Is Stock Photography worthwhile?
Photography can be an expensive hobby. Not, perhaps, as expensive as in the film days, when every shot from a roll ate money in film and processing costs. Nowadays I think nothing of coming home from a day's shooting with an SD card with 300, 400 or even more images captured where, pre-digital, it would be one or two rolls of film, 36 shots per roll. And, I suspect, compared to some, I'm very economical in my shooting.
Of course there's the cost of equipment - but good quality cameras and lenses were never cheap in film days so the hardware side probably balances out. And the second hand market is always there to reduce the cost.
But cost there is. Which is surely why so many photographers try to make an income from their photography - and for many that means shooting for stock.
I still remember my first sale on Alamy. Heuchera 'Chocolate Ruffles' (above) licensed on 27 June 2014 for the princely sum of $32.76, my share being $16.38. The first of what I hoped would be a flood of sales. I'd be rich! I'd been published (though I never did find out where). I'd be a professional photographer! Fame and Glory would soon be mine!
10 years later and 2757 images licensed (as of 18 February 2024) at least I can say I've been regularly published. Rich? No - but currently $23,781.22 better off than if my images had just been sitting on my hard drive. A professional photographer? Far from it. Just an ageing amateur with a bit of skill and the ability to curate and accurately keyword and caption my stock images. Fame and Glory? My camara probably gets more credit than I do.
So, is stock photography worthwhile?
For me, yes. I'm old, Maria and I are both pensioners, and shooting for stock gives me the necessary impetus to get out throughout the year and keep myself occupied - though it does get physically harder as I grow older. The money pays for my equipment and some travel without upsetting our limited household budget. But, if I was 30 to 50 years younger, knowing what I know now, would I consider it worthwhile?
No. It simply isn't profitable enough. I would need to devote ten times the effort I'm currently expending to make even a paltry living. I'd need to generate far more saleable images, distribute them among multiple agencies, explore other income streams such as print on demand, hyperactively promote myself on social media and become a slave to the work. The fun would be gone - and all to make marginally more (possibly less) than minimum wage.
There is too much existing photography floating around the stock photo scene to make a good living solely as a stock photographer. I'll caveat that to say 'except for the favoured few', because there are people who do make a living from their stock work. But most don't. And for them, stock photography isn't worthwhile except as a minor side hustle. And even then, only if you treat it as a business and identify your market before uploading yet another image to whichever stock libraries you're enrolled with.
Meanwhile I'll plod on with Alamy as my sole agency. My latest sale dropped in this morning. Taxus baccata 'Fastigiata' (above), for the grand sum of $7.40, my share being $2.96. Doesn't sound encouraging? It's the lowest of the month to date, my other 12 sales generating $178.99 collectively.
I'll take that - but I'll never rely on it continuing indefinitely.
No comments:
Post a Comment