Should I not give up the day job?

[Ed_P]

Doing a bit of retirement planning here. Surfing around and reading threads on PH etc, I see there is potentially money to be made (however modest) from stock photography. What I was wondering is whether this is a viable option for a hobbyist photographer or should be left to the professionals.

What I have is:
- some spare time
- access to the Warwickshire countryside
- a Canon 350D with stock lens, a 70-200 F4 L and a Tamron 90mm F2.8 Macro
- an interest in natural history
- a few months experience of shooting RAW and "playing" with RawShooter Premium
- a willingness to learn and experiment

What I don't have is:
- any more money to spend! (although I'm very tempted to replace the stock lens)
- any experience of "proper" photography
- any upper range software like PhotoShop

A few example of what I shot today. What should I concentrate on with regard to subject matter? Should I give up any hope of earning a few meagre pounds from my hobby and stick to the day job?

[V6GTO]

I have no knowledge of stock photography whatsoever, but there's nothing wromg with those

Martin.

[badbeachbuggy]

I recon the best thing to do would be to submit them and see if they sell. You've got nothing to loose

[Platinum]

Yup, as had been said, definately submit them.

Try these sites:

Shutterstock, Bigstock & Dreamstime

Edited by Platinum on Wednesday 16th August 21:14

[Imperialism2024]

Like it's been said, there's nothing to lose in submitting some stock photos. Based on what you posted, it doesn't look like those photos are quite what the stock agencies are looking for. You may want to check out some examples on the stock sites to get a better idea of what they're looking for. Or drop a message to UKBob...

[rico]

I once had a chat with a taxi driver about stock photography and its a pure numbers game. The shots you've shown I think are very good, easily up there with the stock photos I've seen.

Now just get hundreds of similar pics and upload. You'll only make pence (normally) per photo, so the more you have online the more chance of making a few quid.

Edit - www.istockphoto.com is the site I've used and know a lot of pro web designers use it too.

Edited by rico on Wednesday 16th August 22:21

[poah]

istock is quite good because you only pay for downloads rather than per week or month with shutterstock.

[scooby_snax]

I guess it is 'horses for courses' and I will put a disclaimer by saying I haven't looked at any of these stock sites except for their headline frontpage. But I would ask do you value your work at a $1 or even 25 cents? To my mind you are being exploited as a photographer, yes the blurb will say 2000 downloads equals $500 but I doubt many hit that volume of sale. The main beneficiary is the end user not you as a photographer. There are other stock agencies that put a truer value on work for example www.alamy.com.
But there are other ways to sell
I will illustrate what I mean
Put a picture on Bigstock for example client downloads you get 25cents
I have just done a deal, selling via my own website to a US Client who contacted me out of the blue, use of one image as frontpage on a website 1 year useage £820.

[Imperialism2024]

scooby_snax said:

I guess it is 'horses for courses' and I will put a disclaimer by saying I haven't looked at any of these stock sites except for their headline frontpage. But I would ask do you value your work at a $1 or even 25 cents? To my mind you are being exploited as a photographer, yes the blurb will say 2000 downloads equals $500 but I doubt many hit that volume of sale. The main beneficiary is the end user not you as a photographer. There are other stock agencies that put a truer value on work for example www.alamy.com.
But there are other ways to sell
I will illustrate what I mean
Put a picture on Bigstock for example client downloads you get 25cents
I have just done a deal, selling via my own website to a US Client who contacted me out of the blue, use of one image as frontpage on a website 1 year useage £820.

That's my opinion on it. I'd rather not make anything than whore out my photography for cents each. Just my opinion of course. But the valid case may be made that it will get your name out, and will help you hone your photographic skills.

[jwyatt]

I've had a look into stock and I'm not going to do it - for me photography is about quality not quantity, I like to capture beautiful landscapes and wildlife, partly for the enjoyment of being out there to see it. If I can sell those - fine - but it's not what sells well on stock and I'd rather sell the odd framed landscape print for say £30 than have to shoot hundreds of photos I'm not really interested in and make a few pence on each. I don't currently have the time apart from anything else.

I can see why people do it, but it's not currently for me.

[graham@reading]

You say that, but my best seller is a penguin at Marwell Zoo Second best is a Harrier hovering in for landing.

Funnily enough my two favourite places to shoot are Zoos and Airshows