 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eric
|
I have never 'bothered' shooting for stock libraries. I know some of our former members did/do (eg Vincent) and spoke of the modest return for a lot of work...not just the shooting but the extensive cataloguing and uploading. I wonder if any forum members still do this? Recently I was given a project to superimpose studio shot (white background) garden furniture into 'lifestyle' ie nice outdoor settings. We couldn't reshoot as it is winter here ....and a £150k project relied on getting images in settings, quick. I am unable to show you some of these finished results as they are only now going live. But suffice to say it took a lot of time selecting suitably compatible images. The shooting angle of the two images had to match to get realistic vanishing points. The diffused studio lighting had to be matched by acceptable exterior light...with appropriate shadow addition where sunlight was directional. It was an interesting, profitable (when they pay me!) and challenging exercise...but it was also depressing.... To find a variety of suitable background images (I soon ran out of my own shots!) I had to trawl through stock libraries. One library in particular offers a ridiculously good deal...but one that saddens me as a photographer. For the princely sum of £149, you can download 25 high resolution (eg 40mb files) images, per day ....for a month (actually 28 days). viz. 25x28 = 700 images for £149 or 21p an image! And that's the selling price! Yes, some of the shots are a bit naff, others are 25 different angles of the same swimming pool etc. And I realise it's a global market place. But I was restricting my viewing to the first 10-15 pages on each search category I input (eg pools, pathways, gardens, conservatories, terraces, lawns etc etc etc) Often there were 400, 500 or more pages covering that search wording, potentially hiding better images that I was soon too bored and tired to continue hunting down. 10 years ago my client bought an image for some packaging I was designing. It cost £1200. (frankly I thought he was mad because it was absolute rubbish!!!!!) But today we talk in pence. Where will it end? Will people eventually stop taking stock photos? |
|||||||||
richw
|
I guess the same image has the potential to be used many times, and over a period of years. I did think about doing some shots of warehouse equipment after looking for some and finding the selection a bit limited, but the Image release requirements were daunting, you needed a signed release form for anyone in an image and the owners of any building or equipment featured. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
richw wrote: I guess the same image has the potential to be used many times, and over a period of years. I did think about doing some shots of warehouse equipment after looking for some and finding the selection a bit limited, but the Image release requirements were daunting, you needed a signed release form for anyone in an image and the owners of any building or equipment featured. And you need to keyword to the 'nth' degree to make sure your image pops up in the first pages...just like google! I remember Vincent saying he was spending hours and hours just getting his images prepared for upload. What also surprised me was the number of shots taken at National Trust properties. They are very strict about commercial use of photographs. When I approached them with some of my images they dismissed me saying that only the National Trust Photography Unit were allowed to take picture of their properties for sale. Seems like the Bulgarian named bloke who posted them on this stock site didnt respect that edict. :-( |
|||||||||
jk
|
No I used to get stuff published in the 70s and 80s on spec. by sending in images but really these days they just want to publish and not pay so why should I bother. If it isnt commissioned work or my own private project then I dont shoot it for future use by someone else. |
|||||||||
Judith
|
I looked into it but as you say, they are paying pennies. You'd have to have 1000s of images on the sites to stand a chance of making any money at all and they place so many restrictions on what you can upload. Even buildings in a normal street need to have release forms signed by the owners! The time commitment would just not be worth it. I did find one more serious website which was more committed to quality images and paid better (can't remember the name now) but they wanted you to upload a minimum of 200 pics (with appropriate releases, etc). I rolled my eyes and went back on facebook.  |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
never bothered i just use FLICKR it gives me contact with lots of people ,quiet a lot of my photos have been cherry picked and appeared on springwatch and autumnwatch on the BBC ,loads are on BBC wales nature website ,some barn owl shots in a book (by request and a free copy of the book) and one of those then appeared in the mail on sunday .freebies yep money no saying that my lad who also only puts his pics on there has been contacted on there and sold a couple of pics for over £100 each .makes you wonder |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |