
15 Aug 2012 6:47PM
Thanks Focused
15 Aug 2012 8:06PM
If you fancy selling thru a stock agency have a look at :-

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

regards

Martin
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
15 Aug 2012 8:38PM
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.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
16 Aug 2012 9:05AM
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.
16 Aug 2012 12:53PM
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 4 481 631 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2012 9:20AM

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 6 4.7k
17 Aug 2012 11:08AM
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 9 1.9k 1 France
17 Aug 2012 12:24PM
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.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2012 2:49PM

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 6 4.7k
17 Aug 2012 3:11PM
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 9 1.9k 1 France
17 Aug 2012 4:05PM

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 4 481 631 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2012 4:52PM

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.
User_Removed 4 4.6k 1 Scotland
17 Aug 2012 4:53PM

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)

.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.