Anyone with experience uploading images for sale? I'm a long time hobby photo shooter, but I'm thinking of upping my game with a bit more challenge. Does anyone have any experience...

rhudston Loc: Nova Scotia

I'm a long time hobby photo shooter, but I'm thinking of upping my game with a bit more challenge. Does anyone have any experience putting images up on Shutterstock or Adobe Stock or one of the other sites? Is it challenging, numbing, or is it like jumping into a pool of piranhas?

jim quist Loc: Missouri

Check out zenfolio. Unlimited storage.

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

Stay away from shutterstock. Their automated selection process will reject your best images. Plus the ones they do select will only generate pennies for you if they are sold. Try Getty instead.

wham121736 Loc: Long Island, New York

I submit photos to Adobe stock, Alamy, Shutterstock, and Istock (Getty). Rejections force me to consider what I might want to improve. Acceptance is only an ego boost not a financial bonanza. You WILL NOT make enough money to justify the effort or pay bills unless you are able to supply large numbers (100s to 1000s) of commercially useful images each month. Exposure, lighting and composition rule and must support a theme, idea, or help tell a story, and leave room for text. With Covid19 keeping us shut in this is one way to have your work critiqued, but don’t think of it as a source of income.

rhudston wrote:

I'm a long time hobby photo shooter, but I'm thinking of upping my game with a bit more challenge. Does anyone have any experience putting images up on Shutterstock or Adobe Stock or one of the other sites? Is it challenging, numbing, or is it like jumping into a pool of piranhas?

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I have photos on EyeEm, no charge to set up, not going to get rich on it, have sold some, connected with Getty, nice feature for me is auto-tagging, not so nice , no feedback about why not accepted for sale, if not accepted for sale photo can remain there, might be a plus for you, display site. Bob.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

I have sold prints through my Smugmug and Fine Art America websites. I set the prices and profit margin. The stock agencies will only give you pennies on the dollar. 😡😢

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

Listen to the voices of experience!

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

Spirit Vision Photography wrote:

I have sold prints through my Smugmug and Fine Art America websites. I set the prices and profit margin. The stock agencies will only give you pennies on the dollar. 😡😢

I'm on FineArtAmerica & I do set my prices but it seems FAA is the one setting the profit margin. It's hefty but worth it since they handle printing, matting, framing & shipping. From Shutterstock, Getty & Dreamstime I've had some sales but, as mentioned, not much $$. Redbubble is similar to FAA & I've had quite a few sales there. As far as the uploading process, each has its own system & none are difficult. What I do is put my images on FAA with descriptions & keywords. Then I copy/paste into the appropriate areas in the stock agency forms. Saves a bunch of time if you're uploading numerous images.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Welcome to UHH rhudston...
The revenue stream from shooting stock is virtually non-extant... Word!

"...I'm thinking of upping my game with a bit more challenge..."
Great! I would suggest migrating toward portraiture ASAP which has been and remains a premier revenue producer. That said, you have to have fabulous people and communication skills. Otherwise you will fail!

What do I shoot for recompense?
Besides Portraiture I shoot
1. Fashion (both Editorial and Catalog) btw, print is fading fast, everything is on-line now.
2. Sports (League Soccer)
3. Events (Weddings, Fashion Runway (Catwalk) shows etc.

However my highest paid $$ and most frequent gigs? Photo Lighting Assistant.

Best Advice: Join the PPA or better yet the ASMP and get off UHH since there are few if any active commercial shooters left on this site.

Get an account on IG to see what the competition is like...
https://www.instagram.com/spencerbentley_creates/
https://www.instagram.com/chrisknightphoto/
https://www.instagram.com/peterulimax/

Bottom Line? Until you are Published you are invisible... get publish now not later...

All the best on your journey rhudston

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

MrMophoto wrote:

Listen to the voices of experience!

First, do some homework searching for pages rating the various stock photo sites. This is not to find out which is best but rather to find out what each company offers to contributors. The evaluation of these sites varies so much from photographer to photographer that one should not put much faith in the rankings, and that includes those given here.

One example of possible incorrect info is the idea that Shutterstock uses automation in its review process and by implication that the other top sites do not. There may be some computer sorting, but if that is correct, then I would not understand why all of them do not do the same thing. I have been on Shutterstock for more than three years and have interacted with the company on several cases of what seems like mis-diagnosed photos in review. The interactions have been with real people and they seem to believe that the reviewers are real people. Just because I do not agree with a review does not mean it was done by a computer.

Note that most stock sites are aimed at PR people in organizations and companies. That is different than trying to sell great artistic photos. Trying to figure out what commercial editors and writers might want can be a major task. Are they looking for backgrounds for brochures? Are they looking for models looking beautiful and handsome in front of a distant landscape so they can sell a car?

The point needs to be stressed as others already have. Most of us will find it difficult to make a living selling stock photos. Here is my data as of today, 38 months after I had my first photo accepted which made me a contributor.

423 photos and illustrations downloaded by customers
$159.77 USD of royalties given to me
I had one photo sell for $12.99, 11 sold at $5.20, and so forth on down in money
70% of my photos sold at 50 cents or under, down to the minimum of 10 cents

Within the constraints, I am enjoying my avocation of selling stock photos.

My biggest beef is that the person selling smaller photos are often evaluated unfairly. The minimum size is 4Mpixels. However, most professional photographers submit larger photos. In fact I read an interview with one of the head people who commented that if only contributors examined their photos at 200%, they could avoid submitting poor quality phots. As a scientist/tech person, the fact is that if one looks at a photo above 100% size on a computer monitor, then the software has to generate "imaginary" pixels in order to do that. I do not like being judged on the imaginary pixels a software program thinks are best in between my real pixels! (Thus, also, save me from AI.) --Richard

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

profbowman wrote:

First, do some homework searching for pages rating the various stock photo sites. This is not to find out which is best but rather to find out what each company offers to contributors. The evaluation of these sites varies so much from photographer to photographer that one should not put much faith in the rankings, and that includes those given here.

One example of possible incorrect info is the idea that Shutterstock uses automation in its review process and by implication that the other top sites do not. There may be some computer sorting, but if that is correct, then I would not understand why all of them do not do the same thing. I have been on Shutterstock for more than three years and have interacted with the company on several cases of what seems like mis-diagnosed photos in review. The interactions have been with real people and they seem to believe that the reviewers are real people. Just because I do not agree with a review does not mean it was done by a computer.

Note that most stock sites are aimed at PR people in organizations and companies. That is different than trying to sell great artistic photos. Trying to figure out what commercial editors and writers might want can be a major task. Are they looking for backgrounds for brochures? Are they looking for models looking beautiful and handsome in front of a distant landscape so they can sell a car?

The point needs to be stressed as others already have. Most of us will find it difficult to make a living selling stock photos. Here is my data as of today, 38 months after I had my first photo accepted which made me a contributor.

423 photos and illustrations downloaded by customers
$159.77 USD of royalties given to me
I had one photo sell for $12.99, 11 sold at $5.20, and so forth on down in money
70% of my photos sold at 50 cents or under, down to the minimum of 10 cents

Within the constraints, I am enjoying my avocation of selling stock photos.

My biggest beef is that the person selling smaller photos are often evaluated unfairly. The minimum size is 4Mpixels. However, most professional photographers submit larger photos. In fact I read an interview with one of the head people who commented that if only contributors examined their photos at 200%, they could avoid submitting poor quality phots. As a scientist/tech person, the fact is that if one looks at a photo above 100% size on a computer monitor, then the software has to generate "imaginary" pixels in order to do that. I do not like being judged on the imaginary pixels a software program thinks are best in between my real pixels! (Thus, also, save me from AI.) --Richard

First, do some homework searching for pages rating... (show quote)

Oops! I left out one piece of data from my Shutterstock account. That is, in the three years I have been a contributor, I have had 2416 photos and illustrations accepted to be sold by Shutterstock. If I had taken and submitted more, my earnings would have increased appropriately. --Richard

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

profbowman wrote:

First, do some homework searching for pages rating the various stock photo sites. This is not to find out which is best but rather to find out what each company offers to contributors. The evaluation of these sites varies so much from photographer to photographer that one should not put much faith in the rankings, and that includes those given here.

One example of possible incorrect info is the idea that Shutterstock uses automation in its review process and by implication that the other top sites do not. There may be some computer sorting, but if that is correct, then I would not understand why all of them do not do the same thing. I have been on Shutterstock for more than three years and have interacted with the company on several cases of what seems like mis-diagnosed photos in review. The interactions have been with real people and they seem to believe that the reviewers are real people. Just because I do not agree with a review does not mean it was done by a computer.

Note that most stock sites are aimed at PR people in organizations and companies. That is different than trying to sell great artistic photos. Trying to figure out what commercial editors and writers might want can be a major task. Are they looking for backgrounds for brochures? Are they looking for models looking beautiful and handsome in front of a distant landscape so they can sell a car?

The point needs to be stressed as others already have. Most of us will find it difficult to make a living selling stock photos. Here is my data as of today, 38 months after I had my first photo accepted which made me a contributor.

423 photos and illustrations downloaded by customers
$159.77 USD of royalties given to me
I had one photo sell for $12.99, 11 sold at $5.20, and so forth on down in money
70% of my photos sold at 50 cents or under, down to the minimum of 10 cents

Within the constraints, I am enjoying my avocation of selling stock photos.

My biggest beef is that the person selling smaller photos are often evaluated unfairly. The minimum size is 4Mpixels. However, most professional photographers submit larger photos. In fact I read an interview with one of the head people who commented that if only contributors examined their photos at 200%, they could avoid submitting poor quality phots. As a scientist/tech person, the fact is that if one looks at a photo above 100% size on a computer monitor, then the software has to generate "imaginary" pixels in order to do that. I do not like being judged on the imaginary pixels a software program thinks are best in between my real pixels! (Thus, also, save me from AI.) --Richard

First, do some homework searching for pages rating... (show quote)

Yikes! $159.77 for 423 sales. That could be your profit on two or three sales print sales through your own website. 👍

profbowman Loc: Harrisonburg, VA, USA

Spirit Vision Photography wrote:

Yikes! $159.77 for 423 sales. That could be your profit on two or three sales print sales through your own website. 👍

Do you have your own website to sell your photos. If so, I'd be glad to hear how you have accomplished selling photos that way. I think I have a reasonably look site, but I have not sold any photos for more than seven years. I have tried having a photo site by itself and did not sell any, so now I have some other things on m y site, too. Here is the photo page.
https://richardlbowman.com/photos/page1.html
and the home page can be reached by clicking on the "Home" link at the top of the page. --Richard

rhudston Loc: Nova Scotia

Wow!! Many thanks to all who responded. Great advice from all sorts of different perspectives. I'm not really looking at the income, more at getting my photos accepted or rejected by someone with some "skin in the game". As one person said "force me to consider what I might want to improve". Although I'd rather jump into a pool of piranhas than ever shoot another wedding, I'll be giving all of your suggestions and advice some good hard thought. Many thanks, Ranulph