Author Topic: Is it worth uploading people/lifestyle to FAA and other POD? (Read 21725 times)

lisafx · « **on:** November 23, 2013, 00:16 »

I know a lot of people here upload to POD sites like FAA. I have gotten the impression that images which would work as wall art are most successful there. Is there a decent market for people images there?

I would like to have another reliable revenue stream, but if my type of work doesn't sell well there it isn't worth the trouble getting it uploaded, not to mention exposing it to the lack of watermark.

gemmy12 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 23, 2013, 00:41 »

yes Lisa. My people and life style images do sell in FAA like any other images ie- landscape or conceptual images. I have sold some posters/prints of portraits in zazzle too when i was uploading there earlier.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** November 23, 2013, 01:50 »

I haven't uploaded many people shots to FAA, but so far, sales have all been of places or things. I think you'd want to take a selection of your work though even though it's hard to guess what buyers will go for. I just sold a print of a Mayan carving of a warrior holding his defeated opponent's severed head! Where would you hang that?

I did want to point out that FAA has a watermark - not a great one from the protection point of view, but there is one

Ron · « **Reply #3 on:** November 23, 2013, 03:08 »

IN my opinion, it depends, but why does someone wants to hang a photo of strangers on their wall, unless its an image like the girl with the eyes from NG. I have asked the question on FAA and the general answer is no. But you never know what sells as art. If you check the recent sales page, I dont see a lot of people lifestyle images. But then again, I can see how a hotel chain might be interested. For 30 dollar you cant go wrong anyway.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2013, 05:40 »

My concern is the impact it has on the appearance of the portfolio. I put a pile of food photos up because they now have a bulk-sales sideline for the interior design trade and sometimes they use generic images across an entire brand. I stopped because it didn't sit well with my other stuff, but perhaps I should just downrate all that stuff so it goes to the back of the portfolio and will only be found if someone searches my food folder.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2013, 06:49 »

^^ remember that you can choose your settings as to whether someone arriving at 'your' FAA port can see photos or galleries. I have mine set to 'galleries' as after I put up the original set, I might add to each gallery as and when.
Mind you, I'm not exactly successful over there.

(My own fault.)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2013, 06:53 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 23, 2013, 06:49

^^ remember that you can choose your settings as to whether someone arriving at 'your' FAA port can see photos or galleries. I have mine set to 'galleries' as after I put up the original set, I might add to each gallery as and when.
Mind you, I'm not exactly successful over there. (My own fault.)

Thanks, I didn't know that.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2013, 08:31 »

@Lisa ~
Once you're a member, you can see what's selling on the 'recent sales' page.
However, a proportion of these are not directly sold via the site, but presumably the artists have their portfolios elsewhere and use FAA for fulfilment. One evidence for that is that some images which sell have no keywords aren't don't seem to be searchable on the site.
Other evidence is more subjective, e.g. there's one particular image which sells a lot. I have a couple of the same subject in there, and there are a very few others by other people. Mine sell on iS and Alamy (different pics, same subject) but they haven't even been looked at on FAA, and the pic that sells is 'very strange'. That's purely subjective, though I've showed the small number available to several people (without indicating my personal interest) and ask which they like best and they never pick the multiple-seller. That is totally subjective, but in fact a friend indicated exactly the same re one of their images vs a FAA seller.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2013, 12:15 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 23, 2013, 05:40

My concern is the impact it has on the appearance of the portfolio. I put a pile of food photos up because they now have a bulk-sales sideline for the interior design trade and sometimes they use generic images across an entire brand. I stopped because it didn't sit well with my other stuff, but perhaps I should just downrate all that stuff so it goes to the back of the portfolio and will only be found if someone searches my food folder.

That's how I have mine too, and it allows you to rotate which galleries are up front at different times of year - if you feel some work might sell better than others seasonally

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** November 23, 2013, 13:56 »

Thanks very much for the answers. Sounds like I would be best off to search back over my port and select out the non-people stuff to upload first.

Although, Gemmy, I am glad that people shots do sell for you some of the time. Sounds like a different mindset is required for shooting fine art than stock. Which isn't news, of course, but it will require me to dig a bit deeper...

@JoAnn, I am relieved to hear there is a watermark. I had vaguely remembered a discussion about that here awhile back, but maybe it was just about it not being very strong. Thanks for clarifying

Ron · « **Reply #10 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:01 »

All your images will be on the internet at 1000px longest side and the watermark is tiny. The reasoning is that a watermark puts off art buyers, and they wont do anything about the 1000px image because its an art site and in general they dont care if their images are downloadable at that size. It seems that it is only a concern to people who also sell stock. They dont care about stock. They forget they also sell postcards and 1000px for postcard is plenty. Even for a small canvas. Anyhoo, the owner of the site made it clear to me that he doesnt care.

PS: FAA's SEO is really good, so your images will be on top of the google search, therefore most likely will be stolen.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:02 »

If you do decide to set things up at FAA, they advise you to make your default choices before uploading things (or you can upload one image and use that to make the settings and say "Save as Default"). Make sure you check the box that says to use a watermark and ignore the blurb that buyers won't like it as much.

Once your defaults are set, all your uploads will use those settings. And there is no FTP for uploads, so it's good that we don't want to upload our entire portfolios there

I do allow for the 100% zoom, but that's a choice too.

Freedom · « **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 23, 2013, 08:31

Once you're a member, you can see what's selling on the 'recent sales' page.

You can see "Recent Sales" even if you are not a member.

Ron · « **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:05 »

Ow and dont under price yourself. Make sure that at least the artwork is more expensive than the exorbitant shipping costs.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:10 »

Quote from: Ron on November 23, 2013, 14:01

All your images will be on the internet at 1000px longest side and the watermark is tiny.

It's 900 x 600 (for a 3:2 camera) but the watermark is small. But that size is well within the size that the agencies permit sites to show unmodified when they buy our images for web use, so it doesn't seem to me that there's much one can do about unethical people taking things they shouldn't other than not license our images for any web use.

I'm OK with the risks, but obviously if anyone isn't, they should skip FAA

Ron · « **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:40 »

I think its shockingly big, I am selling this size for 7.50 euro on my own website

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/go-ussr-semmick-photo.jpg

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** November 23, 2013, 14:54 »

But, in the end, the people who steal it won't buy it and the people who buy it won't steal it, so it probably doesn't really make any difference.

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #17 on:** November 23, 2013, 15:04 »

We don't have many people photos there and it's not surprising that we're selling other themes instead.

But to the question about who would want to have a picture of someone in the wall, I think that it's plausible that decorators may want images of people for the decoration of an office or store. Imagine a place were physical therapy or massages are done, it easy to imagine images of happy seniors or beauty photos.

FAA even has a designer's program so they are there and I'm sure they aren't working exclusively in decorating people's homes.

lisafx · « **Reply #18 on:** November 23, 2013, 15:56 »

A wealth of great info in this thread. Thanks so much for the detailed responses.

Ron, I am with you (as I often am - you generally get quite a few +1 from me) on thinking that's way too large to display without watermark. However JoAnn's and Baldrick's observations make sense. Theft of our IP is so rampant now it almost seems like a losing battle.

Looks like I will have to devote some time to segregating the more artistic shots in my portfolio from the more "stocky" ones. There may not be much overlap. Since I am not selling flowers, landscapes, etc. anywhere else, I guess I won't be risking too much by posting them on FAA and seeing what happens.

Again, thanks very much for all the great info, and please keep it coming if anyone has more to add!

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** November 23, 2013, 15:57 »

Quote from: Ron on November 23, 2013, 14:40

I think its shockingly big, I am selling this size for 7.50 euro on my own website

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/go-ussr-semmick-photo.jpg

BTW - Really cool photo!

qwerty · « **Reply #20 on:** November 23, 2013, 16:26 »

I had a look at their site, but found it hard to understand royality arrangement.

Is this the summary ?
25 photos online for free, $30/year for unlimited
You set a markup on the print cost which is your cut
If you pay the $30/year you get 5% of the cost of frames etc the customers buy.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #21 on:** November 23, 2013, 16:30 »

That's right.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #22 on:** November 23, 2013, 16:42 »

As a side note, I made my annual fee back on my first sale, so it's a pretty decision to give it a try

gemmy12 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2013, 21:17 »

Lisa. I was looking the peoples images which i have sold in FAA and zazzle and i see that i sold my 80 years old grand mom's closeup portrait, smiling with traditional India cloth sari and vermilion on forehead (which is symbolic to married Hindu woman). I had sold this image twice in both outlet before i removed from the galleries.
The other images i sold are also of Indian tribal people. Man plowing farm with bulls, females making handicrafts, family celebrating festival together, mother helping her young baby to brush his teeth lol and likewise. I was also also amazed when sold them as print or cards but now i guess where they can be used. Like here in India, i do see images of woman making handicrafts hanging in the offices/shops selling or dealing handicraft products. My aunt is a dental surgeon and she has a print of image on the wall of her clinic showing a mother with her baby holding tooth brush (which inspired me to take similar shot). And likewise other people and lifestyle images can also be used as fineart i hues and as i do sell similar images so probably people must be looking some fineart elements in them. Interesting thing is almost all of my Indian images have been by people outside India lol

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** November 23, 2013, 22:46 »

Quote from: gemmy12 on November 23, 2013, 21:17

Lisa. I was looking the peoples images which i have sold in FAA and zazzle and i see that i sold my 80 years old grand mom's closeup portrait, smiling with traditional India cloth sari and vermilion on forehead (which is symbolic to married Hindu woman). I had sold this image twice in both outlet before i removed from the galleries.
The other images i sold are also of Indian tribal people. Man plowing farm with bulls, females making handicrafts, family celebrating festival together, mother helping her young baby to brush his teeth lol and likewise. I was also also amazed when sold them as print or cards but now i guess where they can be used. Like here in India, i do see images of woman making handicrafts hanging in the offices/shops selling or dealing handicraft products. My aunt is a dental surgeon and she has a print of image on the wall of her clinic showing a mother with her baby holding tooth brush (which inspired me to take similar shot). And likewise other people and lifestyle images can also be used as fineart i hues and as i do sell similar images so probably people must be looking some fineart elements in them. Interesting thing is almost all of my Indian images have been by people outside India lol

Really good info Gemmy! I'm glad your Indian photos are doing so well. There must be a particular market for them. I am sure they are also very excellent.

I will consider what people shots I have that might be desirable as art. I'm going to guess it won't be the white background stuff...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is it worth uploading people/lifestyle to FAA and other POD? (Read 21725 times)

lisafx

gemmy12

Jo Ann Snover

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

Ron

Jo Ann Snover

Freedom

Ron

Jo Ann Snover

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

StockPhotosArt.com

lisafx

lisafx

qwerty

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

gemmy12

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors