Stocksy.com — I’m invited

[ravnostic]

So…I got an invite to submit my images to the new stock photo company Stocksy (sort of a gift from Thomas Hawke). And…I already know of 2 really really excellent photographers who’ve been rejected. I think I may know why.

Stock photos, from my understanding, aren’t about excellent photography. Advertisers come up with slogans and messages, and want photos that convey those messages, right? While the two I know who were rejected are most excellent photogs, a look-see through their albums tells me beautiful flowers and hard-core processing aren’t enough to convey messages and slogans.

Starting Sunday I have another RTO week off of work. I’ve decided I’m going to dedicate myself entirely to looking through my albums to find photos that DO convey messages, or could work with slogans.

And I’d like some advice from any of you, your thoughts, input, experiences, or suggestions.

As an example, I’m thinking pictures like the one that won the “Show of Emotion 2” contest, or “State Fair”, or even “scanner as Camera” (for it’s uniqueness). Any one care to chime in and offer their thoughts?

[fluffybunny]

Not that it’s relevant to flowers but my understanding about stock companies is that they want model releases. If ya’ll remember, I asked about them quite some time ago. I’ve studied them off and on since. For me, the conclusion I came to was this:

I am not going to make photographs for advertising or stock companies unless approached by one. If I am shooting for me, I can sell my work as art and I don’t need releases. It might explain some of the rejection you’re seeing. No existing releases for past work.

Excellent reference material on the subject:

A Digital Photographers Guide to Model Releases Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People Places and Things – Heller – 2008
Best Business Practices for Photographer – Harrington – 2009

[ennuipoet]

I’ve read about Stocksy and how it hopes to change the way Stock Photography is marketed and pays it’s contributors. It’s a great idea, but doomed to fail. It is going against a Getty and they have the money and the market, the consumer has not impetus to move to another company where they would pay more for the exact same product.

Also, keep in mind what you are giving up by contributing to a microstock agency, read your contributors contract to make sure you retain control over your work.

Miscrostock is a loser for a small artist. You might pick a up a few bucks here and there if you are lucky, but essentially there is no money unless you find a niche and exploit it aggressively. Still life photos are done and over, they market is Biblical Flood saturated with flowers, sunsets and puppies, what remains is people and that requires model releases. Also, the standard “good looking man in business suit” is done to death, you need “Transvestite tattooed biker in business suit standing in desert with atomic bomb exploding the background” stock shots.

Finally, the founder of Stocky sold istockphoto to Getty for a huge profit for himself and screwed over the photographers who contributed. Are you sure you want to trust this guy?

/2 cents

[bender16v]

I’ve looked at some of the stock sites before too and considered trying but from what I have learned is that the people who seem to actually earn any considerable amount of money are those who submit a lot and very often. So I would be prepared to spend a lot of time with it.

I never did it because: not sure my photos are technically good enough, I don’t have time for it, and I’m not really sure that my photos would be desirable for stock images. I suppose I’m kind of an idealist and shoot only to please myself since I am not driven by trying to make any money from it and I’m worried that might change if I started trying to make stock photos. So I believe that if I tried to sell any images I’d try to do it as art as fluffbunny has said.

You seem to have a much wider scope of photos than I do and I really admire your photos so this might be a good fit for you. There doesn’t seem to much info available about Stocksy so I don’t know what their niche is.

[ravnostic]

I agree on the model release angle. I don’t have many portraits, so for my work, that’s not much of an issue (I can get a release via my brother for my niece’s shot.) There are plenty of ads/billboards, etc., though, that don’t feature people. I think it might be best if I make a visit to the library to view some common periodicals and see what’s being advertised–and how.

My guess about the guy starting this? Well he’s got $50 million to invest, courtesy of Getty’s $$. And…gotta start somewhere (realistically I don’t have a prayer but there’s nothing to lose in trying and one never knows…currently I’m not making any money, so why not? As it happens, I spent a fair amount of time talking with T. Hawke regarding this, and he knows the guy who’s starting it up. He’s not an evil person; he sold when the time was right to make some money, which is what business is often about. I often do unique images, not of flowers nor sunsets nor puppies, and I’m betting that by submitting my more unique photos I can at least catch their attention (I lose bets frequently, of course…). It’s on the website where flowers (via the Darlot lens), sunsets (like via the telescope at ultra-high res) and puppies (okay, I don’t have any puppies) would likely appear, along with other stuff.

I agree that stock photography isn’t going to let me retire. I’m looking for maybe an occasional few bucks here…there…very few people actually make a living doing photography, short of wedding photographers, and even those will have needed a spot on Oprah. I’m just thinking of maybe an outlet where my work could be seen and possibly earn me a little side money.

But, I guess I stated poorly, what I’m wondering about is what are your thoughts on content for the inaugural submission? All thoughts, however, are appreciated, so thanks, thus far, fluffyandennuiandbender

[ennuipoet]

The best thing I can tell you look at the top selling submissions on Stock sites and base your selection on that. You can make some educated guesses for your portfolios based on those.

[ravnostic]

Hey, that’s a good idea, ennui!!

[ennuipoet]

Hey, that’s a good idea, ennui!!

There is a slight, infinitesimal, minuscule, possibility that my dislike of Stock Photo sites is because I was not accepted to any of the ones I researched thoroughly and submitted my work to.

😛

[ravnostic]

I doubt I’ll get picked myself; looking at the top selling Getty stuff, everything is studio, with white backgrounds. Pretty boring, if you ask me. But I’m not the one buying the stuff. Advertisers seem to sure like white.

[Yugoboy]

I doubt I’ll get picked myself; looking at the top selling Getty stuff, everything is studio, with white backgrounds. Pretty boring, if you ask me. But I’m not the one buying the stuff. Advertisers seem to sure like white.

It’s easier to stick in catalogs, magazines, brochures and other publications. I suppose black would also work, but shadows don’t show up as well.

[Author]

Posts