Selling photos online... official MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

darich

pample-mouse wrote: »

Well, I am using bluemelon photo sharing - it makes it easy for you to present your photos and sell prints, and stuff such as mugs, t-shirts, even puzzle and various other items with your images on them. You just upload your photos and set your prices for the products that you decide you want to offer your pictures on. I like it, although it is a paid service.

It is something like smugmug, but I like bluemelon more.

You can also sell your digital photos under various licences - you can even create your own.

The website is bluemelon.com

photomad1 wrote: »

There is a lot of talk about macro vs micro stock, with some people saying you should avoid microstock as it only pays pennies. However, the point about microstock is that you can sell each photo a lot more times than you would on a macro site, and all those pennies soon add up.

There are a lot of photographers out there who do make a lot of money from the various microstock sites. Microstock has also opened up a massive new market - a lot of people/companies just could not afford the prices to buy from the macro sites, but can afford them from the microstock sites. The number of photos that are bought each day now is many times what it was even 10 years ago.

In fact, I think the macro sites will decline, and the micro sites will carry on increasing. The quality of photos on the micro sites is now very high, and more and more people realise that they can get just as good a photo from a microstock site as they can from a macro site, at a fraction of the cost. As all companies are looking to save money, more will be switching from macro to micro.

My advice would be to give the microstock sites a try, and see how much money you can make. They do not cost anything to join, so what have you got to lose?

I have found a very good introduction to microstock photography on the 'TakeStockPhotography' website which certainly helped me get started in microstock, and the money is already coming in

With both of you coming in and on your first post recommending a particular website this is commonly regarded on the site as spam.
I accept that not every first post is spam and if yours isn't then accept my apologies.

But the amount of times that someone comes into an old thread and recommends a site with their first post is amazing.

darich

photomad1 wrote: »

There is a lot of talk about macro vs micro stock, with some people saying you should avoid microstock as it only pays pennies. However, the point about microstock is that you can sell each photo a lot more times than you would on a macro site, and all those pennies soon add up.

There are a lot of photographers out there who do make a lot of money from the various microstock sites. Microstock has also opened up a massive new market - a lot of people/companies just could not afford the prices to buy from the macro sites, but can afford them from the microstock sites. The number of photos that are bought each day now is many times what it was even 10 years ago.

In fact, I think the macro sites will decline, and the micro sites will carry on increasing. The quality of photos on the micro sites is now very high, and more and more people realise that they can get just as good a photo from a microstock site as they can from a macro site, at a fraction of the cost. As all companies are looking to save money, more will be switching from macro to micro.

My advice would be to give the microstock sites a try, and see how much money you can make. They do not cost anything to join, so what have you got to lose?

I have found a very good introduction to microstock photography on the 'TakeStockPhotography' website which certainly helped me get started in microstock, and the money is already coming in

I was going to disect this post, ask questions, disprove a couple of points but since it's spam I've decided against it.
Try using some evidence to back up your claims

me1jane

darich wrote: »

I was going to disect this post, ask questions, disprove a couple of points but since it's spam I've decided against it.
Try using some evidence to back up your claims

From my experience, what photomad1 suggests is entirely correct, though I have no experience of the website he mentions at the end of his post.

I'm not a spammer, nor am I a prolific photographer. I have just over 300 photos online and make decent money from them every month via microstock.

I must caution anyone that thinks it's a get rich quick scheme though. To make serious money, you will likely need several thousand pounds worth of photographic and computer equipment and software. Without this level of investment you may well make a few £s here and there, but you're not likely to see consistent sales which amount to very much. Oh, a bit of photographic knowledge and flair helps a lot too! Actually, with the level of competition at the sites now - make that a lot of knowledge and flair.

Happy to discuss.

chrisbur

me1jane wrote: »

From my experience, what photomad1 suggests is entirely correct, though I have no experience of the website he mentions at the end of his post.

I'm not a spammer, nor am I a prolific photographer. I have just over 300 photos online and make decent money from them every month via microstock.

I must caution anyone that thinks it's a get rich quick scheme though. To make serious money, you will likely need several thousand pounds worth of photographic and computer equipment and software. Without this level of investment you may well make a few £s here and there, but you're not likely to see consistent sales which amount to very much. Oh, a bit of photographic knowledge and flair helps a lot too! Actually, with the level of competition at the sites now - make that a lot of knowledge and flair.

Happy to discuss.

Any chance of a link to your pictures so we can see what is required to suceed on a microstock site? I know you cannot post a proper link but if you leave out the www and replace the . with dot we will work it out.

me1jane

This is a link to my bestselling shot (though not necessarily my biggest money maker)...you can click through to my portfolio from it. (Obviously still the usual www in front of it).

darich

me1jane wrote: »

From my experience, what photomad1 suggests is entirely correct, though I have no experience of the website he mentions at the end of his post.

I'm not a spammer, nor am I a prolific photographer. I have just over 300 photos online and make decent money from them every month via microstock.

I must caution anyone that thinks it's a get rich quick scheme though. To make serious money, you will likely need several thousand pounds worth of photographic and computer equipment and software. Without this level of investment you may well make a few £s here and there, but you're not likely to see consistent sales which amount to very much. Oh, a bit of photographic knowledge and flair helps a lot too! Actually, with the level of competition at the sites now - make that a lot of knowledge and flair.

Happy to discuss.

Regarding photomad1's post.
He/she claims that you can sell a photo far more times on a micro site than a macro site.....but provides no evidence.
Claims there are a lot of photographers making a lot of money.....but provides no evidence or advise that thousands of images are required to have a reasonable income.
Claims that macro sites will decline and micro sites will increase....but no evidence.
Claims that more companies will use micro and fewer will use macro....but no evidence
Try joining a micro site - you have nothing to lose....oh and by the way here's a really good one.

The whole thing to me read like spam...lots of claims and statements without an evidence or links backing them up.....then drops a website in at the end.

me1jane

darich wrote: »

Regarding photomad1's post.
He/she claims that you can sell a photo far more times on a micro site than a macro site.....but provides no evidence.
Claims there are a lot of photographers making a lot of money.....but provides no evidence or advise that thousands of images are required to have a reasonable income.
Claims that macro sites will decline and micro sites will increase....but no evidence.
Claims that more companies will use micro and fewer will use macro....but no evidence
Try joining a micro site - you have nothing to lose....oh and by the way here's a really good one.

The whole thing to me read like spam...lots of claims and statements without an evidence or links backing them up.....then drops a website in at the end.

Well, it may well have been spam, I have no idea....all I can say is that from my experience, I think that what he says pretty much holds true, spam or not. I'm not going to provide evidence for you either - it's not my job to do that - but I will try and help and offer advice if people want to ask questions.

darich

Having been involved in this thread from early on, I thought I should declare that I've upoaded a few images to a microstock site to see what happens.
Interestingly, Dreamstime rejected several as having distorted pixels or not saved at highest quality even though it was straight from a Canon 5D and converted from RAW at maximum. They've allowed one image out of 10...a poor return....yet I have 100% at several other sites (including Alamy) and even a few sales.

I've now got a few on fotolia and not so keen on Dreamstime based on that rejection.

To Me1Jane - I've got 69 images now on Fotolia....all awaiting validation so will be interesting to see how many get onto the site. What is the kind of return on that small number of images. and I know if it's anything, it'll be a few pounds/dollars per month....any thoughts?

me1jane

darich wrote: »

Having been involved in this thread from early on, I thought I should declare that I've upoaded a few images to a microstock site to see what happens.
Interestingly, Dreamstime rejected several as having distorted pixels or not saved at highest quality even though it was straight from a Canon 5D and converted from RAW at maximum. They've allowed one image out of 10...a poor return....yet I have 100% at several other sites (including Alamy) and even a few sales.

I've now got a few on fotolia and not so keen on Dreamstime based on that rejection.

To Me1Jane - I've got 69 images now on Fotolia....all awaiting validation so will be interesting to see how many get onto the site. What is the kind of return on that small number of images. and I know if it's anything, it'll be a few pounds/dollars per month....any thoughts?

I think it's true that the majority of the bigger agencies are getting a lot tougher as to what they'll accept. To a large extent it's no longer possible to get accepted with a compact camera, even a very good one (obviously there are always exceptions to the rule). I would also say that the basic ranges of DSLRs don't really cut it for consistent acceptances or, more to the point, the bottom of the range lenses they tend to come with don't. However, a 5D should produce files that are perfectly acceptable, providing you've paired it with a decent lens. I guess sometimes if lighting conditions were bad, etc, then the quality might not be good enough, but I'd have to see the file to have an idea why they'd reject it. Sometimes you never can work it out and it's just one of those things.

Regarding Fotolia. Well, I'll state 1st that I've been exclusive with iStock for several years, so I'm not sure how Fotolia is doing at the moment. However, if I personally put 69 photos up on iStock, then I would expect at least £100 a month from them. Obviously it depends on the subject matter and the appeal of the particular photos, and I think that my ratio earnings to photos online is way above the norm. I've not seen your photos, but I guess if I was advising any hobbyist who was unknown to me then I would suggest that they may get between £10-£20 a month from Fotolia (and maybe not even that much if the photos are mostly snapshots of landscapes, flowers, pets, etc). I know that there's a big difference between the money I've quoted for iStock and Fotolia, but iStock really does have the bulk of the market and if you're exclusive I think the payments (though not necessarily the % cut) are some of the best around.

darich

me1jane wrote: »

I think it's true that the majority of the bigger agencies are getting a lot tougher as to what they'll accept. To a large extent it's no longer possible to get accepted with a compact camera, even a very good one (obviously there are always exceptions to the rule). I would also say that the basic ranges of DSLRs don't really cut it for consistent acceptances or, more to the point, the bottom of the range lenses they tend to come with don't. However, a 5D should produce files that are perfectly acceptable, providing you've paired it with a decent lens. I guess sometimes if lighting conditions were bad, etc, then the quality might not be good enough, but I'd have to see the file to have an idea why they'd reject it. Sometimes you never can work it out and it's just one of those things.

Regarding Fotolia. Well, I'll state 1st that I've been exclusive with iStock for several years, so I'm not sure how Fotolia is doing at the moment. However, if I personally put 69 photos up on iStock, then I would expect at least £100 a month from them. Obviously it depends on the subject matter and the appeal of the particular photos, and I think that my ratio earnings to photos online is way above the norm. I've not seen your photos, but I guess if I was advising any hobbyist who was unknown to me then I would suggest that they may get between £10-£20 a month from Fotolia (and maybe not even that much if the photos are mostly snapshots of landscapes, flowers, pets, etc). I know that there's a big difference between the money I've quoted for iStock and Fotolia, but iStock really does have the bulk of the market and if you're exclusive I think the payments (though not necessarily the % cut) are some of the best around.

Many thanks
I'm not sure why the images was rejected.
Like I said - Canon 5D, shot in RAW and then submitted. Incidentally, they accepted an almost identical shot taken seconds later.
I use L class lenses almost exclusively so my equipment is pretty much top of the range.

I'm not expecting anything like £100 per month on a few dozen images.
I used macro site for the past few years and had one sale to a calendar abroad.....one sale in something like 5 years....not great but as a hobbyist it's better than many others.
I'll try the micro sites and see how things go.

I'll have a look at istock too :beer: