MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rare Bird Photo. Where to sell ?  (Read 5412 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 02, 2014, 04:58 »
0
Hello
 I have till now a small port, 50 files. However, I have two critically endangered species of birds. Gyps Indicus photos aren't really available at any microstock site. This is the Indian Vulture or Long billed vulture, IUCN red listed. Unfortunately, this old photo is from a Nikon D50 at ISO 800. After denoise, it is soft. I sharpened it and looks much better. These photos are at Alamy/Getty. Getty has only 7, all are pathetic photos. Gosh, if only my photo were sharper but theirs seems just as bad to me. Probably there isn't a market for vulture photos, right ? I want to now put it on sale but SS won't accept (I won't even try :). Do you think Pond5 will accept if I write a note about the rarity of the bird ? Alamy has better photos of this bird than Getty, MUCH better so no use trying there !
My initial plan is to sell on Pond5 for $15-20, don't think I will get a buyer. Probably after 10 years when the bird is extinct !
What are your thoughts ?
Regards
dgaurh


« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2014, 05:11 »
0
The question is: where will the buyers go to look for bird photos?

And: are you planning to make more rare bird photos so that you have a collection that you can present?

Have you researched if there are maybe specialised wildlife agencies that might be interested in your image (and then they redistribute their collection via Getty or other places)

One single image is hard to sell. A collection is more interesting.

Good luck.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2014, 05:21 »
0
As Cobalt says, specialist agencies usually need at least 100, usually 200, files before they will consider you. And they don't accept sub-par images.
There are several stunning photos of Gyps indicus on Flickr, btw, some of them cc. (tell me about it!) and others which would be available by contacting the author.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 05:25 by ShadySue »

« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2014, 05:30 »
+1
There are several stunning photos of Gyps indicus on Flickr, btw, some of them cc. (tell me about it!)

I recently read of someone who had used 'Creative Commons' images in a book. With permission. Only to discover later that the person who uploaded the shots did not own them and had no business granting the permission or redistributing the images as CC. Buyers are best sticking to using agencies which provide a clear legal guarantee complete with compensation etc. The agencies could do a better of spreading the word re these sorts of issues.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2014, 05:36 »
0
There are 13 on Getty; but as so often, many of the Flickr pics are better, at least at thumnnail resolution.

Don't get too excited about the rarity of a bird (been there, done that). The main use for these images will be wildlife charities. Often they have their own photographers, or others who donate images to them. Also, they can use Arkive images online or for presentations.

« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2014, 05:42 »
0
If the photo is cc probably no point quoting a high price. But on another note I sold spotted owlet for credit at IS. There would be even more of those cc on flickr if I am not wrong. Sorry can't take amazing shots of 100 critically endangered species. The thought makes me faint with joy and grief. It would take ten years and a bank robbery per my analysis :)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2014, 05:47 »
0
Bird photo business is dismal, isn't it :(  everyone says people shots sell far more often. I don't like people. Its shooting remember, not photography :)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2014, 05:53 »
+1
Of the micros, iS is almost certainly your best bet, though with subs, that's not so clear. If you're indie, just send them wherever. My main interest is also birds/wildlife, but you'll never be rich. A lot of wildlife photographers gift their images to wildlife charities, Arkive or give them CC. That's what I currently intend to do if/when I stop being iS exclusive (not CC as they'd probably get used commercially).

I was at a talk on wildlife photography where the speaker showed a photo of a Hen Harrier (not so very rare bird; rare, fantastic and beautiful photo) and explained the process of getting the photo over two years, including making several pieces of photo equipment without which the shot would have been impossible. A lot of that time was working out what he'd need to make the image, working out how to make the equipment, then months waiting for the wild bird to be in the right position and hoping the light would be at least good when the bird was there.. He got two clicks, one perfect, the other OK. I have no idea how much he has made on the image, but it certainly gets him bookings as a speaker!
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 06:14 by ShadySue »

« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2014, 06:08 »
+1
IS will accept the pic and sell it for a penny :)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2014, 06:21 »
0
Shadysue the only money he gets is probably from being a speaker ;) he he . And this is only a hen harrier, whew. He should have tried the critically endangered birds for that effort. Atleast something for people to remember them by. Hen harrier can wait.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2014, 06:25 »
0
BTW, I have decided I will put it on pond5 if they will have it. IS has subscriptions now. Alamy has better pics. Getty won't accept me. I hope pond5 starts an EL scheme and becomes bigger than SS. Those are the things it lacks. Then I will become exclusive on pond5

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2014, 06:33 »
0
Shadysue the only money he gets is probably from being a speaker ;) he he . And this is only a hen harrier, whew. He should have tried the critically endangered birds for that effort. Atleast something for people to remember them by. Hen harrier can wait.

Interesting guy. He was always mainly interested in wildlife, but had a career as a wedding photographer. Realised after years that he was happiest when he didn't have a booking for a while so that he could go off and shoot wildlife for the love of it. Now he has taken a big pay drop to be the staff photographer for the UK's biggest wildlife charity. He has to do all the 'corporate events' stuff etc for press releases, but he also gets access and insider information not available to other people.

Do you get the BBC wildlife TV programmes where you live? Nowadays, they often have a ten-minute segment at the end showing how the footage was made, whereby I realise that I'm such a dilettante. For one of the Madagascar programmes, the film-makers were stuck in a tiny tent on a platform in a tree for four weeks while it poured, bored silly and playing cards (I'm sure they came down at night!). Anyway, they got the footage when the rain stopped, I think it was about ten or fifteen seconds as shown.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 06:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2014, 06:39 »
+3
All sound advice, but then, you can never tell can you?

I took a snap of a butterfly once at a roadside stop in India, years ago; not particularly rare or endangered.  Just took it while waiting for a bus.

Put it on iStock because it was pretty, not really expecting sales.  It's never had any normal downloads, but sold one EL, for like, $60 or so.

No big deal, but it was worth uploading I'd say.  Your bird won't earn anything on your hard drive.

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2014, 07:02 »
0
^^What Gannet says.
Also be aware also that serious wildlife publishers don't buy from micros as they need guarantees that the birds are fully wild and the photo hasn't been altered other than dust spot removal and a bit of levels.
If you check through e.g. on iS, you'll see that micro buyers often prefer a 'lovely photo' taken in a zoo than a more natural 'wild' image, even if it's perfectly obvious that the animal is in a zoo.

« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2014, 07:12 »
0
All of my birds are wild and...... photoshopped im sorry but without photoshop my mom won't buy it :)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2014, 07:13 »
0
All of my birds are wild and...... photoshopped im sorry but without photoshop my mom won't buy it :)
Stick to micros, then.

« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2014, 07:14 »
0
I do dust, levels and colour

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk



« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2014, 07:15 »
+1
Colour is strictly not allowed. I know I know. I've seen nat geo pics and i've seen those same birds a thousand times. If they aren't photoshopped i'll eat my shirt :)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2014, 07:17 »
0
We dont have bbc but i'm a big fan of their library, most of it is on netflix. Amazing videos.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2014, 07:22 »
0
Colour is strictly not allowed. I know I know. I've seen nat geo pics and i've seen those same birds a thousand times. If they aren't photoshopped i'll eat my shirt :)
The places that bloke who did the talk sells his pics to ask to see the original RAW file as well as the .tif.

« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2014, 07:24 »
0
That's right its probably so that place can do a better photoshop and have full control.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2014, 07:25 »
0
That's right its probably so that place can do a better photoshop and have full control.
No, it's to make sure there have been no changes to the original.
Also he has to sign guarantees to that effect.

« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2014, 08:04 »
0
A rare bird photo should be sold as RM and not RF. It is unlikely to get many sales but if someone does want it, there will probably be few photos to choose from. Therefore they should be forced to pay a decent amount for such a photo. This kind of photo is wasted on micro. Leave micro for very popular animals that sell over and over.

ShadySue

« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2014, 08:10 »
0
A rare bird photo should be sold as RM and not RF. It is unlikely to get many sales but if someone does want it, there will probably be few photos to choose from. Therefore they should be forced to pay a decent amount for such a photo. This kind of photo is wasted on micro. Leave micro for very popular animals that sell over and over.

Can you suggest RM agencies, other than Alamy, mentioned above, which would accept one image?

cuppacoffee

« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2014, 13:33 »
0

« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2014, 14:56 »
0
Not sure how scarce photos of this vulture are but they seem common on some nature sites

http://www.arkive.org/indian-vulture/gyps-indicus/image-G12929.html

ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2014, 15:04 »
0
Arkive was started specifically to house photos of rare species, and that remains their specialty, though now you can get very common species there too.
However, there are very strict rules on how the free, low-res, files from the site can be used - an excellent model of how free files can work pro bono and for the contributors benefit. A lot of really Big Name wildlife photographers have images on Arkive.


ShadySue

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2014, 15:39 »
0
Maybe this site?

http://images.sciencesource.com/search?function=query&gallery=8&key=Indian+Vulture


Interesting. I wonder how well that site sells. Surprisingly, I notice it doesn't have any pics of some localised species I just searched for.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 07:03 by ShadySue »

« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2014, 23:48 »
0
Folks, when I was 10 years old and I looked up in the sky I could see a thousand of these vulture in any direction. This photo of 2007 was acquired after a train journey, 3 bus journeys and then a boat. It's the passenger pigeon story all over again.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2014, 00:34 »
0
A rare bird photo should be sold as RM and not RF. It is unlikely to get many sales but if someone does want it, there will probably be few photos to choose from. Therefore they should be forced to pay a decent amount for such a photo. This kind of photo is wasted on micro. Leave micro for very popular animals that sell over and over.

Can you suggest RM agencies, other than Alamy, mentioned above, which would accept one image?

Yes sorry, that is indeed the problem, finding where to put it. It's wasted in Alamy, so perhaps a science/nature type agency like the suggested link above

« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2014, 07:17 »
0
Sciencesource is good but very low alexa ranking. What is the best place for wildlife shots, besides Getty. Any wildlife photographers still reading the thread ? Shadysue you are exclusive to IS with your wildlife stock ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2014, 08:09 »
0
Honestly, if you say it wouldn't be accepted on SS, it wouldn't be accepted on any of the serious specialists. Like I said, most of them require at least 100/200 to get started, of species or behaviours they don't have already on their files, and lots require a commitment of so many new files in a certain period, like 100/3 months, or whatever.

I'm exclusive for RF on iStock, you can't opt out certain genres, and I sell RM on Alamy, but my sales are low there (I don't have much wildlife there).

I had a look at that ScienceSouce site's submission guidelines and contract, and they were very vague, though you had to direct them to a 'portfolio', which I'm guessing would be more than 'a few'.
I wouldn't worry one iota about its Alexa rank. There is hardly likely to be a flood of new people visiting specialist wildlife agencies. If they're any good, they'll be targetting only the specialised buyers, responding to want lists etc. They do say they send out lists of what's wanted.

I do see a lot of the UK specialist magazines. A lot of the articles are either written and photographed by the same person, providing a package, or a writer and photographer have collaborated on an article.
The bloke I mentioned before mostly submits directly to magazines (the strict ones that have to see the RAW file). I don't know if he writes, submits on spec, or if he is commissioned to take photos to illustrate already-commissioned articles. I have seen his pics published, but never anything he might have written.
I have to say also that a lot of these (not all) are published by wildlife charities and their photos are donated or bequeathed (they don't go out of date!) by supporters or taken by staff.

« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2014, 08:45 »
+2
Sciencesource is good but very low alexa ranking. What is the best place for wildlife shots, besides Getty. Any wildlife photographers still reading the thread ?

Well, I'm a wildlife specialist (North American birds, beasts & bugs) reading this thread. But I don't have any better advice than what you've already received. My images sell reasonably well (considering it's a crowded niche) on Shutterstock and Dreamstime, and I also have my own Symbiostock site.

Like you, I've photographed some extremely rare birds, such as the Mangrove Cuckoo. Birders travel great distances in hopes of catching a glimpse of this elusive life-list bird, and I managed to see and photograph two of them together this spring in Florida.

Were my images of those two cuckoos skulking around in the mangroves good enough, I could make my fortune on them. Unfortunately, I never got a clean shot. Those images just aren't very good, so I haven't submitted them anywhere.

If a critter shot isn't high quality, it's not likely to sell no matter how rare the subject.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 08:50 by marthamarks »

« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2014, 12:51 »
0
Thanks everybody, for all your helpful suggestions. I will upload the gyps on IS. On another note, I just wrote pied cuckoo on SS. HA, gotcha ! My shot is a 100 times better than the lone one on SS :) Though I don't think it's gonna sell a lot :) Not like there is a huge demand for pied cuckoos :)

« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2014, 14:08 »
0
On another note, I just wrote pied cuckoo on SS. HA, gotcha ! My shot is a 100 times better than the lone one on SS :) Though I don't think it's gonna sell a lot :) Not like there is a huge demand for pied cuckoos :)


I never heard of a Pied Cuckoo, so I Googled it. Here's the page of photos that turned up:

http://bit.ly/1n9Y3fu

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2014, 16:36 »
0
Likewise for Mangrove Cuckoo: http://tinyurl.com/p6jg2th

Getting anything unique is just about impossible nowadays.

« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2014, 17:02 »
0
Likewise for Mangrove Cuckoo: http://tinyurl.com/p6jg2th

Getting anything unique is just about impossible nowadays.

Quite right. Which is why I shoot wildlife for the pure joy of it. Yep, I confess to being one of those infamous "hobbyists" (ie, retired after decades of doing some other job) that the "pros" around here get huffy about. ;D

Looking at that page of Mangrove Cuckoo shots, I found a few that look exactly like mine. I take too much pride in my work to publish something like that in my name, even for an extremely rare species.


ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2014, 17:09 »
+1
Likewise for Mangrove Cuckoo: http://tinyurl.com/p6jg2th
Getting anything unique is just about impossible nowadays.

Quite right. Which is why I shoot wildlife for the pure joy of it. Yep, I confess to being one of those infamous "hobbyists" (ie, retired after decades of doing some other job) that the "pros" around here get huffy about. ;D

I'm sure most wildlife photographers do it for the love of it - they need the 'day job' to fund the equipment!

« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2014, 17:39 »
0
I'm sure most wildlife photographers do it for the love of it - they need the 'day job' to fund the equipment!

Amen to that! You surely don't recoup the cost of a 400/500/600mm lensnot to mention cameras, tripods, and travel expensesfrom SS subscription sales.

ShadySue

« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2014, 18:17 »
0
Looking at that page of Mangrove Cuckoo shots, I found a few that look exactly like mine. I take too much pride in my work to publish something like that in my name, even for an extremely rare species.
Guess we won't be seeing any of your work on #wildphotofail:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSpringwatch/posts/654589081301270

« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2014, 18:34 »
0
Guess we won't be seeing any of your work on #wildphotofail:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSpringwatch/posts/654589081301270
LOL!!! Nope. I have made plenty of shots exactly like those, Sue, but they quickly disappear into the trash. Not quite sure what the point of that page is, but...

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2014, 18:42 »
0
Guess we won't be seeing any of your work on #wildphotofail:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSpringwatch/posts/654589081301270
LOL!!! Nope. I have made plenty of shots exactly like those, Sue, but they quickly disappear into the trash. Not quite sure what the point of that page is, but...
Springwatch is a very popular UK TV programme and they have little fun items in their Springwatch Unsprung 'loose-format' programme afterwards.

Shelma1

« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2014, 20:23 »
+1
That FB page is too funny. Love it!

« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2014, 20:38 »
0
That FB page is too funny. Love it!
You got that right, Shelma! And here I thought all my blurry outtakes had no possible use. Shows what I know.

« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2014, 23:52 »
0
Slightly off topic but thought you'd appreciate this:
Last weekend we were at the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn. There were some amazing birds (captive of course) and I got a really beautiful photo of a bird I'd never seen or heard of before. So I'd be able to recall what it was, I decided to take a photo of the wooden sign with the name and picture of the bird on it. And when I did, I noticed that the photo on the sign was  shutterstock!   8)




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4030 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 12:59
by RacePhoto
54 Replies
18233 Views
Last post June 15, 2010, 02:52
by RacePhoto
11 Replies
2971 Views
Last post October 25, 2012, 02:25
by 7Horses
0 Replies
1043 Views
Last post September 15, 2015, 10:56
by 60D
16 Replies
1547 Views
Last post September 27, 2019, 06:57
by Lola Ginabrigeta

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results