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

Stock agencies - but which one?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
agoreira
agoreira  106001 forum posts Wales
12 Aug 2008 - 11:26 AM


Quote: ; so do we remain true to ourselves (as I have tried to be) and show what we like or do we play the numbers game and blast up whatever passes QC whether the pictures have any artistic merit or not?
Peter

I would think the sole reason for putting your photos on sites like Alamy, is not to showcase your work, but to sell it, so give them whatever sells. You can be "true to yourself" on your personal site, but if you want the money trickling in, perhaps give Alamy a bit of both. There's a market for both.
On a very much lower level, (being a rank amateur), the tourist people bought some touristy, chocolate box stuff from me, and whilst it's not really my scene, I started taking a lot more of that sort of stuff, and thankfully I have sold quite a lot of it. Have I sold my soul? Not completely, but the cash is very welcome! ; )

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
12 Aug 2008 - 11:26 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
12 Aug 2008 - 11:38 AM

When submitting for stock, it is crucial you remove your photographers head and substitute a buyers head.

Many of the photos I have with stock agencies that sell would get criticised on a photo forum or at a photo club for various reasons but people buy photos to illustrate articles or sell 'concepts' NOT (generally) for their artistic merit or as an illustration of photographic technique

peterjones
peterjones e2 Member 123785 forum postspeterjones vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Aug 2008 - 12:18 PM

Indeed photo forums, camera clubs etc are the last to be "judging" images on their commercial appeal and agreed I have at least 2 crumpled hats in my camera bag and obviously measure an image on its potential saleability; I am quite happy to prostitute myself and upload all sorts of pictures however I just won't upload absolute tripe (or tripe IMO) Smile My loss perhaps ...

User_Removed
12 Aug 2008 - 12:20 PM

One man's meat etc....

Mind you, there are some crap images on Alamy (link not for the faint hearted Wink)

Last Modified By User_Removed at 12 Aug 2008 - 12:21 PM
ForeverSnapping
12 Aug 2008 - 12:32 PM

Thanks for the advice everyone, really appreciate it!!!!!! New to Stock Photography, the advice has helped alot.

Last Modified By ForeverSnapping at 12 Aug 2008 - 12:38 PM
peterjones
peterjones e2 Member 123785 forum postspeterjones vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Aug 2008 - 12:36 PM

yeeeuk Smile ermm thanks for the link lol

Bet it has sold though ....

SerenDigital
1 Sep 2008 - 8:33 AM


Quote: Does anyone use IStock or Getty Images? Trying to get 3 of my pictures accepted onto IStock but keep getting turned down, does anyone have any tips on getting onto Istock? What sort of photos are they after? Any advice, much appreciated, thanks.

Take good quality pictures without technical flaws. It's really not hard!

Good exposure and lowish ISO!

User_Removed
1 Sep 2008 - 9:02 AM

If you are being tuned away from a picture library it is simply for one of two reasons.

Either the library in question has no requirement for the sort of photos you're offering (common with the niche libraries who edit content like NPL etc) or being brutally frank, your images are simply not of good enough quality technically.

If you are being rejected, they usually tell you why - is that the case here?

Barrie Smile

Last Modified By User_Removed at 1 Sep 2008 - 9:04 AM
ForeverSnapping


Quote: If you are being tuned away from a picture library it is simply for one of two reasons.

Either the library in question has no requirement for the sort of photos you're offering (common with the niche libraries who edit content like NPL etc) or being brutally frank, your images are simply not of good enough quality technically.

If you are being rejected, they usually tell you why - is that the case here?

Barrie

Hi When I was trying to get onto IStock they told me why they hadn't accepted my pictures, after looking into other stock agencies, I've decided to try to get onto Photographers Direct instead of IStock.

User_Removed
1 Sep 2008 - 5:02 PM

You'll have no problems there

ForeverSnapping


Quote: You'll have no problems there

Thanks, *fingers crossed* lol.

ForeverSnapping

Hi on Photographers Direct, to register on Commision Based, it says 'you have to have at least 200 images.' Has anyone registered with Photographers Direct? If they have, how many photos can you upload to start with? Do you have to upload 200 photos to join? Sorry for asking a stupid question.

Last Modified By ForeverSnapping at 4 Sep 2008 - 12:28 PM
User_Removed
4 Sep 2008 - 12:52 PM

If you are trying to get into stock and cannot muster 200 images, I frankly wouldn't bother to be honest. You'd be far better off building a good collection of saleable images then joining up.

Stock agencies (particularly the ones that have no editorial control) are full of dross and second rate images as well as the really good photos (Alamy have recently instigated much greater control over technical quality which has been long overdue but they do need to weed out the crud that was admitted previously).

The problem with Photographers Direct is the totally arbitrary 'ranking' system whereby the owner of the site, grades all submitted photos on a scale of 1 to 9 based on HIS judgement alone. When a picture buyer then searches, they can decide to select only category '9' images (i.e. deemed the best) for any subject.

This is absolutely ridiculous as Chris (the owner) has no idea what a buyer is looking for and therefore how can he possibly 'rate' a photo in this way. As an example, he ranked one of my photos as just a 7 (above average) and this sold for $9000 (yes, that really is nine thousand dollars) on Alamy. It's really well exposed and sharp photo so his ranking was not about technicalities but it was a boring subject that clearly he didn't 'like' but obviously one a buyer wanted

The other reaosn I say wait until you have enough images is to do with subject overload. Again, the agencies that do not edit content get saturated with the same old photos. Every day someone uploads the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben or whatever. The same viewpoint adding nothing new to the subject. When I first joined Alamy (many years ago), I uploaded some fox photos and mine were amongst only 200 on there (not a huge number). Do a search for "Red Fox" today and there are thousands - many of them almost identical. If you want to make a success at stock, look for unusual subjects or common subjects shot with some thought (i.e. tightly edit your submissions)

Sorry to ramble on and create such a large post but I do a lot of this sort of thing and thought it might be helpful Smile

ForeverSnapping


Quote: If you are trying to get into stock and cannot muster 200 images, I frankly wouldn't bother to be honest. You'd be far better off building a good collection of saleable images then joining up.

Stock agencies (particularly the ones that have no editorial control) are full of dross and second rate images as well as the really good photos (Alamy have recently instigated much greater control over technical quality which has been long overdue but they do need to weed out the crud that was admitted previously).

The problem with Photographers Direct is the totally arbitrary 'ranking' system whereby the owner of the site, grades all submitted photos on a scale of 1 to 9 based on HIS judgement alone. When a picture buyer then searches, they can decide to select only category '9' images (i.e. deemed the best) for any subject.

This is absolutely ridiculous as Chris (the owner) has no idea what a buyer is looking for and therefore how can he possibly 'rate' a photo in this way. As an example, he ranked one of my photos as just a 7 (above average) and this sold for $9000 (yes, that really is nine thousand dollars) on Alamy. It's really well exposed and sharp photo so his ranking was not about technicalities but it was a boring subject that clearly he didn't 'like' but obviously one a buyer wanted

The other reaosn I say wait until you have enough images is to do with subject overload. Again, the agencies that do not edit content get saturated with the same old photos. Every day someone uploads the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben or whatever. The same viewpoint adding nothing new to the subject. When I first joined Alamy (many years ago), I uploaded some fox photos and mine were amongst only 200 on there (not a huge number). Do a search for "Red Fox" today and there are thousands - many of them almost identical. If you want to make a success at stock, look for unusual subjects or common subjects shot with some thought (i.e. tightly edit your submissions)

Sorry to ramble on and create such a large post but I do a lot of this sort of thing and thought it might be helpful

Thanks for the advice, really appreciate it!!!! Thats ok, new to Stock Photography, any advice is helpful, thank you. What you said about Photographers Direct is interesting, which one do you think is a better stock agency, Alamy or Photographers Direct? Before I join a stock agency, Im going to build up a portfolio first, don't want to rush into it (jump in head first lol).

Last Modified By ForeverSnapping at 4 Sep 2008 - 1:40 PM
Ian G W
Ian G W  10396 forum posts England3 Constructive Critique Points
4 Sep 2008 - 1:40 PM


Quote:
If you join a microstock agency, again being brutally frank, you are joining those people demeaning the stock photography business by being prepared to sell their talent and art for peanuts. Ask your local builder if he would build you a conservatory for 5.50 and you'll soon get told where to go

Yes but if someone offered you a conservatory for 5.50, and it was every bit as good as say a 10000 conservatory, you'd be a fool not to take it! Microstock is full of talented photographers who don't give a toss about making real money from their art, but who just get a kick out of selling the odd image. They are not demeaning anything. It is the professionals who need to adapt to give something that these amateurs can't if they are to continue to make a living. If they can't offer more than the amateurs, then surely market forces will dictate the value of their work.

Ian.

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.