What would one use it for? Are you kidding?

Does anyone sell anything?
You betcha. There are many, many Flickr users who have garnished jobs just because they're on Flickr. One high-profile amateur recently landed a job from Toyota, shooting the newly remodeled Prius. I've landed a few jobs from it (the most lucrative was $1000 for a wedding, where I merely hand over the RAW images to the groom). Flickr users are contacted all the time about selling their shots. My girlfriend makes $100 or so every few months without do anything!

Do you gain a reputation for being there?
You sure do. You will naturally attract good photographers if you upload only your best stuff. None of my family or friends regularly visit my stream, and I get at least 150 visitors to it a day. I let them know that I sell my images and provide a link to SS, which makes the potential for referrals outstanding - there are millions of Flickr users!


Flickr can be a very good marketing tool. If you're not there, then perhaps you should be. It's free, afterall.

I'd agree with that.

Making a living as a pro is far more about networking and maintaining relationships than it is about making good shots. Once the word gets around at how much money is being made where your only concern is making marketable images, this marketplace will be flooded with pros - the same ones who now eschew this industry for devaluating their profession.

I think the next big shakeup is going to come when Flickr enters the scene - it's not unusual for me to get emails from my Flickr contacts who've been contacted by someone who wants to buy their images. Now that Yahoo owns the joint, it's only a matter of time before Flickr enters the fray. The amount of photos they have is orders of magnitude greater than all stock agencies - micro, macro, Getty, Corbis, ... - combined.

Flickr, I think, will become home to the amateur microstocker, and home to the most variety of shots (in quantity, quality, and scope). IS and SS will be home to the professional, and will be where the quality images are. DT, FT and the rest will still be marginal players, perhaps finding a small niche market or two.

... at least that's what I think.

I used to shoot in JPG only until about a year ago, when I was unhappy with one of my large gallery prints. I made the switch to shooting RAW and haven't looked back since.

Just out of curiosity, I shot in combined RAW/JPG on a recent alpine outing - I was surprised by the amount of banding and discolouration in the sky (clear blue and graduated) on the JPGs, as well as the loss of detail in the background (forest-covered mountainside, far-off peaks).

Would I switch back to shooting in JPG? Probably not. I use DxO Optics to convert from RAW, which I also used before making the change, so shooting in RAW doesn't change my workflow. It takes a little longer to batch my shots through DxO (1.1/2 minutes per image), but I do other stuff while my computer plugs away at things. I've been thinking lately that I should dedicate my old server to doing batch jobs, but I don't have the time nor energy to put into this.

.

I wouldn't be too worried about being rejected at StockXpert - from what I've read you won't get very much money from this site. Phildate - a very high performer - has 3000 images online there and gets only $200/month (that a paltry $0.07 per image per month) from this place. My personal bar is $1.00 per image per month - I don't bother posting to a site if I can't get that much income from it.

On a related note, they rejected my initial five image submission and asked for another five before rejecting me again - I'm very glad not to have wasted any more time with these guys ...

Heh, I know what you mean.

I use the close tool on each pass to get rid of (or "clone out", if you will) the dust spots. I avoid using the healing tool - I find that it can introduce artifacts, especially in areas that are only subtlely different from one another.

... sorry that I wasn't clear enough.

I dunno about some of your points.

Sealing: How many times have you ever shot in the rain or in a sandstorm? The issue here would be with crap getting on the lens and ruining the shot, not getting inside the camera. I've shot in foul weather with a D60, 10D and 20D without any problem at all.
Buttons: I sometime think that three-armed engineers designed this camera series. Changing settings is far too bulky - especially if you have to do it quickly in order to not miss the shot. Sure, it gets manageable, once you get used to it. But you have to get used to it first.
Megapixels: Megapixels are a measure of area, not size. A 1Ds MkII image is 4992 x 3328 px, a 5D is 4368 x 2912 px.  A 5D makes an image that is 624 x 416px smaller - that's only 13% smaller, and not the 23% difference you get if you compare image are. Not a huge difference - and certainly not worth the price increase.

That being said, the reasons I find a 1Ds preferable to a 5D are more in line with day-to-day use:
White Balance: Extraordinarily accurate. Yellow-hued indoor shots are a thing of the past when you use this camera. I only use a custom white balance when I use hot lights in the studio.
Exposure: Almost bang-on every time.
Autofocus: It seems to read my mind on what to key on. And very fast - even in low-light and low-contrast situations. Lens "hunting" is very rare.
Batteries: I can easily get 1200+ shots without recharging. Recharging is very fast.


I sometimes think that owning a 1Ds is overkill. Could I get by with a 5D? Yes, I think I probably could. I'd use the money I saved to buy other equipment. Perhaps better lights, a large product photography table, or maybe a huge cinematic lcd screen.

... just my opinion.

~Stephen

I recently switched to naming mine using the key elements of the image in a catalog format - my thinking here is that searchers will be able to tell more about the image when viewing it as a small thumbnail. Some examples:

corprate jet, motion-blur, 2:1 frame
planet earth from low orbit, crescent moon, saturated sky
small waterfall, long exposure, square

Seems to me that FP is a waste of time.
Hopefully one day it won't be.

Thanks for the info, berryspun - it's fixed. I'll pay more attention to the small print next time.

Daneel: It is worth the pain to upload to iStock. They're overly picky (just my opinion), are far too slow, and their system is very cumbersome, but sales there make up for it. Kinda.

leaf: You may want to put in only an absolute minimum amount of keywords & categories, then edit the data when and if the image is accepted.