Selling photos online... official MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

me1jane

darich wrote: »

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:

I should point out to anyone reading who thinks it looks like easy money, think again.

The boat for making easy money from putting your photos online sailed a few years ago.

99% of people who put photos on microstock sites today (or anywhere else for that matter) are probably going to be a.disappointed and b. never earn enough to get paid (most sites have a $100 minimum payout).

However, if you are keen, determined, have good equipment, a flair for photography and understand what buyers are looking for (which is almost certainly not the sort of stuff you've already got photos of) then there is still money to be made.

My 2 main pieces of advice are:

1. Before you shoot and/or upload anything, think of at least 3 things a designer could use it for. ie, you have a photo of a freshly baked homemade quiche, how is a designer/buyer going to use that? Well, maybe he's got a recipe website and needs a photo of a quiche to illustrate one of his recipes. Maybe he's doing an article in a magazine on home baking, and needs a visual reference. Maybe he is designing a flyer for a local deli that's just opened, etc, etc. Because you're always having to prejudge how your photos will be used, you also need to consider how it should be photographed. Are you going to photograph it against a kitchen backdrop, or against a white background? The white background might be best for the designer of the flyer for the deli, but the ones for the recipe website and the magazine might prefer the more visual interest of the natural kitchen setting. So maybe you should shoot both? Also, are you going to shoot it close up, or leave a little room around the edges? The recipe website and the deli flyer probably want it nice and close up (so shoot that), but the magazine might want a bit of space in the photo where they can write a small caption (so shoot that too - oh, and make sure that the whatever background fills the 'space' for the caption is nicely blurred so that the text will be easily readable). You getting the idea?

2. If you have photos to upload, think of the main keywords that relate to them (the words that people would search for to find them). Search for each of those keywords at the site you're uploading to, and also at istockphoto. How does your shot compare to the 1st couple of pages of results? This is your competition, and your photo is going to have to be as good, if not better, than the vast majority of these to stand any chance of regular sales.

Sorry to be a bit pessimistic, but I'd hate anyone to go and spend a lot of money on a camera, computer, Photoshop, or whatever without being fully aware of the situation. A lot of people never make back the money they spend on equipment and props, never mind getting paid for their time.

Edited to add:

darich - I meant to say that istock is no longer very good for non-exclusive photographers. Their rates have been cut to 15%, and they don't get as good placement in the search. However, it's still worth uploading just to see what your experience is like with them, and whether it would be worth you going exclusive with them in the future.

patman99

It could be the dpi of the image that is the rejection factor. When you take a shot then transfer it to computer, the computer usually renders it at 72 dpi. By shoving the photo through PS, Gimp or Paint.net you can re-sample at 300 DPI which scales better.
Try doing this to some of your rejected images then re-submitting them.

I will agree about the lenses. Myself and my friend both use Sony Alphas ( mine - A700, his - A350). He recently bought a Minolta film camera c/w a couple of Konica lenses. These lenses are far better quality than the standard Sony ones.

darich

me1jane wrote: »

I should point out to anyone reading who thinks it looks like easy money, think again.

The boat for making easy money from putting your photos online sailed a few years ago.

99% of people who put photos on microstock sites today (or anywhere else for that matter) are probably going to be a.disappointed and b. never earn enough to get paid (most sites have a $100 minimum payout).

However, if you are keen, determined, have good equipment, a flair for photography and understand what buyers are looking for (which is almost certainly not the sort of stuff you've already got photos of) then there is still money to be made.

My 2 main pieces of advice are:

1. Before you shoot and/or upload anything, think of at least 3 things a designer could use it for. ie, you have a photo of a freshly baked homemade quiche, how is a designer/buyer going to use that? Well, maybe he's got a recipe website and needs a photo of a quiche to illustrate one of his recipes. Maybe he's doing an article in a magazine on home baking, and needs a visual reference. Maybe he is designing a flyer for a local deli that's just opened, etc, etc. Because you're always having to prejudge how your photos will be used, you also need to consider how it should be photographed. Are you going to photograph it against a kitchen backdrop, or against a white background? The white background might be best for the designer of the flyer for the deli, but the ones for the recipe website and the magazine might prefer the more visual interest of the natural kitchen setting. So maybe you should shoot both? Also, are you going to shoot it close up, or leave a little room around the edges? The recipe website and the deli flyer probably want it nice and close up (so shoot that), but the magazine might want a bit of space in the photo where they can write a small caption (so shoot that too - oh, and make sure that the whatever background fills the 'space' for the caption is nicely blurred so that the text will be easily readable). You getting the idea?

2. If you have photos to upload, think of the main keywords that relate to them (the words that people would search for to find them). Search for each of those keywords at the site you're uploading to, and also at istockphoto. How does your shot compare to the 1st couple of pages of results? This is your competition, and your photo is going to have to be as good, if not better, than the vast majority of these to stand any chance of regular sales.

Sorry to be a bit pessimistic, but I'd hate anyone to go and spend a lot of money on a camera, computer, Photoshop, or whatever without being fully aware of the situation. A lot of people never make back the money they spend on equipment and props, never mind getting paid for their time.

Edited to add:

darich - I meant to say that istock is no longer very good for non-exclusive photographers. Their rates have been cut to 15%, and they don't get as good placement in the search. However, it's still worth uploading just to see what your experience is like with them, and whether it would be worth you going exclusive with them in the future.

Thanks for the informative post.

I'm fully aware that it's not a get rich quick scheme.....nor is it easy.
I have good quality equipment because I have and do sell posters/canvases....also because I can afford it so I buy the better gear.

Any illusions I may have had about making a quick ewasy buck are long gone after having one sale in several years. However, another site I use, that specialises in canvases and prints has sold 3 of my images in the last year.

One thing that I have learned recently is that in submitting to a stock site means your images need to be clean, noise free, sharp etc....so in that respect it makes a photographer more critical and careful about submissions.

darich

patman99 wrote: »

It could be the dpi of the image that is the rejection factor. When you take a shot then transfer it to computer, the computer usually renders it at 72 dpi. By shoving the photo through PS, Gimp or Paint.net you can re-sample at 300 DPI which scales better.
Try doing this to some of your rejected images then re-submitting them.

I use the same workflow for all my images......submitted images are at 300dpi.
I use photoshop for any work on my images and know how to resample.

I'm not fussed about the rejection itself...it happens to everyone at times.....just a bit confused at the reason given.

darich

Just an update......
submitted a load of images to fotolia....and they're gradually being accepted and validated or rejected.
But the interesting thing is, the image rejected by Dreamstime, and I mean the exact same file has been accepted, validated and is now for sale on fotolia despite having, according to Dreamstime, distorted pixels/noise/etc.

Weird......I suppose it proves that a rejection isn't necessarily a sign that the image is no use because another agency may happily accept it.

me1jane

darich wrote: »

But the interesting thing is, the image rejected by Dreamstime, and I mean the exact same file has been accepted, validated and is now for sale on fotolia despite having, according to Dreamstime, distorted pixels/noise/etc.

Weird......I suppose it proves that a rejection isn't necessarily a sign that the image is no use because another agency may happily accept it.

Yep, it happens an awful lot. What one agency rejects, another will take.

darich

me1jane.....another question
I've had a look at the tax forms on fotolia and shutter stock and am pretty confused by the terms.
Any pointers on completing them and where they get sent to??

many thanks

me1jane

darich wrote: »

me1jane.....another question
I've had a look at the tax forms on fotolia and shutter stock and am pretty confused by the terms.
Any pointers on completing them and where they get sent to??

many thanks

LOL, no I'm afraid not....one of the reasons I'm glad I'm only with iStock...being Canadian they don't seem to have to bother with all the tax implications. They just leave it to us to declare ourselves.

You may find some help in the Fotolia forums, or one of the various microstock forums. I'll take a look around and report back if I find anything useful.

To anyone else who is considering microstock, it's an important point - most agencies will withold 30% of your earnings until you can get yourself sorted out with a US tax id which proves that our governments have reciprocal tax agreements.

me1jane

microstockgroup.com/newby-discussion/fotolia-12226/?PHPSESSID=6322a7ad7d0ed620e721c9198b109036

You might try taking a look at the links in the above thread. It may be information you've already seen, but since I don't have a Shutterstock account, I can't see what it says. (I've taken the www. off the beginning so that I can post it)

darich

Thanks Me1Jane.
I followed that link, and found a few subsequent links and managed to get a form to submit. I've completed it and hopefully it'll be accepted as ok.

thanks again