I question the implication that macro sites will only deal with fulltime photographers - there's nothing to stop the "housewife with little else to do with her time" from working with macro sites; I didn't have to sign anything claiming to be a fulltime photographer to submit to Alamy.
.
Many macro stock agencies, Getty, Corbis et al, have minimum submissions and require a certain number of new images, either monthly, quarterly or annually. Someone who is not shooting all the time for a living would be hard pressed to meet these numbers.
Hell, someone that IS shooting full time for a living may be hard pressed ti meet the numbers. :-)
Let me add one more thing to debunk another myth about microstock. I am at the bottom of the pay scale at istock, because I have less than 500 downloads, and I'm not exclusive (my pay rate won't change once I top 500 DLs because I have no plans on going exclusive). I know some consider it rude to discuss what you make, but I'm still pretty new and haven't made enough yet to worry about people knowing my $$$. That said, as of this morning I have had 411 downloads on istock total since I joined. I have made a total of $165.30 from those downloads. So, even with an 8MP camera at their LOWEST pay scale, I average 40.2 cents per download (I make 20 cents, 60 cents, or $1 each depending on the size bought). The big hitters make more than double that amount per DL average (to use Lise as an example, I know she uses a Canon 1Ds MK II, so with a 16MP camera, she can sell pix up to size XXL, so her top pay on a single download can be up to $20 or more). So get the $.20 idea out of your head--it's not like that any more. In an interview the COO of istock said their biggest earners make over $10,000 per month. If that's considered slave wages to you, then your lifestyle demands are MUCH higher than mine! :o)
I question the implication that macro sites will only deal with fulltime photographers - there's nothing to stop the "housewife with little else to do with her time" from working with macro sites; I didn't have to sign anything claiming to be a fulltime photographer to submit to Alamy.
.
Many macro stock agencies, Getty, Corbis et al, have minimum submissions and require a certain number of new images, either monthly, quarterly or annually. Someone who is not shooting all the time for a living would be hard pressed to meet these numbers.
True, but there are also macro agencies (Alamy, for instance) that don't have such requirements.
My point was that to suggest that macro is the preserve of full time professional photographers, and that micro should be the playground only of bored housewives, was nonsense in at least two directions :-)
I know it has been asked elsewhere, but does anyone have a full list of links and what is required to submit? I had not realised that mid-range sites existed and would like to know about them. I have not gotten around to submitting to any sites, but I keep thinking about it. It seems to me if you sell anywhere it will help refine your skills in knowing what people are looking for (and closely inspecting your own work). Plus they all pay something (what that something is worth compared to your time is an individual decision.) I thought a general reference would be very nice, if people submit what they know I will put it all together. (Unless someone else beats me too it).
Major sites (Highest per photo dollar)/What they ask for & what restrictions they have
Mid-range sites (20-200$ per image)/What they ask for & what restrictions they have
Low-range volume sites (under $20.00 per image)/What they ask for & what restrictions they have
I question the implication that macro sites will only deal with fulltime photographers - there's nothing to stop the "housewife with little else to do with her time" from working with macro sites; I didn't have to sign anything claiming to be a fulltime photographer to submit to Alamy.
.
Many macro stock agencies, Getty, Corbis et al, have minimum submissions and require a certain number of new images, either monthly, quarterly or annually. Someone who is not shooting all the time for a living would be hard pressed to meet these numbers.
True, but there are also macro agencies (Alamy, for instance) that don't have such requirements.
My point was that to suggest that macro is the preserve of full time professional photographers, and that micro should be the playground only of bored housewives, was nonsense in at least two directions :-)
Alamy is more of a hybrid between micro and macro.
But you are correct that people that are not creating a high volume of quality images are not banished to microstock agencies.
Let me add one more thing to debunk another myth about microstock. I am at the bottom of the pay scale at istock, because I have less than 500 downloads, and I'm not exclusive (my pay rate won't change once I top 500 DLs because I have no plans on going exclusive). I know some consider it rude to discuss what you make, but I'm still pretty new and haven't made enough yet to worry about people knowing my $$$. That said, as of this morning I have had 411 downloads on istock total since I joined. I have made a total of $165.30 from those downloads. So, even with an 8MP camera at their LOWEST pay scale, I average 40.2 cents per download (I make 20 cents, 60 cents, or $1 each depending on the size bought). The big hitters make more than double that amount per DL average (to use Lise as an example, I know she uses a Canon 1Ds MK II, so with a 16MP camera, she can sell pix up to size XXL, so her top pay on a single download can be up to $20 or more). So get the $.20 idea out of your head--it's not like that any more. In an interview the COO of istock said their biggest earners make over $10,000 per month. If that's considered slave wages to you, then your lifestyle demands are MUCH higher than mine! :o)
If those 10,000. earners were selling in tradional stock market tho, would be over 100,000.00. I have some images selling for pennies ones I uploaded before I knew better and know I can't sell them with a real agency.
Not ALL stock libraries need hundreds of images for you to get started either. Only the superbig ones, local agencies specializing in your city/state often will take less.
Let me add one more thing to debunk another myth about microstock. I am at the bottom of the pay scale at istock, because I have less than 500 downloads, and I'm not exclusive (my pay rate won't change once I top 500 DLs because I have no plans on going exclusive). I know some consider it rude to discuss what you make, but I'm still pretty new and haven't made enough yet to worry about people knowing my $$$. That said, as of this morning I have had 411 downloads on istock total since I joined. I have made a total of $165.30 from those downloads. So, even with an 8MP camera at their LOWEST pay scale, I average 40.2 cents per download (I make 20 cents, 60 cents, or $1 each depending on the size bought). The big hitters make more than double that amount per DL average (to use Lise as an example, I know she uses a Canon 1Ds MK II, so with a 16MP camera, she can sell pix up to size XXL, so her top pay on a single download can be up to $20 or more). So get the $.20 idea out of your head--it's not like that any more. In an interview the COO of istock said their biggest earners make over $10,000 per month. If that's considered slave wages to you, then your lifestyle demands are MUCH higher than mine! :o)
If those 10,000. earners were selling in tradional stock market tho, would be over 100,000.00. I have some images selling for pennies ones I uploaded before I knew better and know I can't sell them with a real agency.
Not ALL stock libraries need hundreds of images for you to get started either. Only the superbig ones, local agencies specializing in your city/state often will take less.
I have 1000 images on Alamy, and about 2000 images on the microstocks.
Between those two selling avenues, i can say that microstock pays better for my images that alamy does. many many many times better.
