Top Stock Photography Sites to SellSell top stock photography locations
In the end I chose to sell my work through stockbrokers. Everyone has his pros and cons and it can be difficult to know where to place his pictures. About 8 month after working with different agents, I thought about the most important ones and my experience with them in order to help others find their way around the stock photography scene.
A general thought about the sale of stocks before we start: Regardless of which agent you sell through, don't anticipate getting wealthy by buying stock photography. The sale of your work as stock could give you a good extra source of revenue to help you buy the lenses or tripods you've always wanted, but most of the times it won't cover the bill.
Today, there is just too much rivalry and too much excess supply for most individuals to earn a significant amount of revenue from the sale of shares. That' right, Getty the Big Dogs. but at a reasonable cost. Getty is regarded in the business as the company with the highest image qualities and the highest image standard, but nothing is inexpensive; and while some are slobbering about the benefits, I would strongly ask you to seriously consider whether the drawbacks are really valuable.
At Getty, the greatest benefit of yours job is how much cash you have the opportunity to make. The Moment Collection is one of the most frequent types of contract where you make 20%. A $115 for a one-time purchase of your photograph. A low-resolution photograph (like the one you took with your Canon 10D 13 years ago) could sell for $375 and make you $75.
Gotty has a record for excellence. Furthermore, they provide an editing rating of your pictures. When it' s inconvenient to get a publication and remove material from the photograph would make it look horrible, you can just categorize it as just editing only and you can still sell it. So now the edited picture sales are smaller, but the sale is better than the sale isn't right?
Communication of submissions: When I submitted them to Getty, I realized that they were more artistic than the other agents. Let us assume that you have a photograph that is blurred but gives a powerful emotional or historical message, you don't refuse it because it "doesn't put the motif in focus". Getty has the worst downside of an exclusivity agreement.
This means that anything you sell on Getty can't be resold anywhere else. So, all your balls are in her baskets with these pictures. Content Management & Entry Platform: Next, their submitting platforms for contributions are terrible. You would think they should now have many years of participant input to build the best website (especially with all the cash they make from the other 80% of their photography sales).
Photographs are also organised in stacks, which makes good real sense for uploading, so you can mix and match similar pictures in a simple one. Instead, you need to open each stack separately and just display the pictures in that stack to see how they're doing.
The most important thing is that you will not see any of your pictures sold, except ONE time per year. When you think about it, it is preposterous that they could not have invested their monies in a better entry site and there is no apology. Following a bad location layout and no client support, it seems like all the cash they make goes straight into their pockets and they don't put it into the business itself.
Contents check times: However, the periods of the contents check are not quite a drawback, but definitely not an asset. You say up to 4 week to check and sell. Quite a frustration to wait so long to see your pictures' feedbacks and put them up for selling. Finally, think of this vocabulary when you talk about how much you will make with your pictures.
You have a so-called "premium access" for wholesale clients and it is a price agreed upon at which they sell your work. So, the $115 you're looking to make? Fifty percent of the times Getty is no better than the other microwave stock sites because of this premium access material...while your work is still exclusively. iStock is part of Getty Images and one of the most important actors in the microwave stock industry.
Due to their connection to Getty, many of the things to consider are the same. One of the main differences between iStock and Getty is that iStock is not exclusively. This means that you can sell your work both on iStock and through other agents. A further great feauture of iStock is the option of exclusiveness.
Whilst iStock is enjoying a broader audience (all people who can't buy a photo for $500+), this means you make less because the cost is lower. However, with the ability to sell only through iStock, while the pictures are sold for less money, you can make a higher percent - up to 45% - of each purchase.
Non Exclusive Revenue: iStock is a website which means that you will make almost nothing with any purchase. Photographs sold for $12 make you a massive $1.80 a picture. Since the majority of subscriptions are sold by subscribers and you have already figured it out, "Premium Access" expects an avarage of between 20 and 50 per purchase.
Entry platform: Another big drawback is that they are now using the same entry site as Getty. So, all the fantastic horrible things I said with Getty before, you have to do for iStock...... and make less of it. This means that there are third-party apps that you can use to deliver your contents that provide a much better level of expertise in both loading the contents and viewing the service.
However, this raises the even more important issue of why isn't Getty the one who offers those who earn them a living - the participants - the quality outing? You provide decent contents for filth inexpensively. Contents Management: The Contributor Dashboard gives you unbelievable visibility into the power of your assets in a variety of ways, from real-time revenue and revenue to your downloading locations and powerful assets.
Filing review time: Your filing Review times is quite good. Unfortunately, due to their place in the industry, I did not see much attraction for creating newsletters. As this is more of an inexpensive option to other agents, you will hardly be forced to receive more than $0.25 per photograph.
Don't get me wrong, it happens, but most subscribers have subscription so that's about the mean you'll be earning for downloading. Entry platform: The Adobe Stock is the newest gamer in the series. It was launched almost exactly two years ago in 2015 and has with much awe some of the best features of the other sites, while at the same time trying to remain a competitive on the open mart.
It is fully embedded in Adobe CC authoring tools, including Lightroom. All you have to do as a participant is post your photographs to the Adobe Stock publication area, and they will be uploaded for you to be able to include key words and title. This not only makes it possible to load contents, but also allows clients to test contents in applications such as Photoshop and InDesign.
The integration of Adobe Stock into Adobe CC makes life a little bit simpler for everyone. Entry Platforms & Management: Your submitting platforms and your editorial timetable are fully up to date. It' s almost as if Adobe had seen what everyone else couldn't offer and incorporated it into their designs and then rebuilt it from scratch.
Gives you custom statistics on each photograph, real-time selling and a nice, easy-to-use user experience. You can also use Adobe to modify after publishing. Suppose there's a good catchword you didn't think of when you sent the picture in, well, Adobe lets you process the filing afterwards!
It'?s time to review the submission: Adobe is at the forefront of all of them. You were very fast and consistently to flip the pictures over. Because of the general Adobe Stock expertise, I chose to integrate this into the benefits. The Adobe website is a microphone stock, which means that you will not make much.
While you can make pennys on Shutterstock, you can make money on Adobe Pennys. Lately though, I've noted a lot of pictures that sell for $0.99. Approval of the content: I got refused pictures that were correctly lit nights because they were "underexposed" or a flat DOF for " blurred". Although there is no way to tell what the photograph is about.
Right now my assumption is they're trying to create a good image collection and avoiding litigation, so they're specially choosy because they're just beginning. Contents they are looking for are general, broad interests of the markets. You don't want anything that communicates an emotional message, you want off-the-shelf products with a smile on your face, a healthy life style and a light ambience.
You do not allow pictures to be sent as pure editorials. Since you can't always get a model/property approval while travelling, this would result in a good fistful of pictures that you would make useless. The Adobe Stock is still at an early stage and is still established. Actually, I assume that their percentage of the stock markets will increase significantly and they will be a severe hit in the stock markets.
Hopefully this will give a little glimpse into the stock photography scene from a novice with a new point of view. There are so many pictures refused for different reason. However, you will also be amazed by some who are acceptable... or better yet, who sell themselves! They never know what they'll make so just hand in everything you have and let them choose what's saleable or not.
Do the same with the other agents. Godek is a portraiture and still photography artist, traveller, entrepreneur from Indianapolis, Indiana. He is also the creator and proprietor of the Lightbox Photo Academy.