Can someone give me an idea? Thanks

Some difference.
If you are good enough to be accepted by a stock library then chances are good enough to sell your work editorially.

This video shows which are the top selling stock photos and why: http://www.pocketstock.com/academy/the-concepts-behind-images-that-sell-in-their-thousands

If you’re interested in other useful stock photography videos, you can also check out our Pocketstock Academy:
http://www.pocketstock.com/academy

If I don’t make anything it’s no biggie anyway.

[...] Take and sell digital photos. If you have a knack for photography, you might be able to generate some side income by selling stock photos. [...]

Now, as more and more people are uploading images the downloads are becoming scarce.

I have to post more and more just to keep the downloads at the same level.

I’ve gone a different route. I’ve gone the way of senior pics and wedding shots. That’s where the real money is.

http://www.goingCarless.com

[...] very well and I?d like to welcome all the new reader to Randomn3ss who found there way here via Get Rich Slowly and all the other various blogs and social networking sites that have linked to the stories. I have [...]

http://www.squidoo.com/sellingpics

But I get 85% of sales, dont have to pay for a shopping cart, build all the pages, (I do that enough at my day-job), or wait for approval from someone I dont consider qualified to decide what are good stock images. I used to use iStock a few years ago (the plot thickens) but I really thought shutterpoint was better for what I was doing.

Yes you right, istock has a lot of good search features for the designer and layman alike, but nothing for finding a specific artist, if theres one you like.

The other thing I do like about SP is I can iframe/include my catalog at SP on my site, in there own separate categories. Bear in mind, there are alot of things about SP that I DONT like, but it works for now.

When I mentioned marketing, I meant that stock agencies dont advertise the photographers on their websites. I have seen iStock’s ads in more and more magazines all the time, and i agree, being on a very popular site and getting alot of exposure is half the battle!
But let me ask you, dont you think there comes a point when theres too much competition from “millions of photographs”

S

Yes, Corbis has always had large file size requirements, they prefer drum scans from 120/220 negs if possible, that is why I never bothered. I’ve been selling stock since 2002, back then I couldn’t afford to shoot that much film just to hope it sold, I was mostly doing freelance photography. I’m pretty sure I covered this in my article, if not, stock is not my main income. I do work a regular job, but I’ve been doing freelance photography for the last 7 years. Most of the stock stuff I sell is left overs from other jobs, vacations or just out having fun. It’s a way to profit from otherwise “wasteful” images. Nowadays, with 10mp DSLR cameras under a grand, anyone can be a photographer and anyone can shoot quality images for stock.

My 2 cents, for what they are worth, if you are marketing directly via email / phone calls for your images on shutterpoint, you might as well just add a gallery to your own website and paypal buttons, why bother splitting your profits? I know a few people that do this, but it is a lot more work than its worth.

You are also right, it’s not the responsibility of the stock agency to market, however iStock does. Open any design or Mac magazine and there are ads for iStock. They have also been in the Alexa top 100 sites for a few years now. Like I said, I’m not on a soapbox defending them, however they have done a really good job of making the site search engine friendly, and I mean Google search engine friendly. They’ve also won several awards for their PHP coding of the site and search engine technology, including the ability to search images based on a color palette. With over 2 million images, clearly they have one of the largest selections. I can tell you that when I did work for them, one of my images was number 15,000. They very much were one of the small guys. If I’m going to put my images somewhere, I’d prefer that they are going on a site with tons of traffic.

While I do have a page on my personal website that shows the last 10 images I’ve uploaded, I’ve always done really well by focusing on keyword selections instead of direct marketing.

The get your moneys worth is an interesting quote. What is it worth? Where else could you sell an image with almost no effort outside the photography and get paid on a regular basis? I’m not saying getting a quarter per image is where its at, but when I joined iStock it was 25c to download any image and the photographer got a nickel. The exposure alone on the site, back then, led to several freelance jobs outside of iStock.

Glad you found iPhotoForum too =)

I finally found your website through you forum
iPhotoForum.com, (nice by the way, will be joining) Your work was good enough visually, was there a different issue that they werent accepted by the “Big Boys”?

Cool to see another Philly boy on the web!

I get 3-5 downloads a month, but, unlike alot of my Shutterpoint counterparts, I dont just post my images and HOPE they sell. I actively email (Individually, not in spam fashion) all kinds of casino/poker related sites and companies and let them know my images are there.

A point I try to get across to others, and this is important, that it is not the responsibility of the stock site to market the images. That duty is still on the photographer. The stock sites only try to market themselves, maintaining search rankings, etc.

In any case, it’s a buyers market. Places like istock exist because of this, but just remember, iStock has over a million images on their site, which means their making thousands of dollars a month, if not more and only giving their sources (the photographers) a few
peanuts for it. I’m not saying we should all be charging 50-500 dollars an image, but at least, get your moneys worth.

I’m sorry to say, iStock isn’t ruining the stock image marketplace, they’ve changed for good. I took a look at your stuff on shutterpoint, most seems to be around $50, mind if I ask how often your images get downloaded?

Clearly there is a business model for micro stock photography, as well as super high-end stuff, ala Getty and Corbis. Point is most of the microstock stuff is way more available to people not willing to pay gobs of money for blogging and inner-office memos. While I’m aware that stuff on iStock gets used in books, magazines and billboards, more often than not it’s used in web graphics. As a blogger myself, I’m more likely to go to iStock and pay $3 for a poker image, than the $50 asking price you have. If I was doing a magazine article, I’d consider buying yours, but for $6 I can get a high quality, nice image from iStock. As someone who would be looking to make a profit and keep costs down (as most buyers are), I’m likely to go the cheaper route.

I’m not going to stand on a soapbox and defend iStock, they tried a “pro” version where shooters set their own prices (most around $100) and split profits 50/50 with iStock, it failed. I would love to make Corbis money; I don’t have a portfolio good enough.

My personal opinion is that anything being sold as royalty free stock under $500 per use is considered microstock, if one chooses to go that route, I suggest using the biggest and best [in my opinion], iStock.

Correct – bear in mind that they aren’t always out policing this stuff, you will be responsible for doing some of it on your own. If you put your images on several stock sites, there could be a problem finding out where the image was downloaded and what can be done. That is part of the reason I’ve chosen to stick with one agency.

With regards to marketing – I have not spent a single penny on this. I do get tiny amounts of traffic compared to the stock photo web sites – but I still think it is a good way to monetize photos that the stock photo web sites will not accept..

Again, you are correct, it is a good way to monetize stuff that the agency’s won’t take, but you could only hope to get the type of traffic they do. I also use my personal site to help promote my images on iStock, some people have their entire site built around their images on iStock to help bring more traffic to them and make more money.

I take it that if your image is downloaded from one of the stock sites and then used inappropriately (i.e. someone claims it as their own and tries to resell it on a high traffic web site) – then the stock photo site will handle legal proceedings on your behalf?

If this is the case then that is a major plus right enough.

With regards to marketing – I have not spent a single penny on this. I do get tiny amounts of traffic compared to the stock photo web sites – but I still think it is a good way to monetize photos that the stock photo web sites will not accept..

Heres the thing about laptops, you won’t see accurate colors with them if you change your angle of view, use them in a different place of your home or office or be able to change a video card in them.

The first thing I would do would be invest in a hardware color calibration unit, like the eye-one. They run around $150. This will be able to get your laptop color calibrated and that will be a vast imporvement over what you have now. That said, you will need to calibrate it where you plan on working on image editing. I could go on and on about color management and light sources, etc., let me know if you need a seperate article about that stuff.

As for using an external monitor, that would be a wise investment, they hold color much better and offer better control of color and color profiles. I’d skip right over the 19 though and get as big as you can. There are often deals on 20″ widescreens for under $200 and 22″ widescreens for around $300. If you are looking at a higher end monitor, check out Samsung 226bw. Most of the higher end Dell monitors are great too, look at the Dell Outlet for a refurb or closeout special.

Jordan,

Great sites! My problem with giving stuff away is in how it will be used. Granted that your stuff won’t make good prints (I’ve had several stock prints published in books, magazines, posters and flyers), but they could be used on a high traffic site, which makes a ton of money. For me, it’s the “how” my images are getting used that worries me.

Additionally, you also have to have some strong marketing to get the kind of traffic your blogs bring in. While they might be high traffic for you, they pail in comparison to sites like iStockphoto or Getty. That is where the value for me lies, they are doing the marketing and driving the traffic in.

Thanks Ryan!