ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

So, I says to myself, I might as well offer my photos to a stock agency. Maybe I can make some money in my old retired age.

So, I first apply to iStock. Got accepted and have about 350 photos that can be selected. Of course, they have about 50 zillion in their achieves, so the odds of mine getting selected or even seen are slim and somewhat none. One thing I will say about iStock, is their acceptance requirements on photos is not too rigid.

Now, take my most recent experience with Shutterstock. They are so RIGID AND UNBENDING that of the 45 photos I submitted, 35 were rejected. Now, mind you, these were the same photos that iStock accepted. Here are some of their reasons for rejection from Shutterstock: poor lighting, out of focus, noise, faulty white balance, too much sharpening, too soft, poorly rasterized, blurry image at full resolution, and on and on and on. . .It made me feel like I was a beginning photographer and wouldn't know poop from putty about what was a quality image.

I know I know what I'm doing. I compared my images to the ones they have already accepted and found mine are far superior than half the ones I viewed.

I really don't need to have my photo experience ego whipped, so, I had them cancel my account and delete all my images. I'm sure they were crying crocodile tears at loosing me. I just barely resisted sending them a nasty email and giving them a piece of my mind (a small piece).

So, summing this up. If you want to have your ego beat to death, sign up with Shutterstock. If you still think you want to have someone sell your photos for a bundle and give you a penny on the dollar, then go to iStock.

Ok, my rants over. By tomorrow morning I should be just fine. I'll take that drink, now.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Drink one for me, and thanks for the info.
Marion

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Care to post what they rejected?

blackest Loc: Ireland

I'm not sure I would want to, after being savaged that badly, would be interesting to see the difference between them all the same.

More interesting would the 10 selected be the best of the 45?

While the quality of some of the existing images may be lower than the ones submitted perhaps the subject is less photographed as well.

On a positive note, the op knows the most valuable of his images and also the reasoning behind the rejections of the others. This should help him improve his over all quality.

It maybe that the strict stock agency is trying to maintain a very high quality level, and be more selective. As a customer would you rather look at a smaller number of images or a larger quantity? Is there tiers at the agency with some photo's fetching a higher price?

Maybe the selected 10 would be promoted as new arrivals, i'm sure that if a particular photographer produces photographs that sell once to a customer, then that customer may well look at that photographers work for their next project first if they have something suitable.

If you look at a photographers work such as say Edward Weston, one thing that strikes me is how few images are available, after all generally accepted as one of the worlds best with a long career in photography why so few photographs? I think his web site has fewer than 100 images. So 10 doesn't seem that bad a number.

Maybe 1 agency has a higher price than the other, customers could be price sensitive.

Its hard to figure pricing but assuming a customer takes 750 images a month from shutter stock the price can be as low as 22cents an image
as a one off 5 for $39 or $8 an image.

For print runs of 500,000 or more then you can get 2 for $159 or $80 an image roughly

That's royalty free. As a photographer i have no idea what you get per image but it can't be much.

iStock seems similar in pricing, i think the cheapest way to get an image for commercial use is by buying a credit 3 credits is $24 but if its a signature image its $24 for 1 the essential is $8 the more credits you buy the cheaper the image.

For the photographer it seems you make very little from images used.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

stock companies need photos of specific subjects and topics. you may have duplicated what they already had or have coming in.

i sat on the editing desk of Life as an intern. You should have seen the number we rejected for a photo story by known photographers. they never commented on why we rejected or what we rejected. but, they did take their check.

bpiekney Loc: Vienna, Virginia

Great piece, Marion. I have a few on file with Alamy (also with 50 million others) and gave up on AGE as the submission processs was incomprehensible. I'll be long gone and forgotten before any of those I have with Alamy are (might be) sold.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

I have been with them for years, made a few bucks at first now really slow. The first time I submitted they accepted a high percentage, now rarely get one accepted. If you got 10 out of 45 accepted, you are way better than me, would accept that and be tickled. Don't take it personal. Think over the years the competition as exploded, as far as criticism, they just cut and paste something, have gotten the exact same criticism on multiple pics. This is the last one I had accepted. Larry

(Download)

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Thanks for saving me from this experience...

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I had the same reaction from Istock. It was brutal. Decades ago I got onto a stock agency before the age of digital. As they processed into digital, they kept me. Can't say it pays the bills, but it's not a bust either. I sort of get the idea that the older stock agencies do better for the photographer. Not sure why, but that has been my experience. Honestly I think today there are so many freebies floating around out there in cyberspace that it's sort of impossible to make anything from stock work. Everyone expects it to be FREE!

bdo Loc: Colorado

Sounds like a bruised ego to me...

I mean, why do you send your photos to a stock agency? To get them to acknowledge what a superior photographer you are?

Get over it.

Bottom line: You submit photos to stock agencies to make money. So, how much money have you made? That's all that matters in that game.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

No wonder why it was accepted, it's a wonderful image. BTW is this a picture of the gulf, and are those oil rigs on the horizon?

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Yes down in Texas, Kemah ,Tx.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

If you think Shutterstock is strict, try Getty. They only want perfect images. The slightest noise and they are rejected. They also look for content.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Have you used Shutterstock?

PhotoMan1929 Loc: Virginia, USA

Any stock agency that is in business to stay in business will set very high standards. We all love our own images, but that does not mean that others will as well.

Most amateur photographers have an unrealistic opinion of their own work. Anyone who says "I know I know what I am doing" is delusionary. When we enter the marketplace, we will be judged by standards other than our own. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Professional photo buyers do not have the time or inclination to wade through piles of snapshots in hope of finding a prize image.