Where do I find stock photography I can use on a Shopify theme?

Question

I am working on a theme for Shopify, but they require that you provide some stock images inside your theme to demonstrate how your theme would work in a 'realistic' context.

The types of images that I'm looking for are product shots, and I need a set of images. For sake of continuity in design, they should all be taken within a similar context or style.

Is there such a resource?

Asked by Victor S

Answer

I would recommend using any stock site which provides galleries by the same photographer.

For example, ShutterStock and iStockPhoto allow you to browse other images by photographer. Just search for a single product shot, and then look at the photographer's portfolio for similar shots.

Alternatively, check the collections features which allow photographers and customers to collate similar images.

Answered by Maynard Case

Check more discussion of this question.

What should I look for when choosing a stock web sites to sell through?

Question

I was reading Are stock photo sites a viable source of income? and thought I might give it ago.

However what are the things to look for when choosing a stock photo sites to sell on taking in to account:

• Range of seller features
• Submission Rules
• Submission Process
• Range of customers
• Ease of use
• Levels of payment
• Feedback

Also should I post the same images to each of the sites or focus on one?

Asked by John

Answer

This is hugely subjective. The 'best' for one person may be anathema to another. Personally, I would avoid micro-stock sites, that have vast collections of images from amateur photographers selling at a couple of quid each. You'd have to submit hundreds of images just to appear in searches, let alone make any sales.

I use Alamy for my photos, though I don't make regular sales. When I have sold a photo, it's usually been for about £100 or more. They will take any photo that is technically excellent (i.e. they don't filter by percieved artistic merit) and you specify when you upload the image whether you want to sell royalty-free or licenced.

A lot of newspapers get their images from Alamy - one of mine ended up in the Guardian. They do appear to have a significant customer base, however most of the time you won't know who has purchased an image. The only reason I knew of the one in the Guardian was because I came across it by accident - that was a nice surprise!

Anyway, they do pay well - they take 40% commission (though that increases to 50% for 'Novel Use', and 60% for distibutor sales), meaning you get more than half of the sale price for the majority of sales, and they allow you to see views, zooms and purchases of all your images on a day by day basis, including the keywords that were used when finding your photos, which helps in getting your keywords right. You can change photo details at any point after uploading (except the licence type), and you can indicate whether you have model and/or property release on photos that require it.

Check the BAPLA website for a comprehensive list of photo libraries in the UK.

Answered by Nick Miners

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it okay to submit the same photos to macrostock and microstock?

Question

Is there any problem in submitting the same photo both to macrostock agencies (Alamy, etc.) and microstock (Fotolia, iStock, etc.), assuming I have a non-exclusive agreement in all of them?

Asked by t3mujin

Answer

The obvious difference would be on the value of sales. If you've an exclusive or very high quality image, then you probably want to exploit its value, and sell for a higher price through a specialised agency.

Conversely, if your image lacks exclusivity, (for example, two people in business suits shaking hands), then there would be a lot of competition on microstock already, so the client may not even look further than this.

In real terms, this would mean that you'd be cutting your own margins by posting to the microstock; Instead you may get a better return by targeting your images on a per-image basis.

Answered by Rowland Shaw

Check more discussion of this question.

Are stock photo sites a viable source of income?

Question

I'm considering uploading some of my photos to a stock photo website as a way of getting a few $$$ back from what's essentially been a hobby for me.

Is this a sensible step, or am I likely doomed to disappointment and failure with this approach?

Asked by Roddy

Answer

To answer your question, no, stock photos are not a viable source of income. You can make money off of it, just like some people who are able to write iPhone applications are able to make huge paydays; but in general the market is saturated, and unless you produce something that stands out amongst all the cruft, you won't be making much.

Think of it in terms of economics.

Supply and Demand.

Professional looking images required (in no particular order):

• Equipment
• Technique/Knowledge
• Skill

And back in the day, all three were fairly hard to come by. Camera equipment was expensive (especially digital), you hard to find someone willing to teach you the ropes, and it took a long time to learn. Now a days:

• Camera equipment costs necessary to produce professional looking images have dramatically decreased since the digital camera boom.
• Likewise, computing power has become more powerful, and much more affordable, and image editing software has become much easier to use
• The internet has made it incredibly easy to find information for learning how to produce quality images, as well as made it super easy to submit images for publication.

As such, the barrier to entry to producing quality images has been lifted nearly completely. With that, more and more people are able to produce nice images. One could say that stock photographs have become a commodity; there is no short supply of quality looking images.

Since the supply is very saturated, that drives the price down (while demand for stock photos has increased, it hasn't been to the scale as supply). Anyone with a digital camera and an internet connection can produce stock photos.

As Nick pointed out that as long as it doesn't cost you anything to submit your photos, you have nothing to lose.

This is outside your question, but if you want to make money off your photography, you're going to want to be creative and see what areas are underserved and target them. Assuming you are in the US, how about getting into real-estate photography--there is a huge glut of houses on the market and (at least when I was looking to buy a house) most have crap photos taken by real-estate agents. Another area, not for money necessarily--is to team up with animal shelters and do photos of the pets for adoption. Most shelters dont spend any time taking nice images, so volunteering your time will

1. Increase your skill in pet photography
2. Let you network and meet potential clients. After all they might want prof. photos done with their new family addition.
3. Help with a great cause: helping find pets a forever place to live.

Answered by Alan

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there any important considerations for stock photos?

Question

I have quite a few photos, some of which I consider to be particularly good. I've been thinking of putting some up on stock photo sites (that's another discussion), but have been wondering about image quality.

Are there any important aspects a photo should have before being put up on a stock site? I'm thinking of subject, composition, colour, and clarity, but what else?

Asked by Grant Palin

Answer

One thing that's not technical but more subjective is how "sellable" the image is. The world has so many photos of sunsets, women sitting at desks on the phone, and nice forest landscapes that you will want to choose subjects that are something a little different in order to stand out amongst the crowd.

Yes, technical correctness will be needed, but to really get noticed on a stock site (and in some cases, to get accepted) you need images that are timely and can't be found in hundreds of other locations.

Answered by ahockley

Check more discussion of this question.

How would one find out what sorts of stock photos are in demand?

Question

I know that stock photography is a very challenging market right now but it seems that certain subjects and themes do well. How would one know what sorts of stock photos are in demand versus what subjects are overshot and likely not to pay well?

(please, no doom-and-gloom-of-stock rants...)

Asked by ahockley

Answer

The microstock sites often provide charts of the most popular images or tags. Some examples:

• http://submit.shutterstock.com/top50.mhtml
• http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends

There's also highlighted images from agencies:

• http://www.alamy.com/showcase/latestimagery.asp

Some sites even explicitly say what they are looking for:

• http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/quality-standards-what-were-looking-for

The only issue with popular lists is that it shows what's popular. It might be more profitable to find a niche that isn't well represented - e.g. your local area, or somewhere with a good view that only you have access to, or your profession.

Original or very good quality seasonal images can be more popular than you might think, as long as you upload them a few months before the season - e.g. Christmas related images in October.

Answered by Maynard Case

Check more discussion of this question.

Do any stock photography sites pay 100% of sales out to photographers?

Question

I've come over from Stack Overflow to see if anyone here uses stock photography/microstock sites and knows if any of the many out there currently give 100% of sales to photographers?

Obviously they've got to make money somehow and I know some do monthly subscriptions to photographers to host their images but I can't find any that charge a small upload fee to add images and pay out 100%.

I work for a design agency in Brighton and we recently sourced 7 images for a client for £4K and the photographer only sees something like 20% of this and it seemed a bit unfair.

EDIT: Amending the question, if it were a well used site would you USE a site where you paid a small fee for each photo you upload (either annually or a one off) and kept 100% of the proceeds?

Answer

You will find the larger agencies like Getty are reducing their commissions to photographers, to around 35%.

I know one of the smaller agencies offer a better rate.

Local Stock ## (100% commission)

However I don't know if they actually sell many.

Put it this way, I would rather have images at 35% commission that get sold and shown to a very wide audience around the world than get 100% of a very small UK market.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I make extra money with photography?

Question

I have photos in Getty Images, in Shutterstock, Imagekind and I recently added some to RedBubble, but I'm not having the expected results.

Does anyone have some history of success selling photographs or working as a photographer?

Examples of my work are available in my gallery on Flickr.

---

Also asked by nute

I am an amateur who sometimes takes pictures of nature or random things. I've been told by several people that my pictures are worth money.

How can I monetize my best shots?

I don't really want to do a lot of work, editing, SEO or whatever. I'm looking for an easy way where I would just upload my pictures somewhere and let it go.

Maybe stock photos? People buying prints? I have no idea how that works...

EDIT: maybe a link to see which type of photography I do can help http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasht00/

Answer

I'm going to be a bit blunt here: your photography isn't the kinds of stuff clients who buy stock/microstock go for. In 2011, the vast majority of stock photography is used to sell business products to business people. And if it's not that, it's used as a source of images to be composited with other images.

I've worked in interactive and print advertising and design for the past 13 years, on literally hundreds of campaigns for international brands the world over.

Here are things we bought: people in suits doing business things (all white, we're in europe); people in suits doing non-business things - like jumping, running, hanging off a ledge; pretty, neutral spaces like kitchens, offices, living rooms we could put people and products into; an amazing amount of travel photography with clearly visible landmarks for an airline; landscape photography that included sweeping vistas that we could, again, place items into. Give me any of these things in a cohesive series and I will love you to death.

Some things stand out in your photography that would cause me to look over most of it, even if I had a market for the subject matter. Post processing for a look either by defocusing elements, color tinting the image, adding blur - I want sharp objects I can cut out/composite with other objects. I want my starting images to be as neutral as possible.

There's a huge difference between people liking your work on flickr and actually buying your work. For someone to buy stock photo, they have to be able to use it as an element of making more money for themselves. Look at your photography and ask yourself if this is the kind of work you can imagine being used by people who actually lay out the money to license those images.

Ask the microstock houses what kind of photography they need more. I almost tried selling stock on a now defunct stock site. They had a great list of what they had more than enough of, and what kind of stuff they needed. Number one with a bullet is always: "People in suits doing things."

Check more discussion of this question.

How much pay to a model in a session of photos for stock?

Question

I want make a photo project to send to a stock photography agency, but I don't know what I should pay to a model for signing the model release.

Pay by photo, by hour, or in some other way?

Answer

It sounds like you haven't worked much with models. If not, it'll be an interesting journey. It's convenient to make a broad categorization of models into two groups: 1) Professional models, represented by an agency; and 2) People who model but are unrepresented, part-time, etc. If you want to be reasonably sure your model will be on location when he or she is supposed to and that you are getting what you pay for, agency models are for you. If you are working on spec, as with stock photography, you may be willing to trade the reliability of a model with a pedigree for a less expensive one.

To start with, you need a clear description of what you plan to do, where, for how long, whether the model is providing wardrobe, makeup, styling or if you will have hair, stylist, etc. on set. Be sure to mention up front whether there will be any unusual requests of the model because if your model is uncomfortable or feels you sprung something on him or her, the shoot will not go as well as if they are prepared.

In the first case, you will negotiate rates with the agency and it will be quite cut and dried. The latter case (and this is where modelmayhem.com comes in) gives you quite a range of talent and professionalism. The models range from, to be blunt, flaky to very responsible. They can be extremely talented or totally clueless. With these models, it's obviously important to have your description, but you'll want to meet them first and take a few test shots, even with your cell phone, just to see if you can communicate and work with them. If you decide the answer is yes, then you determine a rate.

There is no standard rate and stock photography is very speculative. So is modeling. Many of the Model Mayhem models are professional and serious about making a living modeling. Others, not so much. The pros will have either hourly or day rates and won't be afraid to quote them (they should be able to do this based on your description). Novices may be happy to let you set their rate. Many will work in exchange for some of the outtake images.

When you evaluate this, please bear in mind the total projected value of the shoot to you and measure your modeling fee against how much you expect to earn. If modeling and other expenses (equipment, transportation, meals, etc.) exceed what you expect to make from the shoot, just don't do it.

I know I've strayed quite a ways from the original question. I hope this is useful.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the key things that distinguish stock photography from other types?

Question

What are the key features of stock photography that distinguishes it from other types of photography, or is there a fair amount of overlap between them (i.e. a good photograph can be fine art and stock)?

Answer

In theory any photo can be stock, but successful stock photography tends to have the following attributes:

1. It can be used to sell a product or concept (or many different concepts)
2. It is bright, colourful and appealing
3. It is designer-friendly: it can have text superimposed on it, or it can be easily composited with other photos or designs
4. It is aimed at a particular market (business, tourism, industry, news media, etc)
5. It is generally technically perfect
   • pin-sharp focus in the appropriate part of the image
   • no deliberate blur, roughened edges, selective colour, black & white conversions or vignette, to give the customer the choice to modify as they see fit

Some traditional stock images:

• A good-looking businessman or woman smiling, usually in a generic office environment. This can be used to sell many different products or ideas (e.g. professionalism, customer service, teamwork).
• A green healthy leaf with some droplets of water (environment, health, purity, food)
• A landscape shot of a popular tourist destination (tourism, local culture, nature)

In contrast, fine art shots tend to be more subtle and less obviously targetted. They can be imperfectly shot if this helps to convey the desired idea or mood.

There is definitely an overlap. However, I personally believe there is a growing interest in stock buyers for less obvious imagery, so the overlap is likely to grow.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can photographs from a client shoot, but not accepted by them, be used for stock photography?

Question

I have a number of photographs from a recent client shoot that they don't wish to use, could these be sold by myself as stock photography? For that matter, would it be considered to be ethical to do so?

Answer

As for the legal issues, the crux of the matter is the model release. All of the reputable micro-stock websites that I've looked into (Shutter Stock, iStockPhoto, Fotolia, etc.) are going to require a model release if your client is in any way recognizable. Traditional stock agencies will have similar requirements. Even if your existing contract includes a line regarding re-use of images (i.e. in your portfolio, on your website), I doubt that a stock company would accept this kind of document as a "release." If the client does sign a model release, then they have explicitly given you permission to use the photos and you should have no legal problems in re-using the photos.

One potential legal issue, though, could come up with respect to the definition of "consideration received." This is a standard phrased used in the beginning of most model releases, because for the contract to be valid the "model" (in this case your client) must receive something of value from you in return for your rights to re-sell the images. If the client is paying you to take his/her pictures, then you may have a tough time selling to a court that the client received anything of value. Usually this would be something like money (if you pay a model) or photographic services (if you do a trade for shoot with a model).

Ethically, I agree with most of the other answers that you should pass it by the client or at least mention the fact that you'll be re-using images for stock photography. Just because a client isn't going to use the photo doesn't mean it's a bad photo or represents the person in a bad light. As long as you sell "reject" photos that aren't embarrassing, compromising, or the like, then I wouldn't have any ethical problems with it.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I make a bottle image transparent?

Question

I've taken some stock photography of lots of clear bottles, and now want to remove the background (which is white-ish, because at a pinch I could leave it...) so that the bottle becomes transparent with highlighting.

My bottles are clear with different colored liquids with multiple refraction and reflection surfaces. I am looking for a background color subtraction effect that will allow me to get to transparent (hopefully with some sort of effect/opacity slider).

Ideas that I can't pull off yet:

• Combine layer with a color fill layer (keyed off the "transparent color") in some manner to produce some output that could be used as the starting point of a layer mask
• Same layer combination as above, but somehow translating "pure white" to transparency.

Notes for what doesn't work (Photoshop terminology):

• "Color Range" and delete (fuzzy select, but not graded/alpha) - results in harsh lines and only leaves the pure white and dark highlights and shadow refractions/reflections
• Magic wand selections for the same reason
• "Background Eraser" because although it is able to only subtract a certain color and leave "the rest", it (like all tolerance based tools) eventually hits a colour slightly outside of the range that it just won't touch.

I'll add more if I can remember what I've found

Answer

Gimp has a really nice 'Color to Alpha' feature that sounds like it does exactly what you want. It doesn't just erase one color, but tries to make things that are almost white into almost transparent. It's not perfect, but comes pretty close. Here's an example from the docs: http://docs.gimp.org/en/plug-in-colortoalpha.html

Check more discussion of this question.