I have been photographing for several years and I am just now beginning to take steps towards producing some income with my photographs. I am very green to the business side of this, and I have some questions regarding submitting work to stock agencies. I have purchased software that would allow for me to run my own stock business, but was wondering if it would be better to allow a established stock agency handle that part of the business. I know stock has changed a lot recently and was hoping that those who have some experience in running a photography business might offer some advice. Thank you in advance. Nate
It might be good to let us know if you're thinking more in the direction of stock or microstock-- that's one fairly major difference, to begin with. I do microstock and do not have any special software for running the business besides Adobe CS2. Most versions of that will work fine for microstock; some folks start out using Lightroom. I don't know any microstock agencies that will handle the business end for you, unless I don't quite understand which part you're referring to. In other words, they'll keep track of sales, views, amounts earned, all image thumbnails accepted & rejected, etc. But you need to do the keywording, uploading, property or model releases, titles & descriptions, etc. Some microstock agencies have keywording helps, or can recommend services.
Some aspects of the above info. would vary with a stock agency (as opposed to microstock). Don't let people tell you nature just does not sell in microstock, because it does. You just have to know how to go about it, and know which agencies are worthwhile bothering with. Some of my best-sellers are nature. One big key there is getting it accepted. For that, you need to have very good work, learn to get rid of or avoid nearly all noise or artifacting, label accurately with scientific AND common names, make sure focus is tack-sharp at 100%, at least at the focal point(s), and don't submit 10 views of the same subject at once. Good luck, and hope you get more advice here. --Anna Lisa
I'll only say one thing; the quality of your work is WAY above the value line for Microstock. I'm just heading out of town for a couple weeks, but give me a call after June 14, and I'll give you some free phone time. Your work clearly deserves better than the microstock arena can offer.
BTW - for the benefit of other readers, even though I'm leaving in 10 hours...
Anna Lisa is right; huge differences between microstock and traditional stock; namely in perceived value. Are you fine giving someone an unlimited commercial use license to one of your best photos for only $5.00? How do you want buyers to perceive your work? A major magazine editor will have no interest in paying you hundreds or thousands of dollars for a photo essay if they know they can get 8 pages worth of your pictures for less than $75.00 Research through the Picture Archive Council of America for niche and specialty agencies. And don't feel you need to be in the top on or two agencies (Getty & Corbis) to make things work for you. Also check out Stock Artist Alliance. I have a link to them and a number of other similar good links on the sidebar of my weblog, and on my Resources page.
Finally, as for the valuation factor, I wrote the following a couple years ago, but is still applicable, called, "How Many for How Much".
I really like your work Nathan. I'd definetely take Gary up on his offer to call him because he knows what he's talking about.
It is true that you can earn some income through stock agencies and it is probably your quickest route to earning something. To pay the bills though it would be wise to invest in learning about the business and develop your own business at the same time. Once you get started in seriously selling your work, you will probably conclude that microstock is not the way to go.
Great work you have Nathan, and your work does have value to it!
Take up Gary's offer and give him a call. Well worth it!
Posted by Nathan Lovas on May 29, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Thank you to everyone. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your thoughts...and I will definitely take you up on your offer Gary....thank you. I won't be using any microstock agencies and I would only be selling RM images. I am just a little wary about giving another company the rights to manage my images. Are there any potential pitfalls? I can see the advantage of having an established company which photo editors trust and know sell you images...I am sure their exposure and marketing is better than I would have on my own. I will definitely be developing the rest of my business as well, and I guess that is what I am a little worried about. Will I end wishing I didn't give another company the rights to sell my images? Any idea how much exclusivity I should grant any one stock agency? How long I should give them rights to sell the images I provide them? Thanks again to everyone...your help is very much appreciated...Nate
You can do both...work with an agency and market your own work. Most agencies should allow you to market your own images whether they have that same image in their files or not....mine does. I just have to let them know if I grant any exclusive rights to an image that they also have.
The obvious advantage to working with a stock agency is the fact that they can reach many markets you cannot. The obvious disadvantage is the fact that they keep, on average, 50% of any sales. Be sure you let them know up front that you are only interested in RM licensing....the recent trend has been toward RF and microstock which is, IMO, killing stock from the individual photographer's perspective.
You would be best going with an agency that has a non-exclusive contract policy but that may be hard to find. Most will offer image exclusive contracts which means that a particular image can only be with that particular agency and no other....again you should retain the right to market your own work as well.
It takes time and dedication to get established with a good agency....don't expect the money to start rolling in as soon as you sign the contract. I also wouldn't expect stock to generate an income that you can live off of...particularly these days. Consider it one small piece of the puzzle to making a living in photography.
There are different options. I think you are referring to agencies that require exclusivity. There are also agencies that allow you to market on your own as well. There are pros and cons to both depending on your marketing strategy. The ones that require it can get you higher licensing fees but it limits what you can do on your own. The ones that don't require it probably have slightly lower licensing fees but you retain all rights for yourself to license and can submit to multiple agencies. If you have a gazillion images then the exclusive agencies would be worth looking at either that or you should be really confident that they can sell a lot of your images. For me personally, I prefer to keep my options open so I can develop my own business while submitting to multiple sources.
Discussion
8 repliesSome aspects of the above info. would vary with a stock agency (as opposed to microstock). Don't let people tell you nature just does not sell in microstock, because it does. You just have to know how to go about it, and know which agencies are worthwhile bothering with. Some of my best-sellers are nature. One big key there is getting it accepted. For that, you need to have very good work, learn to get rid of or avoid nearly all noise or artifacting, label accurately with scientific AND common names, make sure focus is tack-sharp at 100%, at least at the focal point(s), and don't submit 10 views of the same subject at once. Good luck, and hope you get more advice here. --Anna Lisa
I'll only say one thing; the quality of your work is WAY above the value line for Microstock. I'm just heading out of town for a couple weeks, but give me a call after June 14, and I'll give you some free phone time. Your work clearly deserves better than the microstock arena can offer.
Cheers.
Gary.
Anna Lisa is right; huge differences between microstock and traditional stock; namely in perceived value. Are you fine giving someone an unlimited commercial use license to one of your best photos for only $5.00? How do you want buyers to perceive your work? A major magazine editor will have no interest in paying you hundreds or thousands of dollars for a photo essay if they know they can get 8 pages worth of your pictures for less than $75.00 Research through the Picture Archive Council of America for niche and specialty agencies. And don't feel you need to be in the top on or two agencies (Getty & Corbis) to make things work for you. Also check out Stock Artist Alliance. I have a link to them and a number of other similar good links on the sidebar of my weblog, and on my Resources page.
Finally, as for the valuation factor, I wrote the following a couple years ago, but is still applicable, called, "How Many for How Much".
Hope that helps.
It is true that you can earn some income through stock agencies and it is probably your quickest route to earning something. To pay the bills though it would be wise to invest in learning about the business and develop your own business at the same time. Once you get started in seriously selling your work, you will probably conclude that microstock is not the way to go.
The former photo editor of Outside Magazine and Men's Journal has a great list of stock agencies: http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/02/27/stock-photo-agencies/
Take up Gary's offer and give him a call. Well worth it!
The obvious advantage to working with a stock agency is the fact that they can reach many markets you cannot. The obvious disadvantage is the fact that they keep, on average, 50% of any sales. Be sure you let them know up front that you are only interested in RM licensing....the recent trend has been toward RF and microstock which is, IMO, killing stock from the individual photographer's perspective.
You would be best going with an agency that has a non-exclusive contract policy but that may be hard to find. Most will offer image exclusive contracts which means that a particular image can only be with that particular agency and no other....again you should retain the right to market your own work as well.
It takes time and dedication to get established with a good agency....don't expect the money to start rolling in as soon as you sign the contract. I also wouldn't expect stock to generate an income that you can live off of...particularly these days. Consider it one small piece of the puzzle to making a living in photography.