Jump to content
IanButty

Is it possible to make a living out of stock photography any more?

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Aylish said:

Hello, 

 

I have seen people advertising their photos with hastags on twitter and Pinterest.
does anyone do that on here?

 

It's what i'm going to do. 

 

Aylish 

 

It is not something I do myself. I know some contributors here would say it is a positive move and can bring in additional work or sales. Others are more circumspect and wonder if the extra effort is worth it. There is also a concern about one's images being pirated if they are posted on social media and what rights the different social media platforms claim in their terms and conditions over images posted on their sites. Be sure you know the pros and cons before diving in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had enough of waiting for Alamy to get me any sales. It has been dry for too long so I have had to concede and uncheck my exclusive images here to sell on my more reliable microstock sites. To be honest Alamy’s sales have been so small that it isn’t worth the wait when they do come. Sad, but that’s the way it is. Anyway, any sales I have had here have been ones I have duplicated on microstock. The editorial, exclusives haven’t sold here but I will still keep some back for here from future shoots but I don’t have much hope on my experience up to now.

Edited by Marb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have had enough of waiting for Alamy to get me any sales. It has been dry for too long so I have had to concede and uncheck my exclusive images here to sell on my more reliable microstock sites.

 

Good luck. :) 

 

I believe that some of your images would do quite well on Print on Demand agencies, especially the macro and fine artsy type images. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brasilnut said:

 

Good luck. :) 

 

I believe that some of your images would do quite well on Print on Demand agencies, especially the macro and fine artsy type images. 

Thanks. I am sure there is more chance of sales that way. To be fair, some microstock sales I have had even beat the prices I have got here. Like I said, I will still upload the editorials here for exclusivity and after time if they don’t sell, send them to microstocks.

Edited by Marb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks. I am sure there is more chance of sales that way. To be fair, some microstock apsales I have had even beat the prices I have got here. Like I said, I will still upload the editorials here for exclusivity and after time if they don’t sell, send them to microstocks.

 

You've made your decision so no point trying to convince you otherwise. I don't think this is the best place to discuss or even "promote" micros.

 

I agree that putting editorials exclusively here is a smart decision, but what do you mean "after time if they don't sell, send them to microstocks". How long is that? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to follow the rule to put editorials here exclusively.  Alamy tends to be the right agency for that. I just feel that micros priority are commercial images. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get too hung up about the problems that microstock has caused – old news – we are likely to miss what is happening in the wider industry now: stratification. Long gone are the days when all pictures could be sold for the same price. Most of the major players now have price differentials, albeit in some cases through different brands and platforms - SS has Offset and Rex, Adobe represents Reuters plus a clutch of boutique collections from partner agencies, and so on. In my experience, and from comments by others, buyers pay what it says on the tin. In some cases these are prices you will see here maybe once in a blue moon.

 

This is bound to impact here, unless buyers can see where the value is. If Alamy can't sort this out, then the trend towards micro prices will carry on until there isn't anywhere else to go.

Edited by Robert Brook
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Good to 'see you' here Robert.

 

One thing for sure is that Alamy with its encyclopedic collection is in a position to get good fees along with satisfying those who might otherwise go to micros. There clearly isn't any distinct stratification at Alamy and never has been. But the staff in the sales department do well to satisfy customers at all price points and surely have a good idea of what different images can demand to different buyers. 

 

Of course we all sit up when there is a big fee, but it is the 'bread and butter' stuff along with the tiddlers that builds the monthly total.

 

Seems to me that the lack of stratification is what makes Alamy different -- i.e. makes it the "encyclopedic collection" that you mention.

 

Buyers can go elsewhere if they want "boutique images," etc. It's a big marketplace out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

Good to 'see you' here Robert.

 

One thing for sure is that Alamy with its encyclopedic collection is in a position to get good fees along with satisfying those who might otherwise go to micros. There clearly isn't any distinct stratification at Alamy and never has been. But the staff in the sales department do well to satisfy customers at all price points and surely have a good idea of what different images can demand to different buyers. 

 

Of course we all sit up when there is a big fee, but it is the 'bread and butter' stuff along with the tiddlers that builds the monthly total.

 

Hello Ian – I may be just passing by.  BTW - I thought you made some interesting points on another forum about PA etc.

 

You wouldn't think, would you, that the unique selling point here is documentary and specific? The front page is full of the sort of images small design companies, etc., running on a shoestring, scoop up from Adobe etc. in great sackfuls. Whether that is a problem or not I don't know, but from the smidgin of business I do here I detect more of a price fall than anywhere else. I know PA is driving us all insane, but still I have much more frequent good two and three digit sales over there, given respective size of collections. And distributor images which sell regular in small agencies in small countries like Norway, never sell here. My feeling is that if you have a mix of cheap generics with unique editorial content, it won't be the latter that lifts up the former, and it won't be the former that brings in the buyers left with deep pockets.

 

And the question then will be whether you can make enough even to have your camera serviced occasionally by specializing in secondary editorial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/10/2017 at 16:58, TeeCee said:

Here's a question, how many folks here have a wife/husband/partner who have a phrase similiar to:

"Oh - I see you're bringing your camera ...."

:D

 

Used to be "a good walk spoilt" but when the money started to come in it's more likely to be "here's a good shot" 

 

Actually she's very patient, but, in the interests of domestic harmony, we normally split up when visiting a new location, arranging to meet for a coffee. It works fine, I don't like browsing shop windows while she isn't keen on waiting for 10 minutes for the master shot to appear.

 

A cooperative spouse is a useful commodity, a ready made model when you need to include a person in the shot.

Edited by Bryan
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bryan said:

we normally split up when visiting a new location, arranging to meet for a coffee. It works fine, I don't like browsing shop windows while she isn't keen on waiting for 10 minutes for the master shot to appear.

Amazing and simple idea i never came to ;). Thanks for this tip. This war between camera and wife has to end :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Used to be "a good walk spoilt" but when the money started to come in it's more likely to be "here's a good shot" 

 

Actually she's very patient, but, in the interests of domestic harmony, we normally split up when visiting a new location, arranging to meet for a coffee. It works fine, I don't like browsing shop windows while she isn't keen on waiting for 10 minutes for the master shot to appear.

 

A cooperative spouse is a useful commodity, a ready made model when you need to include a person in the shot.

My wife has just given up her job and wants to work with me. She is a graphic designer by qualification but always encourages me to take my camera and helps me find shots. I prefer the found images way of working, although I will sometimes pre-plan if I know something is happening. Not really being a people person (I was at college as I took a lot of found environmental portraiture) I prefer not to shoot them these days unless a potentially exceptional shot presented itself. There is a bit of me perhaps panicking because things are not moving quickly, perhaps losing an income in the house has quickened that panic hence the impatience here, and to be fair, I have waited a long time for sales to pick up from what seemed a decent start to 2017. I have a spare D200 with a very good 18-70 kit lens which still takes great images of which I will train her to use as she is keen. Of course there is graphic images/logos etc she can also sell when we find out the best places to place them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/10/2017 at 12:59, funkyworm said:

 

Hallo Robert,

 

Within that stratification, is it a stratification of customers? I.e. putting a price on the product which that customer will deem acceptable.

Or does the stratification get applied to the images? Based on? Applicability? Rarity? Gut feeling?

 

groetjes,

 

Richard

 

Hello Richard

 

It goes right across the board, but it's the tech companies that are doing it. The problem with the traditional sector is that it has tied itself in knots treating each buyer as a separate entity, and in effect doing bespoke pricing.  This can only go one way.

 

One of the things the microstock companies got right was to set their price points at a level where they didn't have to bother with haggling, essentially a waste of resources. Which means that where the price happens to be high, that's what the customer pays.

 

I have sales in all three areas: news and documentary is the most fluid, but fees tend to be £25, higher end and distributor sales are pretty close to either £240 or £480 and on the micro site I get the usual $1+ subscriptions downloads plus many much higher 'on demand' sales (nearly all $9.40). The images that I sell on the main site are all ones that would be mainly rejected by another agency, or would sit around here gathering dust, and are mainly bought by small design companies and others in connection with one or two deeply unromantic industries. Work that sells is much more highly considered, as is work I sell to my main traditional agency.

 

Look around at other tech companies, and you see the same thing happening, all under one roof.

 

Nowadays if you want to raise your aggregate RPI to a level at which the OP's question even makes sense, it is not only pointless putting all your eggs in one basket, but also necessary to find different outlets for different kinds of work.

 

Edited by Alamy
Admin removed references to competitor sites
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hello Richard

 

It goes right across the board, but it's the tech companies that are doing it. The problem with the traditional sector is that it has tied itself in knots treating each buyer as a separate entity, and in effect doing bespoke pricing.  This can only go one way.

 

One of the things the microstock companies got right was to set their price points at a level where they didn't have to bother with haggling, essentially a waste of resources. Which means that where the price happens to be high, that's what the customer pays.

 

At SS I have sales in all three areas: news and documentary at Rex is the most fluid, but fees tend to be £25, at Offset (distributor sales) pretty close to either £240 or £480 and on the micro site I get the usual $1+ subscriptions downloads plus many much higher 'on demand' sales (nearly all $9.40). The images that I sell on the main site are all ones that would be mainly rejected by Getty, or would sit around here gathering dust, and are mainly bought by small design companies and others in connection with one or two deeply unromantic industries. Work that sells at Offset is much more highly considered, as is work I sell to my main traditional agency which distributes to places like Offset.

 

Look around at other tech companies such as Adobe, and you see the same thing happening, all under one roof.

 

Nowadays if you want to raise your aggregate RPI to a level at which the OP's question even makes sense, it is not only pointless putting all your eggs in one basket, but also necessary to find different outlets for different kinds of work.

 

 

Excellent stuff. I have lots to add and discuss but I feel it's not the right place. 

 

It's a great thread and don't want it getting shut down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 15:45, Brasilnut said:

Out of curiosity, how many on here:

 

1. Shoot stock footage?

2. Sell Print on Demand?

3. Have a drone or are considering purchasing one?

4. Work directly with clients?

 

Me it's, 1. Yes but still learning 2. Yes 3. Considering 4. No, but would like to. 

 

1. I've got some raw footage but need to learn how to edit it. Something I hope to learn.

2. Yes. Also have had several gallery shows the past few years in the NY metro area, with some nice sales and a couple of pop-up shows locally as well. I actually made more from print sales (gallery and POD sites) than stock in 2016 (perhaps because I was sick most of the year and didn't add much to stock agencies, but had agreed to several shows and got into a few juried ones as well). 

3. No.

4. Yes. My primary source of income. Both writing and photography assignments.

I also have clients I license stock photos to regularly. And I get some direct stock photo licenses and print sales from my website. 

 

I had hoped that stock photography would be a much larger piece of the pie back when I started in 2008 (I began my photo career in 2006 although I've been taking photos for pleasure since the 1960's, when I inherited a Brownie camera from my grandmother at age 6). Despite the changing landscape, I still see it as a valuable way to earn income from my work. Writing was a second career for me, as a way to spend time with my daughter when she was young, and photography came even later than that, when she was older.

 

Now, as I near retirement, I see the value in being able to earn money, especially when I travel, since I enjoy travel writing and, in terms of both stock photography and print sales, my travel photography has been the strongest earner for me. I also see it giving me a focus that gets me out and active as I get older, and, as an empty-nester, the fine art aspect has been a great way to meet new people though gallery exhibits and local art groups, as well as a way to grow as an artist. My husband is a lot younger than I am, so he's not retiring anytime soon, so it's great that I have a job that I can do forever. 

 

He is also patient when we travel together. He loves to walk and at times we will split up so I can get the shots I have planned. He used to be great about carrying all my heavy equipment when he travelled with me, but now that I've gone mirrorless, he gets a break. He is also a great model, as is my daughter. 

 

Health issues really curtailed my plans to grow my portfolio, but the fact that stock doesn't have deadlines is a good thing in that respect too. It lets me work when I can. I'm hoping as heath improves I can see my portfolio and earnings grow. The fact that earnings have nearly held steady without "feeding the beast" for over a year, and that old files are still selling is encouraging. My RPI on Alamy is over $0.60 this year (and if the mean is $0.10 then I guess my travel images, which are usually not random vacation snaps - I generally travel with a shot list and detailed plans - are worth uploading), so I think that making an effort to grow my portfolio here makes sense in terms of one piece of a part-time income.

 

My biggest fault is that I edit way too slowly. I edit very tightly and while that may help my RPI, I think I might be better off uploading a bit more and just getting through my backlog of images. When a photo I took in 2010 and uploaded in 2015 was licensed for $250 recently, and I realized that if I hadn't been re-organizing that folder I might have never uploaded it at all, it made me wonder how much money I lost in those four years.

 

In some respects, I am experienced, but in others I have so much to learn.

Some days I'm happy with my work and other days I feel like none of it is good enough.

Anyone else feel that way? Artistic temperament? 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

Robert,

 

Alamy does not allow discussion of competitors hence my choice of Corbis.

 

I have things I would like to say in response but won't apart from saying that fees have dived to micro prices since their take-over.

 

I also would add that I see far far better fees from Alamy than others and that relates back to the discussion you mentioned previously.

 

I am surprised that you are submitting to micros.

 

I'm seeing the opposite, Ian.  I only put in my best material, have a near 100% acceptance rate, and the higher fees.  But the majority of my output, whether I like it or not, is, in comparison, low value - unless it's news orientated.   That's just reality: if we get one good piece for every twenty duds, we are doing really well.  Well I am.  So - is it better to put the duds in the place where they are needed, or just swell the ranks of trad agencies with useless material that makes searches such a joy for buyers?  Well ... maybe actually a joy if they can use them as bargaining chips.

 

I haven't subbed here for a couple of years, but I believe that some people who adopt that principle (here) are doing alright, without having to bung in thousands of images every year. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Okay, but hands tied really by the limitation on discussing competitors. I see fewer sales here but for more per image.

 

I think I've probably got the wrong end of the stick in this Robert. By stratification are you referring to your own work being distributed according to type of image?

 

I can see that makes sense for you because you do create different styles of pictures. Whereas I'm pretty much in a narrow secondary editorial groove and not doing fine art or CGI concepts as you are.

 

I mean both Ian.  It might be that the micro companies have woken up to the fact that their model is causing the whole industry to crash, and that they will go down with it, which is causing this new trend.  It's mirror image in the trad world is that you have pile 'em high sellers and smaller niche collections generally selling for more.  The micros, however, are creating their own niche collections, sometimes setting higher prices than the trad agencies, and more importantly, actually selling for those prices.  Buyers don't have much in the way of bargaining chips when there is a whopping great bargain basement for them to be directed to.  Basic sales craft.  With small trad agencies, at least one I know of in the US has been applying a firm line, selling almost exclusively for three figures to editorial clients, and occasionally more.  They can do that because their collection is sufficiently well defined and has enough unique content.

 

At Alamy, a lot of the best content comes from distributing agencies that have editors and art directors.  Unfortunately this is also distributed to many other agencies including their major competitors.  So, as much as it produces revenue, it won't do much to keep prices up.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Robert Brook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

It  might be easier if the micros simply stopped 'causing the whole industry to crash'. :) And for that reason if no other I am surprised that you are supplying them. 

 

I don't really think anybody would describe my stuff as niche or unique so I am quite content ( at least for the moment) to supply Alamy and other non-exclusives. For me having the same image in several markets ( generally selling for lowish fees) makes more sense than sticking with one and hoping for higher prices. But all these decisions are fine judgements and subjective. 

 

I said 'the model'.  It takes photographers to do the damage, placing their best work there, while others fill traditional agencies with piles of fodder that is largely unsaleable, then complain because it has to be sold for peanuts.  Do it the other way round and many of the current problems in the industry would be resolved.   The tech companies now seem to be creating a structure whereby this becomes easier.  

 

(Examples would be close-ups of signs or basic images of generic objects.  Why on earth would anyone pay more than a few dollars for these or think it appropriate to place them with RM agencies, unless they are applying a very distinctive aesthetic?  It makes no sense at all.)

 

 

 

Edited by Robert Brook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It  might be easier if the micros simply stopped 'causing the whole industry to crash'. :) And for that reason if no other I am surprised that you are supplying them. 

 

Micros are causing the same industry to crash as email has caused post offices to close imo. There's even talk that Tinder is putting prostitutes out of business!

 

Let's just blame Moore for creating Moore's law. Hell, we're going to be seeing automated vehicles very shortly and a bunch of traditional industries / jobs will be phased out, such as:

 

- Taxis

- Bus drivers

- Truck drivers

- Train drivers

- Delivery persons (soon to be done by drones)

 

The client is king and most clients love RF and subs, for better or for worse. I'm not rooting for micros, just seeing it from an analyst point of view. 

 

I got a hold of the dying days of film and in my high school in Canada I took some photography lessons and got to develop our own film pictures. This was in 1998/1999. I remember my teacher then telling us "guys, i'm going to be teaching you how to develop film but in a few years this will all pretty much be gone. I suggest you read up on digital photography as it's the next big thing". I had no idea what he was talking about but in hindsight I wish I listened to him.

 

Rant over :) 

 

 

Edited by Brasilnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

micros can only succeed if they are supported by photographers. 

 

They are supported by photographers since the biggest microstock agency boasts 250,000 contributors with more than 1 image. Micros have no problems recruiting an army of enthusiastic, albeit mediocre, photographers to fill their ranks. The problem is that the image banks are filled with content that is :

- Technically useless; 

- Commercially questionable;

- Similars galore;

- Looks like it was captioned and keyworded by 8 year olds.

 

Some veterans do support micros in the same way that one would make a deal with the devil. The same people complain of lowering RPI but continue to submit. Humans are generally flawed in that most won't resort to anything drastic as survival is ingrained in our DNA. Perhaps this is also one of our strengths.

 

However, some people do push the nuclear button. There was an interesting episode in 2013 before I got seriously involved in this game - google "D-Day mass deactivation istock". Quite extreme stuff to pull an entire portfolio that you've worked hard to upload. 

 

Quote

 

So given that you accept the damage done by micros why, as a photographer, do you feel compelled to support that destruction.

 

I don't accept the damage done by micros. I accept the "disruption" caused by advances in technology. Allow me to explain:

 

You can now get a Nikon D3200 24.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 for $300 . This isn't even a top of the line camera but more than enough to shoot for stock. 

 

10 years ago what was the best selling Nikon? well the now lowly 10 MB d40x

 

I checked its price and in 2008 it was  $799.95 camera and lens

 

So what are we seeing here? 10 years on  is more than half the price and probably 3x the performance. For equal price comparison you can take the D7000 for $900. 

 

My D800 will be child's play compared to what we'll be able to get 10 years from now and that's how it rolls. I don't support how the value of images is going down the drain but I support advances in technology that lead to cheaper/easier/faster/more efficient ways to go about life. We just need to adapt.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Brasilnut
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You seem desperate to find reasons, any reasons, a whole stream of them, for doing what you want to do anyway.

 

Nobody is forced to submit images to stock photo agencies. 

 

I agree.

 

98% of my editorials are not duplicated on micros. I do believe in Alamy and have great respect for the company and its business model. 

 

Quote

I really don't see that the price of a camera is linked to the price of a stock photo. I've always considered the price of a camera to be a very minor cost of business.

 

Or that the development of technology explains falling fees for stock photos.

 

I believe there's very much a correlation between more affordable & more powerful technology and falling fees for stock photos. In fact, I'll even go as far as to argue that the reason why micros emerged was a direct result of technology. In the early 2000s, entrepreneurs saw a way to build a business model using such technology within a crowd-sourced model. 

 

Better cameras doesn't necessarily make for better images (evidenced by tourists with super gear shooting snapshots on auto) but it certainly helps.

 

Consider the following factors:

  • Cheaper gear makes it more available to the masses. Less of a premium product and more popular (in the latin sense of the word);
  • Cheaper post-processing and a multitude of you tube videos for free;
  • Faster broadband to upload bigger files (less of a factor but still relevant especially in developing countries);
  • Army of enthusiasts more than willing to naively flog their mediocre images and agencies dropping the QC standards. 

More people shooting (now even more with mobile phones), means that there are that many more million more images added every week. These are predominately licensed at RF subs which puts a downward pressure on all but the most premium of images. I blame technology, not the micros. 

 

Some buyers do shop around. I'm going to be spending the next few days in Tuscany and I sure shopped around for hotels that meet my needs. 

 

It's an interesting topic. 

 

Now as for some micros companies acting like evil bastards and exploiting contributors, I do not agree. As you mentioned, we all have a choice of where and when to submit. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Robert,

 

It is not clear to me which traditional RM agencies are accepting all this 'fodder' and I do not understand why they would do so. 

 

Excluding micros most low fees are due to small uses, for example, in online news streams. Generic subjects, signs, simple illustrations to match the text are generally what is required i.e.) a picture of the hospital where the victim is, a picture of the court where the criminal is being tried, a sign of a business in the news. And as you say they are not going to pay more than a few bucks for each but they use a lot of images so bring in good business to the agency.

 

You may regard this sort of subject matter is 'fodder' but that does strike me as rather presumptuous of you. 

 

But of course, top quality conceptual work will demand higher fees. Us plebs are living on peanuts and you patricians are dining on milk and honey. 

 

So all is well with the world:) 

 

Ian

Nothing wrong with fodder which you describe accurately, and is essential sustenance for the media world to munch away on, and I produce a quite pungent variety myself.  But I now mainly place it on micro sites (or midstock as they may now more accurately) because they pay.  As simple as that.  The tech companies now control most of the business, and there is nothing anyone can do about that.  If you are looking for a cause, the issue now is the survival of RM, and I don't see anything in your position which is supportive of this. If RM is to survive then it requires very considered work that buyers are prepared to pay for.  What the tech companies are doing is closing the space in which RM can survive by offering this in special collections as RF and also offering buyouts for those who want exclusivity.  Alamy is falling into line by encouraging everyone to go RF, even for images that are plastered in logos and trademarks.  What RF will do in this context is enable buyers to purchase limited rights for ever decreasing amounts, just as it is happening in another place.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, funkyworm said:

Interesting discussion.

 

One of the challenges I see for suppliers in the stratified market place is pigeonholing. That comes from both sides... agents easily assign a label to the supplier. But equally suppliers who paint themselves into a corner with the product they supply after having found their mojo selling with one particular channel. A lot of my work on Alamy (including signs) may be attributed as fodder, but it sells, and feeds (as does fodder.) However just making work with the parameter "will it sell on Alamy" and suppliers may find themselves pigeonholed by themselves. You see much the same with suppliers to micro who try and make the switch to Alamy.

 

Very good points. I frequently find myself taking images specifically with Alamy in mind - images that I would never have taken in a million years before. And although it can become boring, it's because this is what has sold here - for me. I'm definitely guilty of pigeon-holing myself! Having painted yourself into a corner, it's difficult to get back to the other side of the room. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, geogphotos said:

 

And this is one of the main reasons for my disagreeing with Brasilnut about how cheaper cameras inevitably make for cheaper images. Creating stock images takes work and commitment and parts of the process are actually boring. 

 

Stock photography requires work, but newbys with cheap cameras are willing to work hard.

Cheap cameras make entry to the business easier, meaning more newbys enter the business. In an age of crowdsourcing that means more images chasing clients, resulting in lower prices.

Edited by Bill Brooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be a lot more difficult to actually make a decent living at stock photography, but all the technological changes have made it a lot easier for people to make a partial living at photography. Hence agencies like Alamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.