|
Photos and images of Japan, and Japanese
culture
Images
for cards or prints

| |

How to take photos:
Making Money in Photography
|
| |
Basic gear you need:
- An SLR camera (digital or
film, more on this discussed below), at least two lenses that cover from about 20mm to 300mm, tripod, remote
shutter release, flash (that can be remotely triggered when not on the
camera), and basic filters (polariser at least)
- A bookmark in your
internet browser to
Photographer's Index: Stock Prices.
|
The
Aim:
- Attempt some form of 'cost
recovery', or
- to put some food on the
table (and buy nice, new, expensive lenses)
- Or, become a semi or
aspiring professional (in better terms)
|
How:
- By working on and
perfecting a genre of photography that you're good at. Read books and
study excellent samples of photographs in your field / genre, and find faults and improve upon
what you've done previously, and then improve upon what others have done.
- Private sales, Rights
Management, and Royalty Free licence sales.
- Self promotions, joining
agencies
Agencies and outlets*
There's two ways you can go,
micro-stock or the traditional agencies. Please boycott micro-stock. The
problem is, is that you won't earn enough to even cover the cost of your
equipment, and definitely not enough to cover any upgrades. Many of iStock's
photographers don't earn enough to buy or upgrade a professional grade SLR.
iStock under-cuts prices, and the company earns money from generating a
sales volume from an ever-increasing crowd of under-paid hobby
photographers. It's industry vandalism. (Also see
blacklisted photocompetions here).
Going traditional, is to get
paid at industry rates (see
Photograthersindex.com). If you set up a free portfolio at
PhotoShelter, you'll be able to
use their pricing facilities to see the current going rates as researched by
Fotoquote. An iStock photo could sell for USD$10, and you earn $2 at best (I
used to get $0.50 on average).
The same photo, according Fotoquote, for use in the US, for full
page Advertorial use, would sell on average at USD$600. Now consider "running
costs", equipment costs, wages, and helping other photographers in getting a
good price, too. You might say, "it's just a photo", but hairdressers never
say "it's just a cut", and charge you nothing! Nikon NEVER gives
anything away, they charge for it, and so should you.
Below is a quote from
Editorial Photographers:
| ...We
must realize that our digital equipment is expensive and has a short
lifespan in terms of being current and competitive. A basic digital
set of two professional SLRs, several lenses, dedicated flashes,
laptop, card reader, memory cards, desktop computer, software,
monitor, printer, and CD/DVD burner, will cost approximately $20,000
to $60,000. That equipment, in order to remain technically current and
keep you competitive, will need to be replaced every 3-5 years, some
much sooner. Comparatively, a basic film system for editorial work
would likely cost under $20,000 and would likely remain current and
functional for 10 years or longer.
So here is the comparison:
$20,000/10 years = $2,000/year average cost if you're shooting film
$40,000/5 years = $8,000/year average cost for digital... |
* My position has changed
from supporting any sales outlet, to now calling for a boycott on any
underpaying sales outlet, and currently that is the microstock model of
iStock and others similar.
Advertising, Commercial and Editorial:
For advertising, a Model
Release (MR) is required (see below), as this legal protection for you and
the advertiser if the model you used wishes to sue. The use of a model for
advertising gives the appearance that he or she endorses a product like a
tobacco product, a bank, a political policy or political party, whatever. So
MR's are required.
Commercial allows photos to be
used for anything, perhaps including advertising. For commercial, RM and RF licences
are available, but a Model Release isn't required for commercial
(non-advertising) if you're selling under an RM licence (but a higher price can
be fetched if one were included).
For editorial, Model Releases
are not required, as this is anything that is considered 'news' or 'news
worthy', and has a legal status as such. These do not require the permission of the person
you photographed. If you're interested in supplying images for news /
editorial, take a look at
Editorial
Photographers.
Commercial
Rights Managed (RM) vs. Royalty
Free (RF) sales:
Essentially,
the main difference is price and restrictions you impose. The price of a single RM picture
can be anything from $50 to $10, 000, though I think $500 is more
common. The buyer can have exclusive right to use this, usually within certain
conditions you've attached and for a certain length of time.
Restrictions can be for geographical regions, editorial, advertising, or
other. And pricing is based upon circulation, and size of end use. See
Fotoquote in the Pricing Profiles of your PhotoShelter account to see the
current average rates or
Photographers Index.
RF, on the other hand, for
the buyer can be quite cheap, $20 for a 300kb picture for publishing on a
website, to $1,000. There's no
exclusivity, no restrictions, and so this picture can sell hundreds of times, if it's a
good and popular picture. Also, the buyer can use it for hundreds of
years, if they wanted, and without paying you a cent more. Be aware that
you often don't recoup the cost of a photo shoot if you plan to use the RF option, so this is only good for cheap-to-set up shoots,
and "already commonly available" photos. But please boycott
micro-stock, as you'd earn on average $0.50 per sale.
|
Rights
Managed: Some (brief) details:
Rights
Managed (RM) is an older model of photography sales, when RF first started to really take off as a cheap
alternative for buyers. Many
photographers predicted it'd cause the end of their profession; though it
was a kind of experiment that was imposed upon photographers, it seems
to have provided
entry points for good amateurs and semi / aspiring professionals (including yours truly).
Today,
we're witness to a backlash against micro stock of iStock and Getty Images
(and others). These agencies
are seen as exploitive of photographers and turning what was an art, into a
cheap, tacky, commercial product. Fortunately, since I've started these photographic
pages, new agencies have sprung up, and appear very healthy.
Gekko Images
which offers both RF and RM licences, but pays much, much more to
photographers is an alternative that supports both our livelihoods, and our
ability to afford newer and better equipment, and with better finances, can
we produce better photos. Also following this
charge, IF Images and
Alamy of the UK are doing all right. Unfortunately,
Photographers Direct (an agency strongly supporting photographers) wants
exclusivity of the photographer, thus restricting our options. Fortunately,
there are
smart buyers who know they should pay photographers more, in order to protect
the quality of images they need in the future, but Getty and iStock aren't
making it easy for them.
Earnings? Most of these stock agencies expect up to 50% in commission, so
that could mean your earnings could be $25 per sale at a minimum, and up to perhaps $4,000 plus.
Some other agencies offer 85% for the photographer. PhotoShelter
is not an agency, but a kind of central shopping point for image buyers.
Photographers are self promoting (ie: you employ your own sales staff), and
PhotoShelter is the host, and handles the sales transactions for you. Here's
what my portfolio looks like:
http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ablyth
Royalty Free:
Some details:
| RF began in the
late 1990's ish. Under a Rights Managed (RM) licence, if the client
wanted to reuse a particular image, they'd have to search through their
records to see where they'd bought it from, for how much, and then try
to negotiate the same or better terms for a new licence. With RF, they
don't need to update their licence, as the licence has no time,
circulation, or geographical restrictions attached. At first,
photographers who sold under this system, charged higher fees than RM,
as they lost control of the image, but didn't have to worry about
violations on licencing terms. |

See
Photographer's Index for current market values. |
Micro
stock agencies have taken this licencing agreement, offered it with their
established libraries but selling at very cheap prices. These agencies
charge you 80% in commission, earn a lot from the sheer volume of sales they
can generate. However, you cannot recoup the cost of your equipment, you
would have to go into over-drive to continually come up with new concepts,
and shoots to keep expanding your portfolio to be more attractive to more
customers. It's a model that exploits hobbyists, and it doesn't support
professional photographers, nor the cost of new equipment.
Who to go
with?
Alright, I have been with iStock, but I didn't know any better at the time. There are others including, which if you have a read of their
forums, you may not be so satisfied with. I'm still with iStock, but I'm not
adding anything new to my portfolio there.
You could try out Redbubble for a while and learn from them, but remember
that they are not professionals, and don't have that depth of quality.
Later,
move to the RM market, say at PhotoShelter, where you could earn a minimum USD$25 per photo sale,
and up to perhaps USD$8,000 (you control the prices). Look into IF Images, Gekko Images, and
others if you're looking for bread-and-butter providers.
Rejections:
All
companies that survive have a business plan. If they have a good plan, and
stick to it, they'll be successful. This plan could include people like you,
or may not. It could include your genre, style, or level of ability, or it
may not. If you're rejected, keep trying to improve your work, and keep
practicing and learning or look for another place that accepts your style
and genre.
If
you're in with an agency, all images you upload to make available for sale are inspected for
technical, artistic and even salability qualities. Some agencies
will reject 99% of flower pictures, as they already have enough of them.
Others will reject anything that probably will sell just once; they want a
stellar, top selling library. Before you submit anything, take a look at
this
'Rejections & Technical Problems',
feel free to contact us if you're looking
for advice. However, with PhotoShelter, there are no image inspectors, so
you need to control your own quality.
Private Sales
These
are quite rare, but do happen. Essentially, read up on Rights Managed
licences before you begin, design your licence, and be aware of copyright.
The other thing is, work out the value of your time, wear and tear on
equipment, and expenses (cost of props, travel to the site, and other
things), and add all these on. I know of some amateurs who've sold some
brilliant landscape pictures, that could easily earn $500, for just £10 or
£20. ARR! It's a crime to undervalue our work, and it makes it harder for
the rest of us to make sales at reasonable prices to support our starving
children! Worst still, GIVING them AWAY for FREE! Yes, it's nice to see your picture
in print, it is a form of validation of your ability, but it's not a good
form of validation to give away your valuable work, and without a licence.
If you get the opportunity to sell this same picture by RM... you can't, as that picture had
already been used by someone else! For nothing! "For the love of Ilford!"
Ask for at least $100 / £50 per photo and attach an RM licence! Refer to
some good photography books or
contact us for information on
the possible contents of RM licences. Better still, look at
PhotoShelter and
see how it all looks in automation.
A good
outlet for private sales is
PhotoShelter,
where you can set your own pricing, licences, and even allow products like
cups, mouse pads and such to be made for you via EZprints. Unfortunately,
PhotoShelter needs you to pay USD$50 to activate the financial transaction
service on your account. One alternative, though not the best is
RedBubble, where
there is no such charge. Anyway, you should check with
Photographer's Index as to the current industry standards for prices.
Model
Releases:
These
are a legal prophylactic for the photographic industry. It essentially
prevents a model you used from suing and seeking damages, (more) money, or
anything else for their own advantage. All agencies that offer Royalty Free (RF)
licences will
reject any image that doesn't have a Model Release attached. Some RF
agencies will expect you to use their own Model Release, which makes it
easier for you (you don't need to hire a lawyer to make one for you). An
Rights Managed image with a Model Release will fetch a higher price.
What does a Model Release include? Here's one example: (Note that there are
better ones out there.)
|
In exchange for
consideration, I hereby give permission to <photographer> to use my
name or pseudonym and photographic likeness in all forms for
advertising, trade, publishing, in providing stock photography and any
other lawful purposes. I relinquish right to examine and approve of
use of images and likenesses of myself, and further benefits. I am at
least of legal age or my parent or guardian has signed below. I
understand that the included translation is indicative of the English
version of this release. (Copyright
Andrew Blyth 2006) |
Please
don't use the same wording above, modify it for your use and have a lawyer
check it and modify it, too. Get some books and read up on this. Also,
"benefits" means the way you rewarded (or paid) your model, be it money,
food, a beer, a kiss, whatever.
Useful Links:
10 things you should know about Stock, from PhotoShelter.
Model Releases, from PhotoShelter.
Tutorials:
Some useful tutorials that
relate to commercial photography

|
| |
We proudly support:

Get a guided tour of Angkor Wat
Home Up Stock Photos Photography Teaching English Living in Asia Forums Community Advertise with us Contact Us
We support

|