I'm adding stock images to my list of work, what do you all think of stock photography agencies, and how would you proceed shooting. It seems like a lot of time and effort, and money, to create a general use image. Do any of you shoot primarly stock ?

Hi Eric!!!!! (waves Hello)

While it isn't the primary source of income for me, I do shoot some stock. There has been a consistent trend in the industry over the last decade, which more and more favors the stock agencies. Photographers are getting paid much less for stock photography than they used to.

Generally you have to submit quite a few high quality images. Just having one or two great images will not interest a stock agency.

Whether or not you can earn much selling stock depends in large part what kind of photography you submit. Nature photography, for example, is a completely saturated market. You might take a perfectly beautiful photo of a waterfall, but it has probably been shot by hundreds of photographers before you, and will be shot by hundreds of photographers after you. The likelihood of getting a unique waterfall photo that will sell lots is very slim, regardless of your photography skills.

On the other hand, "lifestyle" photos can do fairly well in stock. That is because there is a constant need for new and fresh lifestyle images. Trends and fashion is always changing, so lifestyle photos that are a few years old are often too outdated. The good news is that if you are good at this kind of thing, then there is more demand for it. The downside is that these types of photos have a relatively short shelf life, before they too become outdated. Good model releases are an absolute requirement for lifestyle stock images. Don't spend too much money paying models, or you won't earn enough back to make it worth it.

Read the stock agency contract carefully. Some of them have some ridiculous terms in them. I think Corbis now wants right of first refusal for EVERYTHING you shoot, which is insane.

I shoot portraiture and fun concept stuff mostly; I don't really shoot FOR stock, but almost everything I do shoot ends up as stock. It's a great way to get some wonderful exposure, network in the industry, and make a little money on the side.

Everyone's right.  Stock is a tough business and the agencies want a broad range of images and a lot of them to even talk to you.  What they don't need is pretty girl pictures, nudes, landscapes or other popular topics because the world is saturated with those.  I was on the mailing list of a stock agency once and they sent out requests frequently for things like childhood photographs of friends of G.W. Bush, images of three-toed sloths interacting with macaws and other esoterica.

I too run a little stock business, primarily of nudes, and do have infrequent sales to anthology books, occasional photo/style/art magazines and such, but I can't imagine the volume one would have to do to actually make a living at it.

-Don

I am trying to do more in this area.

And to add to the comment on the $1 per image.

Years back in the book of lists(fun book usually in reference sections of libraries),  was the rules of thumbs of business list.

The stock one was,   For every image that gets excepted to a stock agency you make 75 cents on average when all is said and done.

And that is when it cost around $1.50 to shoot and process a chrome which at the time were the only things excepted.  That does not count the paper work,  model fees,  camera cost,   duping fees,  etc.

I have many images from wide travel and even releases for planned shoots in such areas as Cambodia.   I want to shoot more items planned specifically for stock or get releases that would allow me access to shoots after a period of time for stock.

But it seems like a mountain to climb without all that great of a view at the top.

Thanks everyone- I now understand it better- it also explains my agent's wanting more and more images- my library is at 300-