I pretty much agree with you in general. I'm only considering it at all because I don't have a very big library of "stockable" images right, and if I'm going to test the high-end waters, I need to use some of the very best images just to see if I can qualify, in which case I could always pull them from Shutterstock.
If by some chance, Alamy was to accept my submissions, I'd send them a different set of images than to any RF sites.
I pretty much agree with you in general. I'm only considering it at all because I don't have a very big library of "stockable" images right, and if I'm going to test the high-end waters, I need to use some of the very best images just to see if I can qualify, in which case I could always pull them from Shutterstock.
If by some chance, Alamy was to accept my submissions, I'd send them a different set of images than to any RF sites.
The test CD images are considered to be your first submissions but I'd go ahead and test it on a few of your micro stock site images. If you get in AND if you decide to go ahead with it, you can, as you said, pull a few of your best images from micro and transfer them.
And then sit and wait a few months for a sale, hoping that when it comes it will be worth it!
And then sit and wait a few months for a sale, hoping that when it comes it will be worth it!
;o)
Yes, the constant trickle of downloads from SS provides some ongoing encouragement.
No sales for me from Alamy yet, but I'm an eternal optimist. We don't have a large number of images at the micro stock sites but the ones we do have there provide a steady trickle too...
I tried to join Shutterstock and was surprised that they asked for a copy of a driver's licence or passport to be sent to them electronically . I always believed that you should not put your ID on the internet as it is poor security. Can't see why they should need it anyway, after all you can join other microstock sites, ebay etc without this requirement. Thoughts anyone?
I tried to join Shutterstock and was surprised that they asked for a copy of a driver's licence or passport to be sent to them electronically . I always believed that you should not put your ID on the internet as it is poor security. Can't see why they should need it anyway, after all you can join other microstock sites, ebay etc without this requirement. Thoughts anyone?
I tried to join Shutterstock and was surprised that they asked for a copy of a driver's licence or passport to be sent to them electronically . I always believed that you should not put your ID on the internet as it is poor security. Can't see why they should need it anyway, after all you can join other microstock sites, ebay etc without this requirement. Thoughts anyone?
Yes, they have been the victims of a (very) few non-US submitters who established accounts and were submitting stolen images. This is a method of verifying that there is an actual photographer out there with a verified address, and not some anonymous person with only an email address.
If you check the forums or FAQs over at Shutterstock, you will find a more complete and official explanation. Baically though, it's to protect the integrity of the site, and thereby the reputations of its submitters.
Normally, if you are going to get paid by someone, you'll have to present them with some positive form of identification to prove you're the person entitled to the payment -- I don't think this is too much different than what you'd need to provide for any other job application.
In my experience they are a legitimate and up-front company, and will not abuse your information.
If you check the forums or FAQs over at Shutterstock, you will find a more complete and official explanation. Baically though, it's to protect the integrity of the site, and thereby the reputations of its submitters.
In my experience they are a legitimate and up-front company, and will not abuse your information.
Thanks for your advice GeneralE, should have though to check their forums myself. Doh!
I tried to join Shutterstock and was surprised that they asked for a copy of a driver's licence or passport to be sent to them electronically . I always believed that you should not put your ID on the internet as it is poor security. Can't see why they should need it anyway, after all you can join other microstock sites, ebay etc without this requirement. Thoughts anyone?
Yes, they have been the victims of a (very) few non-US submitters who established accounts and were submitting stolen images. This is a method of verifying that there is an actual photographer out there with a verified address, and not some anonymous person with only an email address.
If you check the forums or FAQs over at Shutterstock, you will find a more complete and official explanation. Baically though, it's to protect the integrity of the site, and thereby the reputations of its submitters.
Normally, if you are going to get paid by someone, you'll have to present them with some positive form of identification to prove you're the person entitled to the payment -- I don't think this is too much different than what you'd need to provide for any other job application.
In my experience they are a legitimate and up-front company, and will not abuse your information.
I joined SS back in the day, it certainly makes sense for them to institute this policy though...
Yes, they have been the victims of a (very) few non-US submitters who established accounts and were submitting stolen images.
That's slightly odd; they certainly didn't require any of that stuff from me - I always had the impression it was only something relevant to US submitters...
And then sit and wait a few months for a sale, hoping that when it comes it will be worth it!
;o)
Yes, the constant trickle of downloads from SS provides some ongoing encouragement.
No sales for me from Alamy yet, but I'm an eternal optimist. We don't have a large number of images at the micro stock sites but the ones we do have there provide a steady trickle too...
Have had the first few downloads at alamy (3 in the last 8 months or so)... so it is slow, but always nice. Micro stock in the bulk of my income still though..
I currently use the Canon Dig Rebel XT 8MP. While the quality is not high-end stock quality (at least from what I have read is expected for high-end stock quality), my skills are still exceptional. I just happen to not have the expenses for purchasing high-end, top-notch equipment right now (i.e. lenses, higher megapixel camera, etc). I hear a lot of good and bad about microstock photography. Personally, I see my skills working into the high-end stock photography path, but I'm not sure who to go with for a photography agent or a photography site in which I can set my own prices for my images and sell them through the web site itself. My concern is with there being such a vast array of web sites and services to choose from these days via Internet that it's frustrating to know who to use and who to stay away from. Any helpful suggestions with sites, agents, and selling phtoos would really be appreciated. Again, I'm looking to use more of a medium to high-end stock quality site. Thanks.
I am a professional photographer based in Los Angeles, I had tried selling images on both micro and macro, but I found a great site called //www.lotsofdpi.com I posted my work up and had some OK results, and unlike the other agancies I got paid quickly, I'd like to get feedback from other pros as to what you think of the site. I know they are new, I spoke to the founder and found him to be very cool, no BS, there was no hard sell, he was pretty honest about the fact that they were new and didnt have enough images on the site yet.
I think a lot of it comes down to what you feel good with, it is almost impossible to get a live person on the phone at any of the other agencies, micro or macro, and yet within minutes of sending in a link to my work I was talking to the founder of the company, that made a difference for me!
Can anyone please make for all of us who are just entering stock photography a small list of micro stock and macro stock?
That's cause for me it's hard just surfing on the web understand the difference, I'm registered and selling in 5 different stock website but still don't get which could be defined macro or micro....
I am a professional photographer based in Los Angeles, I had tried selling images on both micro and macro, but I found a great site called INSERTWEBSITEHERE I posted my work up and had some OK results, and unlike the other agancies I got paid quickly, I'd like to get feedback from other pros as to what you think of the site. I know they are new, I spoke to the founder and found him to be very cool, no BS, there was no hard sell, he was pretty honest about the fact that they were new and didnt have enough images on the site yet.
I think a lot of it comes down to what you feel good with, it is almost impossible to get a live person on the phone at any of the other agencies, micro or macro, and yet within minutes of sending in a link to my work I was talking to the founder of the company, that made a difference for me!
ha ha very funny. can you say S-P-A-M
I am guessing you got him on the phone in seconds becasue the FOUNDER of the company is YOU. A little check with whois.org reveals the following.
lotsofdpi.com is registered to:
signtist
lee@signtist.com
2010 lincoln blvd
venice, CA 90291
US
Can anyone please make for all of us who are just entering stock photography a small list of micro stock and macro stock?
That's cause for me it's hard just surfing on the web understand the difference, I'm registered and selling in 5 different stock website but still don't get which could be defined macro or micro....
if you check out the website
Microstockgroup you will find lots of discussion and lists of the different companies.
i sudjest if you want more sites, going to that website i sudjested at the top, or going to a site like wikipedia and doing a search there for microstock or stock photography
I've spent the last several years working in stock exclusively for a living. I started out with micro when I was beginning and learned a lot from it, which encouraged me to try macro. I hit a couple of macro companies at just the right time and was soon selling well over $5000 per month. (Not that it was easy, I worked really hard to get there.) My strategy has been to expand to a couple of new portals every year to maximize my profits.
I've now seen a couple of my main earning agencies change their marketing strategies around and am watching my sales drop, rather than grow. (Grrr...) So this year, my goal is to stay where I am with those macro companies and expand into microstock once again with new, fresh images. I think having a good balance between markets will be key to watching my business continue to expand. It's kind of fun, actually - I've built up a ridiculously huge collection of props over the years and am going back through them and finding fresh ways to photograph them.
Oh, and Melissa (Melking) - you'd kick my butt in the macro world. :) You're a fabulous photographer who knows what is marketable and I can easily see you expanding that way and being very successful.
- what would happen to these people who work with only one, two or three agencies if they (the agencies)brocken? Do you guys have any idea about where they host their portfolios?
- Anyone heard of what is happening with many photographers and companies with the DRR case? This is a disaster!
- What about the hard keywording work? I, personally think that the mathematic of the microstock is much more favorable to the agencies. They should at least do this keyword work. Actually many macro agencies do take care of this thing, just because they do not take the risk to let this job to the photographer. These are two different jobs and should be separated. Bad keyword are bad for the business. For the photographer, for the agencies and for the buyer. And photographer should take photos, not do the agencies duties.
- What you guys hear about the present movement of the big ones like Getty and others , buying smaller companies and dissolving them?
wow.. nothing like a blast from the past :) I started this thread 3 years ago. Now I am happy to say I am working full time as a microstock photography and loving it.
anyhow, about what jordanfotografie said. Yeah, it would be devastating if your stock site went under and you were exclusive with them. However, it would be like any company going under which you worked for.
One advantage with microstock though, is most people are submitting to at least 6 very productive sites, so if one went under it wouldn't have such a influencing effect on my income. Additionally the customers who bought images at the site that went under would then buy from another company, one which I presumably would be submitting to so in essence my income wouldn't change.
