Does anyone sell their photos online?
Just wondering if they make any decent money?
Im thinking of signing up to http://en.fotolia.com/
As it seems like a fair system and for some of the photos Ive got I could put 2 photos that are similar - one into one photo catagory and another into another catagory.
I finally got onto shutterstock some months back and of about 30 images got maybe 12 approved >< Ive since made a whopping $2 :|
Im better off I think doing what I do, making the photos I take free for non-commercial use, and hoping that someone will want to use an image commercially. If I charge £5 for it, Ive already made more moolar than I would on a stock photo site in a year ><
I might just try and get my next project underway... I want to create a website for my photography so people can buy my photos and hopefully one day request photo shoots.
I think to make any money out of Stock sites you have to put a LOT of pics on them, were talking hundreds.
Quote from: MongooseI think to make any money out of Stock sites you have to put a LOT of pics on them, were talking hundreds.
Thats what Ive been reading too.
If I were to get an idea of photos, maybe several month before the date then I could create a set of photos for say Valentines day or Easter in Jan and put them up on there. Theyre there and they can be used next year too.
Id probably have 50 or so I could look to put up on to a site right now.
On the plus side theyre something that once theyre up, it costs nothing and you can only get money from them.
I found the hoops you have to jump through pretty annoying though. Im not exactly that great a photographer so it was expected that lots would get rejected. But when photos get accepted that were previously rejected, it makes you wonder whats going on.
How much do you get per photograph ?
peanuts. $0.25 as a base rate though this varies between sites. The larger ones I think have exclusive deals where if you only submit to their site you get a bit more moolar. Its also been noted that such people tend to get more of their photos accepted.
One more reason im bitter about the whole process...
I make several hundred dollars every few months on iStockphoto. Havent added any new ones for years, either! :mutley:
Interesting.
My $2 is now $4.
But what is more interesting is that I submitted a shot of an object I took with the 40D, which I previously did on the 400D yonks back (and was rejected). It wasnt much different at all, Id say roughly the same amount of post processing etc, but its been accepted.
I really do think that their "review" processes tends to be along the lines of the number of photos youve already got on the site, whether youre "exclusive" and finally the exif data, I think if they see youve taken it with a rebel etc theyll scrutinise it more than if you took it with something a little more expensive. I might give istockphoto a go later.
Im tempted to try, I take it you dont have to pay as they take a cut from the photos bought?
Massive cut. you get ~ 20% of what they make. For it to work you need to be realllllly good as well as have a lot of photos, and a lot of photos that are more unique, as there are millions of photos on these sites already.
Yeah, just been trying to set up an account to upload, man theres loads of bits to get through.
Hopefully i can get a few of my shots bought, not looking to make a fortune lol
Quote from: zpyderMassive cut. you get ~ 20% of what they make. For it to work you need to be realllllly good as well as have a lot of photos, and a lot of photos that are more unique, as there are millions of photos on these sites already.
Having read the thread i was going to say there must be millions of photos, so you need to even out your chances by either uploading 100s or 1000s of images or choosing categories with less images and working on those.
Well I only had 16 images approved, and I got 16 views (not 1 each, only a few ever got viewed) so going on that assumption if I had 100 up, Id make $25 over a year ><
The sites seem to have a lot of guides and info on how to be successful, but I never paid them much attention. It does seem though that the ones that sell the most are the ones that are the trickiest (IE ones with people(tricky due to photo releases etc), or from current affairs) Otherwise you need to be good at photomanipulation and graphics to take a photo that probably already exists a few hundred times on the site in some form or another, and twist it into something new.
Id be interested to know what photos eagle took to make loads of moolar, whether it was lots of photos each getting a few views, or a few good ones. I think there is a weird system too where the better submitters get their items weighted and ranked higher than others so they come up earlier in searches etc.
All the panoramic ones I took with my Olympus got rejected :rofl:
Try editing the camera data to a 7D or something and re-submitting? See if it then gets approved! :)
zpyder Id have thought your bog/spider/insect/etc.. photos would do well ?
there can;t be that many places, with good quality, zoomed in photos of them ?
(tho maybe Im totally wrong, Im kinda making it up as I go along)
Issue is noise and all that gubbins. On the face of it the macros look alright, but when you go in 100% theres a bit of noise and theyre not razor sharp (the olympus tough lenses are quite soft). I actually agree about sharpness on the panos in a way, when you went to 100% they werent that hot at all (piss poor in fact) but the fact is the panos were something like 10000x5000 resolution, I could halve them and make them pretty sharp and they *might* get accepted. Some of them were rejected due to the clouds...IE it wasnt a clear blue sky and the clouds werent dramatic ><
Other issue is that with stock imagery they tend to like the critters on plain backgrounds etc, rather than just "as is". I could give it a go with a few I guess, but only 1 has made it on so far.
For all the time and effort I think youre better off printing a few and trying to flog em at an art show or market tbh. I mean 16 photos have accumulated $4 over 18 months for me. I wonder if I tried to frame some of my shots properly and printed them nicely whether I could make more profit that way...wouldnt take much to beat $4. I remember someone in the lake district selling photos on canvas, most of them almost looked like holiday snaps, he also put the data next to the prices too so I could see he had taken a few with a kit lens etc, some looked uber grainy and not too sharp and he was still charging £60+ for them.
Other thing is commissions, Ive had a few organisations use some of my photos, I let them do it for free as its good for the portfolio etc, but sooner or later Im thinking someone will want to use one commercially, I had one which I could have charged a little for before but couldnt be bothered asking for money last year. Id only charge a fiver or something silly, but thats still more than I get for the stock ><
Problem is that when it comes to photos anyone with a camera is an instant critic. I know my photos are amateur and mediocre at best, but it still doesnt stop me from turning my nose up at most other photos, and being insanely jealous of all the rest!
Ive submitted another half dozen "object" shots but these were with the 40d + 50mm again. Will see how they fair, some of them are the same as when I tried it with the 400D and kit lens but failed. If I CBA later in the week Ill post some flickr images of examples of ones that "got in" and ones that didnt and you guys can be the judge.
Of note is that between iStockphoto and shutterstock, theyve both rejected the ones the other has accepted and vice versa.
Quote from: zpyder...Ive had a few organisations use some of my photos...
Speaking of which, a few of these came through the post today from the Smithsonian in Washington:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/4923105602/2 of my photos were used in the thumbnails, see if you can spot which ones haha.
Is that dragonfly yours?
Nope, youre on the right row for one of them though :D
haha that worm thing in the 2nd row
Nope, I wish though.
Hint #2 is that both of the images are on different pages.
Im taking it as a compliment that people think the other photos are mine as I think theyre much better :D
Quote from: zpyderNope, I wish though.
Hint #2 is that both of the images are on different pages.
Im taking it as a compliment that people think the other photos are mine as I think theyre much better :D
i wasnt guessing, I was just laughing at it.
Ah :whoops:
Here we go then, 1/7 photos were accepted.
This one was accepted:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4923361423_efcb6afa7a.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/4923361423/)
lead1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/4923361423/) by Chris_Moody (http://www.flickr.com/people/zpyder/), on Flickr
This one was rejected...reason "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4923958642_15dcf2821f.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/4923958642/)
lead2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zpyder/4923958642/) by Chris_Moody (http://www.flickr.com/people/zpyder/), on Flickr
I can accept the reasoning, its not a plain white background, it has a gradient and is actually grey. The thing that gets me is when there are 2 photos that are very very similar and one gets accepted and one doesnt!