johnastovall Posted June 19, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just upgraded C1 LE to 3.7.7 and got and put in Jamie's profiles. I then processed the images from the Leica M8 training class where my loaner M8 had no IR filter. Not bad... I'm weaking but here's my question, "What about Stock Agencies and the M8?" I'm starting to get set up with several and in some cases (Getty) they list the cameras they will accept images from. My 5D is fine but what about the M8? It would be very fine for my fine art work but if I can hope to place the images with a serious stock agency (please no penny stock places) I can not see having money in gear I can not put to work if the opportunity arises. I know with a commission I can use what ever I want but this doesn't appear to be the case with stock.. What have you all done with the M8 and Stock Agencies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Hi johnastovall, Take a look here I'm almost ready to surrender but what about Stock Agencies?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
charlesphoto99 Posted June 19, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 19, 2007 I think Getty are very behind on their camera reviews. Obviously if the Nikon D200 is acceptable the M8 way more than so (I have both and the M8 blows it out of the water). I wouldn't worry about it. I plan on using mine for stock (I'm with Getty and Retna). I would just be sure to use IR filters and code the wider lenses and avoid as much cropping as possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
35mmSummicron Posted June 19, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 19, 2007 my agencies officially do not accept files from the DMR or M8. however i have successfully snuck M8 files through before by removing the EXIF camera info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
punktum Posted June 19, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 19, 2007 If they want a good image they´ll propably take it anyway not thinking about with which camera it was taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted June 19, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 19, 2007 Sort of off-topic but curiosity spurs me to ask, how do you get accepted by a stock agency. Are you invited? Do you apply? LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted June 19, 2007 Author Share #6 Posted June 19, 2007 Sort of off-topic but curiosity spurs me to ask, how do you get accepted by a stock agency. Are you invited? Do you apply? LouisB You apply and submit a portfolio for them to see and if they will accept you get a contract. The better agencies have rather strict rule regarding the post processing for images you are to submit like 37-65meg TIFF, sharpening limits (some suggest none), levels range, etc. Of course you can go to the penny stock who will take cell phone images and pay just pennies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted June 19, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) You apply and submit a portfolio for them to see and if they will accept you get a contract. The better agencies have rather strict rule regarding the post processing for images you are to submit like 37-65meg TIFF, sharpening limits (some suggest none), levels range, etc. Of course you can go to the penny stock who will take cell phone images and pay just pennies. Well, well... I am with 3 stock houses: a "serious" one for 7 years (RM), "specialty" one for 8 months (RM) and "penny stock" one for 1.5 years (RF). Guess where I do most of my $$? "Penny stock"! And those are mostly images passed by other 2 agencies. Oh, yes: I do have camera on my cell phone but I chose to send images from my 1Ds MKII (and M8) to my "penny" agency... Go figure.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted June 19, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 19, 2007 I've sold M8 stock images to Getty, so I know they will take them. It's the assignment work they are leary of. Just give them what you have from the M8 and they will come around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 19, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 19, 2007 Well, well...I am with 3 stock houses: a "serious" one for 7 years (RM), "specialty" one for 8 months (RM) and "penny stock" one for 1.5 years (RF). Guess where I do most of my $$? "Penny stock"! And those are mostly images passed by other 2 agencies. Oh, yes: I do have camera on my cell phone but I chose to send images from my 1Ds MKII (and M8) to my "penny" agency... Go figure.... Yeah, Getty RM lately has sucked, esp as they won't take hardly anything (they want you to pay). I'm thinking about going "penny" stock as well even though I've always been opposed to it on ehtical grounds. Just the way it's going I s'pose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted June 19, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 19, 2007 Yeah, Getty RM lately has sucked, esp as they won't take hardly anything (they want you to pay). I'm thinking about going "penny" stock as well even though I've always been opposed to it on ehtical grounds. Just the way it's going I s'pose. My (old) thinking, too... I was against the RF agencies for the longest time. Than once my RM agency started "pushing" thier own RM collection (and kind of neglecting RM work in all the advertising) I stopped and started thinking: this RM is here to stay... If I don't make that 1$ for download, somebody else will do. You might think I am crzay, but every time I get a paycheck I prove it differnetly... And all the images I had sitting in the file cabinets and on the hard drives are now making $$ (1$ at the time) ... OK, not all but at least 90% P.S. I found my "penny" agency the biggest pain in the b*** about file "quality control. They are so tuff, far more than RM agency. The smallest imperfection in the file post processing - file is returned. Good training in Photoshop, for sure! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 19, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 19, 2007 please no penny stock places So how much do you think these ladies have earned? With current royalties between around $1 and $8 per shot sold, take a look at the sales figures: Lise Gagne (Canada) : Sale=514,254 shots (and counting - this is when I typed the reply!) Exclusive Photographer : lisegagne | iStockphoto.com Hidsey (Australia) : Sales 283,321 (and counting) Exclusive Photographer : hidesy | iStockphoto.com There are several more around or above the 6 figure sales numbers. If you really have a good portfolio, you can make 6 figure $ amounts quite easily - even on the so called "penny" sites. Oh, and BTW - sell 25,000 and you automatically get in to Getty images too. iStockphoto is now owned by Getty - that's how big a market the 'penny' stock libraries have. Several of my customers buy their 'stock' from places like this, spending $ every month, yet would never buy from places like 'Getty' because the prices are too high for small budget items. There are hundreds of thousands of companies around the world buying stock at these prices, which is why the number add up quickly. Remember the saying - look after the pennies and pounds look after themselves.... Oh, and BTW - for extended licenses - they can earn $100+ per shot per sale - and still make hundreds or thousands of sales of the same shot. Not so 'penny' now.... If you check out some of the shots there which have sold 3000+ times, at (say) an average of (say) $1.50 royaly a time, how much would you get from Getty if it sold even once or twice (because they charge more they sell many times fewer) ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted June 20, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 20, 2007 Someone should use an auction pricing model since it's the most economically sound means to determine actual market value. These agencies seem to have a very binary view of pricing models--either exorbitant or pennies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoran Milich Posted June 20, 2007 Share #13 Posted June 20, 2007 I've just had 42 image accepted at Getty Creative shot on my M8. Most of the images were shot at f/1.4 and f/2 160 iso shot in raw and run through Adobe Lightroom and a final whip through Alien Skin's Exposure. The other agency I supply has the highest quality control on the planet and has just ok'd 20 M8 images with two failing due to banding...nothing I can't fix in Lightroom and photoshop. I would never shoot stock for the big three with anything higher than 340 iso on the M8...it would never pass quality control because the M8's are simply too noisy in that range. On the other hand the M8's high iso converted to black and whites look fantastic...but black and white in commercial stock is a hard sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 20, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 20, 2007 So how much do you think these ladies have earned? With current royalties between around $1 and $8 per shot sold, take a look at the sales figures: Lise Gagne (Canada) : Sale=514,254 shots (and counting - this is when I typed the reply!) Exclusive Photographer : lisegagne | iStockphoto.com Hidsey (Australia) : Sales 283,321 (and counting) Exclusive Photographer : hidesy | iStockphoto.com There are several more around or above the 6 figure sales numbers. You got my attention so I briefly looked at some of the work of Lise Gagne and it sems to be high quality business/lifestyle. Some of this is pretty expensive to produce and keep current. You generally need a good studio, producers, assistants and stylists for this type of work. And of course there are model fees and production costs. That sales count is for several years. I read Lise's blog and she said she hit 150,000 "downloads" in 2004. (She joined iStockphoto in 2002.) A lot of this from this photographer doesn't add up for me. Her work is just too good and too polished and too produced for what she wrote in her bio and profile. And she has good models. I also went to her "comercial" web site. It doesn't look right to me either and seems like some kind of front to promote iStockphoto rather than a normal photographer's web site. (I could be wrong but I doubt it.) This is what she did before she got into photography and microstock: "I came to the world of stock photography after trying out a few different paths. I left school very early, at 14, and worked in boutiques and did some traveling. In my 20’s, I studied and worked in translation, [Lise is a francophone] but found it just wasn’t for me. So in 2000, at the age of 36, I went back to school again, this time for Web/multimedia at a local technical college (called a CEGEP in Quebec). I did really well and started at Web design shop. The digital photography “bug” bit me soon after that.” Now maybe she is truly talented, but I've known a lot of good photgraphers in my time and I don't know any who just got into photography one day past the age of 36 and within a few years could have 5,000 images in a stock agency. Many images showing real skill, creativity, and understanding of the market. (Even if she is copying a lot of ideas.) It sounds like someone is trying to paint a picture that "anyone can do it." And she looks like a model or an actress too. Her blogging is all about her wonderful lifestyle. It looks like one big promotional lie. (Did I really say that? - I need to control myself.) Ok, just call me suspicious. I'm not sure if we can extrapolate from those sales numbers what the total income is per year, but it better be a lot more than $100,000 if someone expects to keep much money shooting this kind of work, retouching the images and posting them. (Presumably by someone on staff if the photographer is shooting a lot.) Two (very top) stock photographers I know who do this type of work gross well over $1,000,000 per year and have large operations. So with all of her success why does Lise still work for iStockphoto as someone who looks at submitted images and qualifies them for the agency? I think she may be a front for another photographer who works in RM. This might be how he gets his old images out. (And I have an idea who this may be.) That being said, I certainly can see why a lot of good photographers who have work sitting around collecting dust would find it attractive to make some extra money and give those images some life. Here's an interesting stock story from Black Star: Black Star Rising - Lise Gagne Becomes First iStockphoto Photographer to Reach 500,000 Sales And I found this link in the previous article - very detailed about how hard it can be: Microstock Diaries Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 20, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 20, 2007 So with all of her success why does Lise still work for iStockphoto as someone who looks at submitted images and qualifies them for the agency? I think she may be a front for another photographer who works in RM. This might be how he gets his old images out. (And I have an idea who this may be.) Well, it's easy to jump to conclusions for sure I know several photographesrs who have met and known Lise Gagne over the years. She is one of the tallented ones that has developed over the years. If you look at her early stuff (taken with a Canon 300D), and watch as her shots got better and better, it improves in line with time, experience and new exquipment purchases (like better lighting and cameras - now 1Ds2 I think). Also, the other one I mentioned (Hidsey) started this way too, and went full time in a short period. They both treat this as their 'full time job'. They concentrate on nothing but 'stock'. They eat, drink and sleep 'stock'. It always seems to me that people with less tallent (like me) look upon people who appear to have developed their 'real tallent' from almost nothing and try to find the catch, because no one can do so well so easily right? Lise Gagne found a lot of friends to model for her to begin with, and a lot of shots since then have been on a TFCD basis. That saves a ton of money! So, don't dimiss this concept so quickly. Yes, there are thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands who fail completely, or succeed to a much lesser extent, but this shows what can be done if you are both tallented and dedicated to the task. Every one has an equal chance, but most choose not to take it. The two I sent links to are not the only ones. There are another 'few dozen' easily making 5 figure sums year in year out, but are not 'full time stock'. Some of them are regular photographers, doing weddings, doing commercial work, portraits etc, but submit to stock as well, while others hold down different job types and are not trained photgraphers at all. For some people it works, and works well. Other people prefer to use different business models (like much higher pricing and lower volume). Netheir has the exclusivity on being right, and both serve often very different but equally valid market places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveEP Posted June 20, 2007 Share #16 Posted June 20, 2007 Here are just a few more.... they are all fakes right ? [1] lisegagne - - 513111 [2] hidesy - - 282827 [3] sjlocke - - 167411 [4] DNY59 - - 165623 [5] spxChrome - - 142512 [6] sx70 - - 135074 [7] mammamaart - - 132094 [8] dra_schwartz - - 130671 [9] 4x6 - - 124703 [10] duncan1890 - - 123501 [11] diane39 - - 120440 [12] nico_blue - - 114676 [13] caracterdesign - - 111015 [14] kirstypargeter - - 109257 [15] blackred - - 109115 [16] sdominick - - 106681 [17] abu - - 96042 [18] cimmerian - - 90679 [19] urbancow - - 89560 [20] jhorrocks - - 85275 UP 1 Place [21] kevinruss - - 84932 DOWN 1 Place [22] Kemie - - 82704 UP 1 Place [23] barsik - - 82474 DOWN 1 Place [24] PhotoEuphoria - - 79907 [25] joshblake - - 74152 [26] kcline - - 72058 [27] bulent ince - - 70382 UP 1 Place [28] aldra - - 70125 DOWN 1 Place [29] mevans - - 68903 [30] Andresr - - 68475 [31] iconogenic - - 68215 [32] Yuri_Arcurs - - 66767 UP 1 Place [33] lovleah - - 65469 DOWN 1 Place [34] sodafish - - 64369 UP 5 Place [35] dem10 - - 63644 [36] Art-Y - - 63461 DOWN 2 Place [37] tacojim - - 62732 DOWN 1 Place [38] ggodby - - 62707 DOWN 1 Place [39] kickstand - - 61715 DOWN 1 Place [40] nano - - 61513 [41] lisafx - - 61222 [42] danielle71 - - 57665 [43] andipantz - - 56463 [44] sandoclr - - 55893 [45] cocomartino - - 54152 UP 3 Place [46] gmnicholas - - 53832 DOWN 1 Place [47] Mummu Media - - 52998 DOWN 1 Place [48] Colonel - - 52539 UP 2 Place [49] ranplett - - 52388 [50] tomazl - - 52378 DOWN 3 Place For MOST of these, this is a sideline, and not a full time job.... So, feel free to dismiss the 'penny' stock libraries, and concentrate on Getty, Alamy et al. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Different people like different business models. However, Getty thought the 'penny' stock had such potential they bought the company. If the shots you take are not in big demand, or generic enough, you almost have to sell to the larger agencies in order to get a return on your money from far fewer sales. If your shots are generic, they can sell many more times for much less money and you can still exceed normal stock agency earnings. Take you pick, but don't look down on either one - they are both valid business models. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted June 20, 2007 Share #17 Posted June 20, 2007 At a $1 a pop you will get designers downloading dozens of images at a time for design presentations and consumers downloading them for screen-savers, etc. So a very successful image can make $2,000 or $3,000. A successful RM image though can make 10 times that. I don't know what the average earnings in penny stock are but they are probably a few hundred a year with maybe dozen photographers at the top making enough to make a living at it. Look at the list, the 50th biggest earner has 52,378 downloads thats maybe $30,000. in income (total earnings for several years). You could do better serving burgers at McDonalds. The secret to success is you have to have an extended network of attractive looking friends who are happy to model for free as you have to hold production costs as close to zero as possible. Along with a talent for photography Lise Gagne had to have a pool of talent who would essentially work for free and sign model releases allowing all and any use of their photos in perpetuity or she would never have gotten her stock business off the ground. It's a business model that depends on a lot of people working for nothing and the majority of contributers earning close to nothing. But that seems to be the trend in all occupations these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reven Posted June 20, 2007 Share #18 Posted June 20, 2007 Yes it is hard, but what do you do ? Yes micro stock is one way, but I think also only if you have a lot. I reall prefer the old way. It looks so muc better of a picture gets licensed for 2000$. Sorry, but I don't want to sell an image for 1$, I could imagine doing it with images I don't like that much, but my own good work, will never go away that cheap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted June 20, 2007 Share #19 Posted June 20, 2007 ... Look at the list, the 50th biggest earner has 52,378 downloads thats maybe $30,000. in income (total earnings for several years). You could do better serving burgers at McDonalds. not quite true... I know from my experience... The secret to success is you have to have an extended network of attractive looking friends who are happy to model for free as you have to hold production costs as close to zero as possible. Along with a talent for photography Lise Gagne had to have a pool of talent who would essentially work for free and sign model releases allowing all and any use of their photos in perpetuity or she would never have gotten her stock business off the ground. It's a business model that depends on a lot of people working for nothing and the majority of contributers earning close to nothing. But that seems to be the trend in all occupations these days. if you look at my folio on iStock you'll see a lot of model images. I am far from Lise, but I too never paid a cent for modeling fees or make up services. TFCD all the way. All people who helped me (including owners of locations where I shot) were hapy to have high quality high size files to use for them selfs. My cost shooting iStock stuff: just about the gas money for my van...Traveling stock was shot at the time when I was sent to particular locations to do my "other" type of work (video)- one of the reasons I got M8 system ( so I can carry it together with video gear- in my back pocket)... All together: it works! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted June 20, 2007 Share #20 Posted June 20, 2007 Yes it is hard, but what do you do ? Yes micro stock is one way, but I think also only if you have a lot. I reall prefer the old way. It looks so muc better of a picture gets licensed for 2000$. Sorry, but I don't want to sell an image for 1$, I could imagine doing it with images I don't like that much, but my own good work, will never go away that cheap. keep on thinking like that. More $$ for the rest of us. I like all my images with micro stock. And quite a few are making nice $$ (1$ at the time).... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.