Stock Photo Agencies

[Norm Dulak]

Does anyone have an opinion of stock photo agencies?

Are they a good way to produce some income for your photographic hobby or business? If they are, which are the best stock photo agencies?

Norm Dulak

[Michael Lloyd]

I put a post like this here once. I received no replies. Many pro's "quietly" use stock photo agencies... but as a rule, you are giving your work away with them as well as hurting the industry imho

[Norm Dulak]

Michael:

Thanks for providing the sole reply thus far to my posting. I thought that this subject might prove difficult for some, but I didn't expect it to be that difficult!

What prompted my interest in learning what others thought was an interesting article on the subject by Art Wolfe, in the August issue of Outdoor Photographer. I think that there are some fruitful approaches one could take, but it's painfully clear that each of us will have to do our own research and generate our own ideas.

But thanks again for replying and for "telling it like it is".

Norm Dulak

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . What prompted my interest in learning what others thought was an interesting article on the subject by Art Wolfe, in the August issue of Outdoor Photographer. . . .
Norm,

Wolfe's article explained why he no longer puts his work with an agency: "Getty licensed so few of my images that I stopped submitting new work five years ago. The best work of my career has been sitting on hard drives, unseen." Getty is one of the two big remaining agencies, and few if any photographers have deeper, more artistic coverage of natural history subjects (40+ books published) than Wolfe. If Getty wouldn't accept what Wolfe believes are the best images of his life, I wonder what advice would allow the rest of us to succeed where Wolfe hasn't?

[Norm Dulak]

Norm,

Wolfe's article explained why he no longer puts his work with an agency: "Getty licensed so few of my images that I stopped submitting new work five years ago. The best work of my career has been sitting on hard drives, unseen." Getty is one of the two big remaining agencies, and few if any photographers have deeper, more artistic coverage of natural history subjects (40+ books published) than Wolfe. If Getty wouldn't accept what Wolfe believes are the best images of his life, I wonder what advice would allow the rest of us to succeed where Wolfe hasn't?

Cliff:

Wolfe refers to Getty as a problem at the high end of stock photo agencies. Microstock agencies are the problem at the other end; they will accept images that need not have much esthetic value as long as they are sharp and noiseless, but they pay photographers very little. And they really flood the market with relatively low cost images.

Maybe the PhotoShelter, LicenseStream approach mentioned by Art Wolfe is the answer, although it is more complex and requires some thought.

Norm Dulak

[Norm Dulak]

I'll close my involvement in this thread with a lament. Stock photo agencies are now a part of our universe, and ignoring them and pretending that they do not exist is in my view not realistic.

You may not wish to contribute your thoughts on this subject, but it will not go away. It's something we all will have to deal with, like it or not.

Norm Dulak

[Michael Lloyd]

I doubt if a pro will weigh in Norm. Most use them imho (I am not speaking of anyone on this forum btw... I personally know a few published pros...that's where I am coming from). None put their best work there (don't blame them for that). If they speak positively about them then the resulting flood of images from "followers" dilutes their potential earnings, possibly negates their potential earnings. There's no way for them to weigh in negatively if they use them is there?

I'm not a fan of them :) and that's about all I'm going to say about that...

[Axel Hildebrandt]

Another reason that people don't chime in could be that they simply don't have any experiences with these agencies, at least in my case. :)

[Michael Lloyd]

Another reason that people don't chime in could be that they simply don't have any experiences with these agencies, at least in my case. :)

:D True... that's why I qualified my comment. :D

[Cliff Beittel]

I'll close my involvement in this thread with a lament. Stock photo agencies are now a part of our universe, and ignoring them and pretending that they do not exist is in my view not realistic.

You may not wish to contribute your thoughts on this subject, but it will not go away. It's something we all will have to deal with, like it or not.
Norm,

They always have been a part of the photo universe, and no one is ignoring them. In his article, Wolfe laments the fact that they don't do for him what they used to do, which is why he's going with his own online virtual stock agency. He clearly distinguishes online "agencies" from regular agencies, in that there's no agent to reject your submission--you are your own agent. Note that many photographers already have online portfolios, so what Wolfe is doing is hardly earthshaking (except as a definitive rejection of regular agencies).

I've never had an agent, but I've heard many people who do say just what Wolfe says--that the agencies don't accept many of their images and that the agencies often create competing images of their own so that they get the entire commission. Again, given Wolfe's huge library of extraordinary images, I assume that if Getty doesn't work for him, it won't work for me. It's possible that somewhere in the universe there's a regular agency smaller than Getty or Corbis that is still making great money for some lucky and/or smart photographers. If there were such lucky/smart photographers with great agencies, I sure wouldn't expect them to spread the glad tidings so that other shooters can start taking some of their sales.

[Norm Dulak]

Thanks to everyone. I do appreciate your thoughts.

Norm Dulak

[Sid Garige]

Norm,

I concentrate only on trophy big game. I contact hunting and outdoor magazines and deal straight with them. I had more success working straight with photo editors than working with stock agencies.