I just came back from a photography trip, and took over a thousand pictures. Only a handful I am keeping for myself, and the rest is just sitting in my hard drive.
My question is, since those hard drive pictures are decent, and some really good, is it worth selling them as stock photography? If so, has anyone use their own website to sell these photos themselves instead of going through an agency? Would any of you have any examples I can look at in terms of websites? I don't live off selling stock photos, so it'
s not so much a pressure on myself.
I am curious because I can put most of these images to "work".
Consider whether or not you want a career in stock photography. You're either into selling stock, or you're not. There's not really any in-between. And 1,000 photos from one trip would be considered a drop in the bucket for any reputable stock agency. Even if you had 1,000 images that were absolutely stunning, no duplications, all fresh stuff, that's a very small number of photos, small enough, in fact, that most agencies probably wouldn't even return your calls. When you have tens of thousands of the highest quality images that are unique and not merely familiar places photographed by everyone else, that would be considered a start. As for selling stock yourself, it's not really something you can just kind of do on the side from your home computer. You've got to be out there mining for clients, and working to get your stuff out there. You might try something like AG Pix to buy space on.
I'll second Todd's comments. Stock photography is a numbers game. Also, it used to be true that you could give your seconds to an agency and keep the best for yourself. That is no longer true and hasn't been true for the past 10 years. You have to show your best to the agencies and hope that they will choose 10% of your pics for their use. Then multiply that 10% until they are holding a few thousand of your pics, wait a minimum of 1 year and you might begin to see checks totaling 150.00 here or 300.00 there on a quarterly basis. Look for smaller stock agencies to get in first. The large ones like Getty aren't taking any newcomers. Before the advent of royalty-free stock, and microstock, stock photography was a better proposition but now it can only be considered for occasional income. Your best types of photos for earning income via stock involves people, such as business style pics and lifestyle pics. Nature photography is the absolute hardest style to earn money with because everybody, and their brothers, and sisters, are doing it.
I sell via stock agencies and that is why I keep my day job. My website contains photos that are also in some agencies files, but also some that didn't make the cut with them, usually because they already had 1 hundred similar shots on file. Nature photos don't get old, so something taken 20 years ago is still saleable today. That isn't true of business and lifestyle pics which is where the most money is to be made.
Thank you both for your input. Quite an insight. I guess it's not something that you can "break even" cost wise in a short amount of time. I'll definitely reconsider.
CMH, I'll disagree with the fellas ... to a certain extent. There certainly is room for "in between" these days - especially in a no pressure situation like yours. You obviously don't want to make a living with stock - and don't really need an agency. The historical stock model doesn't really apply to you. Sounds like you just want to make them available, and "see what happens". Today, it's very easy to get your work online - relatively cheaply - and make your work available directly to photo buyers ... in theory. Making the actual connection is the REALLY hard part. But it happens, and I've seen it. A large majority of buyers today use search engines, and if you can get a "stock" website visible - you never know what might happen. Even one sale might be worth your effort. Look into the PhotoShelter.com product. Allows you to at least have your work online and available (and ready to buy) with little effort, at a minimum.
But I generally agree that it will realistically be very hard to make the images "work" for you - without significant work on your part. The good thing is that search engines do a lot of work for us these days ... or that has been my experience.
FYI, the latest (May/June 2009) issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine has an article about stock photography in today's market. You might want to head to your local Barnes & Noble and read the article.
Discussion
5 repliesI just came back from a photography trip, and took over a thousand pictures. Only a handful I am keeping for myself, and the rest is just sitting in my hard drive.
My question is, since those hard drive pictures are decent, and some really good, is it worth selling them as stock photography? If so, has anyone use their own website to sell these photos themselves instead of going through an agency? Would any of you have any examples I can look at in terms of websites? I don't live off selling stock photos, so it'
s not so much a pressure on myself.
I am curious because I can put most of these images to "work".
Thank you.
Chun Ming
I sell via stock agencies and that is why I keep my day job. My website contains photos that are also in some agencies files, but also some that didn't make the cut with them, usually because they already had 1 hundred similar shots on file. Nature photos don't get old, so something taken 20 years ago is still saleable today. That isn't true of business and lifestyle pics which is where the most money is to be made.
CMH
But I generally agree that it will realistically be very hard to make the images "work" for you - without significant work on your part. The good thing is that search engines do a lot of work for us these days ... or that has been my experience.