A Dirty Word, Part 4

Please feel free to check out Part 1, 2, and 3 of this series.

So, having decided to give micro-stock a try, the next issue was to find out more about who the ‘big players’ were and how their systems worked. I will talk about them below, with links to the sites, but first want to mention one other aspect of generating revenue with micro-stock. In addition to getting paid for photograph downloads, one also generates revenue through referrals.

How does this work? If one signs up for a micro-stock site using a referral link, then the person that refers them gets a few cents every time that person sells an image. The best part (and the part that makes it work) is that there is no penalty whatsoever from any micro site to the person signing up......they make the same amount per image sale by signing up through a referral link as they do by simply going over to the site and signing up themselves. No more and no less. So, if you are thinking of giving it a try, I would certainly appreciate your signing up through my referral links below, and then hopefully others do the same for you.

On to ‘The Players’:

Shutterstock:

This is the biggest micro-stock agency, and one that should probably be the highest priority to join. They work almost purely on a subscription plan (people can by individual photos without being a subscriber, but this is an exceedingly small part of Shutterstock sales). Because most buyers have a subscription they are, as you might imagine, mainly serious designers who tend to buy in volume. Subscribers can download 25 images a day and contributors earn $0.25 per download, with this payment due to increase in May (the amount of the increase has not yet been announced). If an extended license is purchased (which increases the number of copies that can be made) the contributor earns $20.00

Here is the amazing part. They currently have 3.3 MILLION images on file. I took one look at this number and thought that it would be impossible for anyone to ever find, notice, or look at an image that I might upload, let alone purchase it. How wrong I was. Within an hour of my first batch of 7 images going ‘live’ I received three sales. They simply have so many buyers, many of which search for what they are looking for using the ‘show newest first’ filter, that you do get sales. In fact, there are only three or four of the current fifty images I now have available on the site that have not sold at least once. If your images are accepted they absolutely WILL sell.

Notice I said “if” your images are accepted. Like all micro-stock agencies, images must undergo a quality control approval process. The images are evaluated from legal, technical, and commercial standpoints. Any identifiable people or private property must be accompanied by the appropriate model or property releases. The images must meet strict technical criteria, the most common of which seems to be the absence of digital noise or sharpening/compression artifacts. Some agencies are exceedingly strict in this regard, though Shutterstock seems middle of the road on it. It is therefore generally preferable to use minimal or no sharpening, depending on the image. Finally, the images must have commercial viability, but most agencies define this rather loosely.

Many agencies have an initial 'screen' to determine if you will be allowed to submit images at all, and Shutterstock is one of these. You must submit an initial batch of 10 images and, to be accepted, seven of the ten must past muster. Once you pass, you can upload in batches as large or small as you like, but each individual image is still evaluated and can be accepted or rejected based on the criteria mentioned above. If you do not pass the initial screening application, you must wait one month before reapplying.

To apply to Shutterstock, with my referral, click here.


iStockphoto

iStockphoto has no referal system for contributors, so the above link is to the main page. iStock is also quite large with 2.9 million images on file. Similar to Shutterstock, there is an application process before being able to upload. Buyers can purchase images via a subscription plan and can also buy individual images. There are different prices based on the size of the file (contributors only upload one file and the various sizes are always generated by the micro-stock agencies). Thus a single download, even without an extended type license, could earn the photographer anywhere from $0.25 to several dollars.


Dreamstime

Dreamstime is another of the biggest 4 agencies, with 2.6 million images. As I recall, there is no application process....you just start uploading, but the individual images are as carefully scrutinized as at the others. The site is really very easy to use, and the amount earned per image is dependent on the size of the file downloaded. I have to say, it is nice to see the dollar sign change instead of the cents portion of your earnings when you get a download for a larger file size.

To access Dreamstime, with my referral, click here.


Fotolia

Fotolia actually has the most images on file of any of the agencies, though I don't believe their sales are as high. They have 3.4 million images. Earnings are dependent on the size of the image file downloaded on this site as well.

To access Fotolia click here.

There are other micro-stock agencies, but these are the largest, and, if one is interested in giving micro-stock a try, I believe these are the places to start.

Some of the other smaller agencies include 123 Royalty Free, Lucky Oliver, BigStockPhoto, Crestock, and Featurepics.

I will end this series with two more posts and will try to answer a few more of the remaining questions from Part 1.

A Dirty Word, Part 3

If you haven’t had the chance, feel free to check out Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.

One of my foremost concerns when considering the whole issue of participation in micro-stock was whether it somehow ‘degraded’ one as an artist and if it in any way compromised the ability to sell one’s work.

The first question was the most difficult one in my mind. Does selling the same image in (hopefully) large numbers for a relatively low price change the way one perceives themselves, the way others perceive them, or the way their work is perceived?

Several things became clear to me as I did some research about micro-stock and took time to peruse various micro-stock sites to see what images tend to sell. For one thing, what sells best is not what one would call traditional fine art photographs. Buyers are looking for images that convey a single simple concept or idea. At times they are looking for backgrounds. Photographs with people in them are the biggest sellers (of course, you need a model release for every identifiable person in any image). What I believe this translates into is that the mindset for making salable images for micro-stock (or any stock) is very different from fine art photography. I might also add that, unlike the ‘old days’ (or so I am told) when the micro-stocks were looking to expand their inventories and digital imaging was very new, the photographs now available as micro-stock are generally of extremely high quality, from both technical and creative standpoints.

Having discovered these facts, I wondered how they might apply to my situation. The one thing I knew for sure was that I wanted to keep shooting things that I enjoyed photographing and not change anything about that to try and participate in the micro-stock ‘phenomenon’. Was there a way, and would it be worthwhile, to participate if my goal was to continue with primarily nature photography while continuing to approach making photographs from a ‘fine art’ standpoint?

When I go out photographing, I make many images that I know will never ‘see the light of day’. By that I mean that they are not necessarily interesting enough to spend the time on that perfecting a print would necessitate. In fact, many of these types of images were made for my own personal enjoyment, just to see what they would look like and, while I found the experimenting worthwhile, they are not necessarily the types of images that one would hang on the walls for display.

What types of images am I talking about? I have many images of abstract flowing water, sand patterns, rock patterns, leaves, and grasses. I have many landscape images that were used in the process of working up to that ‘strongest image’ possible that I will never print by virtue of the fact that they are not the strongest compositions from a particular location. These are the images that I felt I could potentially sell.

I guess the ‘cat is out of the bag’ at this point, and it is apparent that I decided to give micro-stock a try. Overall, I concluded that for me it was not ‘degrading’ as an artist because:

1) The images I initially decided to sell are ones that I enjoyed making but had no plans to make prints from or to sell as fine art photos.

2) It seemed silly to let these images sit on my hard drive and have them ‘never see the light of day’.

3) Many of these images were in purgatory! By this I mean that I took them because they were either experimental or I was interested in them from an artistic standpoint, but, given limited time, I was not processing them for the reasons I previously mentioned.

4) I was really curious to see if they would sell.

There was one other issue that concerned me. What if, at some point, I wanted to do a series of these abstracts and either sell prints, sell them in a self-published book, or submit them to a magazine for publication? Well, after thinking about this, it didn’t seem like any of these things couldn’t be done simply because the image had been sold through a micro-stock agency.

To go out further on a limb, what if I wanted to make a ‘limited edition’ print series of one of these images in the future? This is where I think there might be differences of opinion. I do think that there is a very significant difference in a limited edition print optimized for and printed on fine art watercolor paper that is signed and numbered by the artist and the same image used in an ad or pamphlet. Moreover, I think that any buyer would recognize that difference.

I am hoping these musings are of interest, though the fact that there have been very few comments makes me wonder if I really should have started this series after all!

Next installment……where are these micro-stock companies and how much can you make?

A Dirty Word, Part 2

Check out Part 1 of A Dirty Word here.

Just so everyone is on the same page, I would like to define my perception of the difference between Rights Managed and Royalty Free stock photography. I am not a lawyer, so my definitions reflect my understanding and their ‘everyday’ usage.

In Rights Managed stock photography, the agency that handles one's images arranges a specific usage contract when an image is sold. That contract or agreement is very specific and generally states what the image will be used for, how many copies will be made, how many times it will be used, and for how long the buyer has exclusive rights to it. Generally speaking, major changes to the image are not made unless negotiated. Of course, the specifics, as well as how many of these types of issues are covered, depends on the intended usage.

In Royalty Free stock photography, an image that is purchased can be used for most anything, with only some restrictions, BUT there is no exclusivity. Thus, while a rights manages sale will typically impose a moratorium on any other sales of the image for a specified time period (typically 6 or 12 months), a royalty free image can be resold and resold multiple times with no such restrictions.

There are, however, restrictions on image use in order to protect the photographer and the stock firm. As one might expect, photographs are not allowed to be used in any way that would defame someone portrayed in the image and may not be used for pornographic purposes. The image may not be resold. Portions of the image may be used and the image may be manipulated or changed. The number of copies of the image that may be made is dependent on the individual agreement with each royalty free firm, but, generally, once a certain number of copies are made one must purchase an ‘extended license’. While the image may be used as personal artwork, many firms do not allow the image to be sold as framed artwork (some do) and not with the implication that it is the work of someone other than the photographer.

So what are most of the downloaded images used for? Well, for the most part, images are downloaded by graphic designers, not your neighbor next door who wants to find an image for their dining room wall. Photographs are often used for such things as websites, advertising, pamphlets, and promotional material. In fact, downloaded photos might never be used in print, perhaps only being used for a mock up of sorts or as a choice of several images the designer offers a client.

How much does the photographer make each time a photograph is downloaded. Again, it depends not only on the individual micro-stock site, but also on the type of plan that a buyer has with the site. Some buyers only purchase individual images, while others have a so-called subscription plan, whereby they can download a preset number of images monthly, weekly, or daily for a prepaid fee. The fee is the same independent of how many of the allowed image downloads they use, so this obviously encourages customers to download. The downside of subscription plans is that the payout to the photographer tends to be low.

So how much are we talking here? Downloads from subscription plans tend to put only 25 to 50 cents per download into the photographer’s pocket, while non-subscription downloads tend to earn the photographer in the $1.00 to 6.00 range (though there are some sites that let the photographer choose their own price for non-subscription downloads).

So, with that background information, in the next installment of this discussion I can start to post some of my musings related to the questions listed in Part 1.

A Dirty Word, Part 1

Micro-stock. That’s the dirty word. At least it has seemed like a dirty word to me for quite some time. It has certainly been something I would never, in a million years, have considered.

But lately I have been re-examining this whole issue. I have been giving it a considerable amount of thought and self assessment. Of course, this consideration and my thoughts can’t possibly be fully applicable to everyone. In fact, it is quite possible that they may only be applicable to very few people who might read this. However, since this is, after all, a blog…..I thought that over the next several posts it might be of interest to explore the issues, and, of course, to hear comments and thoughts that anyone might want to make. Just remember that I didn’t invent micro-stock nor did I have anything to do with getting it to where it is today.

With that said, I would like to list some of the questions that I have been thinking about over the last few weeks, in no particular order.

Are nature images likely to sell on micro-stock sites?

Does participation in micro-stock degrade one as an artist?

How much work is involved if one chooses to get involved with the industry?

Is the micro-stock industry itself changing for the better?

Can one participate in both royalty free (micro-stock) and rights managed stock photography?

Are some images more appropriate than others for micro-stock?

How are images sold at a micro-stock site likely to be used?

Which of the many micro-stock sites are the biggest players?

How might offering images on micro-stock (or rights managed stock) sites affect one’s ability to sell prints?

I had lots of questions and thought it might be worthwhile to post some of my musings and to hear what others think. But, please, this topic can strike a very emotional chord in many people and, while I am very interested in people’s thoughts on this, I want to keep it quite civil.

Bob Egan's "In Search Of Color"

On Saturday night, I had the good fortune to attend friend and fellow photographer Bob Egan's exhibit of photographs entitled "In Search Of Color" at Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh, PA. It was a superbly executed show of 21 of Bob's images with a timely theme that fits the seasonal change from Winter to Spring.

I have written many times before about how difficult I find it to go out photographing in the Winter. Apparently, Bob has the same problem since the opening sentence in his artist's statement for the show is "I detest taking pictures in the winter!" Now, that clearly got my attention. After noting that he used to think that his main dislike was the cold weather itself, on further introspection he realized that "the actual challenge was the absence of color in the subject matter during this season " and that the greater issue was "How could I solve the problem of taking winter photographs without limiting my palette?". The concept and underlying theme for this exhibit was borne from the solution to his dilemma.

During the show, the viewer is taken progressively from several nearly monochromatic snowstorm images (see Frosted Featherwings, below) to those with bright and vibrant colors as Bob entertains various ways of expanding the color palette during the bland winter months. Bob's solutions include seeking color generated by dramatic light just before and after snowstorms, traveling to where there is little change in the color palette as the year progresses, photographing colorful subjects indoors, making abstracts of focal areas of color, and, finally, photographing in the Phipps Conservatory itself, where color always abounds (and where Bob teaches a series of courses on flower photography).

"Frosted Featherwings"
Copyright Bob Egan

The images were a delight to look at. I found myself spending time contemplating and enjoying each one.

One thing that I found very interesting, had never considered myself (but surely will in the future), and had the opportunity to discuss with Bob was the matting and framing. I have always double matted my color images with white and used gold or silver frames. Bob took an extremely effective alternative approach. The photographs were double matted with a rim of white mat showing around the image and a black overmat on top with simple black frames. The end result was that the black overmat and frame imparted a striking richness to the colors, much like looking at images against a black background on the internet. A very striking and extremely effective technique for a show that was about color.

"Painted Ladies On The Lake"
Copyright Bob Egan

So, if you live in the Pittsburgh area, I highly recommend a trip over to Phipps to check out "In Search Of Color"!

The History Of Nature Photography

I have previously wriiten about Jeff Curto's two superb podcasts, The History Of Photography Podcast and Camera Position. I have been a bit behind in my listening, but in the car today had the chance to listen to the Febrauary 24th episode of Camera Position entitled The Camera In The Cathedral: Camera Position Goes Historical.

The reason I thought that this particular episode should be mentioned is that it is specifically about the history of nature photography. It contains a lot of insights that were quite new to me about the interaction between the technological developments in photography and how they influenced the way in which nature was depicted photographically. For example, it never dawned upon me that since the Daguerreotype was essentially a one exposure, one image technique (meaning that one was not able to make more than one image from each exposure; there was no ability to make copies of the images) nature images were not frequently made in the early years of photography. This is because nature photographs would typically need to be mass produced for others to see, while portraiture was generally considered to be an image to be given to a single person.

Whet your interest? This episode is really fascinating and contains many interesting insights. Check it out here.

Photopreneur

I recently ran across an interesting photography blog with a different twist than most I have mentioned here. As opposed to being primarily art related, Photopreneur is a blog dedicated to discussing various ways that one's images can be used to produce income. Whether or not this is of primary interest, I find the blog well thought out and the articles interesting and full of good ideas. I thought it was worth sharing. I think having a peek at Photopreneur is worthwhile, and, who knows, it might give you some interesting ideas!

Just Around The Corner

Spring is just around the corner. OK, so maybe it still is just the begining of March and, while it is true that here in Western Pennsylvania you can get light snow even in the begining of April, the anticipation of Spring is in the air. Spring is my favorite season and I absolutely take delight in photographing it.

So, Mark, if you are out there, lets get ready to shoot more trillium!

"Peeking Out"

Copyright Howard Grill

"Wild Geranium"

Copyright Howard Grill

Quick Quotes: Eliot Porter

In my last "Quick Quote", I wrote about Gary Winogrand's saying:

"I don't have anything to say in any picture. My only interest in photography is to see what something looks like as a photograph. I have no preconceptions."

Just recently, I ran across a quote by Eliot Porter that I thought was an interesting follow-up to the Winogrand quote. Mr. Porter said:

"The more you photograph, the more you realize what can be photographed and what can't be photographed "

Somehow, I think there is an association between the two quotes. In mulling over it, there are times when I think he agrees with Winogrand and times when I think otherwise. This is first "Quick Quote" that I also have mixed feelings about, much as I love and respect Eliot Porter's work (I have not one, but two copies of Porter's 'In Wildness.....' and his book 'Antarctica'). Should one accept that something can not be photographed, or should they seek out new ways to portray it in an image, even if the image can not seemingly convey the full essence of the subject?

Definitely some things to think about here!

Fencing at "The Arnold"

I am going to be bringing my son to the Arnold (as in Schwarzenegger) athletic games in Columbus, Ohio on Saturday to compete in fencing. The games are sponsored by Governor Schwarzenegger, and have been for years. The convention center in Columbus becomes filled with just about every indoor sport competition imaginable, such as fencing, gymnastics, weightlifting, martial arts etc. Each year Mr. Schwarzenegger himself shows up and stops into the finals of every sport. It was actually quite funny last year because, as a governor, he has bodyguards for protection. So, naturally, all competitors in fencing were told that the governor's visit to the fencing match would be pre-announced by about 10 minutes and that all matches would stop and that all foils, epees etc had to be placed on the ground and not remain in anyone's hand.

I have previously mentioned that my son is quite a good competitive fencer in foil. As a matter of fact, he won the gold medal at "The Arnold" last year....but as you age the competition gets stiffer and more difficult.

Sports photography is not something that I really "do", but I did give it a whirl at the fencing tournament last year. So here we have two action shots from the finals (my son is the one on the left in both shots). And, yeah, I will also throw in a shot of Arnold.

Fencing I
Copyright Howard Grill

Fencing II
Copyright Howard Grill

The Governor Visits A Fencing Bout
Copyright Howard Grill