Is it possible to make money with istockphoto?

Hi. I have been taking traditional photos for some 30 years. And it was with a heavy heart that I decided to go down the digital path. For many reasons, not least of all expense.


I dont think any one will ever convince me that digital images will ever be better than film and slide, and I will never sell my equipment.


What I would like to know is would it be possible to submit digital only images to Istockphoto and recieve a good income?


Do any of you guys make money from this site? or is it only possible to earn "extra cash" with your digital images.





Hope you can help.


RH.

I think you'll find a wide variety of answers here. I initially thought iStock would provide me just enough income to buy a few downloads each month. Turns out I was wrong: It has paid for all of my photo equipment (including the camera body, lenses, lights, and light modifiers), as well as funding several iStock get-togethers and paying models for my model shoots. It has not replaced a significant portion of my 'day-job' income yet, but I can see how in a year or so it could be making mortgage payments for me.

Some are making less than that, others are making significantly more than that.

You should probably spend some time looking around, reading the forums, etc - then you'll be able to figure this out for yourself. But the short answer is that for a few people iStock is all they do - their whole income. For others, just extra cash. The whole spectrum is represented.

The amount of money you make is entirely up to you. Want more money, take and upload many photos. I would say (based on my observation) in order to receive a monthly payout you will need over 1,000 images online. Everyone has their own style as well. One thing that you will need to learn is what photos sell the best, based on your style. Generally speaking, pictures with people in them sell much better than landscape and nature. Another advantage is diversity in your portfolio. That tends to help as well. There are a few that make their living from stock but it takes dedication and hard work.

As for moving from film to digital, it is a learning experience (and very frustrating at times). There are many folks that have this issue but it will pay off in the end. It's also much more pleasant to "develop" your photos on a computer as opposed to breathing fumes of developer for half the day (or night).

RH,

I've just recently started at istock, so I'm probably not the best to comment, however that hasn't stopped me before.

There are a few people on istock who make a decent amount of money from it. Check out the canisters that show the number of downloads a member has and then check out the portfolios of the members with the diamond canisters. Istock may not be their only source of income, but those members are certainly bringing a decent amount of income.

Certain types of images sell better than others on istock. Check out the most popular images to see a list of top selling images on the site. Also browse through some portfolios and note what images are getting the most downloads. That will give you an idea of the type of images that sell well on istock. If your goal is to make money on istock, then using these images as a guide when shooting makes sense to be successful.

As for film vs digital, film certainly isn't dead, not even on istock. There are some photographers that shoot film and scan the negatives to create digital images. Film has qualities that digital doesn't. You may want to check out the thread in the traditional photography forum entitled Why Traditional? and you will see many istock members who prefer film over digital.

The obvioius answer is it depends on what you submit I have a few images here that are scanned from film negatives, but the bulk of my portfolio is digital images and last month I sold 532 licenses here at iStock - many of those folks with shinier cannisters than mine would consider that a good day at iStock.


I do detect a whif of negative attitude about digital images, and I guess that might have been understandable a few years back but if you look at images from the current crop of Canon and Nikon DSLRs I think you'll see that the digital images here are of a quality film would be hard pressed to match.


I started out using lenses from my film camera (Canon) when I first switched to digital, and it is possible to contnue using both film and digital 35mm cameras with the same lens investment if that's what you want to do. I haven't shot any film lately though as I think my Canon 20D beats the quality every time (I can't say anything about medium and large format as I have no experience with those).


The learning curve here can produce some frustrating experiences, but once you've got the hang of what'll get accepted and what wont, it can be a great part-time income. Why not give it a try and see how you like it?

As it has been said, it all depends. But you having been in photography for a long time should have a decent portfolio, and you know how to take pictures. The question is...are they "stock". There are many awesome, amazing pictures that don't sell well (landscapes, artsy, flowers ect.). However if you upload a lot of photos that fit the stock mentality (generally people pictures do very well along with many other things) then yes it is possible to make money with istockphoto, and a lot of it. If you get enough quality photos uploaded that people want, you can make a pretty good chunk of change with istock. Personally I only have 50 photos online, and out of those maybe 7-10 good "stock" pictures. I have only made a couple hundred dollars so far. But there are some people making more in a week than I have in a year.

Since the prices are so low, the way to "make money" here is by bulk sales. Quantity over quality. You need to upload images with mass appeal. A portfolio of very strong images with narrow appeal will be less profitable than a portfolio of technically "acceptable" images with very wide appeal.

To achieve this, you need to spend some time understanding the buyers here, the market. Who buys from iStockphoto? What do they use the images for?

Thankfully, because of the Designer Spotlight and the public display of download numbers, it's not that hard to figure out the answers to these questions.





OK, maybe I won't convince you ... but from MANY objective measureable standards, probably most, digital technology is quite superior to film, and has been for some time.

All your answers can be found within the site, if only you take the time to look.

And really, no one cares film/digital, as long as it works for what they need it for. So let go of that.

Stick to film and buy scanner so you can submitt here.


You can go back to your ±30 years worth of film and start scanning. I am sure there would be some good selers.

Only if he's been shooting stock for 30 years! I've got 20 years worth of negatives and maybe a dozen would be stockworthy - and of those, I don't have any model releases... so that narrows it down to about 5 images.

//It is a numbers game.

If you want to make a living, you would
need a big portfolio with loads of stock worthy images.




Have a look at the top selling
Photographers here these guys upload on a almost daily basis and they have a
very good understanding of what designers want. I am new here and have gone
through a steep learning curve. I have learnt that good pictures do not
necessarily make good sales. Pictures have to have a use, tell a storey support
the product or service being sold. I have stopped uploading images that I like.
I am now only going to focus on producing stock images.


To answer your original question you can
make a living here but you will have to put the hours in. My ambition is just
to get some income in to pay towards an expensive hobby.

I have found that digital sells much better than film here, but there are other factors which affect this. Some of my scanned pictures here go back 30 years, so look a bit dated, whereas the digital ones are all from the last five years and are more contemorary, which probably the main factor in the difference in sales.

If you mean enough money to live on, perhaps. But if you just mean enough to get the minimum $100 payout every month, I'd have to disagree. Projections based on my small (currently 124 image) portfolio would suggest I won't even need a third that many to be getting a $100 payout every month, and that with many of the current images only available at S and M sizes...

Missed that one ... eendico is way off base. In fact, it's quite possible to earn $100/month on a very small portfolio.

OK ........... Thanks for all your replys.


I would be using istock as a supplement as I work full time, not as a sole income. I find it quite amazing that such a small portfoilio (100 to 150 images) can produce an income of $100 + per week.


Surely images must have a sell by date ..... they must get "overused" and then become a little stale, yes?


Any way, thanks again for your great replys.


Cheers RH

No. Most uses are by smaller local companies/organizations that don't care how many times it has been used somewhere else.

Invest in good digital equipment, starting taking good "stock" photos and you'll soon be hooked on earning money here.

I once started a thread here that stated that going digital has helped me become a better photographer. It's not the digital equipment, but the ability to shoot thousands of frames in a short time, all the while getting instant feedback to improve lighting and exposure.

In the old days, only the top pros with poloriod backs to medium format cameras could do what you can do with digital.

And, post processing digital files is where you can make your photos really stand out. In the digital darkroom you can dodge, burn, sharpen, correct white balance and any number of darkroom tricks that would have taken hours and many prints in a wet darkroom.

I threw up some photos from a trip back in 2003 and pretty much forgot about istock for a couple of years when my income had reach $100. (that was when you only earned 10 cents per download) I wish I had spent that time adding to my portfolio. Most of my portfolio and earnings have come in the last 18 months.

Yep, Ken and dbabbage have it right. I have a portfolio of only 145 images, and I anticipate receiving a monthly payout within the next 3 months, as long as current trends continue. With a portfolio of 300 good images, I'd say $100 a month would be no problem at all.

Speaking very roughly, I think most folks in the diamond list make around the neighborhood of $1000/month.