Comments on: Marketing your stock photos http://photocritic.org/photo-marketing/ The Photocritic DIY photography projects blog Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:18:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Prashant Mehta http://photocritic.org/photo-marketing/#comment-231281 Prashant Mehta Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:45:47 +0000 http://www.photocritic.org/2006/photo-marketing/#comment-231281 I can do Keywording for all kind of images , where i can get such kind of work , i have 3 years experience in keywording, for Getty, i-stock, api, etc.. mehta90@rediffmail.com (Mumbai, INDIA) I can do Keywording for all kind of images , where i can get such kind of work , i have 3 years experience in keywording, for Getty, i-stock, api, etc..

mehta90@rediffmail.com (Mumbai, INDIA)

]]> By: Jay M Schulz http://photocritic.org/photo-marketing/#comment-9718 Jay M Schulz Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:01:14 +0000 http://www.photocritic.org/2006/photo-marketing/#comment-9718 I had to make a comment here on this type of stock site. I do stock myself for a few Microstock sites. The idea of paying a stock site $25 a month to host my pictures is a little daunting faced with the fact that they are going to make that 15% commission on top of that. My portfolios average about 300 images, so, for me, it may work out to actually cover the costs, but for the majority of people, they are going to end up paying that $25 a month for the 25 images they have online and see no return. Stock is very competitive. Seeing as there is no review process, how can a client be assured that the $100 image they just bought is worth anything when viewed at larger than the thumbnail view? Any joe shmoe with a digital camera can take a picture and upload it. They upload all their junk pictures, thinking they are great, pay their $25 a month, and get one sale in 6 months (that doesn't total the $100 minimum payout amount after commissions are taken out) and are now wondering why they are paying big money for people to look at their pictures. From a business standpoint, a photographer has alot of control over pricing, etc. so it IS a valuable tool for selling stock. For the average photographer who is just getting started, it may be a more valuable tool to start out doing Microstock. The images are reviewed by professionals and, it may be heartbreaking to some, but a photographer will get a hard look at exactly how good their photographs are. It doesn't pay $85 per image, but it is also FREE to join most MS sites. No start up fees or monthly costs. You still have to accumulate some sales (some as low as $30) before you can collect any money, but at least that is straight profit! I want to reitterate that I don't think photo stock plus is a rip off. I just wanted to point out that if a person with a $200 point and shoot took a bunch of great pictures of landscapes and uploaded 50 of them to the site, with a price tag of $100 on each, there are alot of forces working AGAINST the sale of those images, and PSP is still collecting their $25 monthly. I had to make a comment here on this type of stock site. I do stock myself for a few Microstock sites. The idea of paying a stock site $25 a month to host my pictures is a little daunting faced with the fact that they are going to make that 15% commission on top of that. My portfolios average about 300 images, so, for me, it may work out to actually cover the costs, but for the majority of people, they are going to end up paying that $25 a month for the 25 images they have online and see no return. Stock is very competitive. Seeing as there is no review process, how can a client be assured that the $100 image they just bought is worth anything when viewed at larger than the thumbnail view? Any joe shmoe with a digital camera can take a picture and upload it. They upload all their junk pictures, thinking they are great, pay their $25 a month, and get one sale in 6 months (that doesn’t total the $100 minimum payout amount after commissions are taken out) and are now wondering why they are paying big money for people to look at their pictures.

From a business standpoint, a photographer has alot of control over pricing, etc. so it IS a valuable tool for selling stock. For the average photographer who is just getting started, it may be a more valuable tool to start out doing Microstock. The images are reviewed by professionals and, it may be heartbreaking to some, but a photographer will get a hard look at exactly how good their photographs are. It doesn’t pay $85 per image, but it is also FREE to join most MS sites. No start up fees or monthly costs. You still have to accumulate some sales (some as low as $30) before you can collect any money, but at least that is straight profit!

I want to reitterate that I don’t think photo stock plus is a rip off. I just wanted to point out that if a person with a $200 point and shoot took a bunch of great pictures of landscapes and uploaded 50 of them to the site, with a price tag of $100 on each, there are alot of forces working AGAINST the sale of those images, and PSP is still collecting their $25 monthly.

]]> By: CJ http://photocritic.org/photo-marketing/#comment-8924 CJ Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:09:33 +0000 http://www.photocritic.org/2006/photo-marketing/#comment-8924 I thought your original article was fantastic! I found photocritic a while ago now and I check back daily to see what's going on. I think the diversity within each of your articles is spot on and it helps to keep reader interest. Not too sure about the new theme as yet but it's not unpleasant... Oh... and $100 - $85 is $15... I bet photostock plus wish it was $25 mind you!!! Great site, great articles, fantastic insight. Thanks very much. Chris I thought your original article was fantastic!
I found photocritic a while ago now and I check back daily to see what’s going on. I think the diversity within each of your articles is spot on and it helps to keep reader interest. Not too sure about the new theme as yet but it’s not unpleasant…

Oh… and $100 - $85 is $15… I bet photostock plus wish it was $25 mind you!!!

Great site, great articles, fantastic insight. Thanks very much.

Chris

]]>