Change gear with our partner, MPB

why dont ePHOTOzine become a stock libarary?


photography27 17 130
20 Aug 2005 1:35AM
just looking through the forum in freelance and alot of questions ask? "do anybody know of any good stock libararys"?
why dont ephotozine become one?
this website is very popular as it is, can the editors of ephotozine comment on this please?
agoreira 18 6.0k Wales
20 Aug 2005 1:49AM
This has been discussed several times before, and basically, it's a huge task. I'm guessing epz would have to take on quite a few more employees to even get this up and running. Judging by other (failed) attempts, it would take a year to get sufficient stock of photos together to even think about operating a stock library. Many here would not have sufficient camera power to be able to supply the required file sizes of 50mb, and without being unkind, whilst some shots here may look fine at 500 or 1,000 pxs, they may be lacking the quality required to be reproduced at large file sizes.
keith selmes 18 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
20 Aug 2005 4:35AM
It has been discussed before, but personally I don't think its appropriate, even if it was possible, which it probably isn't.
Epz is more like a magazine, photography club, and self help group. A stock library deals with commercial reality and is completely different thing.
Its a bit like asking why the flying club doen't run scheduled airline services, or why the yacht club doesn't start a fishing port, both may have members who do commercial work, but its not really the rationale or strength or chief value of the organization.
It might sound trite, but there are lots of stock libraries, and only one Epz.
pj.morley 18 947 United Kingdom
20 Aug 2005 5:01AM
If you are looking for stock libraries then there are lots to choose from but not all are easy to get into. I think Alamy is one that is achievable for amateurs but you need lots of images to start getting sales. Another option is microstock which many people are against because of the business model but I'm doing quite well with it actually. It works on the principle that you sell your pics very cheap however, because they are cheap you sell in greater volume.

I'm more than halfway to a 20D in less than 4 months.

Try Internet Retailers for more info on it. I'm also with Alamy for 2 years and my success there is dismal to say the least. They charge relatively high prices for stock and you get good commission but only if you make sales.

As mentioned above the large libraries expect large file sizes of 48MB or above where as microstock libraries will accept files from 2MP cameras since the primary use from these sites seems to be for web or small brochure use rather than high quality advertising purposes and you don't need a massive back catalogue to get going
goatster 17 399
20 Aug 2005 6:56AM
Hi John,

Who are you with?

Tony
suleesia 17 176 Malaysia
20 Aug 2005 7:43AM
good idea and it should.
UserRemoved 17 4.2k
20 Aug 2005 7:56AM
Incredibly bad idea - next Wink


Poor pete has been tearing his hair out with the book - dont get him started on stock libraries an' all!
User_Removed 16 4.9k England
20 Aug 2005 8:13AM
Sounds like it's not the first time the subjects been broached. What happened before?
Col
dougv 17 8.4k 3 England
20 Aug 2005 8:23AM
I think the clue may lie in the site name:

ePHOTOzine - not - ePHOTOstocklibrary

Doug ;o)
photography27 17 130
20 Aug 2005 10:10AM
thank you for your replys, IT WAS ONLY A QUESTION, and i know this site is more like an online magazine, i find shutterpoint quite reasonable, 8.50 for 6 months, and there is no massive files to upload and they take any mp camera, i will take alook at microstock, thank you
mik
pj.morley 18 947 United Kingdom
20 Aug 2005 12:18PM
Hi Tony,

Who am I with? Do you mean Stock Libraries?

Regards

John
goatster 17 399
21 Aug 2005 12:04AM
Certainly do John, I tried a search on microstock but it comes up with allsorts.

Sounds like the type of thing I would be interested in, if you can point me in the right direction Id appreciate it.

Tony
GlennH 16 1.9k 1 France
21 Aug 2005 1:13AM
I find it difficult to comprehend why people are so determined to make money from photography that they're willing to practically give images away. The whole microstock idea is a rip-off, set up by people that don't care about photography, but that have no qualms about exploiting amateur(ish) photographers and their clamour for professionalism.

It's the same naivety which leads people to allow their pictures to be published for nothing.

Alamy are a good agency, accessible by virtually anyone that is proficient with a camera, and the expense in getting involved needn't be great. Yes, in general you'll need to make an effort and take a fair amount of pictures, but once you've done it - Alamy will sell.

With Alamy you have the potential to make all sorts of sales, including high paying advertising sales. Once you've flooded your pictures out for nothing to all and sundry, that potential no longer exists.

Microstock devalues photography in general. If you want a slice of professional cake - think professionally and put some work in.

Glenn
pj.morley 18 947 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2005 2:16AM
Hi Tony

got to Internet Retailers and you'll get all the info you need.

Regards

John
pj.morley 18 947 United Kingdom
21 Aug 2005 2:37AM

Quote:With Alamy you have the potential to make all sorts of sales, including high paying advertising sales. Once you've flooded your pictures out for nothing to all and sundry, that potential no longer exists.


Hi Glenn, of course you are entitled to your opinion but I disagree. First of all microstock is aimed at a completely different market. Think of all the web publishers, brochures, newsletters etc. (i.e. small scale stuff) that is being produced. The sort of people that can't afford to pay 300 for a single image to go in their newsletter.

Big stock companies demand minimum 48MB file sizes, microstock will accept files from 2MP cameras, it's hardly the same ball game really.

As for being ripped off. Myabe the commission could be better but in many cases it's at least 50% and up to 85% so that's comparable to the big agencies like Alamy etc..

I used to of the same opinion as you however, the turning point for me was after 2 years with Alamy I made a paltry amount of money from my images. I thought I'd give microstock a try and see what the potential was.

The answer is that with the same number of images, in a few months I have made 4 times few what I made at Alamy in 2 years.

So while my potential earnings at Alamy may be good. My actual earnings aren't so good. However, my actual earnings at microstock equate to more than 20 times that.

As for devaluing images. Well that's nothing more than an emotive argument really. An image is worth what someone will pay for it or accept for it..

Sure you don't get much per picture but you do sell lots of them. In my opinion that's much better than having a potential 150.00 commission.

In short it's a different business model completely. I have experience of both now and I know which I prefer without being naive.Wink

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.