|
||||||
| Log-in/register to unlock all the member quick-links and features! |
 |
|
Junior Member
 |
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1
|
My experience with stock photography - moodboard
Hello everyone, i'm a new member here and this is my first post so be nice haha.
I just wanted to discuss my experience with stock photography companies. As a photographer it is always a bonus if you can earn money from what you enjoy, so I decided to sign up to a stock photography company a few months back. At the beginning I was relatively happy with my chosen company but as time went on I did a bit more research and started to become more aware of what was on offer. You've probably all heard of istockphoto as it is one of the biggest stock photography companies out there and it's the reason why I joined. However, from a photographer's point of view, istock's Royalty Free rates are highly disadvantageous. Sure, the reason they are doing well is that their photos are cheap and that is certainly a huge appeal if you are a buyer, but for a photographer such as me it is extremely frustrating because it means that the margins between good quality photos and average quality photos are seriously blurred. So i set out in search of other companies which offered their photographers a better rate of pay and the option of Right's Managed licensing which tends to cater to photos of a higher standard and means that the photographer is paid each time that image is used unlike Royalty Free licensing which is just a one-off payment. This finding, as you can imagine, was great for me. In the end I joined a smaller company called moodboard, found them after a friend recommended them, which offered both types of licensing. I like the fact that with the Rights Managed licensing the quality of a photo is taken into account and is given the credit it deserves. I'm not saying that I'm totally against the concept of Royalty Free photos, but I think there should be some level of differentiation based on merit of individual images. I was especially appalled by the story of a lad whose photo was featured on the front of Time magazine and yet was only paid $30. This is the reason i left istockphoto; it completely disregards the photographer's abilities. I hope this has been a helpful post for those of you considering the stock photography route.
I just wanted to discuss my experience with stock photography companies. As a photographer it is always a bonus if you can earn money from what you enjoy, so I decided to sign up to a stock photography company a few months back. At the beginning I was relatively happy with my chosen company but as time went on I did a bit more research and started to become more aware of what was on offer. You've probably all heard of istockphoto as it is one of the biggest stock photography companies out there and it's the reason why I joined. However, from a photographer's point of view, istock's Royalty Free rates are highly disadvantageous. Sure, the reason they are doing well is that their photos are cheap and that is certainly a huge appeal if you are a buyer, but for a photographer such as me it is extremely frustrating because it means that the margins between good quality photos and average quality photos are seriously blurred. So i set out in search of other companies which offered their photographers a better rate of pay and the option of Right's Managed licensing which tends to cater to photos of a higher standard and means that the photographer is paid each time that image is used unlike Royalty Free licensing which is just a one-off payment. This finding, as you can imagine, was great for me. In the end I joined a smaller company called moodboard, found them after a friend recommended them, which offered both types of licensing. I like the fact that with the Rights Managed licensing the quality of a photo is taken into account and is given the credit it deserves. I'm not saying that I'm totally against the concept of Royalty Free photos, but I think there should be some level of differentiation based on merit of individual images. I was especially appalled by the story of a lad whose photo was featured on the front of Time magazine and yet was only paid $30. This is the reason i left istockphoto; it completely disregards the photographer's abilities. I hope this has been a helpful post for those of you considering the stock photography route.
 Admin Team
 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 15,385
 |
Spam!
If there's one type of spam we hate, it's when companies try to hoodwink us by pretending to be 'customers'!! You posted this from an IP belonging to: MIKE-WATSON-PUBLISHING-LTD, and guess who operates the netblock for the site you were advertising? Watson Images!
I've removed your url - and the funny thing is we usually don't mind an 'advert' from start-ups, to help them get going.
Thread would normally be removed, but will leave it up for reference in case anyone searches for it in future.
If there's one type of spam we hate, it's when companies try to hoodwink us by pretending to be 'customers'!! You posted this from an IP belonging to: MIKE-WATSON-PUBLISHING-LTD, and guess who operates the netblock for the site you were advertising? Watson Images!
I've removed your url - and the funny thing is we usually don't mind an 'advert' from start-ups, to help them get going.
Thread would normally be removed, but will leave it up for reference in case anyone searches for it in future.
|
Kit 1 Nikon D300 Nikon 55-200mm VR |
Kit 2 Nikon D40 Nikon 18-55mm |
|
|
My Compact/P&S: Panasonic Lumix TZ7 |
