Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 10, 2014, 12:33

Quote from: Me on July 10, 2014, 10:35

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 10, 2014, 09:19

"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.  Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.

Really? These genres don't sell? $hit, better scrap my portfolio of over 5000 images which comfortably bring in well over four figures a month.

Wonder what other landscape photographers think about landscapes being "easy" to shoot?

Notice I didn't say 'good', 'great' or 'epic' landscapes.

LOL, fair enough Sean

+1 . . .

. . .but I feel compelled to mention that earlier this summer I was at the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn and all the animals were identified by these wooden placards on a sort of giant keyring with a photo of the animal on it. The photos were nearly all � shutterstock  (Sorry, Sean, I couldn't resist! ) 

(PS the +1 means I agree with both Sean and Me)

For the OP, a lot of cameras and lenses hunt in AF in low light. Usually best to use MF at night and a tripod when you have one handy. I used to be able to handhold at 1/15 of a second in my film days but that was a long time ago. These days I usually opt for 1/125 if my subject is standing still, LOL.

If you'd shot the fireworks photo in RAW, you'd be able to get back at least three full stops, more than taking care of the overexposure. Without some sort of high contrast blending mode, it's easy to miss those sensor spots. You can send your camera to Nikon for cleaning.

I'm wondering if Alamy is once again pushing their original content, i.e. not the "Creative" stuff that has them competing with Getty and the micros, and which probably sells better elsewhere, but their traditional illustrative editorial photos (including those not restricted to editorial but that are largely used by the media - travel, urban scenics, etc.). I know that they've always been big sellers of UK related content. And right now the handful of photos I took when my daughter was performing in the Edinburgh Fringe Festival back in 2007 seem to be selling. They just licensed another one for me today. After what I feared was a continuing downward spiral there, it looks as though 2014 could beat 2013 earnings well before the end of the year. 

Half of the photos I've licensed there since May were from Europe (3 Scotland, 1 Italy), the balance were travel shots from Baltimore, MD, Boston & Nantucket, MA and Hollywood, CA so I guess their market for US sights is also growing.

Secondary editorial is really their strong suit, at least for European images. Probably worth a stroll down memory lane 

I think the smiley face causes your eye to move down rather than up to the child's pointed finger, the focal point, so I'd clone it out for that reason alone. I like that the shovel has the light behind it but I might tone it down a tad, again just enough so it doesn't compete for attention with the child's pointed finger. Lovely light, though I might bring up the exposure a tad, maybe increase the contrast slightly -  beautiful child!

A photographer run coop would be great and I'm always open to fair trade agencies and am happy to join the discussion. However ...

Expecting 100% commission and for those who do the work behind the scenes to do it for free, in my experience, is not the way to go. I was involved with a start up agency hosted by a fellow photographer who I met through Photoshelter (during its brief honeymoon as an actual stock photography agency). As here, there were a group of us who'd gotten to know each other through the forum that this photographer hosted. Most of us were new to stock, though he had been licensing work on his own for years and had some publishing contacts.

It was to be a niche agency and he set up a beta site with ITPC intake, bulk uploading, a forum and left it to us to self curate which by and large people did a good job at. The site was up (though private) for a couple of years starting in late 2009/early 2010 as about 100 of us (in retrospect too small a number but we were grounded in the traditional RM stock agency paradigm) dutifully uploaded our photos. He and his wife did all the backroom stuff paid for the software and upgrades and stayed active in the forums. We discussed pricing models, licenses, etc and agreed to a mix of RM and RF non-exclusive stock and to pricing. The forum was far far less contentious than here, but moderators were still necessary. I forget what the goal was in terms of numbers before he was going to start marketing the site, but by the time we got close to the target the market had changed dramatically. Though we had agreed on just about everything, he realized that he'd never be able to compete with what was out there, and the project folded. Angry people who'd spent a lot of time for a dream, but most understood that life sometimes gives you lemons. 

Had there been a dedicated paid team behind the scenes, and had we been paying while the site was in beta, we might have hit our numbers sooner and perhaps jumped on the bandwagon while there was still room. So, I'm sure you can understand why I agree with those who say there needs to be a commission/salary for those doing the coding, the marketing, the curating, trying to get investors, etc. You can have the best photos in the world but if no one sees them, they won't get licensed. You need to sign up photographers who will share their enthusiasm with others and help you market - that's why, for example, all the micro sites have referral programs, it just makes good business sense.

When I consider that I license photos daily on SS despite the fact that my 200 photos make up just 0.00057% of their database, it tells me that they know how to market my images. There are many times I think that I should have 1,000 images on SS and 200 on the traditional agencies and not the other way around, but I hate the fact that they charge so little for my work and that I get such a small percentage. I know Walmart makes more than Neiman-Marcus - guess I'd still rather be the later.

I think Stocksy has a real chance because its founders understand the business side of things, and I assume that most of their photographers are not naive amateurs but rather come from the traditional side of things and don't expect to get rich overnight. They also have Bruce's millions and I'd assume there are investors as well.

If people think spending $120 for updates (via the symbiostock discussions) is too much, however, then I don't think they really have a concept of what it takes to run a successful co-op. I've spent a portion of my time over the past couple of years contacting potential stock photo buyers and have been licensing photos directly, as well as through those who discover my work on my website. I do mailings, pay $500 a year for a Pro site on Photoshelter (one of the best investments I've made), do research, and have tens of thousands of images on my hard drives that I'm keeping track of. It's a long-term investment of my time, and the momentum is starting to build. It's not going to happen overnight. Now multiply that by 100 people or 1000 and think how much you need to  do and to spend to market their work. The cost of hosting and writing the software is a drop in the bucket. You need a marketing team, a legal team, a sales team, an advertising budget, and I don't know what else and sites that have all that and major investors as well still don't make it. 

Sorry to go on but just some of my thoughts on the matter.

I'm sure the OP knows a lot of this and has given it a lot of thought before sending up a trial balloon. He's looking to gauge interest. None of this is rocket science, but it is hard work, time and money. If it was easy no one would be selling their work for pennies and watching the site owners make millions.

Glad I was helpful. I also agree with Mat that at this point you can't just show up without either contacting them on your own or having OTRC contact them on your behalf. Showing up could be seen as agreeing to their terms. Good luck. Let us know how it turns out.

I'd go with option 3 either write or call them and explain that you shoot professionally and do not give your images away but that you are happy to negotiate a fee for x# of images. Your other option if you just submit to SS and Bigstock is to contact SS's On the Red Carpet program and have them get you credentials, explaining to them what's happened so far (check with SS if Bigstock submissions are ok-OTRC restricts you to only submitting those photos to SS for 2 years). If these don't work, you should probably consider option 1 (sometimes you just have to walk away). Just my opinion but I don't think you want to leave the issue of free images unresolved, since by showing up and shooting they may think you've agreed to their terms.

Good luck.

What Matt is saying also makes sense, however, not knowing what kind of event this is, it's hard to give you more than a vague opinion. I don't think that journalists should have to give their work away for free, but can see Matt's point. Ultimately, you have to decide what you're comfortable with. Personally, I'd contact the On the Red Carpet folks and see what kind of advice they give you.

I shoot for local media so usually don't have any problem getting credentials, but went with OTRC early on for a small event in NYC and it was very helpful. The event was less interesting than I expected but interestingly the photos (from 2009) still sell today - not for the event but as illustrative editorial, ending up in everything from a book on acting to Fodor's guides to Disney World. Here's a short blog post I wrote about where these photos showed up: http://www.travelstockblog.com/uncategorized/is-this-travel-photography/

I love my iPhone - but I recently bought an Olympus OM-D M-1 mirrorless - fabulous quality including in low light - fits in a pocketbook with a small prime lens, but it's not pocket-sized.It's not my "everyday" camera but it gives me excellent quality when I don't want to carry a DSLR and means I can take a camera with me most of the time without major weight.

I also have a Nikon P7000 P&S which is great in good light - zooms from 6mm to telephoto - shoots RAW. You've inspired me to keep it in my glove compartment. It's given me some excellent images that've appeared in newspapers & images I've uploaded to Alamy reportage & news (it's not an accepted camera for regular uploads). I wish I'd bought the G9 at the time. I know a lot of Alamy photographers who love it (it's "acceptable" for all accounts there). For something to always have handy, I'd think the G12 or others in that series or the Fuji would be ideal. (Don't know anything about the Ricoh)

The idea of a camera to have for those unexpected shots is that it's not going to be the same quality as your DSLR but it's going to be better than your iPhone. I think you're on the right track.

Here's an amazing blur on Stocksy i found in the newest photos as I was taking a look today - Love looking through people's portfolios there, the personal feel of many of the images makes them seem more like assignment work.
http://www.stocksy.com/207756

Congrats on the front page feature Mike!
I think I agree with Jo Ann re the watermark issue and plan to upload some new stuff soon. I figure being in on the ground floor is a good thing and if people are selling already that's a good sign.

I can't imagine it's $400 total with 3200 images. I have a tiny port there, 86 images, and I've made more than that. Even $400 a year would be very low. $400 a week on the other hand would be $6.5 per image per year (RPI), a tad more than 50 cents per image per month RPI, which would be in the ballpark others have mentioned, assuming you're not an exclusive.

Edited to add:
Aside from one of my old P+ files which is a decent earner, most of my sales even today are on the 35 images I uploaded from my acceptance in February 2011 through late 2012 (I joined in 2009, got rejected, tried again, then didn't bother for nearly 2 years). I took a look and more than half the photos I've uploaded since September 2012 have no views at all, and the rest have very few views and very sparse sales, if any. So this could certainly be affecting Dan's returns.

With so many millions of photos, new photos can't get any traction without some sort of bump. That's why I miss the old P+

I just went to my gallery since I only have five photos there right now and had an online chat re: what it means to be "curated: so I could decide whether or not to upload some more. Here's the relevant portion of the conversation:

Crated:
... your Gallery itself has been Promoted (which some users call Curated) and shows up in the 'All' Search which is definitely used the most on our site. We don't necessarily need to see more of your gallery. The 'Curated' search isn't for galleries as a whole, just specific images that have been chosen to display on the front of Crated.com

Our curators do select images from old galleries or new uploads to place on the front page. There's no real way of better getting selected there.

I hope that helps clarify! Just let me know if you want me to expand on either thought there.
That's why when you search "Fish" only two images show up under Curated, we've only had two images containing that tag, whereas many Promoted / Curated galleries would display Fish.

Me:
How often do you change the front page? Do we get notified if one of our images makes it to the front page?

Crated:
You will get notified if an image is chosen for our front page! Uploading more may help with this goal if of the same caliber of work too. I'm not sure how often it rotates as they don't have a schedule but I know over 3 days over half the page has updated.

My conclusion:
It looks like it is in fact a tiered system as my photos show up in regular searches, thus my gallery has been promoted. The photos that show up on the front page are specially curated, so it would make sense to upload more as a front page photo should have more potential to sell.

Going back there now to make sure I follow everyone who's followed me since the last time I checked in there a few weeks back. No sales yet (with 5 photos not really expected) but appreciate the follows

I've loved photography my entire life and took some classes at ICP when I was practicing law in Manhattan. After more than 15 years practicing law and having no time to enjoy life, I decided to stay home with my daughter who was in grammar school at the time and worked part time as a freelance writer. I wrote some articles for local magazines and newspapers and they asked me to take photos, originally just to go along with my articles but soon I was hired to shoot other photos too. Shot some covers and started getting other commercial assignments.

Loved all this but there was still the element of time. My husband asked me if there was a way for me to syndicate my work and as I looked into it I discovered stock photography. I started out with Alamy but really learned so much more when I tried shutterstock as the daily sales gave me a much better sense of what sold. I was hesitant about micro and have kept my micro port small but I found it was a really great way for me to learn stock photography.

I still do assignment, fine art and stock photography part time along with my writing, and I have been licensing a lot more stock on my own. I do a lot of travel photography and like keeping my hand in selling stock since I see this as both a good supplemental income now and as something I can keep doing even in retirement (My daughter just graduated from college so while I've probably been in stock about as long as the OP, I'm at a very different stage of my career).

I don't have much formal photography training, but I've taken classes at ICP, Maine Media, and various other courses, and also worked part time as a photo assistant for three years. I think classes are important and I try to take at least one class a year as a way to push myself and grow, as well as learning online. There's a lot of great stuff online - You should check out creativelive.com which I'm listening to now.

Hi Guys

thank you for excellent thread and comments. I was so impressed with your comments that I just purchased the Nik Collection, however I have a minor problem.

Where do you find the filters? In the little box that comes up within PS, it says: 'to add filters to this view, mark a filter as a favourite by clicking on the star icon next to the filter name within the filter interface".

I tried looking through the website but couldn't find anything - maybe I missed it. So I thought it might be easier asking you.

Thanks

You actually have two choices

1. Go up to the very top and click on Filters, then scroll down almost all the way and you'll see Nik Collection - highlight that and you'll get the options.

2. You'll see a little gray box on the right - it might be closed up and just be like a little toolbar line in which case you hit the little box to open it. It will show you all the filters and you double-click on the one you want to use.

You can also access them all from LR. Have fun!