<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Selling Photos Online</title>
	<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Craig</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202748</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202748</guid>
		<description>Fantastic website, full of great information, I feel I have learned a lot from reading this over the last few days.

I do have one question... has anybody here tried selling through photographers direct? 
On the face of it it would appear that earnings could be a lot higher there, but that depends if anything actually sells. 
I would appreciate any input

Craig</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fantastic website, full of great information, I feel I have learned a lot from reading this over the last few days.</p>
<p>I do have one question&#8230; has anybody here tried selling through photographers direct?<br />
On the face of it it would appear that earnings could be a lot higher there, but that depends if anything actually sells.<br />
I would appreciate any input</p>
<p>Craig</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Engstrom</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202311</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Engstrom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202311</guid>
		<description>Hey 50megapixels,
That was some response! LOL ~ Yes, I have to say that what the stock photography business makes a ton off of the contributing photographers. It's sad and it made me feel personally that 30 cents was not worth all the time, effort in precessing/editing for the quality of my photo. I am happy that someone felt that my photo was what they were looking for over all the millions to choose from. That is an honor, but like I said, 30 cents isn't a proper compensation for all the hard work. I know that some, such as Dphotojournal, are very successful and that is awesome! Congratulations Dphotojournal on your success, it really is a blessing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey 50megapixels,<br />
That was some response! LOL ~ Yes, I have to say that what the stock photography business makes a ton off of the contributing photographers. It&#8217;s sad and it made me feel personally that 30 cents was not worth all the time, effort in precessing/editing for the quality of my photo. I am happy that someone felt that my photo was what they were looking for over all the millions to choose from. That is an honor, but like I said, 30 cents isn&#8217;t a proper compensation for all the hard work. I know that some, such as Dphotojournal, are very successful and that is awesome! Congratulations Dphotojournal on your success, it really is a blessing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dphotojournal com</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202258</link>
		<dc:creator>Dphotojournal com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202258</guid>
		<description>Sorry for the late response. I hope you have sorted this problem out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry for the late response. I hope you have sorted this problem out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dphotojournal com</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202257</link>
		<dc:creator>Dphotojournal com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202257</guid>
		<description>I would prefer a DSLR camera.. It just produces better image than point and shoot</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would prefer a DSLR camera.. It just produces better image than point and shoot</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 50megapixels</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202241</link>
		<dc:creator>50megapixels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-202241</guid>
		<description>philipjbigg is right, microstock price policy sort of degrades the value and talent of the professional photographer. I myself have been active on microstock sites for a while but at the end of the month facing sales of 10$-15$ made me kinda sick, hours and days of work, shooting, editing, investing in equipment, all that for 20$ a month. Honestly ashamed to tell my friends about this.

I have been monitoring about 10 photographers on Dreamstime for the last months, all of them with more than 2000 approved files. Downloads: around 120 each, most of them uploading constantly for the last 2 years. So upload weekly for 2 years to make 100$ a month of it. Ridicolous.

Dear dphotojournal, you must have incredible photos, to say the least to pull in 1365$ from Dreamstime in september with 1100 files, roughly 1000 downloads let's say. That is a huge rate on Dreamstime in my opinion. I know it is possible, of course, but from what i have come to know and from other bloggers and microstock diaries, out of the 200.000 "photographers" registered with microstock websites only 1500 or so make more than 2000$/month (considering ALL the sites thay sell on)and the number is decreasing as more people take a piece of the pie each day. 

Bitter i am, i know :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>philipjbigg is right, microstock price policy sort of degrades the value and talent of the professional photographer. I myself have been active on microstock sites for a while but at the end of the month facing sales of 10$-15$ made me kinda sick, hours and days of work, shooting, editing, investing in equipment, all that for 20$ a month. Honestly ashamed to tell my friends about this.</p>
<p>I have been monitoring about 10 photographers on Dreamstime for the last months, all of them with more than 2000 approved files. Downloads: around 120 each, most of them uploading constantly for the last 2 years. So upload weekly for 2 years to make 100$ a month of it. Ridicolous.</p>
<p>Dear dphotojournal, you must have incredible photos, to say the least to pull in 1365$ from Dreamstime in september with 1100 files, roughly 1000 downloads let&#8217;s say. That is a huge rate on Dreamstime in my opinion. I know it is possible, of course, but from what i have come to know and from other bloggers and microstock diaries, out of the 200.000 &#8220;photographers&#8221; registered with microstock websites only 1500 or so make more than 2000$/month (considering ALL the sites thay sell on)and the number is decreasing as more people take a piece of the pie each day. </p>
<p>Bitter i am, i know <img src='http://www.dphotojournal.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer Engstrom</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201839</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Engstrom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:53:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201839</guid>
		<description>Wow Phillip, you certainly had a lot to say about the stock photography! I really appreciate all your input. However, can I ask why you chose to respond this very informative comment to my question? If stock photography is not profitable in any way whatsoever, then what route would you suggest? I am curious about this, especially since I have a decent camera and some ability to use it. I want to profit from it as much as possible, what are your opinions on this? Thanks for your input, Jenny</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow Phillip, you certainly had a lot to say about the stock photography! I really appreciate all your input. However, can I ask why you chose to respond this very informative comment to my question? If stock photography is not profitable in any way whatsoever, then what route would you suggest? I am curious about this, especially since I have a decent camera and some ability to use it. I want to profit from it as much as possible, what are your opinions on this? Thanks for your input, Jenny</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tracey</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201771</link>
		<dc:creator>Tracey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201771</guid>
		<description>Great tips, great advise. Thank you for sharing. This article helps a person wanting to break into selling photos online, have the know how to do it.

Thanks again and showing your earnings was a great incentive too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great tips, great advise. Thank you for sharing. This article helps a person wanting to break into selling photos online, have the know how to do it.</p>
<p>Thanks again and showing your earnings was a great incentive too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dawn</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201653</link>
		<dc:creator>Dawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:07:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201653</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the help.Sincerely, Dawn</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the help.Sincerely, Dawn</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: philipjbigg</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201429</link>
		<dc:creator>philipjbigg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201429</guid>
		<description>I was having a bad day. I haven't had a decent sale on Alamy for a while now and was starting to consider going down the Royalty-Free route after spending an hour or so reading the above writings until I stumbled across this summation of abuse of photographers interests by royalty free organisations and had second thoughts ......

Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on microstock / micropayment sites?

Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Microstock sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 50 dollars) prey on the lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers.

The only people who benefit from these sites are:
The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers' livelihoods.

The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like.
The people who lose out every time are the photographers. Almost every photographer we have spoken to on this issue has expressed regret at placing their images on microstock sites. Initially they are excited at people taking an interest in their images and paying for them. Of course they like making an income from their images, but here are the facts:

The average fee for an image licensed through Photographers Direct is about 200 dollars, of which the photographer will receive 160 dollars. Images have been licensed for up to 5000 dollars. These license fees are usually for a single usage, not a Royalty Free license. The photographer can license the same image again and again for similar fees.

To make the same average amount through a microstock site you will have to sell anywhere between 200 and 800 images. These images can be used anywhere at any time and cannot realistically be traced. You are not 'selling' your images, you are not 'having success'; you are giving away your images, and the buyers cannot believe their luck.

Imagine the day when you see one of your images on a book or magazine cover. You will probably be very happy and proud, until you realise you earned a dollar from an image that is helping to generate possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing sales. Is this fair?

The microstock myth is that this does not happen, that images off microstock sites are only used by designers for initial layouts and by 'mom and pop' businesses who would never pay more for images. If this were true, then shouldn't the license reflect it? If you are only paying a few dollars for an image, then it should only be allowed for personal use, a blog, or for businesses with less than 4 employees, for example. However the licenses are open ended. You pay a couple of dollars and you can use the image for anything, for all time. It could be for a billboard advert, a magazine cover, a tv spot.

But does this really happen? Yes it does, and what is painfully ironic is that microstock photographers love to boast about where they have found their images published. Once they have got over the excitement of seeing their work in print, they need to step back, take another look at that paycheck, and think 'Is that all my work is worth?'</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was having a bad day. I haven&#8217;t had a decent sale on Alamy for a while now and was starting to consider going down the Royalty-Free route after spending an hour or so reading the above writings until I stumbled across this summation of abuse of photographers interests by royalty free organisations and had second thoughts &#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on microstock / micropayment sites?</p>
<p>Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Microstock sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 50 dollars) prey on the lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers.</p>
<p>The only people who benefit from these sites are:<br />
The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers&#8217; livelihoods.</p>
<p>The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like.<br />
The people who lose out every time are the photographers. Almost every photographer we have spoken to on this issue has expressed regret at placing their images on microstock sites. Initially they are excited at people taking an interest in their images and paying for them. Of course they like making an income from their images, but here are the facts:</p>
<p>The average fee for an image licensed through Photographers Direct is about 200 dollars, of which the photographer will receive 160 dollars. Images have been licensed for up to 5000 dollars. These license fees are usually for a single usage, not a Royalty Free license. The photographer can license the same image again and again for similar fees.</p>
<p>To make the same average amount through a microstock site you will have to sell anywhere between 200 and 800 images. These images can be used anywhere at any time and cannot realistically be traced. You are not &#8217;selling&#8217; your images, you are not &#8216;having success&#8217;; you are giving away your images, and the buyers cannot believe their luck.</p>
<p>Imagine the day when you see one of your images on a book or magazine cover. You will probably be very happy and proud, until you realise you earned a dollar from an image that is helping to generate possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing sales. Is this fair?</p>
<p>The microstock myth is that this does not happen, that images off microstock sites are only used by designers for initial layouts and by &#8216;mom and pop&#8217; businesses who would never pay more for images. If this were true, then shouldn&#8217;t the license reflect it? If you are only paying a few dollars for an image, then it should only be allowed for personal use, a blog, or for businesses with less than 4 employees, for example. However the licenses are open ended. You pay a couple of dollars and you can use the image for anything, for all time. It could be for a billboard advert, a magazine cover, a tv spot.</p>
<p>But does this really happen? Yes it does, and what is painfully ironic is that microstock photographers love to boast about where they have found their images published. Once they have got over the excitement of seeing their work in print, they need to step back, take another look at that paycheck, and think &#8216;Is that all my work is worth?&#8217;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jody Van Slembrouck</title>
		<link>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201405</link>
		<dc:creator>Jody Van Slembrouck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.dphotojournal.com/sell-photos-online/#comment-201405</guid>
		<description>Is my Sony H5 good enough for stock photos?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is my Sony H5 good enough for stock photos?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
