Selling prints and stock?
Discussion
Evening peoples 
Now Ive been taking photos for a short time and have a fair selection on my photobox gallery ( www.photoboxgallery.com/1901010 ) but the gallery hasnt seen a single sale?
Now, Im not particularly shocked nor upset by this as I knew that making vast ammounts of money is little more than a dream, but I would love it if I knew that some of my shots were framed and on peoples walls
Now Ive been thinking of hosting a selection of prints on Ebay, mainly the ones from the RAC Rally recently, but with the Ebay listing fees + final value fees, I think its getting a little too expensive and I dont want to throw too much money their way so here is my first question:
Where would be a good place to sell prints of various sizes of my work?
Now the second bit is a little different
Ive been looking in the comstock photo encyclopedia thingy and seeing that people sell their photos as stock images, now here comes the second, third & fourth questions:
How do you sell stock photography?
Whats the deal?
Is there a general thing that people are looking for when it comes to selling stock photography?
Any information would be greatly appreciated
Yours in focus
~S~
Now Ive been taking photos for a short time and have a fair selection on my photobox gallery ( www.photoboxgallery.com/1901010 ) but the gallery hasnt seen a single sale?
Now, Im not particularly shocked nor upset by this as I knew that making vast ammounts of money is little more than a dream, but I would love it if I knew that some of my shots were framed and on peoples walls
Now Ive been thinking of hosting a selection of prints on Ebay, mainly the ones from the RAC Rally recently, but with the Ebay listing fees + final value fees, I think its getting a little too expensive and I dont want to throw too much money their way so here is my first question:
Where would be a good place to sell prints of various sizes of my work?
Now the second bit is a little different
Ive been looking in the comstock photo encyclopedia thingy and seeing that people sell their photos as stock images, now here comes the second, third & fourth questions:
How do you sell stock photography?
Whats the deal?
Is there a general thing that people are looking for when it comes to selling stock photography?
Any information would be greatly appreciated
Yours in focus
~S~
Personally I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than mess around with stock so I can't help you there. With regard to selling images, you have to be objective about your photographs.
I'm deliberately writing this before I view your photobox gallery so my comments are not based on your photos at all.
You have to ask yourself - as much as you may like them, and other people say they like them, is anyone really going to put them on their wall? Especially in a large size?
Getting a photograph of something that people don't have a personal relationship with onto that person's wall is a virtually impossible for most photographers. You need to get personal.
I've sold piles of photos of people, their kids or their dogs, and precisely none of the photos I liked or thought were good, or put on my photobox gallery.
I'm not trying to discourage you, just pass on the knowledge that I had to re-adjust my expectations quite dramatically. Oh, and I've come no-where near covering what I've spent on kit, much less making any money!
I'm deliberately writing this before I view your photobox gallery so my comments are not based on your photos at all.
You have to ask yourself - as much as you may like them, and other people say they like them, is anyone really going to put them on their wall? Especially in a large size?
Getting a photograph of something that people don't have a personal relationship with onto that person's wall is a virtually impossible for most photographers. You need to get personal.
I've sold piles of photos of people, their kids or their dogs, and precisely none of the photos I liked or thought were good, or put on my photobox gallery.
I'm not trying to discourage you, just pass on the knowledge that I had to re-adjust my expectations quite dramatically. Oh, and I've come no-where near covering what I've spent on kit, much less making any money!
jagdpanther said:
Now, Im not particularly shocked nor upset by this as I knew that making vast ammounts of money is little more than a dream, but I would love it if I knew that some of my shots were framed and on peoples walls
Now, (
) why not come at it from a different angle - why not join a site such as www.flickr.com and get your 'kicks' from having other users favourite your photos? - A digital kind of hanging a photo on a wall _dobbo_ said:
Personally I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than mess around with stock so I can't help you there. With regard to selling images, you have to be objective about your photographs.
I'm deliberately writing this before I view your photobox gallery so my comments are not based on your photos at all.
You have to ask yourself - as much as you may like them, and other people say they like them, is anyone really going to put them on their wall? Especially in a large size?
Getting a photograph of something that people don't have a personal relationship with onto that person's wall is a virtually impossible for most photographers. You need to get personal.
I've sold piles of photos of people, their kids or their dogs, and precisely none of the photos I liked or thought were good, or put on my photobox gallery.
I'm not trying to discourage you, just pass on the knowledge that I had to re-adjust my expectations quite dramatically. Oh, and I've come no-where near covering what I've spent on kit, much less making any money!
I understand what you're saying old bean, my expectations of what people want from photographers is adjusted daily.I'm deliberately writing this before I view your photobox gallery so my comments are not based on your photos at all.
You have to ask yourself - as much as you may like them, and other people say they like them, is anyone really going to put them on their wall? Especially in a large size?
Getting a photograph of something that people don't have a personal relationship with onto that person's wall is a virtually impossible for most photographers. You need to get personal.
I've sold piles of photos of people, their kids or their dogs, and precisely none of the photos I liked or thought were good, or put on my photobox gallery.
I'm not trying to discourage you, just pass on the knowledge that I had to re-adjust my expectations quite dramatically. Oh, and I've come no-where near covering what I've spent on kit, much less making any money!
It is the rally prints I was intending on selling, again, I have no intentions of making a living/covering kit costs as that aint going to happen...just more of a proud sense of accomplishment
AndyM: I never looked at FlickR..might have a peek
To my mind your Photobox pro gallery contains the type of images that I'd just stick in a normal Photobox gallery and point interested people to. For example, the two sets of wedding photos are going to be aimed only at people who were there, same for the portraits and the relevant subjects. Given the limited audience for these shots all you are doing with a pro gallery is adding your cut on top of Photobox prices.
I'd suggest that if you want to continue down this route then you carve out a niche and concentrate on that rather than providing a more generic set of photos. GetCarter's gallery is an example that contains a range of (high quality) images around the same topic/setting, and from previous posts on here I know he sells a few here and there.
I think dobbos point is valid as well. Don't expect to make anything more than beer money out of it unless you get very good, in which case you'd be better off trying to sell via other means than online I'd bet. I'd also reccomend flickr - you aren't going to earn from it, but you will gain invaluable feedback which will improve your photography, providing you make an effort to provide that feedback to others as well.
I'd suggest that if you want to continue down this route then you carve out a niche and concentrate on that rather than providing a more generic set of photos. GetCarter's gallery is an example that contains a range of (high quality) images around the same topic/setting, and from previous posts on here I know he sells a few here and there.
I think dobbos point is valid as well. Don't expect to make anything more than beer money out of it unless you get very good, in which case you'd be better off trying to sell via other means than online I'd bet. I'd also reccomend flickr - you aren't going to earn from it, but you will gain invaluable feedback which will improve your photography, providing you make an effort to provide that feedback to others as well.
aspender said:
To my mind your Photobox pro gallery contains the type of images that I'd just stick in a normal Photobox gallery and point interested people to. For example, the two sets of wedding photos are going to be aimed only at people who were there, same for the portraits and the relevant subjects. Given the limited audience for these shots all you are doing with a pro gallery is adding your cut on top of Photobox prices.
I'd suggest that if you want to continue down this route then you carve out a niche and concentrate on that rather than providing a more generic set of photos. GetCarter's gallery is an example that contains a range of (high quality) images around the same topic/setting, and from previous posts on here I know he sells a few here and there.
I think dobbos point is valid as well. Don't expect to make anything more than beer money out of it unless you get very good, in which case you'd be better off trying to sell via other means than online I'd bet. I'd also reccomend flickr - you aren't going to earn from it, but you will gain invaluable feedback which will improve your photography, providing you make an effort to provide that feedback to others as well.
Thanks for the input aspenderI'd suggest that if you want to continue down this route then you carve out a niche and concentrate on that rather than providing a more generic set of photos. GetCarter's gallery is an example that contains a range of (high quality) images around the same topic/setting, and from previous posts on here I know he sells a few here and there.
I think dobbos point is valid as well. Don't expect to make anything more than beer money out of it unless you get very good, in which case you'd be better off trying to sell via other means than online I'd bet. I'd also reccomend flickr - you aren't going to earn from it, but you will gain invaluable feedback which will improve your photography, providing you make an effort to provide that feedback to others as well.
The reason for the wedding photography is because the guy whos wedding it was, asked for me and my friend (who were taking shots, but not paid photogrpahers) to host our shots on photobox so he could browse through at his leisure and purchase the ones that he wants.
My main passtime is motorsports photography and autmotive photography, but due to weather and busy schedules, Im spending more time on the former for the moment
I thought it would be a good idea to add the rest of the shots to show that I am not strictly limited to one niche, but maybe for the gallery on photobox, you're right?!
I am aiming on opening my own website using clickpic in the next few months as it looks a lot better than photobox and is cheap, easy and clean!
As for feedback, I have been a member of World Photography Forum for some time and have been gaining feedback from the users on there, this is primarily why I havent joined FlickR as yet
I have no intention of earning a fortune in photography, if it happens later then thats a bonus, but for the moment Im enjoying my hobby and if people were to buy prints then I would get a kick out of it
As mentioned (ta!) I get half a dozen orders a month via photobox, but I'm sure that the sales have come linked from my website, not photobox.
To be honest there is bugger all money to be made from photography unless you fall into the 'must have' variety (which I will never, ever be). I earn more from my music royalties in 4 hours than I do from photography sales in a year.
Some here do however make a decent living, and IMHO it's only when you commit 100% to the trade (and you have some proper contacts) that you stand any chance of making a decent wedge.
Personally, I refuse to make photography a source of income, for then it will become 'work'. And that is just a four letter word I have a lot of trouble with.
To be honest there is bugger all money to be made from photography unless you fall into the 'must have' variety (which I will never, ever be). I earn more from my music royalties in 4 hours than I do from photography sales in a year.
Some here do however make a decent living, and IMHO it's only when you commit 100% to the trade (and you have some proper contacts) that you stand any chance of making a decent wedge.
Personally, I refuse to make photography a source of income, for then it will become 'work'. And that is just a four letter word I have a lot of trouble with.
GetCarter said:
As mentioned (ta!) I get half a dozen orders a month via photobox, but I'm sure that the sales have come linked from my website, not photobox.
To be honest there is bugger all money to be made from photography unless you fall into the 'must have' variety (which I will never, ever be). I earn more from my music royalties in 4 hours than I do from photography sales in a year.
Some here do however make a decent living, and IMHO it's only when you commit 100% to the trade (and you have some proper contacts) that you stand any chance of making a decent wedge.
Personally, I refuse to make photography a source of income, for then it will become 'work'. And that is just a four letter word I have a lot of trouble with.
My sentiments exactly, I just want to sit back comfortable in the realisation that someone has my work hanging on their wall and for once it isnt me To be honest there is bugger all money to be made from photography unless you fall into the 'must have' variety (which I will never, ever be). I earn more from my music royalties in 4 hours than I do from photography sales in a year.
Some here do however make a decent living, and IMHO it's only when you commit 100% to the trade (and you have some proper contacts) that you stand any chance of making a decent wedge.
Personally, I refuse to make photography a source of income, for then it will become 'work'. And that is just a four letter word I have a lot of trouble with.
I can understand the somewhat "negative" responses to your suggestion of "stock" photography, but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. OK, the sites are extremely demanding in their requirements (subject matter, composition, exposure, noise artifacts etc)and often reject what submitters feel are great shots. If you can stomach all that AND only get $0.25 - $2.00 per shot downloaded, it can become quite addictive.
I started messing around with Micro-stock last year with one site. It takes a while to understand what they want and how to provide it. I've been with six sites now for about 6 months (with 100-200 shots on each site) and have had 1100 sales, earning around $600. OK, it's not much, but I keep uploading and once the shots are there, there's nothing more to do but watch the dollars (well, cents!) tick along. I looked at some of your "urban" shots, they could do quite well. Why not have a look a some of the bigger sites; Shutterstock, iStockphoto, Fotolia or Dreamstime and see if it would suit you. There are some others (LuckyOliver, 123rf etc) that are easier to get accepted onto but probably have slower sales. You'll not make your fortune, but you could get some decent "pocket money"!
I started messing around with Micro-stock last year with one site. It takes a while to understand what they want and how to provide it. I've been with six sites now for about 6 months (with 100-200 shots on each site) and have had 1100 sales, earning around $600. OK, it's not much, but I keep uploading and once the shots are there, there's nothing more to do but watch the dollars (well, cents!) tick along. I looked at some of your "urban" shots, they could do quite well. Why not have a look a some of the bigger sites; Shutterstock, iStockphoto, Fotolia or Dreamstime and see if it would suit you. There are some others (LuckyOliver, 123rf etc) that are easier to get accepted onto but probably have slower sales. You'll not make your fortune, but you could get some decent "pocket money"!
I don't want to disparage stock too much, and I don't want to denigrate the work of people who submit to stock sites. For me it's about return on investment - uploading hundreds of pictures to scrabble back a few quid here and there seems like a crazy use of my time - I can make more doing what I'm really good at.... Maybe a reflection on my ability as a photographer.
For me photography is about art, emotion, capturing a moment, and maybe, if I'm lucky, getting something good enough for my own wall, let alone someone else's.
Stock photography strips all that away and makes it about number of units shifted at what cost. Not for me I'm afraid.
For me photography is about art, emotion, capturing a moment, and maybe, if I'm lucky, getting something good enough for my own wall, let alone someone else's.
Stock photography strips all that away and makes it about number of units shifted at what cost. Not for me I'm afraid.
As has been said, I think photos need to be outstanding in order to sell in any numbers (if at all).
Check out this guys work: http://www.jaspaljandu.com/gallery/
From what I gather, though I my be wrong, he sells in relatively few numbers but is able to command a high price for each sold. His work is above and beyond anything I'm likely to intentionally snap (I'll always hold out for that lucky shot
), and is quite sobering to compare.
Check out this guys work: http://www.jaspaljandu.com/gallery/
From what I gather, though I my be wrong, he sells in relatively few numbers but is able to command a high price for each sold. His work is above and beyond anything I'm likely to intentionally snap (I'll always hold out for that lucky shot
), and is quite sobering to compare.As Mr Carter says there is sod all money in many areas of photography and motorsport is one of those areas. I know a few people who make an income from it and virtually no-one who would say they made a "good" income from it.
As an aside, have you considered whether you have the right to sell the motorsport images? If they were taken as a punter you won't have and an under a media pass the usual declaration says you can use the pictures for media purposes only, not for selling them on?
As an aside, have you considered whether you have the right to sell the motorsport images? If they were taken as a punter you won't have and an under a media pass the usual declaration says you can use the pictures for media purposes only, not for selling them on?
Piglet said:
As Mr Carter says there is sod all money in many areas of photography and motorsport is one of those areas. I know a few people who make an income from it and virtually no-one who would say they made a "good" income from it.
As an aside, have you considered whether you have the right to sell the motorsport images? If they were taken as a punter you won't have and an under a media pass the usual declaration says you can use the pictures for media purposes only, not for selling them on?
The way it has been described to me is that it is my camera and my time, I took the shot so therefore is my property to do with as I wish.As an aside, have you considered whether you have the right to sell the motorsport images? If they were taken as a punter you won't have and an under a media pass the usual declaration says you can use the pictures for media purposes only, not for selling them on?
There were no notices on any of the events Ive attended, declaring that the images are not for resale or distribution
The shots I take at Harewood have already been approved for sale by the resident photographers of Whatnonegatives as I decided it would be more professional for me to approach them to see what their feelings would be on the matter, but no problems!
I don't know how rallies work at all but for normal race circuits as a rule of thumb the commercial rights are held by the circuit owner. As a punter your ticket will have the standard declaration that says you have their consent to take photographs for your own personal use. As media the declaration is media purposes only.
There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
Piglet said:
I don't know how rallies work at all but for normal race circuits as a rule of thumb the commercial rights are held by the circuit owner. As a punter your ticket will have the standard declaration that says you have their consent to take photographs for your own personal use. As media the declaration is media purposes only.
There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
Rallies & Circuit racing are 2 different animals. There is rarely an entry ticket for a Forest Rally as you only usually pay for parking. At a Circuit you accept the T&C's by purchasing an entry ticket and they're always clearly printed on the back...WRC is a notable exception though.There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
However that doesn't stop Circuits from breaking their own (and other circuits) rules by purchasing shots from non accredited togs.
Edited by MonkeyHanger on Friday 7th December 16:29
Piglet said:
I don't know how rallies work at all but for normal race circuits as a rule of thumb the commercial rights are held by the circuit owner. As a punter your ticket will have the standard declaration that says you have their consent to take photographs for your own personal use. As media the declaration is media purposes only.
There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
the majority of my shots are from hillclimbs and rallies as circuit racing is something I seldom attend, so the advice pretty much stands!There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
MonkeyHanger said:
Piglet said:
I don't know how rallies work at all but for normal race circuits as a rule of thumb the commercial rights are held by the circuit owner. As a punter your ticket will have the standard declaration that says you have their consent to take photographs for your own personal use. As media the declaration is media purposes only.
There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
However that doesn't stop Circuits from breaking their own (and other circuits) rules by purchasing shots from non accredited togs.There is an argument that as a punter hosting images on a website is beyond personal use but that is, as far as I know, untested and it's highly unlikely that a circuit owner is going to come after you for that.
Commercial rights may also be owned by the race series promoter or someone similar so you might need consent from more than one party. Rights may also have been "assigned" to a third party (Mallory do this I think - one commercial photographer and that's it).
You've been badly advised if someone told you that it's your camera and your time in the context of race circuits. I don't know how it works with rallies though - presumably the rally organiser does a deal with the landowner for the rights - dunno.
(of course commercial rights are not to be confused with copyright).
although it's probably organising clubs and championships more often that do this. Mainly the circuits are happy not to enforce, it's not in their interests - they mainly work on "any publicity is good publicity". If one is planning to make money out of it though it's always worth knowing what is correct. I do know people who have been contacted by circuits and asked why they are selling shots taken at a circuit without a licence to do so. Hillclimbs I imagine will fall between the two stools - if it's private land and is effectively a permanent track, I'd imagine it's the same as circuit racing the owner holds the rights.
For a one off someone's hired a bit of road from Lord somebody it's likely to be different.
For the OP, it's not something to get defensive about, it's a case of knowing what is correct for each environment.
As an aside the suggestions for child protection policies involved circuits being required to ban all cameras from being taken into a circuit! Imagine enforcing that one!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff