I just bought a Nikon D 500. When I hit the photo preview button, I would get red lines, then gradual black out. I had to turn off the camera and back on before I could get the photo back up. A friend suggested I try newer flash card.i now have in the camera SanDisk Extream 64 gb. I also bought the Sony XQD g series 32 gb which I have not installed yet. Thought I would try the SDXC alone first. So today I still get the fade-away but not the lines. Is it because I am not using the XQD? Or is something wrong with the camara?

I have learnt a new (for me) method the Street thieves use. I have traveled extensively and im very aware of the normal tricks they play,. However this one was new for me. I had just come out of a shop and was looking for my wife when a youngish guy got in my face and started furiously tap dancing. I looked down and with that my gold chain came out of my shirt and in a flash he ripped it off my neck and bolted. I have worn this constantly day and night all around the world for 30+ years and it never entered my head it was a risk. I wear a thief proof backpack, cheap watch, button up trouser pockets etc.
Immediately following his escape 2 more tried the same stunt. I also had my camera on a strap round my neck so I think that was the second point of attack so fortunately I realised something was up and screamed and swore at them. They took off.
The point of my tal ine, when someone starts Tap dancing in front of you don't look down, and scream at them in a very loud voice so everyone in the vicinity will hear.
The police in Barcelona were fantastic.

Hi Daniel,

In addition to online resources that have been mentioned, there are also many books and occasional seminars regarding stock photography.

There are actually a number of different types of stock. The major categories are:

- Microstock are often "Royalty Free" and are sold very cheaply... a few dollars per image for unrestricted use. The profit to the photographer is pennies on the dollar, so you need to make thousands of sales per month for it to be worthwhile. Microstock agencies are not very restrictive about what's offered, leaving it up to the photographer to do all the work.

- Midstock... Rights managed, licensed images that typically cost between $50 to $1000 per use, varying depending upon the type of use. Higher quality images are required, as well as signed model/property releases to indemnify the user. There may be some specialization among agencies offering this type of stock. They usually screen photographers initially, as well as screening and approving images

- Macrostock.... Similar business model and requirements as midstock, but these are the highest paid licensed usage. It can run hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars or more for a very unique, top-quality, fully released image. Agencies offering this type of stock tend to be highly specialized and very restrictive about whose images they'll handle. Usually it is only very well established and "known" photographers who will be handled by these agencies.

Some stock agencies offer all three types of stock. Others have a narrower focus. Within some of the above major types, there also can be a lot of specialization... such as an agency that only offers images related to a particular kind of subject or geographic locale. There are advantages and disadvantages to both types.

Agencies split profits with their participating photographers. The photographer's share is smallest with high volume microstock, and usually considerably better with mid and macrostock. Midstock profit splits are often not negotiable. Macrostock is more likely to be negotiable and offer the best profit splits... but also will be the most difficult to sign up with.

Some stock agencies are huge, with many millions of image and a bit of everything (Getty is about the biggest). This puts them at the top of many buyers' list when shopping for an image.... But that large buyer audience attracts a lot of photographers and it's easy to get lost in the crowd. Plus, due to their "clout" the agency in the position where they can dictate reduced profit splits to photographers who want to sell through their agency. (Note: So big they can get away with it, Getty also "competes" with their own photographers, in a couple ways. They buy the copyright estates of images. They also sometimes hire photographers to go out an take images that customers are requesting. That's "work for hire" so Getty owns the copyright. Many other agencies regularly send their participating photographers "want lists" to go out and shoot, so both can profit from the images.)

The most successful "stock photographers" usually are not "stock photographers". What I means is that stock is not their primary business. It's a secondary sideline... an additional revenue stream being generated from the images they're already making for other purposes. For example, Bill Bachmann was an assignment/location/advertising commercial photographer first... but one of the top five stock photographers in the world, second. Sadly, he passed away about a year ago... but his legacy lives on in a lifetime's worth of photographs taken in some 130 or more different countries, many of which you've probably seen used in ads. His website is https://www.billbachmann.com/entryPage.html

Several years ago I had the good fortune to attend a seminar on stock photography that Bill conducted. It was pretty eye-opening! He also was kind enough to respond to a few questions I emailed him later.

While he wasn't specific, I know Bachmann sold some seven figures worth of stock photography each year. Enough so that he employed two people full time, just to handle it!

Some of Bill's general guidelines:

- When you're out shooting on assignment or conducting a photo tour, keep the possibility of selling images as stock in the back of your mind all the time.

- 90% of the best selling and most valuable stock images are photos of PEOPLE. Those are the vast majority of what's wanted and used... images showing people doing something (i.e., not animals or scenes or flowers or bugs or ?).

- ALWAYS get a model/property release signed. An unreleased photo is nearly worthless (has very limited, low-paying uses that aren't risky for the user and the photographer). A properly released photo is worth 10X, 100X, 1000X as much as an unreleased one!

- Never EVER surrender your copyright. Learn how photo licensing works and use that instead. Years ago I worked with Bob Jackson. He took the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas police station, right after the Kennedy assassination. Bob was on the staff at the Dallas Morning News at the time, so the newspaper owned the copyright... and they sold it over and over. When Bob retired from the newspaper, they gifted the copyright of that image to him... Considered one of the 100 most iconic images of the 20th century, it continued to sell regularly (saw particularly wide usage on the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, in 2013), put Bob's kids through college and far more. I bet it's generated millions in licensing fees, over the years.

- Never EVER sell your best and newest work too cheaply... as microstock, say. That establishes it's value for ALL future sales. Likewise, once an image is offered Royalty Free, you can never go back.

- A quality image can be sold over and over and over. Some of Bill's images have been licensed dozens of times and generated $100,000+ in sales over the image's lifetime.

- You constantly need to be generating new work... Some images are timeless or have a long "shelf life". But others are not because styles, attitudes and concerns change over time, in turn causing images of those things to have a limited lifespan. The lower paying types of stock especially call for a high volume of work. People who have modest success with low-paying microstock usually have 25,000 to 30,000 or more images uploaded at any given time, and are regularly making and adding 250, 500 or 1000 or more new images per month. That's what it takes to generate enough money to make microstock worthwhile. The number of images needed is significantly less with the higher paying mid and macrostock (but the images have to be better and more unique).

- Also don't "shoot yourself in the foot" by glaringly dating images... such as with a watermark or signature that includes the year the image was made. (It's been unnecessary to do that for 20 years. Copyright regulations changed in the late 1990s. Since then, ANY unique mark can serve as copyright protection. It's no longer necessary to include the date, the © symbol, the words "copyright" or "all rights reserved", etc. on images.) The date an image was made is in the image EXIF anyway, if people really want to look, so it's not necessary to advertise it further.

- Register the copyright of your images. While you own the copyright of every image you make (unless you're a staff photographer or doing a "work for hire" job), the protections of it are relatively few and limited until it's been properly registered (see the details at the copyright office). Become familiar with the registration process and start doing it. Timing is important... registration must be done within 90 days after "first publication", to have full recourse and maximum levels of protection. A delayed registration limits what you can be awarded in the event of misuse, but it's still much better than unregistered.

- An image can have wildly different values, depending upon the usage. Photographer and author George Lepp told me he licensed an image to Kodak for $20,000 to be used worldwide in advertising. He also sold the same image for use in a text book, for $250.

- Think in terms of multiple outlets (Bill sold through up to six different stock agencies, as well as selling stock directly). HOWEVER, you probably will not be able to offer the same image through multiple outlets... it will need to be different shots for each. For example, when an images has slowed selling at one agency, you might remove it and put it up at another. Maybe an image will start out as macrostock, eventually be sold for midstock, then some years later end up selling as microstock.

- Compose your images for publication: Leave blank space for text, ad copy and headlines. Shoot vertically for full page usage (which pays more). OR shoot horizontally for even larger & higher paying, double truck usage (facing pages). Best of all, whenever possible shoot BOTH!

- Shoot what you know best... whatever that may be. For example, Bill was born and raised in Pittsburgh PA and often visited and photographed there.... especially knew and made images of the non-touristy areas. In spite of the worldliness of his work (130+ countries) and iconic images he made in virtually every major city on the planet, his best selling location of all was his home town! You also might specialize in subject matter or in style of image that you make. Bill's images are renowned for their saturated colors (when he shot film, he used a lot of Velvia). Another example, Thomas Mangelsen, wildlife photographer, has a degree in biology. For that matter, George Lepp's early training was in wildlife/wild lands management... it was later he earned a bachelor degree in photographic arts and was awarded an honorary masters degree.

- Unique images sell best. Bill told a story how he'd photographed the Arc de Triomphe ten or more times on different trips to Paris. He'd made any number of carefully composed and deliberate images of it from all the usual angles... Just like a million other photographers. But by far his best selling image of the monument is a blur of lights and movement shot from the sunroof of a car... which he admitted was taken after a few glasses of wine over dinner at a nearby restaurant. That image is totally different from all the usual views we see of the Arc de Triomphe. The monument is recognizable in the photo, but the image is a totally unique and timeless view of it!

The Internet and digital photography have hugely changed the stock photography marketplace. Where there used to be only a few thousand people shooting stock... today there are many millions who are trying to make a little money that way. And an awful lot of them don't take a very well-planned approach to it, sell their work too cheaply and handle it very sloppily. The market is absolutely flooded with a lot of not-very-good images, poorly processed and inaccurately keyworded. (I once searched Getty using a particular equestrian-related term and found 100 images... 94 of which were NOT representative of the search term I'd used!) Bill Bachmann mentioned that he'd seen significant drop in stock sales in later years, as the market has become flooded with photographers and their images.

There are a lot of books about making and selling stock photography. Books regarding pricing, image licensing and the legalities of copyright are also useful. And there are resources such as "The Photographer's Marketplace" (published annually, includes a section about stock photography). There's a good deal of organization and advanced planning needed to be successful at stock sales.

It's a great time for stock photography BUYERS.... a really tough and challenging time for stock PHOTOGRAPHERS. I just hope it's not your primary or only photo business!

EDIT: I haven't got or read it, but the title of this book is interesting! https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2017/06/04/new-guide-for-beginners-brutally-honest-guide-to-microstock-photography/

One of my family members asked me to shoot their wedding after firing 2 photographers due to price. I told them I was unsure due to the fact I’m not even close to a professional and I basically shoot in auto most of the time (I know, I’m working on it). I took a few pictures of their dogs playing before and based on those pictures they decided I was a great photographer (see pics below). Anyway, I told them if they really needed me I would do my best but I could not promise anything and they said that was fine and they’d pay me a little too. So I’m asking those with experience for tips and tricks. I only have a canon t6, an 18-55 mm lens, a 75-300 mm lens, 0.43x wide angle lens 55mm and 2.2 x telephoto lens 52 mm. I wanted to buy an off camera flash but that is not an option for me right now due to money. I know I’m very limited on equipment but what lenses would be best for the ceremoney, reception, group shots, etc. Also, what settings should I have my camera on? I read on a few sites that aperture priority is best for weddings. Opinions? Thank you!!