It’s “Guest Blog Wednesday” featuring Kelly Thompson!

Photo by Tyler Stalman
A couple of weeks ago, we had a party here in Calgary. Which isn’t so out of the ordinary – we have quite a few parties. This one was special though. We had more iStock members together in person than at any other time before. There were more than a hundred of us: photographers, videographers & illustrators, from as far away as Argentina, South Africa, and Russia. People came to meet our staff, see our office, and have a few beers and laughs in person with the people they spend so much time with online.
For the most part though, people came to work. They came to shoot, create, and talk about stock images. We’d organized a solid weekend for them, with a full squad of art directors, stylists and models, plus lots of time for talking and teaching with each other, and our artists came to make the most of it.
Creating and selling stock online can be a bit of a lonely calling. So having all these iStockers in one place, to meet and learn and work together, to discuss and practice their profession as a group, was a real treat. It’s one thing to talk shop on a website forum. It’s another thing to stand around in a knot looking at the LCD screen after someone’s clicked the shutter on a great concept, and being able to say ‘that’s great stock’ with other people who know exactly what you mean.
Great stock. What does that mean? It’s not just about taking a better photograph of a handshake. It’s not all about smiling business teams and finding new ways to say ‘Success’ in a picture.
Stock is about distilling the world around us into ideas and concepts, and then finding new and compelling ways to illustrate those things. It’s about representing things in idealized, generic ways. It’s about utility and being useful. A good stock artist has to not only be a technically excellent photographer or illustrator. They have to be a bit of philosopher – to see through to the hearts of concepts and coming up with innovative ways to visually explain them. They have to be savvy business people, they have to stay abreast of technology and trends, and always be learning and improving. Above all, they have to be professional. I think professionalism is more than just a matter of whether or not you’re being paid for what you do. It’s about committing to a craft, about self-criticism and constant personal development.

Image by Andrew Rich
All of that takes a heck of a lot of hard work.
Maybe that’s why iStockers get so antagonized when that other word – amateur – gets applied to them. It usually gets worked into the initial of who we are and what we do, something along these lines: “Take a site like iStockphoto, where amateur and hobbyist photographers offer images for a dollar…” Let me tell you, there is nothing that gets under the skin of an iStock contributor quite so much as being called an amateur. Watching them work over the weekend, it’s no wonder. They’ve come a long way from amateur and hobbyist.
Your average iStocker 8 years ago was a self-employed web designer who’d been enticed by our Free Image of the Week. They hung around to find some more images for other projects, talked a bit of shop with the other designers in our forums, and then got to thinking about that Canon Powershot sitting over on the end of their desk. They took some shots of the bell peppers in their fridge and fired them off our way, just to see what would happen.
That bell pepper might have netted them a few dollars. But it probably sparked a question for them: how can I do this better? What other subjects are there out there that will make for good stock? How can I shoot them better? What do I need to improve? So people worked at it. They learned to make the best of the light in their home. They put away the peppers and talked their spouse into getting in front of the camera. The dollars and cents started to grow and as soon as there was enough, the Powershot got traded up for a Rebel. Now when they went to the iStock forums, they were talking less CSS and more prime lenses.
It’s that attitude, that dogged professionalism, that created the artists I got to watch at work here in Calgary. The camera is now a 5D Mk II in a lot of cases, and the spouse has graduated to full-fledged photographer’s assistant, metering light, holding reflectors, and directing models. When the CF card is full there’s probably a long night ahead of them in Lightroom and Photoshop, finding the best shots from the day and processing them. But if the gear and the skills are different, the dedication is still the same. They’re still asking themselves ‘How can I do this better?’

Image by Todd Keith
We have 85,000 contributing artists at iStock now, and we pay them out about $1.2 million every week. They create all kinds of things: illustrations and 3D artwork, and animation and video clips and even songs and sound effects. They create a lot of great stock. So what does that mean? I guess it means, they find new ways for all of us to visually communicate our ideas. Every day they come up with new ways of saying things with pictures. It sounds simple, but let me tell you, it’s a calling, and its a calling you can dedicate your whole life to and always find new things to learn about.
Our party up here in Calgary is over now and the members who came have all headed home, however near or far away home might be for them. We had a great time seeing them all and it was tough to say goodbye when 2 AM rolled around on Sunday night. But not so tough I guess, because we’ll all see each other again soon. You know, at work.





















Hi Kelly,
Thanks for an insightful piece. I’ve been a member of iStock Photo for about 2 years now. I buy photos but have not yet contributed. It’s hard to find info (even on the site) that describes “how to get into being a successful contributor on iStock”. I shot a series of clean beauty images just for stock contribution, but have not yet begun the process of uploading them due to either insufficient information on how it all works, or misinformation from others in the field telling me that “It’s too hard to get photos approved on iStock”. I guess I’m kind of in the dark and stuck there. Is there a better way to get real information on getting into shooting stock and how it all works from technical specs to how the licensing rights work with my images (preferably not on a forum)? Much appreciation, -Matt
All the information you need is right here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos.php
Ask me?
I’m not a fan of istock. In my opinion, they have totally devalued stock imagery to the point where photographers are now getting paid less than a dollar an image. Ya gotta sell a lot of photos to make 1.2 mill. So if they’re handing out that much, they raking in about 20 times that a week themselves.
5 or 6 years ago, I bought into the idea that selling an image for a couple of bucks was an affront to the photography profession. What a fool I was!
Firstly, there was never any chance that I would be accepted by traditional stock agencies. Secondly, if you do the math, you’ll see that one sale at $250 is easily beaten beaten by a few hundred sales that average $1.30 or so in royalties for each sale.
If anything, iStock cracked open an enormous market. Millions of people now have access to quality stock images that would have been unattainable for them previously.
I just wish I had started contributing back then. I’m rather late to the game as it stands. Lucky for me, though, I can draw on the collective wisdom and experience of the thousands of active contributors at iStockphoto. Many of them, if not most, are simply brilliant. And it shows in their work.
85,000 contributors and $1.2 million paid out weekly is roughly $14 bucks a person, nobody’s getting rich…
Not if you go about it that way but I know a few people making their living from stock only, and some of them are making a LOT of money.
But loads of the 85.000 have like 10 images online and they do not make anything thats for sure.
Well, I’m a designer/photographer, I’m getting 168 K a year from istockphoto only, maybe I’m not rich… but I’m doing a living…
I watched an interesting video over at the Strobist the other day. It was featuring Yuri Arcurs and his stock studio. His setup is amazing. His studio is the size of my old highschool. That’s the way to do stock photography. If you’re not working like that, there really isn’t any money to be made in microstock. He says in the video that he sells 2000+ images a day. That’s a whole lot of images uploaded, to be able to sell that many a day…
I don’t know that iStock has impacted photography any more negatively than digital capture itself has. You worry about the numbers and devaluing of stock photography, but I think that Joe schmoe who buys a 50D and opens a “studio” offering subpar quality work is a much bigger detriment to our industry. The market around here is flooded with photographers who have all of about 5 minutes of trigger time before they walk into a gig charging $500 and shooting in auto the whole time. I think that iStock offers a great outlet for modern photographers, either as a supplement to their income or just for sheer satisfaction of having sold some images, even if they’re only making 50 cents a pop. Photogs who intend to make a living off of stock imagery understand the game and work in the staggering numbers that make it possible to sell, as was mentioned previously, 2000+ images a day.
I thought this was a very interesting post and enjoyed reading it very much.
Im surprised you let this guy guest on your site. iStock is a terrible company whos cheapened photography.
“Maybe that’s why iStockers get so antagonized when that other word – amateur – gets applied to them.”??? ….sigh
“Your average iStocker 8 years ago was a self-employed web designer….”??
I doubt that. Youre average iStocker was either some college douche who still shoots with his Kodak Easyshare or some pro photographer crying and contemplating over his career since he now makes 10 dollars a picture v the 1000+ he use to make.
Re: Nev. Cheapened photography? I am a contributor to iStock on the side of my job as an Art Director/Designer, where I have been published in multiple national award annuals. I have a college degree. I would like to think my vision and talent translates directly over into my photography, and I think it does as multiple agencies from all over the world call me to take specialized shoots for them. You may be some NY hotshot photographer, but you are the one that is out of touch and sounding like the douche.
Oh, and btw, I make about $200,000 a year.
A college degree? Pretty sweet there Andrew. And you make 200, 000 a year? Really? Wow… do I feel like a jerk now or what. Is that all from iStock? The subject of my argument? Or do you mean you just make $200, 000 from your awesome college degree and national awards?
Look, iStock has cheapened photography. The same argument can go for digital photography itself as mentioned earlier. Im not saying that there arent those out there who are genuine and talented nor that you cant make a lot of money from some of these places. I am saying that it has cheapened photography.
Andrew,
What does $200,000 a year have to do with the argument? It’s really about whether it is a value or not to the photography industry.
Yes microstock has cheapened photography, BUT IN A GOOD WAY, and just in very specific segment. Microstock has helped designers to rise their image quality standards. I’m no talking about the 1,000 designers that work with the big companies and high end advertising agencies… I’m talking about the 1,000,000 designers (like me) that need high quality images for our local projects that have tight budgets (for local restaurant, hospital, etc etc). If you are going to charge $500 for an image I think the only difference would be EXCLUSIVENESS…. NOT QUALITY. And of course we also do asigment work… and we charge the same as you Nev.
Re: Nev: Nope, that is $200,000 (part-time) on top of my full-time job. I am posting in the defense of microstock as you claim it has cheapened photography, when in fact, I believe (as evidence suggests) is has revolutionized it. Yes, there may be snapshots out there but why do ‘traditional’ photographers feel so threatened with this? If these (we) amateurs are not talented, then why such the hubbub? Our amateurish photography should be pushing money your way.
@ Nev… Yes, you’re saying that it has cheapened photography but you also called some good professionals like Andrew a ‘douche’…
from the urban dictionary: http://douche.urbanup.com/276880... check it out…
that’s maybe why Andrew reacted… Newton’s LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction… got it Tim?
And last but not least I go with Aldo… some years ago it was very hard to find a good picture in a reasonable price for the rest of us designers with local projects, or starters, yeah people, there’s always someone starting somewhere that have to eat, dress, pay rent, study and sometimes have fun… I’m sorry to bother you but there’s thousands more coming… and local business budget for a brochure is less than you pay for your “crème brûlée” after dinner in that trendy restaurant you should go to toast the new photoshoot contract.
Yes, that’s what I’m doing. Crying. It usually goes like this:
“Waaaah! iStock pays my rent and bills and I shoot whatever I want, whenever I want too and have 100% creative freedom…waaaah!” or,
“Waaaah! Oh look I made 350 bucks just in the eight hours I was asleep last night. How horrible! Waaaaah!” or,
“Waaah! Agents in NY and LA have contacted me based on the strength of my iStock portfolio, and now I have to decide what direction to take my career in. Waaah!”
Yep Nev, that’s what I do. Sit around crying and “contemplating over” my career.
Chump.
I know the guy who took the fishing picture!
Hi Kelly,
I enjoyed the insight of your post. I will surely re-read it more than once. I am one of the 85,000. I have 49 images for folks to choose from with an acceptance rate of about 30%. Each time I submit an image for acceptance, I pretty much process it the same way I have processed others. I sometimes get an acceptance e-mail, othertimes I get a notice that it has been over processed. I shake my head at that, and it makes me wonder what I’m doing wrong. The images I send that are poor composition and are turned down actually help me get better.
Thanks for your insight,
Mike
Hi Kelly,
It was great meeting you in Calgary. IStockalypses continue to be an amazing resource for learning what great stock is by watching the best in action. I’ve been at it going on 7 years now and still I am in awe watching the creative processes of my extremely talented colleagues. Thank you for giving me the opportunity, and keep up the great work!
Letting this guy on your site to be the guest blog makes me think twice about coming back again. I’ve heard nothing but bad things about the site from photographers. Like the fact that they are very picky about what they allow you to add even though you are making a buck off the image and they make like 20 for themselves.
“I’ve heard nothing but bad things about the site from photographers.’
You should stop by yourself sometimes.
“Like the fact that they are very picky about what they allow you to add”
Yes, you do have to be technically proficient with your image creation, and a lot of people do have trouble rising to the standards. Mostly evident by rants about how inspectors don’t know what they are doing.
“even though you are making a buck off the image and they make like 20 for themselves.”
Spreading untruths doesn’t really help your point of view.
I have heard nothing but good things about the site. But I guess I don’t hang around real ‘photographers.’
funny thing how they want technical proficiency. The same image I had published in Shutter Bug was turned down by Istock so I know what the guy is talking about. The image in question was actually a landscape scene around dusk. Their response, “the overall lighting could be improved.” Perhaps, but that is something they should take up with God I suppose.
I have a feeling that many “professionals” would have trouble meeting the standards set by them. But then again, I shoot what I see in my mind and I’m doing it for myself. If someone decides to purchase a print, great. If not, great. At the end of the day I do it because I still love doing it.
Istock isn’t going to ruin my chances of selling images like some have said. Because people will purchase images from you if you have good business practices and are respected in your area of interest. Just how I feel.
I am one of the inspectors for iStockphoto, and sometimes lighting is a subjective thing. Not all inspectors see through the same glasses, as we are all different. Some things should pass, some shouldn’t. There is always a chance for a second or third opinion.
I do know that many professionals and beginners have a difficult time with the technical standards and they sometimes take this as an insult to their photography when it isn’t. There are just certain capabilities a camera has or doesn’t have that sometimes get exploited when first going through the inspection process at iStock. Older camera sensors are not as good as newer ones and because of lack of information due to poor sensor, technical issues may arise and would be seen in production whether that be on press or web. iStock tends to accept more standard images that aren’t over-processed so that pixels become distorted. Processing is fine, just not overdone. No designer likes posterization in an image. Poor lighting exacerbates all the above. However, cameras are getting better, sensors better, and this compression and artifacting is not as prevalent as before.
I understand how the inspection process can turn a lot of people off on iStock as I went through the same process. But I don’t think the high standards in technical properties is a bad thing when selling photos. Photos should be technically sound as well as artistically sound. Just my 2c.
What is a photo worth? That is what iStockPhoto is revealing, and the studios that have been charging absurd amounts for single images are experiencing the pains of a market correction. In the past, when there was no internet and no global marketplace, and no prosumer DSLR cameras and software to make adjustments easy, the old system may have made sense. But now that there are numerous buyers and sellers of images — people from all walks of life — there is no need for the high prices. If someone thinks their image is so great that it deserves a hefty price tag, they can still find places to sell it; and if they are wrong, well, welcome to the hard face of reality.
It’s the same challenge facing graphic designers since the inception of desktop publishing, or website and application developers since “Rent a Coder” type websites came online. But it’s a sweeping change that won’t go away, and those who complain are simply cursing the wind. Accept it, and learn to advance your career around or through it.
Sausages!
It is what it is. Everything changes. The stock image market is no exception. As in any profession, change with the market or perish.
iStock is probably not the best choice for those who want to sell their images for substantially more than $1. Preparing a photoshoot takes time, effort, and money. So, it’s understandable that selling them for so little can be quite discouraging to some. Not everyone has the time to submit 2,000 images a month. Having said that, microstock agencies have their business model, and people are free to choose whether they want to work within that model, or look elsewhere. iStock is not the only option out there. There are agencies that offer photographers alot more for their images, and as a result it doesn’t become the numbers game that one is forced to play when submitting to microstock agencies. Of course, in order to make the cut at those tradtional macrostock agencies, the skill level has to be pretty high. Now, I’m not speaking from experience. I’m still at the learning stage, reading as much as I can. So, these comments are observations based on what I’ve read.
Microstock photographers….the sharecroppers of the 21st century. Do 99% of the work for 1% of profit…how depressing.
Actually up to 40% of the profit on iStock. Are you threatened by it?
Fantastic post.
Good going Scott and team.
I know the guy that’s the fly fisherman in the pic by Andrew
…and I know both of them!
To everyone saying iStock is cheapening photography:
You do realize that there were stock agencies long before the internet, right? And you realize that they didn’t necessarily (in most cases) pay that much more relative to the amount of exposure you’d get from a catalog compared to an international website, right?
They aren’t paying people $14 per week, like someone’s math shows. You can’t cash out your earnings until you’ve made at least $100, there are guys like me who have very little time to contribute, but still try, and have been sitting at $45 for the last 3 months and haven’t taken a single payout yet. Those people are not part of your $14 math.
The truth is, whether you’re a full-time full blown studio photographer shooting thousands of images per day, or someone who does it part time, and uses part of their part time to shoot stock, your return depends on your investment. Simple as that.
Of course, that recent TIME Magazine cover does indeed support your “cheapening” arguments, that’s not the norm in most cases. If it ever becomes the norm, well then there is more to complain about, but just like other industries out there (the music industry in particular, which I am very familiar with) sometimes things need to change and business models have to adapt.
The Time magazine cover is the cherry of it all! Thats where its all heading and why not? If they can do it to save money, then they will do it. Of course we know that there were agencies prior to iStock, obviously. But yes, they did pay a lot more per photo for your work than you would get for a photo on iStock.
Sure businesses have to adapt, but some can’t. Survival of the fittest I suppose and for the rest a side job on the weekends with istock.
Yes microstock has cheapened photography, BUT IN A GOOD WAY, and just in very specific segment. Microstock has helped designers to rise their image quality standards. I’m no talking about the 1,000 designers that work with the big companies and high end advertising agencies… I’m talking about the 1,000,000 designers (like me) that need high quality images for our local projects that have tight budgets (for local restaurant, hospital, etc etc). If you are going to charge $500 for an image I think the only difference would be EXCLUSIVENESS…. NOT QUALITY. And of course we also do asigment work… and we charge the same as you do =) .
Oh I just love its a loosers site, that is why I shoot with a $3500.00 video camera and have invested
$10,000.00 over the past three years into iStock. Buyers a welcome and I invite you to take a second look. The future is bright at iStock “Vetta” anyone?
Nev,
You are my hero!
I am continuiously amazed that people will not only accept but rejoice at making .33 per sold photo as payment for their work, while places like iStock rake in the $. That is shameful! But if that’s what you feel you are worth, then I guess you’re in the right place.
I am crying myself to the bank with my nice part-time hobby.
I feel like I am worth the $22.50 royalty I had on an image today, that happens about once a week.
And the 6-8 $7.20 royalties per day.
And the 10-12 $3.30 royalties per day.
And the 15-20 $0.50-$0.60 royalties per day. Do the math.
And I still have a full-time job, and shoot weddings, portraits, and events regularly.
But Lynn,
If that traditional photo you so highly support sells for $200, once a year, or 200 times for $1, what’s the difference?
You can’t look at it as ONLY making 0.33 cents.
Cheapening photography? That’s an entitlement argument. You are NOT entitled to make a living doing what you want, how you want, regardless of the money, time and effort you invest. It’s a great idea but it never worked before and it doesn’t work now. What you produce as a photographer, or anything else for that matter, is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it.
You need a new perspective and a new business model…
iStock will always be a divisive subject. I’m not a photographer but I am a creative. On one hand, my day job of selling stock has essentially been decimated thanks IN PART to iStock and its brethren, but on the other hand, at my third job with a non-profit, I find myself having to use iStock because it’s all the non-profit can afford.
It’s a very odd spot to be in.
I do know this: My much valued time at Kelby Training is gone since I’m working three jobs just to keep my modest home and pay for health insurance, but that’s another argument for another day.
Kelly, great post!
I find IStock to be quite expensive, and have had much better luck finding the right images at ShutterStock, Fotolia, and Dreamstime
Nothing lights a fire underneath someone’s behind like making a little cash for a hobby. Imagine that fire sparking a passion for an artistic outlet. That’s what istock did for me, and I’m proud to call myself a contributor.
I’m one of the “little guys” who claps excitedly if I earn a dollar a day. Sure, I’d like to rake in the dough, but in the meantime I appreciate every istock acceptance and rejection, as they have helped build my technical expertise. How many seasoned photographers out there are willing to critique your shots at 100% scale? I stock gives me photo reviews free of charge! They’ve also introduced me to a terrific community of people who share my passion, not to mention a handful of superstar quality photography teachers.
Yay for istock, and great article, Kelly!
I have had a few moments to gather my thoughts. Sorry for being so angry. Anyway, thanks Scott for the article. Nev, sorry for being on the defensive. I can be sensitive sometimes.
I work with professional photographers that I commission for work. I also work with ‘less seasoned’ photographers (and shoot with them), both exceptionally talented ones and beginners. Whenever I talk about my stock photography around the ‘professionals,’ they almost always treat me like the scum of the earth, as if I have sold my soul to the devil. I have to chuckle at this (I am a designer by career and trade), because not minutes later when I show them some recent work, they are always asking me how I did that and what type of lens did I use, processing techniques etc. etc. I am not tooting my horn, but on a couple of occasions I have had those same photographers come to me later and give me kudos for giving them inspiration to try new things and think differently.
iStock has changed my life forever, birthed a passion I never knew I had. It is a pure passion for me to do this. Most iStockers feel the same way. It has put a camera in our hands in different walks of life, opened eyes and doors that were not there before. Cameras are now in places they had never previously been. Opportunity is abound. Some people succeed, most do not, but it brings a happiness to almost everyone. Photography is magic in that sense, and if this iStock movement has cheapened it, then that is one’s opinion. Photography is a universal art, no matter how bad or good. Everyone has a right to it. iStock has made it possible for the Engineer to awaken a forgotten passion; the housewife to find meaning in her life; the lost designer find his soul. If this has cheapened it, than you haven’t truly grasped the concept.
Well I think you have gone a little too deep for iStock. ‘The housewife to find meaning in her life”?
Theres plenty other things in this world which help people see new things and open new doors etc. Im happy its ‘birthed a passion you never knew you had’. Books and teachers did that for me. But lets not go so far as to say iStock helps people find their souls and rise up from the rubble. Can it bring peace to the Middle East too?
I do grasp the concept, very well. We just have different opinions and Im ok with that. =)
I read books too, go to local seminars, took photography classes in college. In fact, I just purchased and received two books by Robb Kendrick on his old fashioned photography where he took tintypes of the vanishing American Cowboy. The books are called: Still, and Revealing Character. Great stuff. I love that style. An education/degree in photography is a huge bonus, but not the defining factor in making a good photographer.
I just want to quell the over-generalization that iStock photographers are a bunch of schlubs that don’t know what they are doing. If you got to know any of us, I think you’d be surprised.
I am speaking from personal experience. I know each one of those people, the engineer, the housewife, the designer (me). If you’d like to hear my story, I would love to tell it, just not here. Anyway, good luck with it. Peace may not happen, but photography is sure a good way of communicating.
The whole argument of whether Microstock is good or bad for the industry is so much old news. This subject has been rehashed thousands of times in hundreds of forums.
Really the news is that Istock is a community. It’s a community of people who like photography, are passionate about it and don’t mind helping each other out. The istockaplypse is a gathering, of people from all over the world from many walks of life. Be they a housewife or a professional photographer. They hold reflectors for each other, provide suggestions, tweak lights and at the end of the day sit around and talk photography. It’s just plain fun and inspiring. That’s what Istock is about.
Hurray! iStock has become Woodstock!!
Hi guys as i read the comments i have to make my little statement is istock bad or good my simple answer is that nobody gives a sh** the problem is that it uses the talent of people (pro or amateur) and earn a lot of money on your back and you’re smiling because you have another job. So suppose you’re a web designer and as a pro photographer i go to your agency and say hello to your boss and propose him to do the same job you do for 1 $ i’m prettysure he will kick you out so how’ your react ? what i have to say ? sorry you have to adapt ? you’re joking right ?????????? a photo with the time the materials, the computers the workflow can’t be give for less than a kinder keep the self esteem we live in a world that x4 its need of images and as image makers (pro & amateur) our income was divided by 8 we wuz robbed
I think that can be helpful to show my istock experience:
I´m a non an english speaker, so excuse my english. Before Istock, I was working for an Advertising Agency, designing and photoshoping pictures more than 10 hours per day, doing lots of work I was not happy with it, and earning 2.400 USD per month. Not bad for a medium professional, but I wasnt happy.
Last year I quit my daily job and focused in istock. I´ve been an istock contributor for nearly 3 years. My rate is Diamond (more than 25.000 sales level), so I receive 40% of the customer sale price. I sell daily an average of 40 photos or illustrations or 3D from my 1.020 files portfolio. Normally I have a monthly income of 4.000 – 5000 USD depending of the month (averaged last 16 months). My peak was 6.500 USD last august. My worst on nearly 2 years was 2.800 USD on last january. I normally upload 30 -35 new files per month, which means 5 hours of working per day (not counting weekends). I create what I want and have improved my skills because of the high standards in aproving files and the resources offered by the site and community.
I think I´ve won with the change. I´m earning more, and working on what I creatively want. And also am owner of my time. I did not feel amateur when I was an employee with ten years experience, and dont feel amateur now doing istock for three years. Anyway, I wouldn´t find wrong to be an amateur. All of us had to start working in a moment of our lifes. The thing is to produce quality work and be happy with it, be able to sell it and feel confortable with the earnings.
So this is not so bad. At least for me. I´d wish to be paid thousands for each of my photos, but I havent that media exposure, or a gallery, or an studio. Anyway, at the end am receiving a decent amount of money for selling the same photo 500 times in two years.
So my support to istock!
Thanks for sharing your istock experience Rose. I think it helps give another perspective on things. No longer being employed by someone else and being an owner of your own time alone is extremely valuable. Congratulations on your success and best of luck in the future!
Same thing happened to my Rose! Imagine for somebody outside USA (like me in Mexico) earning 10 times more than a regular professional and spending a fraction of what I would spend in USA =)… With people doing the uploading and the keywords for you, so you could spend more time shooting. And after just 2 year I’m building a 10,000 m2 studio and planing to move to phase one medium format system!…
All I can say if the images included in this post are examples of what is being sold I understand why they only cost $1. If I want an image of sharp grass and blown out faces or a Lensbaby fly fisherman I know where to go.
And we will welcome you and the thousands of other purchasers
Great article which was enhanced by a lively debate with a full frontal discussion between Nev and Andrew – fantastic stuff
Thanks Scott and don’t shy away from the controversial.
More of the same please.
What about a debate on the relative merits of Scott Kelby’s vs Joe McNally’s sense of humour…I can’t wait
Im glad you liked it. Scott asked me to be the next guest.
I look forward to Nev’s interview. I hope it was a good discussion in the end. I usually don’t participate in forums.
When i become the guest speaker i shall open my shotgun and let the doubters have both barrels……
Lets see. I have paid for 5 high end cameras, studio, and all the equipment. Resided my house. Redecorated the dining and living room. A complete new modern kitchen. And thats just the things that come to mind at the moment. Damn that $14 went a long way !
Great article Scott and Kelly. And keep up the good work at iStock.
I have used Istock for 4 months I don’t make a living from it and I dout I ever will, not even had a download yet, but any day now hopefully. I’ve only been using a camera for a year and am learning how to use it, but in the four months that I have been uploading to Istock my image quality and composition has improved 10 fold, and improvement , which regardless of your stand point on stock worth, is what all levels photographer aim for every time. I’m sure my standard will never reach anything about as good as some of the guys at Istock but I am also sure that some of these guys would give even the top level pro photographers a run for there “money” in visual capture.
I love istockphoto. Photography is my interest, I enjoy istockphoto, I think every have a choose, maybe the photo is not very perfect in istockphoto,but cheap for buyer. It just content buyer needed, that enough.
Near every single post in here is missing the mark. Let’s not forget why Microstock photos are popular.
It allows the small, mom and pop businesses, to deliver advertising that looks professional and can help them compete against businesses that have greater budgets.
Allowing a small business which is starting out to have a brochure, for example, with well executed, creative, photography that fits their tight budget.
All the “professional, no microstock photographers” have nothing to worry about.
Any “smart” business that was spending $1000’s of dollars on traditional stock and want a unique brand and campaign, not to even mention the hiring of talented freelance photographers for their own photography to use on marketing material, isn’t buying microstock. Why would they?
Do you think Coca-Cola is using istock photos or are they hiring photographers to develop images unique to only their brand?
As a designer I can assure you that if I was working for a multimillion dollar company, I would NOT use microstock photography for their advertising campaign.
How successful would that be? A week later I see the same photo on a competitors ad, or other companies world wide.
I don’t see how “old timers” and “microstockers” even think that it’s cutting into each others business.
A new company starting out would NEVER have paid $500 for a one time use for a photo, which is what the “old timers” shoot and contribute too.
However they will spend $15 on an image to use as that doesn’t break their bank. And this image isn’t custom and unique to only their company. It might be seen elsewhere in use, but that doesn’t matter when you are starting out.
If you see your business as a photographer being slashed, then you weren’t a successful photographer to begin with.
I’m all for helping small businesses being able to produce marketing material that looks as good as larger, more budget companies.
thank you finally for a good buyer post.
Exactly!… I couldn’t agree more on: “If you see your business as a photographer being slashed, then you weren’t a successful photographer to begin with.”
I’ve purchased images on istock. The quality is exceptional and I see no reasons to have to purchase photos for hundreds of dollars. I would take the photographs myself. I can understand that magazines and other published materials require RM type images and are willing to pay for them. There is a need for this service (microstock) just as there is the need for the big houses for RM, etc. A small company can’t afford to buy images on Getty, Corbis or even Alamy?
Ah the voice of reason! Thank you! There were thousands who feared electricity when it became available to the average Joe (or Nev). You can still choose to live off the grid if I am not mistaken.
Thank you for that post. If you are good at what you do, you shouldn’t be threatened because people will come looking for your work.
“However they will spend $15 on an image to use as that doesn’t break their bank. ”
Buy then why can iStock only manage to fork over .33 cents to the photographer? Why not sell thru an agency that values contributors a little more than that? They are out there!
Here’s a link to the royalty system page:
http://www.istockphoto.com/photographer-royalties.php
Educate yourself.
Scott, you have a unique gift for attracting controversy in the comments. I’m exhausted after reading all of these (being a peacemaker at heart).
Here’s my iStock experience: Having a small web design business, iStock has always been my first stop for good quality images and illustrations for blog headers.
My husband gives me a seriously hard time because one of my goals when I bought my first DSLR was to sell stock photography. I have a friend who was rejected by iStock twice, so I’ve been hesitant to try. I upgraded my camera last week, so I really have no excuse for not making the attempt now. I would welcome any opportunity to return on the investment I’ve made in camera equipment.
Thanks for a little more insight into the iStockphoto process.
Dawn, you will find that many people will be more than willing to help you in your process of learning. I would be one of them
The iStock community is great in this sense.
If more people spent their time adapting to the ever changing world instead of boo-hooing about the fact that the world is changing, their time would be much better spent. Those who decry the changes make me think of the guy who owns a collection of 8-Track tapes and is ticked off because the music industry has moved to cassette, then CD. Those who applaud the changes realize that boo-hooing isn’t going to stop the changes, they adapt, and find ways to take advantage of the changes. In the end, the ones who adapt are seemingly the ones who succeed no matter what the endeavour.
Just my humble opinion.
Thanks Scott for this lovely post. Just wanted to say I’m always proud of being part of istock community. I love it !
i recently started contributing to iStock and it has been a great experience for me. My attention to technicals has taken a positive spike for certain and that’s a good thing. Coming from an arts background most of my work has that orientation and of course selling to the commercial side of the public audience as iStock does is quite different. Lighting rules are different, moodiness, unless hooked up with sharp humor, usually doesn’t work in the commercial venue and you learn these things quickly. I find it all a challenge and am confident it will assist in my growth as an artist. My only complaint about iStock is the rather opaque – another word could be unorganized site for newbie contributors. Finding guidelines or articles on specifics are very hit and miss. The information site map is not at all intuitive. i have a review and have yet had time to figure out where to go to read it. BTW as a rule of thumb in sales 20% of the field counts for 80% of the income which would make for around $16-$160 average for contributors. As long as i’m learning and growing creatively it will be worth it. (although wasting time moving around the site doesn’t count). But most of all, thank you Scott Kelby for featuring Kelly Thompson today! His comments were inspiring as were the many comments.
Rock on Kelly