Stock photography

[shooter 1]

Dose anyone shot stock photography. Istock,Dreamtime,Shutterstock and the like. If so how are you doing and what sells well for you.

[Imagebuffet]

I'm seeing a high demand for naked men climbing fences.

[donlfaulkner]

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

I'm seeing a high demand for naked men climbing fences.

Topped with razor wire?

[linque]

I stumbled upon this link a while back. I can't find any info on how it's compiled, and it's sorted alphabetically so you can't tell which search term has more hits. But it may give you some ideas.

[dmcantrell]

I have some stuff on istock and sales are slow. Very slow. It seems to be proportionate to the amount of energy and time I put into it. :)

[Crashoran]

I shoot for several agencies and it pays my rent as I get through school.

[arich]

Originally Posted by Crashoran

I shoot for several agencies and it pays my rent as I get through school.

What kind of stuff do you shoot? I've looked at this several times but always come away with the feeling that I would have to seriously compose every shot and that the reward wouldn't be worth the time

[Dobick]

Originally Posted by arich

What kind of stuff do you shoot? I've looked at this several times but always come away with the feeling that I would have to seriously compose every shot and that the reward wouldn't be worth the time

Not sure I understand what you mean by "seriously compose" every shot? Instead of what? How do you shoot now?

[Imagebuffet]

From what I can tell, unless you are prepared to live off about a penny per impression, these micro-stock sites won't give you enough to live on. You also have to dumped thousands of images into these things over a period of a few weeks if you expect to see very much money.

Note that micro-stock is a different animal than stock photography, but all you listed are micro-stock sites.

[texkam]

Didn't Paco post something a while back about his experiences shooting stock?

[merock]

Stock sites (especially micro stock sites) are a bad bad bad thing for the industry. BAD. /offsoapbox

[dmcantrell]

Originally Posted by merock

Stock sites (especially micro stock sites) are a bad bad bad thing for the industry. BAD. /offsoapbox

Can you elaborate on this?

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by arich

What kind of stuff do you shoot? I've looked at this several times but always come away with the feeling that I would have to seriously compose every shot and that the reward wouldn't be worth the time

It's no different than shooting anything else.
The good stock agencies are VERY PICKY!
They are looking for high quality work, not random candid crap.
They guys making a good living off of it are out there shooting every day, hiring models, make up artists, etc... just like any other paid photo shoot.

Lifestyle stuff sells the best.
Second is probably studio shot objects if I had to guess.

[texxter]

Originally Posted by shooter 1

Dose anyone shot stock photography. Istock,Dreamtime,Shutterstock and the like. If so how are you doing and what sells well for you.

I shoot stock for iStockphoto and Getty. Mostly portraits, business, children, lifestyle, also some travel photography. This is a very part time business for me, as I only shoot what I please and when I can - I have a full time job doing something else, and stock is a way for me to fund my photography. My income from stock is small, but not insignificant, and it would be more if I spent more time on it.

Note that the inspection process will eliminate some (or many) of your images from consideration - my acceptance rate is 75%, which means that 250 images of every 1,000 don't make it. That's a lot, but I continue to work on it to make my acceptance rates go up.

It's a numbers game - you need to have lots of good images that have commercial value. Even with lots of decent images, there is fierce competition - iStockphoto has contributors all over the world and a library of 6 million images. For me it's perfect because I don't have time to spend on non-photo work, like marketing and dealing with retail clients. I also don't have time to pursue assignment commercial photography. Stock allows me to do as much or as little as a I want and get some supplementary income.

Doing microstock full time and making a living out of it is certainly possible, and some people are doing it. But it won't happen by accident. You need razor sharp focus on what sells and the ability to create outstanding images day and day out. If I was doing microstock full-time, treating it as a business more than a pastime, working 10 hours a day every day I would make about $40K-$50K a year in revenue, pre-tax, with low expenses. Someone with more talent and better business skills could make $100K per year - most people aren't that good or that motivated.

Concerning microstock damaging the industry, I'd say that it's changing the industry. It's great for image buyers and for small photography operations. It's good for stock companies. It's bad for photographers that were making good money out of stock sales - now they need to do a lot better work to get the same money, or get paid a lot less for the same work.

The confluence of internet marketplaces, wide availability of digital photography, self-service stock photo portals, globalization and general devaluation of photography has created a new dynamic in the industry that is unstoppable. We can lament the change or we can accept it and either change business models or move up the food chain with better images that still command a high price. There are amazing images on iStockphoto, and thousands more are added every week.

[Crashoran]

Originally Posted by merock

Stock sites (especially micro stock sites) are a bad bad bad thing for the industry. BAD. /offsoapbox

That's like saying Netflix is bad for the rental industry because this "new" form of online rental is putting traditional places like Hollywood Video and Blockbuster out of business. With the introduction of digital photography and easy access to broadband, it was inevitable; and competition will always rise. Microstock is not going to go away and micro shooters aren't going to pull their images just because it conflicts with other photographers' opinions.

With that being said, I am not happy with the way Fotolia has been treating submitters. They are raising the price of subscriptions and images while keeping our cut the same (they use a credit system). Not to mention the huge tax mess they went through.