How to sell stock images today

preamble: a professional photographer asked me some hints to sell stock images. I answered her privately. Then I thought that a slightly fleshed-up version of it might also deserve a little corner on my blog.

For decades now I’ve been looking for some magic formula to sell good pictures on the web, and if I had run into an effective one I wouldn’t hesitate to pass it to you. But, alas, that seems fated to stay a dream.
Then let’s put aside the dreams and face today’s reality, so that we can realistically adjust our targets and methods to it, thus sparing us the worst disappointments:

1 – nowadays (and for quite some time) just everyone is a photographer – or believes firmly that she or he is one, even if all they do is tap the screen and upload the picture. What they lack in skills is amply offset by the hi-tech electronics inside the chatter can.

2 – most of the audience – the buying audience – don’t appear very interested in the quality of the images they purchase. I sold at a comparatively high price and/or in impressive quantities pictures that, if not totally dull, were nothing exceptional, whereas a number of really beautiful ones are still there awaiting their first buyer.
An example?
prosecco & pecorino

This image is one of my bestsellers at Adobe with 280 sales until now (from .38 to 26.40 USD each) and keep selling. I am the first to admit that it is nothing special, even if the composition and the content is good.

3 – There seems to be no rationale for the criteria they use to choose which images to purchase – or if there’s one I failed to see it in the last 16 years.

4 – Whoever buys the images prefers the big agencies over the small individual seller, no matter the price, the quality or the professionalism of the agency, as long as it has a name big enough. Possibly (just a wild guess of mine) for they pay out of their client’s pocket, not of their own.

And still, despite such a bleak scenario, I keep making decent money by selling images on the web. How?

In the first place I put in the freezer my ambition to make money by selling art: for my most beautiful pictures I have a couple of private websites that produce a few sales and a lot of satisfaction.

Then I discarded the smallest agencies. Why? Let me explain: I think that Dreamstime is a quite fair agency, but it takes me 2 years to make the same amount I achieve in less than a week by Adobe. Moreover, I would be competing against myself.
Actually I’m selling pretty well at Alamy (the best for me), Adobe and Istock. I obviously discarded Shutterstock, leaving there (in my still open account) only a toilet paper still life.

toilet paper

As for the small agencies, I deleted most of my images there but left my account open: should the situation change I might reconsider coming back again. Except for the ones I really dislike: by them I deleted everything and disappeared in a puff of smoke (a name? Wirestock).
With this tactical approach I saw my income soar… well not enormously but significantly.

And I began listening to the old saying “when you go fishing put a worm on the hook: it’s the fish that must like it, not you” and uploading to the agencies mostly nice but quite ordinary pictures, the kind ordinary people would like and buy.

I hope this helps you rather than discourage you…

De profundis

Paddle steamer in the storm by copyright luisa fumi.

It takes so little to kill the last glimmer of hope… I complained to Alamy about their mass-few-¢-sale of this month, and in reply I got this :

Hi Luisa,
Thanks for your email. I can see that these sales are through our distribution scheme. Which you are opted in for.
Our Distribution scheme is optional and under the section of your account titled “Additional Revenue Option”. As the title suggests it’s an opportunity to earn additional revenue through territories that Alamy doesn’t quite reach with direct sales. Every year our Distribution scheme returns a sizable 15% of our total revenue and so we’d recommend being part of it.
You can only opt out or remove countries in April of every year; this is so we can give our distributors a consistent collection.

Kind regards,
Chantelle

(note: I opted out from their ‘Novel use’ option last April 1st)

Let’s brush off the tiny coat of perfunctory politeness and have a closer look at the gist:

  • So I’m “opted in for”: did I opt in or was I opted in? I don’t remember having checked a box “feel free to sell my images for a few pennies and give me a minute fraction of that”.
  • If their Distribution scheme returns “a sizable 15% of their total revenue”, how many millions of images should they sell on the ‘miserable’ market to make 2¢ for the distributor, 2¢ for themselves and 1¢ for me, and still have a decent income?
    The 22 images of mine they undersold this way got them a total of $1.55 and a mightily irritated contributor about to abandon ship. Perhaps the time has come to move the rampant yuppie who had the Great Idea to the cleaning team.
  • So nice that I can opt out of such an economical disaster in April of every year, indeed. It would be even nicer though to know what exactly one has to opt out of in order to prevent one’s images from being given away like confetti.

“Fair play” has many opposites, and nowadays keeping the rules where nobody sees them has become a very popular one.

There is little doubt left, they definitely are shutterstocking. It’s damn sad to see an agency that used to have fair play as their flagship sink this low 🙁

Digital art with watercolor filters (EN)

I have begun to play with Photoshop artistic filters for fun.
Adjusting the parameters, some results are remarkable: the starting point is always a shot of mine, but the overall feeling changes.

Not all the images are suitable for this kind of treatment, but some are really enhanced by the watercolor effect:









They are accepted by Shutterstock as illustrations and they are selling!