internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Stock Photography web sites
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:01:31 -0400
On Aug 5, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Lyman Green wrote:
If you're a photographer the only reason to go with istockphoto.com is just to see people use your images. With the pennies you earn per photo you'd need to sell thousands to make any money, and even then its still not worth the effort it would take. I've been making more money just correctly tagging my images on my own personal website, http://learningtosee.org and Flickr. For example, a large local hospital recently paid me thousands of dollars for just a few images, and I regularly sell to advertising agencies for brochures and reports. At 25 cents each, it would have taken over 10,000 individual sales on istockphoto to get the same money, which probably would have put me in the top 1% earners. If your work can compete against the pros and have a cool style, then try http://fstopimages.com/. One of the editors lives in Chapel Hill, and they pay between $250 and $400 per use. There's lots of people calling for a boycott of istockphoto.com, and I say let the market decide. From a consumer perspective, if you need a quick image and quality isn't an issue, then by all means pay 25 cents. If your work has a real budget and quality is an issue then hire a pro. From the photographer side, if you want to make a little extra money from your hobby, go right ahead, but if you're any good at all you'd probably be better off somewhere else. __________________________________________________________
|
-
[internetworkers] Stock Photography web sites,
Lyman Green, 08/05/2008
- Re: [internetworkers] Stock Photography web sites, Michael Czeiszperger, 08/05/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.