Topic: New stock photography resource ($1 per image)

Any designer's dream - high resolution files at very low cost in a constantly growing collection:
http://www.dreamstime.com

Art does not reproduce the visible... it rather makes it visible.
Paul Klee

(Edited by Dana on 06-24-2004 23:25)

So far, all I know is I've got nothing to worry about when selling my travel photos.

Under Travel > America, all I get are waterfalls, old buildings, a lot of birds and one Canadian flag (?).

Like I said- it's a new site and the database is far from being completed.
You can always contribute if you think that your images would fill a hole in this category or another.


Art does not reproduce the visible... it rather makes it visible.
Paul Klee

quote:

---

Like I said- it's a new site and the database is far from being completed.

---

Where did you say that?

Anyway, I currently license my photos individually to publications with which I can choose to have my work associated, and for hundreds of dollars apiece. What would be the advantage to submitting my work to a dollar-a-pop stock site where I have no control over them?

quote:

---

Where did you say that?

---

The thread's title sais that ... and the first post (constantly growing collection)

First of all I started this thread not to recrute photographers for this site but to let know designers that cannot afford to pay "hundreds of dollars" like you said that they can find good RF stock images for a very low price.
I'm not addressing this to big shot magazines or companies that ask for exclusive rights and their pocket is large enough to pay for it.

So to answer you last question - if you are pleased with the way your images are being marketed and used right now then you it seems that don't have any reason to change it.

Cheers!

Art does not reproduce the visible... it rather makes it visible.
Paul Klee

It would probably make more sense then to post this in one of the design forums, not in the photography forum.

And I guess I just didn't understand "constantly growing collection" to mean "badly categorized."

I'm not trying to be an ass (though I'm probably reaching that end, anyway); I just would like the photographers out there to know that their photos are worth far more than a buck each. Order a copy of Negotiating Stock Photo Prices to find out what you should be asking. (Do not look for it at Amazon; people are trying to sell used copies for 3 or 4 times what they're worth.)

Publishers will take advantage of you every way they can. I learned that very quickly. I still get too many people asking me to prepare print-ready images for them in exchange for a credit as if I would be so excited to be in their book.

It's about the same excitement I feel seeing others devalue their work by offering it for an insanely cheap price. If you wouldn't design a Web site for $5 and a credit, don't do the same with your photographs.

quote:

---

First of all I started this thread not to recrute photographers for this site but to let know designers that cannot afford to pay "hundreds of dollars" like you said that they can find good RF stock images for a very low price.

---

Someone crap in your wheaties Wes? I think the Photography forum is the appropriate place for this thread. We're all very impressed at your chest puffing over your ability to sell your travel photos but what the hell does it have to do with this link? I never got the impression that she was trying to recruit people to sell their photos to this site, just that it was a decent resource for stock photos.

If you don't agree that it's a good resource, fine. What's the point of continuing to harp on the issue unless you're just trying to be an ass?

:::11oh1:::

What is the problem? I dont see it... great site, thank you for posting it. These guys accept your photographs and sell them. you get 50% of what people pay for the images. I think it's a great way to promote yourself.

Had nothing to do with chest puffing. Like I said, I'm trying to let people know what they can actually get for their photos. I see too many people give them out for nothing. Which is why I provided a resource for pricing, or did that disappear? Nope, still there.

Again, if the idea was to let designers know of a good resource for photos, then a design forum would have been the place to post. Posting in the photography forum seems like recruitment to me, which just looks like spam, sorry.

As for promoting oneself, anyone looking for a quick, cheap image to stick in his design will very doubtfully pay attention to the name of the guy who took it. "Hey, this fir-tree picture is exactly what I was looking for. I'll be sure to add a big credit to the photographer on my page and refer all my friends to his work specifically" isn't a scenario I see happening a lot.

Hey, I'm not saying this isn't a good site for inexpensive stock photos. I've used stock photography. Still do. Will probably stop by this site next time I need something. I just don't see the point of telling photographers about it unless you're looking for contributions. And that being the case, I'd like to let the photographers in this photography forum know something that may help them--which is what a photography forum is about--and that's the fact you can do better than 50 cents an image.



(Edited by Wes on 06-27-2004 09:12)

Can you tell me how I can do better than 50 cents an image?

Yes, read my earlier posts.

Ok, I understand what Wes is trying to say, but I think that she referes to full time professionals rather than digital amateurs (nothing wrong with being an amateur - I've seen some stunning shots taken by people that do that in their free time).

To be honest I have already made hundrens of dollars at istockphoto.com (username danielle71) where the photographer percent is even lower (until recently it used to be $.10 per image. It's a great site, very popular and has a much larger collection of files but it's nothing wrong with trying to promote yourself thru this kind of sites. Sites like those are a great place to start and you can always keep your best files and go to the bigger stock agencies to market them.

The reason I posted this in the photography forum is that I was affraid of being accused of spamming the design forum if I posted it there and my thinking was that if someone was looking for stock photography to use he/she would check the photography forum as well.

Asptamer and Krets - thanks for the vote of confidence! You have some great shots in your portfolios.

Art does not reproduce the visible... it rather makes it visible.
Paul Klee

(Edited by Dana on 06-28-2004 08:42)

She?

And I'm referring to anyone, really. As long as you know how to price yourself, it doesn't matter what your regular job may be.

In fact, that's one of the pitfalls people who aren't full-time pros fall into. They figure "I'm not a pro, so my images can't be worth that much." If the image is good enough for someone's publication, it's worth market price.

Amateur or not, if they have a good photo, it's worth paying for.

I've actually had publishers try to pull that logic on me in the past. Negotiating a price, they would ask me, "Well, are you professional?"

Doesn't matter. They're paying for the image; if it looks professional, it deserves professional compensation. If it doesn't, you can be sure they wouldn't want it in their publication in the first place.

Sorry for

quote:

---

Wes said:

She?

---

Oooooooops, sorry about that...

We could go on and on for ever with this discussion, the bottom line is that each way has it's advantages/disadvantages. A photographer can choose the way he/she want to sell images and start from either big stock sites and switch to $1 per image if the sales are not going well or he can submit his work to both (saving the best quality images for the pro stock sites of course).

What counts is the quality and originality of his work.

...my 2 cents...

(Edited by Dana on 06-29-2004 16:36)