So You Wanna Make Some Money ?

[Goshawk]

Yes folk's . . . you've decided you want to turn your hobby into a money making machine, but . . . "How do i do that?"

There's lot's of ways . . . on this thread i'm talking Stock Photography. Many options, many criteria, little profit? (it depends!)

Shutterstock is one of a few (& one of the biggest) places where you can give your talent a fair crack at the $£$ making whip.

With this particular agency there are very stringent tests before you can become a 'contributor' . . . you must upload 10 images for their own review & if 7 of them pass you are in!

Interested? then pay lots of attention to what this man says in this vid . . .

Once you've sold your very first image, you can now call yourself a Professional Photographer . . . and then join the rat race!

Link to the Shutterstock contributor sign up page is here . . . http://submit.shutterstock.com/?language=en

edit : (is Goshawk a contributor? not telling . . )

Edited May 13, 2015 by Goshawk

[sunshine51]

Shutterstock isn't a bad way to start on the road to turning "Pro",

however shooting stock doesn't qualify a person as being a "Pro".

In order to be considered a pro one must derive 100% of their

income from photography and work or be contracted to work

for a reputable press/media agency...such as a newspaper,

magazine, news bureau etc. If you just shoot stock then you

are a stock photography shooter...that's it. Plus...with the advent

of digital photography the so called "bar" has been raised many

times regarding IQ (Image Quality) that the stock agencies will

accept and what format they will accept ones photos in.

Here's a nifty little read concerning Shutterstock...who has high

IQ standards I must admit....so think before you jump...

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/ideas-and-small-talk/six-common-shutterstock-statements-true-false/

[FracturedRabbit]

I think the word "pro" is vastly over-used and over-rated in respect to photography. It's used by manufacturers as a sales pitch (get the "pro" version, people will look up to you, your photography will improve and your genitals will increase in size"). It is used by people who have cameras to differentiate one person who has a camera from another who has a a camera; with little reference to the quality of the images they produce. It is even used extensively in this forum to identify "the pros" (who apparently take good images), and the rest, who don't do so well.

Really, who cares? Some of the best images I have seen have be made by people who don't earn money from their photography (or if they do, they don't go on about it); and I have seen some appalling crap from people who claim to make a living as a photographer.

"By thy images shalt thee be judged" - Shakespeare.

Oh, and stock photography; not worth it nowadays, so I am told by those who used to earn substantial sums from it and now earn very little. Too many photos, prices dropped, contributor shares cut etc etc.

[Goompa]

So , if I were to purchase say a Mamiya or a Phase One digital back I would need a wheelbarrow to cart my 'Agates' about ?

What about a Hassie ? maybe a fridge trolley ??

Forgot to take my meds again , sorry....

[FracturedRabbit]

Hassie owner, pictured yesterday.

[Goshawk]

I have seen some appalling crap from people who claim to make a living as a photographer.

+1

don't underestimate stock as part of your business . . . think in terms of an ad guy, and not as an art guy & you'll do well.

[NeverSure]

deleted...

Sorry, wrong topic.

Edited May 14, 2015 by NeverSure

[Whale]

I dont think one should equate "pro" with picture quality (albeit a subjective issue anyway) - the guy I go to to do my driving licence and other offical photos is a pro, its what he does for a living, a full time studio photog taking annual school pics is a pro. The newspaper staff tog (are there any left) is a pro. I also dont think one should equate equipment with being a pro - the guy who does my ID pics uses an old olympus 4040. You need to be doing photography (and asscoaited teaching, etc,etc) as your main fulltime job to be considered a Pro. That would be a banal and thankless job IMHO. Better to be a glorious amatuer and keep the love for photography as a passion.

I agree with everyone also that stock does not make one a Pro. For every full time (pro) shooter/studio doing stock theres probably 500,000 non-pros. Stock is good for play money and IMHO 99.9% of stock suppliers are getting a bit of play money from the ever dwindling license fees. Buts its free to play so why not.

[Goshawk]

I dont think one should equate "pro" with picture quality

[Whale]

Bye

[Forethat]

Personally, I shoot a lot of cricket, golf and dart. With very few exceptions, a frame that sells is scoped up by the news media at stock rates. These vary but more or less fall within a range with very small variations unless you sit on something special or are well known. I am not; I do this because it is my hobby and because I love spending the entire day watching cricket or golf through a lens.

In sports photography you need accreditation, and for that you need membership in an organisation for professional photographers, like BIPP or AOP. There are lots of organisations out there, you should pick the one that is reputable in your area of expertise and interest, because membership alone doesn't always give you accreditation, you may need an assignment letter.

When you walk around St.Andrews with a bib or stand in the photo-pit at Alexandra Palace you're considered a pro, but unless it's your full time job you're not a pro if you ask me.

IQ is getting more and more important, but the news media tend to stretch the requirements quite far.

For anything but news the IQ requirements are getting serious. Nothing but serious IQ will sell, and by that I mean that the photo needs to be technically VERY good, like focus, exposure and so on. But there's also other quality requirements like composition, colour and subject - call it the artistic touch.

Professional photography is not something you can live on unless you are providing something special that others don't. There are millions of extremely good photographers, only the ones that do something special or have good connections can make a living. The ones at the top of the food chain make serious money, but they are easily counted.

I don't need to do this for a living, and that's a good thing, because I don't need to go to locations I don't want to, or shoot something I don't want to or are no good at.

The biggest difference being a professional photographer is that it becomes a job - you need to shoot what the customer wants, not what you want. And that's a he** of a difference when it comes to being able to perform to sell and having fun at the same time.

Lately I have been doing a lot of stage and theatre shoots, that's probably the most fun I have ever had with a camera...

Edited May 27, 2015 by Forethat

[mrhitchens]

I'd like to try my wings with the stock photography. How much harm can it do? Some work preparing the photos, uploading and tagging those. Then waiting for the 25cent bonuses per downloaded images. At the moment I'm getting nothing from my shots. A Finnish newspaper once paid me EUR50 for a songran shot. It was really nice bonus on top of that I got my image published on a newspaper

Shutterstock is paying $0.25/download at first. When the sales go up to $5000-$10.000, they pay $0.33 per download.

But they also have 1 million customers, so there is a possibility to get some money for the work.

But.. whenever I look at my own photos with 100%, those are far from perfect. There is always some softness, grain, even if I took the shot with ISO80. That annoys the heck out of me. To be able to select 10 photos, which 7 should pass the Shutterstock standars.. I guess I'll just have to give it a try and learn from the feedback.

I got an PRO account on https://www.scoopshot.com/ , but I have known the owner for 25 years, so I don't think it counts too much

Shooting for stock is simple mate, to pass the 10 image evaluation is not difficult, I'm not going to tell you that you will make a fortune, but its possible.

If you wanna shoot for shock then you need to be out shooting directly for stock, look for images that will be shock images, kinda think past what would be a nice composition and think more into wow that would be a great shock image.

Though shooting for stock images is boring and you will lose your creativity^^

[mrhitchens]

@Forehat The old saying goes "Want to spoil a very good hobby, make it your profession" has a point, but I still disagree with it to a point.

I used to backpack quite a lot and needed a work I can do while traveling. I got introduced to diving, which was love affair at the first sight. I did work as divemaster on some locations. The work was the best I have ever done, the pay was next to nothing. I got all the free dives I wanted to do, which was the most important issue. I could not take the same risks, I would have taken when diving alone, when I was diving with the folks whose security I had to take care of. That was the biggest downside. However I could do the silly dives with friends.

I think the same applies to photography. When taking stock photography images, it can still be fun and great way to spend time. If it's not the sole income revenue, then there should be time to take the more artistic photos as well. The photos which are not for stock photos, but for own enjoyment.

Heck, at least for me, getting some money out of my photos, compared to not getting any, is a nice deal. I take my photos as an hobby and will keep on doing that, even if I would take some of the photos as a working DM.

I will post a thread on maybe shooting stock images tips etc, maybe It will explain better, just the tricks and tip I used to use in that would help?

[Goshawk]

Heck, at least for me, getting some money out of my photos, compared to not getting any, is a nice deal.

^ oily, don't listen to the 'downers', they've probably never even done it . . . just follow the usual copy found written all over the web about this subject. Let me tell you that is does pay . . while i'm no millionaire from it, stocking is still good. I've had quite a few big £$ surprises, but mainly it's just chugging along the average scale. You need lots of images, and they need to be targeted.

[Dancealot]

The worst thing about this shit is I try to help you guys out, whether it be shock images or photoshop et and you all just wanna say bad words to me.

Anyhow will leave you all to it, I have more of a life than to worry what Thai Visa members wanna say to me^^

You're a valuable member, mrhitchens. Your style and expertise has helped me grow more over this past year.

[Tywais]

Massive cleanup of this topic and the bickering. If I have to do it again it will be closed. Making things personal is inappropriate in a forum meant to help out each other.

[Tywais]

//Closed//