giphotostock

In 2008 Alamy licensed one of our images to concierge.com, for one of the "very secondary" pages. Back then concierge.com was a travel web site by Conde Nast, which I think became Conde Nast Traveler, not the present-day concierge.com, which is selling hospitality software solutions. The license fee was $100. I remember feeling insulted by the amount, given the client's pockets and how popular (=number of eyes) the web site was. Fast forward 12 years. We just got a statement from an aggregator agency. There, there's a bunch of licenses from G. for 1 (one) cent ($0.01) eac

Style. Here's an example of your high key image: 2EE1RGF. Do the rest with the same lighting style. Specifically 2EE1RGF and others would sell 15 years ago, however by now microstock is full of "hands with warm coffee mug" shots. You seem to have some willing models. You could do more lifestyle shots, aka "ordinary-ooking but attractive people doing everyday things". It is another genre consistently in demand. To have saleable shots your models need to look less posed and you have to use better light, see above on high key. And yes, planning your shots, as Geoff mentioned.

Is "exposure time" still used by anyone?

Of course, it is the main tool that drives shoots. The shoot list is a living document, currently 15 pages long. Line items get added when market research is done, then the list is re-arranged and prioritized. When specific line items are completed, they get deleted. There's a separate file with more detailed research for those line items that really need elaboration. GI PS All studio work, we have not done location shooting for years...

If anybody still cares, here's the statistics for our images over at SS over the past 6 month, after the new commission structure was introduced. images: 50 downloads: 229 total net: $122 These translate to: $0.53 net per download $20 net per month $4.9 net per image per year The last number is >20x of what Alamy brings. However, we do have very different images at Alamy (mostly "stock-worthy images we can shoot on our walks, drives, and travels") versus produced-for-a-market images at SS. Granted, the latter require more effort per imag

Container ships from above should be good sellers: 2EA376R, etc Do wider versions of 2EDTWA1 Do more of these: 2ED9X8R, preferably in a better light

About 20 years too late? PhotoDisk etc...

Tawna, Sounds like you are licensing directly to your clients. That's great, so you know what your market is. Developing that market further is going to be the best use of your time. I think engaging in a conversation with them about their picture needs is going to be way more effective than chasing Alamy's list. Regarding picture needs in general, in the past I've found Getty's Creative guides and Visual trends to be a lot more useful than Alamy's list. These days I am my own creative guide. GI

Studio shots of models on seamless. Blue background looks horrible. Generally colored and darker backgrounds were popular 20-30 years ago. Do the same but high key. That is, contemporary style is using a background that light, almost white, maybe even overblown highlights, but, importantly, somewhat graduated (non-uniform). Better yet, more in-demand style is some high-key, out-of-focus background that gives a hint of a location (ex, home, office, beach, cafe, park, city, etc) for context. In the studio you could use some out-of-focus props to achieve that "location" feel.

For example, see below for how one very successful photographer produces his real estate shots: https://ashleymorrisonphotography.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/everyone-sees-things-differently-and-sees-different-things/ As a result, his images have what is called "high production value". Here's another example. Hans Halberstadt, a known photographer specializing in US military: https://www.militaryphoto.com/gallery-list Note the title for one of his galleries: "New production - Oct 2020" Your random example is indeed an example of a produced image, but in

Actually, taken at a face value, this statement is a very common myth. It may be true if you focus on a market overcrowded with suppliers, like documentary, travel, etc. Anything that "everyone else is shooting". However, if you specialize on something that is less crowded and go deep in your coverage of that specialized market, pretty soon you'd start discovering plenty of gaps. That is, shots that are in demand but in short or non-existing supply. Choose a niche, where you have any combination of special access, special knowledge, passion, props, photography technique.

Something like this for stock, in order of demand: 1. business 2. lifestyle 3. concepts ... 10. travel 11. documentary If you choose to do #11 aka walk around and document stock-worthy scenes in front of the lens, you'd get the corresponding and disappointing sales. Speaking from personal experience. GI

Thoroughly rusty machinery shots are regularly used in Chemistry textbooks. However, in my experience (sales to the same textbook via different agencies) Alamy leaves about 50% of the money on the table. GI

We got >10x compared to last year. Our main market is textbooks and scientific journals. Not sure what is going on. Expect an e-mail any day now, asking for money to be returned... GI

Auto-translate рулез. 😀