Stock pix question from a newbie's POV

[Les_Pattison]

Hi all,

I'm looking at different ways of making more money with my images. I have the chance to take some time away from my usual work & bum around with a decent camera (& lenses) taking pix. Sounds like heaven, I know. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Well, as I am brillant photographer & very modest, I'm thinking of ways I can make money. Big headed ehh? Well, can't live with dreams all the time!

I've been looking at stock images & the 1st of many questions is, with ref to:
fotosearch.com web page

The way I understand is that the original pic was either digital, taken at the Hi Res or Ultra Hi Res or was scanned from the original transparency.

If I'm right in this assumption, does that mean that the larger formats offered here have just been increased in software (ie photoshop)? Isn't that cheating? Wouldn't a customer be able to do that themselves & save the extra expense? I mean fotosearch isn't printing, just supplying the download.

I'm all for making the extra bob or 2, don't get me wrong, I just want to know what is the accepted norm. Or is my assumption totally off. Police language please!

Cheers for any help,
Les

[AndrewOsterberg]

I think there are other sites like fotosearch that are looking for submissions. The internet has put an end to making a living with stock photography. You are not the first to try and make a living walking around snapping images to sell as stock. Getty images (now owned by Microsoft) is another site that will accept images. They really are looking for people shots and unique images. Great people shots are the best but you will need to get photo releases for everyone who has a recognizable face in the image. Business images are also a hot item. As far as image submission and requirements, each site has specifics for acceptable formats. The digital image should give you the best quality since there is no loss like a neg/transparency scan. Some programs like photoshop can increase the file size of the image. File size is also relevant to how many colors are in the image. If you have a white bunny in the snow you will obtain a very small file even with a large pixel camera. If you have a clown holding a large bouquet of balloons the file size would be much larger due to all of the color information.

Andrew
Are you on the photographer list?
VirtualPhotographyStudio.com

[Peter_Handley]

A slight correction to your post Andrew... Getty isn't owned by Microsoft. Corbis is owned by Mr. Bill Gates himself... not sure if it's actually Microsoft that owns it. Corbis has bought up a large number of collections (ie the Bettman Archives) and Getty has done similarly - they are the parent company for PhotoDisc and also have Image Bank in their hands. Between the Getty and Corbis, they have a large portion of the licensed and royalty-free stock market sewn up. There are still a number of independant agencies out there, Masterfile, First Light- I think they're still solo - but allied with Corbis (both Masterfile and First Light are Canadian), and Photonika/Ikonika out of New York. There are also a numer of collections out there that appear with a number of large agencies... if you hit some of the larger sites do some searches on the sames words in each and you'll end up seeing some familiar images. Hope this is of some help.

p

[Les_Pattison]

Well Andrew & Peter, thanks guys.

I haven't returned here to this question caz I was looking around just how large images are made & found my question to be quite stupid & felt a little stupid myself.

Thanks for the advice & info on stock photography.
I am a bit disappointed that I'm late in the game, but advice taken & I'll continue to learn.

Cheers again, Les