Introduction from the Cre:Source New Guy

Hi Chris, Crestock is an amazing resource and is nice to have you here.

I think the best two things you can write about are
* how to sell your own legitimate talent on imaging instead of just trying to be pop
* how to use stock images to leverage your work in different areas when you are not a photographer, or even if your are, how to add value to yourself using other people's talent

More ore less what you already do on chrisg.com, but focused on stock images :-)

Great ideas, thank you :)

I'm just getting into stock photography myself so any tips and advice will be gratefully received!

I am pleased to see your blog. I have recently taken a great interest in photography/videography/cinematography. I am interested in how I might make my hobby/hobbies self supporting if not downright profitable. I eagerly await any insight you might be able to offer regarding becoming a stock photographer. I live in the USA near the Pennsylvanian capitol. I believe there is a lot of natural beauty and interesting architecture among other things that are worth capturing on film. I would love to know if there might be a market for pictures of this area and its attractions.

I work in the business of stock and I have seen the value of a photograph rise in price and fall in price. There is some definite difference between amature (hobbyists) and professional (work). Please do not chew my head off, every profession has amatures and professionals, but what constitutes art (usually professional) and hobbies (usually amature) is the depth of commitment, time, zeal and determination.
The intrenet has given the world a place to dump its mediocracy and level it as professional. Please know that every profession is hurting in some way because of the Internet.

If a desinger wants to use and cheapen his/her design with amature photos, then let them water down their design. Know that when livelihood is threatened by amatures, keep in mind it's just schlok that feeds your kids.
I think most royalty free stock photos sold on dollar sites is what could not be sold if it were not for the internet.

So Chris tell how us how to find the difference between an amature and professional photo and the use of marketing to make us believe there is no difference. Finally in another post you can tell us how much money you can make selling your images with a dollar site and a subsciption site and a traditionally priced site.

There are many products that now have a market because of the internet, isn't it wonderful? It's a brilliant thing about the world wide web that people have a way to get their work to market that before would have been excluded.

Another wonderful thing about the web is it exposes broken business models and brings commerce down to the right product for the right customer. I love it :)

Chris, I thank you for exposing your logic. What constititues a broken business model? Car sales, home sales, stock photos sales, cell phone sales, furniture sales, heck any type of sales. No, the broken business model is the artist, the creator of the goods selling their product via a broken business model even on the internet.

What people forget is this: when you declare the internet is good for sales and brings commerce down to the right product for the right customer, what happens to the artist? The artists (in the case of stock photos - because this blog is about stock photography) see their income slashed for the common denominator. The common denominator is the people who own the the rights of distribution gouging.

If you allow your photo to be sold for 20% of $2.00 or $3.00 or even $10.00 you recieve a mere pittance of what is actually deserved. You need a pile of garbage and just shlock to fill the likes of micro payment sites and the subsciption sites. So the graphic designer gets items not good enough in quality, items that have hardly any model or location releases, not good enough for the traditional sites because they have much higher standards and expect more and finally you get photos that are just that photos - but not photography in the sense of someone pouring their heart and lives and immagination and time: the artisit.

If your blog shows people how to make an income that will support a family and teach people how to be artists and have a lasting influence for years and generations to come then I say great! If you show people how to create shlock for the graphic designer, then you encourage the same old business model of the big company getting the 80% of the $2.00 or $3.00 or $10.00 and the unsuspecting amature photographer recieving the 20%.

What has changed? A broken business model? No. [The product owners still make the bulk of the coin.] The web a viehicle to get work that before would been excluded? No. [It is only amatureish work that constitutes the bulk of photos on the micropayment and subscription models].

You probably will not agree with me because we have fundamental differences regarding the owners of deilvery, the provider of content and the customer themself.

The best thing you can tell someone who wants to sell their stock is create a better business model first (then they can get maybe 40% to 60%) next, tell them how to really use a digital SLR - get some schooling by qualified teachers and finally give the Professional Photographer space on this blog to show people who really want to make a living from photography, what constitiues the difference betwenn shlock and art.

Have a great day.

Thanks for your point of view