dabbleshots Loc: Richmond,va.

Just wondering if anyone has ever tried or are selling on stock photography sites? I keep being told to try some of those but at the same time. sounds like you need hundreds of them uploaded to sell anything?? just pondering! I know you cant make much from those but a lil extra never hurts!

Russell

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

Wrong, you need thousands per year to make even a few dollars.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I agree 100%, you need not only thousands, but you also need some skill or lots of luck to get them approved for posting, then hopefully you can make some pennies per image. :)

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

It is a good excercise to see how difficult it really is to get even one image accepted at a stock site. I will say it gets a little easier over time but it's still a lot of work.

IMHO micro stock sites have just made it not worth the time, unless you want to work at it full time. I have a friend who retired and did this. He tells me he takes nearly 50,000 photos a year. Took two years to get even a small income. So he worked 2 years for free, and now works 60 hours a week to make 10k a year. McDonalds pays better for less hours worked.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I know one guy doing it, claims he is making 15 to 20 % of his income from them, he has 1000's of photos listed.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Very true - I worked hard to get a few accepted, have yet to make any money at it though. A couple have sold, but way under the minimum they will send payment for ;)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Russell..you are right. You need to make it a full time thing creating and uploading everyday. Some you may get paid only 25 cents. You need to figure out what your time is worth.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I think that percentages are relevant if 100% is known ;)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

:thumbup:

TheDman Loc: USA

I have 480 images on istockphoto, and it's made me around $50k. But I uploaded them all between 2005-2010, which was the heyday. Now it's kind of jumped the shark.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

Depends on the stock sites you select to use. Sites such as shutterstock do not let you make enough money to be worthwhile and do not have a great deal of credibility with the higher end consumers of stock images.

Other sites will allow you to make a reasonable fee on images sold but they have fairly stringent quality requirements and require you to prepare images according to these and to keyword them accurately so their customers can find them.

The days of making a living out of stock images are unfortunately gone but if you choose the right sites and are careful with what you submit you can make some income.

teacherdad48 Loc: Coeur d'Alene, Idaho

Russell,

I suggest trying Dreamstime.com first. I have experience with 4 different microstock sites and have a portfolio of over 2,000 images on each. Send me a PM and I can give you some tips. -Mike

TGanner Loc: Haines, Alaska

I have had several of my photos used by the First National Bank of Alaska in their state calendar over the years. My commission on each photo was less than $1.50 (not per calendar). I was pleased to see my work on the state calendar, and continued to submit images to: 1. Act as a barometer to gauge how successful I was at selecting shots that would be accepted by the stock company; 2. Generate enough income to reach the "payout" threshold. That took a few years to accomplish. The best part is just telling my tour guests the story, and advising them to keep their day jobs. I do not bother submitting to stock companies anymore.

dabbleshots Loc: Richmond,va.

Thanks everyone,,, I was wondering about that.. and I kept hearing placing them on those sites but theres so many millions of pics,, would take forever to find them and hope they sell when you do........ thanks for all the replies!

William Royer Loc: Kansas

The only stock site with which I'm somewhat familiar is iStock, where I've been a member for a number of years. My perspective is that: 1). It's another outlet for potential sales of your photography; 2). The Contributor's share of each sale is, indeed, small, so earning a significant amount of total income does require a very high number of sales which, in turn, usually requires lot of images uploaded there. Having said that, some people have done very, very well. 3). The incredible surge in the sheer number of images on such stock sites has reduced the odds of a potential customer finding, much less choosing to buy, your particular needle in the haystack. 4) One of the advantages I found of working with them is the learning process of taking and processing an image of any subject well enough to pass their rigorous inspection of every single submission. Their buyers expect extremely high 'technical' standards. Sort of like being paid a little to learn a lot. Now most of my submissions (when I get around to doing it) sail right through to acceptance. But, I am concerned that only a little of that is due to my skills, and more due to relaxed inspection standards. Don't know.
At any rate, I think the most accurate way of viewing stock sites is that more potential buyers are likely to look there for an image than at one's own private website. So, if you have a significant number of images that you think are of commercial value -- both in quality and in subject matter -- check out a couple of stock sites and determine what sells and is in demand. And, compare some of the higher selling examples to your own work and subject matter.