Interview With Stock Photographer Don Farrall

A bursting bubble photographed by Don Farrall for his stock photo collection ©Don Farrall

Don, I know that you embraced the RF stock model early on and it has worked very well for you. Can you bring us up to speed on how you came to be a professional photographer and how you became involved in stock photography?

When I was fifteen, my father gave me a hand-me-down Mamiya-Sekor 500 DTL, and I was hooked. From there, it was on to Brooks Institute, followed by a four-year stint at Hallmark Cards, in Kansas City MO, followed by a four-year stint in Dallas, TX as a “Retail Product” photographer, where my main client was Neiman-Marcus. In 1988, I returned to Nebraska, my home state; opening a studio in Lincoln. My Dallas experience was as a specialist-photographer; my experience in Nebraska has been as a generalist-photographer, shooting for advertising clients.

In The early ‘90’s, I submitted images to “The Image Bank” and to “Comstock”; they were not interested, my work was too general. In 1996, Photodisc was looking for contributing photographers, so I submitted 100 images for consideration. The images were primarily backgrounds; very basic elements. I really didn’t have any idea how lucrative that experiment would turn out to be. Photodisc published two complete Don Farrall-Elements Discs, along with another thirty or so disc products that included some of my work. Photodisc began placing images in a searchable database on the web, and the rest is history. Within two years, the revenue was surpassing my assignment work. As the revenue grew, I invested more money and more time into stock production. Getty bought Photodisc, and I have been a contracted Getty contributor since.

What percentage of your work is currently stock?

I am currently spending about 50% of my time working on stock production, (which includes research), 30% of my time shooting for clients, and the other 20% learning something new that will hopefully contribute to both my stock and my assignment income. Of late, this has included video.

From an income standpoint, stock is still my main income source. My assignment revenue is down a bit, mostly due to the lackluster economy as far as I can tell. I am doing the same repeat projects, but the projects are smaller than they have been in the recent past. My stock income is down, but it seems to have stabilized.

Do you see that percentage changing in coming years?

When stock was king, I could rationalize spending all my time shooting stock, and for a few years I quit doing any assignment work. But I missed the contact with other creatives. I like a balance, and I like having an additional revenue stream. Unless things change too much, I suppose the percentages will stay about as they are.

I know you have work distributed through Getty. Are you using other outlets as well?

Getty has been very good to me. I am one of the few photographers, who on most occasions, will defend Getty. I placed a few hundred images with Alamy a few years ago, before Getty started accepting RF images into Photographer’s Choice. At the time, I had some “orphaned” images that were Getty “non-selects” that I wanted to place somewhere; so I put them on Alamy. When Getty opened up “Photographer’s Choice Royalty Free”, I pulled the best of my images from Alamy and put them on Getty PCRF. This was a good move; and for what it’s worth, Getty should have accepted them in the first place, my PCRF “return per image” is on par with my editor selects. I still have a few hundred images with Alamy, mostly more editorial in nature, and they bring in a reasonable monthly income, but I have not been contributing much new material there. With Alamy, search order (Rank) is very critical, and I have managed to maintain a high Alamy Rank. I have placed a small collection of images in the microstock marketplace as a test, with the intent of understanding what the fuss has been about. I’m sure you’ll ask a more direct microstock question, which I will attempt to answer in a diplomatic way.

Do you do any direct sales? If not, do you have any plans to do so?

I have made a few direct sales to local clients, but the prospect of trying to drive buyers to me directly seems pretty daunting, and at present I can’t imagine putting my efforts into making that happen. I would rather shoot, and let others sell my images; there is no way I could compete with the traffic reach of Getty. Still, I do know some photographers who have made a direct sales approach work very well for them. My work is too general for this approach, in my opinion. Where I have seen it work, it has been an all-or-nothing approach. By this, I mean if they are selling direct, they do not also sell through any distributors.

Don, as far as subject matter you are all over the place. Your work ranges from medical, to agricultural, from wind farms to money trees to African Tribes. You also have a lot of conceptual photos and special effects work in your collection. Where do you get all those ideas from?

Being a generalist assignment photographer can have its advantages when it comes to shooting stock. My assignment work covers a broad range of subjects and styles, and being proficient across the spectrum carries over to my stock efforts. As for coming up with ideas, I research a lot. I spend time perusing magazine racks, and poking around on the web; I pay attention to the news. I used to have an editor at Getty who would tell me that some of my images were too editorial. I learned to not listen to him in that regard. I’m pretty much “on” all the time, always on the look for ideas, and I am driven by the fear that my last best idea will be my last best idea. It can be difficult at times, and I have had some dry spells. With all of the content available to buyers now, it is sometimes difficult to be original. I have revisited a few concepts that served me well in the film days, shooting them with a fresh new digital update.

I also have a somewhat backwards process that I have come to embrace. I find a prop, something unique, and then I let the prop drive the creative process. I prefer to prop shop and conceptualize on the spot, rather than conceptualizing and then having to hunt down a specific prop. I will also buy props without any concept and they will sit around the studio, and one day I will pick one up and an idea will come to me. I use this excuse to explain how cluttered my studio gets at times.

How do you go about preparing for a stock shoot?

Unlike most stock producers, I don’t shoot lifestyle, and most of my images don’t include models. I really like not having a specific time scheduled for a stock shoot. I take care of my clients, who need specific time on my calendar, and I just shoot stock around that schedule. I tend to shoot series for efficiency. I may spend a day or two just shooting splashing liquid, or I may spend a half a day shooting a variety of table-top concept items. It is not unusual for a single stock image to require a full day’s effort, but when it does, I will have an expectation of that image returning a fair day’s revenue. It is also not unusual for me to be able to generate ten images from a day of shooting and a day of post, and a few hours here and there prior to the shoot day; gathering items or making props.

Do you do your own computer work?

Yes, 100%. I used to have an assistant that would create paths and do cleanup, but I have always done the creative computer work. She is no longer working for me, so I am a solo operation. Most of my stock images include some level of computer enhancement; some have more computer work than photography. I enjoy this part of the process, and consider it creatively on par with the lighting, propping and shooting phases of the overall process.

What do you enjoy shooting most?

Anything that has the potential to make lots of money! Seriously, I really get a kick out of creating something that many people will buy and use. Beyond that, I like to capture images that are difficult for others to copy. I achieve some of these images through the use of ultra high-speed strobes, and laser and sound triggers. I also achieve some of them by being very patient and shooting lots and lots of frames. I like visual tricks, and images that make the viewer smile. I also enjoy producing images that involve some digital composite work, the more difficult the better.

I make a point of showing people my stock images before I submit them, looking for their reaction. Sometimes the reaction is not what I am expecting. My toughest critic is my wife. She is the one person who is totally honest, and she will challenge me to go back and make it better. She sees things that I miss, and responds in seconds, make that milliseconds, without fearing that my feelings will be hurt. Her input is invaluable.

About how often do you shoot?

On average, I would say three days a week.

I would describe your style as simple, dramatic, meticulous and to-the-point. How would you describe your style?

Your description works. After years of shooting to layouts for advertising clients, I have learned a few things about communicating concepts clearly with images. Shooting stock has made me a better assignment photographer, and shooting for clients has made me a better stock photographer. I once suggested to my editor at Getty that I didn’t have a specific style, and he countered that my work was very clean and that it read very well. He also noted that, at the time, I had more images in Getty’s top 100 best selling RF images for the previous quarter than any other individual photographer. So for RF stock, maybe no style was just fine.

The world of stock photography has been, shall we say, challenging, for a lot of photographers in recent years. Have you found that to be the case, and if so, what are the challenges that concern you most?

I’m going to answer this in an unconventional way. I used to subscribe to Jim Pickerell’s on-line magazine “Selling Stock”-“Inside the stock image industry”. You know Jim and his publication well, and I am sure he reads your blog. I have had several in-person conversations with him, and have at times posted comments on his site. For several years I found his magazine a very valuable asset, well worth the $125.00 annual subscription price (Now $195.00). Jim has established the contacts to have the inside story on all things stock-industry related. In this regard he is unsurpassed. However, this past year I let my subscription lapse on purpose. Jim has done a very good job of documenting the decline of our industry; too good of a job in my estimation. Some might say I have my head in the sand, but the level of doom and gloom, and the suggestion that everyone should be migrating to microstock as the only hope, just wore too thin for me.

How are you dealing with those challenges?

I’m reading your Blog instead. No kidding. We have all seen the marketplace change dramatically. What matters most is what we are doing to keep in the game. Beyond that, I would have to say that I accept that the “low-hanging fruit” has all been picked, and it is now being given away. This leaves me with the challenge of creating images that go beyond, and that are difficult to copy. I used to produce around 200 new images per year, and I knew pretty well what they would earn. I didn’t have to be too concerned about what I would shoot. Now, I’m producing fewer images, and I am being more deliberative about what I shoot.

Your work over the years has been primarily Royalty Free. I know that you have at least dipped your toe into the Rights Managed waters. What is your strategy at this point when it comes to RF and RM?

I have only had an RM contract with Getty for the past three years. For lack of a better plan, I have deferred to letting my editor at Getty make the determination regarding the best stock model on an image-by-image basis. I suppose that sounds pretty naive, but it has worked out well enough for me. If I shoot something that really seems like it should be RM to me, I can get it in one of the collections. As I strive to produce more unique images, I suppose I will feel like more of them belong in RM. But I do understand the power of a successful RF image, one that will sell many times, and my thought process when I create new images is to try and create something that will meet the needs of a lot of image buyers.

What are your thoughts on Microstock, and if you haven’t already done so, do you intend to participate in that model?

To properly express my analysis of this image marketing model would take pages and pages, but I will try and give a brief answer. Two years ago, in an effort to understand “what the fuss was all about” I began studying the Microstock world. I opened accounts at several Microstock agencies, and began reading forum posts and posting questions. This lead to email exchanges, and some very frank discussions with photographers from around the world. I, of course, read Microstock Diaries, and have posted there in length in the past. I have also been to several Microstock seminars / discussion panels. I have met a number of the “star players”.

After careful study, I placed a limited number of images with three agencies. I have now pulled all of the images from one agency and am in the process of pulling the images from the second. I am leaving my account at Istock open, but have not submitted any new material. I did not enter into this arena because I wanted to, or because I wish to support the model. I entered into it so that I could say with some authority that my opinion about Microstock was based on experience, and not just the reaction from someone from the traditional stock side. My current conclusions are not just based on the results from my sample of images, though they completely support my observational analysis.

There are plenty of philosophical reasons to object to the Microstock model, but I put those aside in an initial effort to give it a chance to prove itself from a strictly monetary basis; after all, I was willing to produce and sell in the RF arena when that was not a popular position to take. Having said all of this, and considering the current models in place, my basic conclusion is: a Microstock component in addition to a traditional stock photographer’s established traditional RF and RM content is a total waste of time. Spend the extra effort working toward creating better content for the traditional marketplace, RF and RM.

There is no doubt that the “stock photography marketing models” are now all moving targets, and tomorrow could bring huge changes. Our best defense is to keep informed, and to keep striving to create exceptional content, not just more and more “me, too” images.

I don’t know what your personal experience has been, but for most of us in stock, particularly in the RF arena, a glut of images has resulted in falling RPI (return per image) numbers…so we shoot more images, which increases the glut…do you see a way out of this vicious cycle?

I’m shooting less and thinking about what I’m shooting more. Microstock is taking over the volume game, so concentrating on quality content seems appropriate to me.

Your studio looks pretty incredible. Can you fill us in on how that came to be?

Assignment work allowed me to purchase my building and to finish it out. Stock sales allowed me to buy the very best equipment to fill it with.

What do you see the advantages and disadvantages of working in Lincoln, Nebraska?

On the positive side: real estate is very reasonable. I own my studio building, and live in a Victorian House on sixty acres. My main assignment client is located three blocks from my studio. There isn’t much competition. The traffic is light, and it’s a great place to raise a family.

On the negative side: There are no support services; no labs, (not that it matters anymore), there are no free-lance assistants, no model agency, no stylists, no prop houses, and no photo equipment rental operations. I also find it difficult to convince people to model for stock; they are willing to model for specific clients, but are hesitant to sign irrevocable unlimited talent releases. They want some control over how the images are used.

Can you show us a favorite stock image that you have created and tell us the story behind it?

Money tree photos ©Don Farrall

About ten years ago I created a money tree image. It was a composite created with Live Picture and Painter and Photoshop. It wasn’t very convincing, and had an obviously fake appearance. I was just learning these programs, and this was definitely an early effort. There were very few images of money trees in the stock photo offerings at the time, and this was a good concept with a broad appeal. It sold fairly well for many years. About two years ago I received a call from an Art Director who liked the image, but wanted to know if I had a version of the tree without any bills on it, an “empty money tree” to use along with the “full money tree” to illustrate an article. I remember thinking, “That’s a great idea, I should have done that,” but I hadn’t. I didn’t have an archive file of the empty tree, or a computer that would still run Live Picture to open it up even if I could have found it, so I wasn’t able to fulfill this need. However, the request became my reason for re-visiting this concept. A few months later I created a new “empty money tree”, and various steps between empty and full. This time around I built it for a white background and a grass-and-sky background. In addition, and with consideration for the current economic conditions, I thought it appropriate to break the money tree, and show it with the money falling to the ground. This second attempt looks a bit fake as well, or maybe on the positive side, a little more illustrative, but either way, they have sold fairly well. And this time I kept the composite parts.


There is a lot of buzz these days about video, especially now that the current crop of DSLRs all seem to shoot video. Do you shoot video, or have any plans to shoot video?

I purchased a Canon 5DMK2 when they first came out, thinking I could use it to learn something about video. I had used a “real” video camera in the past, and found the form- factor and limited adjustments of the 5D to be just way too inflexible. I figured if I was going to learn video, I should just buy a real video camera. So I did. I know a lot of people are making the DSLR’s work for video, but with all of the additional investment in support equipment and time that has followed, I feel like this was the wise choice for me. I have an ENG style Panasonic HD camera capable of 1080-24P and a myriad of other video flavors, and it will do for now. I am still in the learning process, but I am getting comfortable with the camera. I have already had a few clients ask me to let them know when I am ready to start shooting video for them. I am shooting stock clips as my practice. The sale of video clips is somewhat difficult to quantify, but like many still photographers, I am learning video because it appears to be the next expected skill to have mastered, and I have never been one to pass up an opportunity to learn something new.

I have been shooting for about the same time as you have, around thirty years now. I find it interesting to look back and see how much I have learned in just the last several years. Despite the falling prices, exploding competition and endless onslaught of technological advances I am still enjoying this career. I love getting up in the morning and getting to work. Do you still feel that way, and if so, what is it that gets you motivated in the morning?

I feel privileged to have been able to make my living doing daily what many, many people have chosen as a hobby. I enjoy the creative aspect, and I enjoy the respect and appreciation from clients who value what I have done for them. In some ways I find that appreciation missing in stock, because I hear so rarely from someone who uses one of my images. I enjoy every aspect of the process, so I suppose it is that enjoyment that gets me out the door and on my way to work every day.

What advice would you give to someone just getting started in photography?

That depends on their aspirations. Over the years I have had quite a few “would-be” photographers track me down to ask for advice. They want to know if they should go to school, or what school to go to. They ask me if I will hire them, or if anyone will hire them. They want to know what camera to buy, or how much they should charge for shooting a job.

If I spend much time with them, I can usually tell whether they will succeed in this, their possibly chosen field. It has little to do with how good a photographer they are at the time, and everything to do with how much passion they have. I realize this can be hard to quantify, but the passion comes through in enumerable ways. Now more than ever, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who want to be photographers, who want to make their living through photography. Anyone entering into this field must understand that there will be competitors out there who are willing to give 110% all the time in order to succeed; these people eat, breath and sleep this stuff. Thinking of photography as just a job like any other will not cut it, because the truly passionate and dedicated will crush the “it’s just a job” photographers every time. The competition level is way too high for anything less than seriously passionate and dedicated participants.

Any advice specifically for those moving into stock photography?

I used to counsel photographers about getting into stock and can be credited for bringing a handful of photographers, and even a few illustrators, through the process of securing a contract with Getty; back in the days when that was a Golden ticket. I would have to say that I am much less “Bullish” about it now. These are difficult times to be encouraging, so I suppose I would want to see someone’s work first before I answered that question for them.

Any final parting words you would like to leave us with?

John, I met you in San Francisco at a Photo Expo; I suppose it was around 1997. You introduced me to a killer software program, “Live Picture”, that was far more powerful than the PhotoShop of the day. I immediately bought it and put it to use. We met up again later in our careers as mutual warriors in the Stock Photo arena and shared a few good discussions in NYC, and have kept in touch since. You have always been very open and helpful to other photographers, and while I know you have ulterior motives in hosting this blog (the quest for SEO) you are continuing to give back to the photo community. You have built more than a fan base here. Thank you for sharing, and for your optimism.

And about that passion thing; I think it’s safe to say you have it, and that you will make it.

Don Farrall


www.donfarrall.com

Sarah Golonka Interview On Successful Stock Photography

 One of Sarah's favorite stock images. ©SarahGolonka

 Sarah, as an art director/editor for several stock agencies, a freelance photographer, stock consultant and a stock shooter, you must have, in a sense, a kind of “global” perspective on stock photography. Can you fill us in on your background in stock and photography, and your journey to where you are now?
I have been involved professionally with stock photography for over 7 years now, entering  the field shortly after graduating from collage at Purdue University, in West Lafayette, IN,  where I studied fine art photography & psychology.  At that time, I didn’t even know about stock photography, and how it would soon be playing such a major role in my future career.

Just after graduation,  I landed an internship as a photo assistant at this great little stock photography agency called PictureArts, in Culver City, CA. When I began interning at PictureArts, it was still a very small company, owned by Jeff Burke & Lorraine Triolo.  It was while I was working with the team at PictureArts, that I began to learn about the world of stock photography, and how stock photography was beginning to play such a major role in  the advertising market. I was soon hooked, and dove into learning all aspects of the stock photography world.

Fast forwarding a few years, I went from being an intern, to an editor and art director for PictureArt’s Brand X collection, worked freelance as an Art Director/Producer for both Jupiter Images & Corbis, and in addition, became a Senior Editor at Blend Images.  While each of my positions at these various stock agencies filled up my weekly schedules, I also took the time to shoot as a stock photographer as well.  I am currently represented by Jupiter, Getty, Blend Images & Tetra.

Throughout the years I have had the great opportunity to work with and learn from so many amazing creative people within the stock industry.  I’ve also have had the unique opportunity to see the stock photography world from both an editor and a photographer’s perspective.  This gives me a unique perspective, which I use to help encourage other photographers not only to shoot smart, but also to shoot creatively.

How are you allocating your time these days (with stock, editing, photography assignments and consulting)?
I am working on quite a few different projects, all of which I love!   Right now my time is spent as both a stock photography consultant, (which includes both editing and art direction for a few different stock photographers and agencies,)  and then I am also shooting as a freelance stock, event & portrait photographer, within the Los Angeles, CA area. You can view my current work on my website: http://www.smg-photography.com

At the moment I am working on an exciting project with Sanrio (Hello Kitty,) as their event photographer for their Three Apples Exhibition, which is a 3 week long exhibit celebrating the 35th anniversary of Hello Kitty. This is currently  taking place at Royal/T Café, in downtown Culver City, CA.  I’ve been documenting all aspects of this event and look forward to having my photography published next year in a book that will be sold as a commemorative item of the event.  You can learn more about this great event by visiting the Three Apples website: http://www.sanrio.com/threeapples


You were my editor at Blend Images, and also worked with several other photographers I am close with.  I know we all respected your feedback and your ability to help us see how we could maximize our stock shoots.  From your experience are there any “universal” or “common” areas that most photographers overlook when shooting stock?
Focusing on quantity vs. quality:
I still see so many photographers trying to shoot aggressively, focusing on the quantity vs. the quality of the images that they are producing for stock.   Especially these days, within this current marketplace, I think it is so important to shoot smart, which means turning your focus to producing images of higher quality instead of quantity.   Many photographers also need to start putting much more time into their pre-production; taking an extra moment to do the research to see what does and does not already exist in the current marketplace, generate some new ideas that they haven’t seen on a stock site before, and incorporating those ideas into a shoot list ahead of time, in addition to communicating with their editors to make sure they are on the right path, before they even begin shooting.  Shooting blindly always will give you mixed results.


High production value:
I don’t think that a shoot needs to cost a lot of money to be successful, but I do feel that a shoot needs to reflect high production value in order to be competitive in today’s marketplace.  These day’s it’s so important to raise the bar and take the extra time to think about your concepts, casting, location, lighting and styling.  All of these details are equally important to make your images more sellable.  So many of the ‘same old’ images are out there now, so why not try to take these sellable concepts and put your own creative spin on them, or just create some new concepts on your own?  Clients want to spend money on images that look new and fresh and different than what they have seen before.  Plus, creating something unique will give you less competition within the existing marketplace and in turn, will generate more sales for you if you are shooting a sellable concept.

The photographer/talent relationship:
I also see many photographers not taking the time to connect with their models, before and during a shoot.  If you take the time to make a personal connection with your talent, they will be more comfortable around you and in turn, you will create stronger and more realistic images. Be nice and make friends. Models have feelings too!

Know your own stock sales history:
This I see a lot of shooters not doing.  They know they have made money from their images, but do they know exactly which images of theirs have been selling over and over?  More importantly, do they know which images of theirs are NOT selling?  Just by taking the time to review your stock sales history, you can learn a lot about what clients like and maybe do not like, about your particular style or choice in subject matter.  Once you start to research your own sales history, you then can begin to see, from a client’s perspective, what your stock photography strengths and weakness are, and then shoot accordingly.

How has your photography and editing experience helped you in shooting stock?
I have had the unique experience of looking at the stock photography world from two different perspectives, as an editor and as a photographer.  From this I have drawn the conclusion that it is of the utmost importance for a photographer to communicate with their editors and to take advantage of the creative feedback and advice that they are willing to give you.  If you have an editor that doesn’t give you much feedback, then be a bit more aggressive and ask some more specific questions.  Learning what your editor does and does not like, and why, will only help you become a better stock photographer.

Your editors are looking at your images from not only a creative standpoint, but also in terms of whether or not your images are sellable & competitive in today’s marketplace.  Always ask questions and find out why some of your images were not selected after an edit, then be sure to take that into consideration when you plan your next shoot.  Learn from each of your submissions.  Don’t be offended by your editor’s advice or criticism.   They are looking at your images in terms of salability, so take the time to learn why they think one of your images was more sellable over another.  This is how you can then start to shoot smart and then begin to gear each of your shoots towards your agency’s specific wants and needs.  In turn, you will begin to see your select rate begin to increase, which is what everyone wants, right?

For you, what is the most challenge aspect of shooting stock? 
Taking a great idea and actually getting it to reflect that concept in a contemporary & sellable way.  Having a great idea and then executing it successfully, is never an easy task. Today you have to take so many additional details into account so that your stock images look individualistic and different than all the rest.  Here is when spending the extra time in pre-production really comes into account.  Having a solid shoot list is a great start, but then hiring strong talent (that looks and acts natural in front of the camera,) in addition to  making sure all the location and wardrobe styling details work together too….it’s a lot more difficult than many people expect.  It’s always a challenge for me.

What is the most challenging aspect of editing or art directing another photographer’s work?
Communication.  Each photographer is different and some respond better to visual examples for inspiration, while others prefer more verbal direction.  Some photographers take constructive criticism well, others do not.  Any art director or editor can have a great idea or shot in mind, but communicating that idea successfully to the photographer, and getting them to shoot that concept in the way in which you want, is always challenging!

Can you explain what separates an average stock image from a best seller?
A best selling image will not only display a sellable concept that is easily understood by the masses, but it will also push the creative envelope.  A ‘best seller’ image doesn’t look like a similar to other images shot by other photographers.  It’s individualistic. It looks real. If it is a lifestyle image, the people in the image have very natural expressions and body language, as if they are real people who had no idea that a camera was even in the room.

A ‘best seller’ image usually will also have some negative space, (so that the client can have the ability to crop or add text overlay, to the image,)  and the image will also be identifiable at a small thumbnail size. (If a client is searching a stock website, if they can’t tell what the image is as a thumbnail, they will never click on it in the first place!)  Also, the styling will be just right, the colors will compliment the subject in a contemporary way and the details of the location will not overpower the subject, but will add to the story being told, in a very natural and realistic way.

How about what separates an average shooter from an exceptional shooter?
I would say that an exceptional shooter takes the time to ‘shoot smart,’ (aka: pre-production, creative research,) but then also takes creative risks. Almost anyone can shoot a sellable concept, but it’s those who shoot that concept in a creative way, which hasn’t been done or seen before, are the ones that open themselves up to creating some of the best selling stock imagery.  Yes, taking those risks may not always work, but if you do it right, the rewards will outweigh the risks.

What do you like to shoot the most?
I really love shooting people!   Working with two or more models is my favorite because I can get them to really interact with each other, which allows me to focus on documenting their natural, personal interaction, in a creative way.   

Where do you get your ideas?
I get my ideas from a multitude of different sources.   Yes, I always like to be aware of what already exists in the current stock marketplace, but then the key is to create something that doesn’t already exist.  So after I look to see what agencies do have, I then turn to other sources for my inspiration. I always take the time to visit the local bookstores to spend time flipping through all the magazines that are on the stands.  It’s great to see what existing stock images are being printed and how they are being used. But more importantly, I also make sure to review the more editorial, assignment and fine art resources as well.  I draw a lot of inspiration from looking at what many of the non-stock photography shooters are doing, by looking at different publications as well, or  by visiting gallery exhibits and reviewing various creative blogs and websites. Honestly, we are bombarded by visual imagery everywhere these days, so you can draw ideas from anywhere!


What is your process for creating stock?
When I am beginning the pre-production for a stock shoot, I first speak with my editor and make sure I am shooting agency-specific.  I want to know exactly what their specific wants and needs are, since I don’t want to waste anyone’s time.  Shooting stock is about creating imagery that will make money, so that’s my most important first step,  making sure my shoot idea is actually a sellable one and that it will include images that my agency will actually select for their collection.  

Next I begin my creative research so I can create a strong shoot list and determine all my production details.   I first look to see what my agency already has on the subject that I’m going to shoot, making sure I’m not repeating any of the same ideas so I can gear my shoot towards what hasn’t been covered yet.  Then I begin to pull tear sheets and other creative inspiration from a multitude of sources.  I also put a lot of thought into my casting, (do they have a sellable look and can they act natural in front of a camera? )  After that I determine my location, wardrobe details (including color and style,) and work hard to make sure that everything falls into place.  Before I shoot, if my editor is up for it, I send them my shoot list and some of my styling/production ideas to make sure I’m on the right track, before I finalize my production details and start shooting.

What kind of material, in your experience, has the most income potential?
Well, from my experience I know that there are certain subjects that are always very sellable, since there is such a need for them in the marketplace, such as sports, education, and seasonal imagery, but yet depending on what agency you are distributing your work through, those needs may change depending on the agencies specific clientele.  Being a bit more general, I’d say that stock shooters should strive for creating images that again, look different and have a higher production value than what we already see being over-represented at all these current stock agencies.  Overall, images that tell a story, look natural and realistic, and that portray a strong concept;  have the most potential for creating more income for the photographer.


What is the most common mistake that stock photographers make?
Shooting for quantity vs. quality. Slow down and take the time before your shoot to do the research, create a strong shoot list and make sure all your production ducks are in a row.   Then during your shoot, you can relax, be creative and focus on getting some good variety.

What is it like to have your own stock photography edited by someone else?
Difficult, but yet eye-opening.  “Knowing” vs. actually “doing,” are two different monsters, which I learned quite quickly.   I actually love getting a critique by another editor because it gives me the chance to ask all those important questions and to find out how I can grow to become a stronger stock photographer.  I think that many photographers look at their own work much differently than they would someone else’s,  since they have much more of a personal connection with it.  This is why it’s so important for me to get as much creative feedback as possible from my editors, after a shoot.  That’s the way I learn how to make more money creating stock.   I know that I may not always agree with their decisions, but again, I know they are not telling me whether or not I’m a good photographer, just whether or not my images are sellable.  That’s an important clarification to make and to always take into consideration. 

Have you involved yourself with motion?  If not, do you plan on doing so?
Currently, I am not, but I do plan to eventually become involved.  I’ve been keeping up with all the current trends in this new and upcoming market and for right now, I am actively watching and learning to see where it’s going. Motion involves many new financial investments, and has a bit of a learning curve too, so I don’t want to jump in until I’m ready.

I have this suspicion that what separates the best of RM, RF and Micro is simply the label we put on it.  That being said, I do believe there are images that are more appropriate for each category.  Can we have your thoughts on that?
I personally believe that the quality (and sometimes subject matter,) should be the main differential factor when placing images into one collection vs. another.

Over the years I’ve seen so much inter-mixing between each sales model that it’s almost anyone’s guess these days, on whether an image is a RM, RF or sometimes even Micro, just by simply looking at the image.  I believe that although at one time each individual collection was once visually identifiable, it is no longer as easy to make that determination.  But, to keep stock photography alive and financially sound for the photographers who do shoot it for a living, I do think many agencies need to redefine and adhere to an updated creative strategy, specific to each sales model.

As things stand currently, I think that image quality and subject matter should be taken into consideration when the decision is being made to which collection an image is being placed into. It is now in the past where one could assume that a RM image was of higher quality than a RF image.  Due to this fact, I think photographers should look at RF & RM in terms of being different sales models vs. a defining factor of whether or not their images are of high quality.  In turn, photographers should also gear their shooting towards one model vs. another,  since they appeal to two different types of clientele, and therefore, depending on which collection your images are in, it could have a noticeable affect on your image sales.

Now that Micro has made great strides in the marketplace, the competition has increased ten-fold and photographers have much more competition than they ever did in the past.  I think there is a place for RM, RF and Micro in the current marketplace, but in my personal opinion, I think it’s up to both the stock agencies and the stock photographers to do the right thing and help keep the definitions clear, between each collection. I also think that if a professional stock photographer decides to shoot micro, they should put a bit of thought into the repercussions of their actions. I believe that Micro should not include super high-quality images. These images have their place in RF & RM collections.   If photographers begin to submit high-quality work to Micro,  they will be helping to contribute to the downfall of current RF/RM stock price points, resulting in a image market where both high quality and low quality images are all competing at the same low price point.  This, in time, could dramatically reduce the income of any full time stock photographer, who makes their income from both RM and RF sales.

Hypothetically, let’s say a photographer shot a high-quality image and put it in an RF/RM collection, and then they took that same image and put it into a Micro collection.  What do you think will happen?   You’ll not only be competing with yourself, but how happy will you be with your sales when your Micro shot sold more than your RF/RM image, and in turn, you made a lot less money?  I think Micro has a place and is a great outlet for photographers who can afford a big staff to help with making shooting Micro profitable, in addition to many amateurs and part-time photographers who normally wouldn’t have a market to distribute their images.  (Yes, I know there are always exceptions…)  But right now I believe it’s more important than ever for a stock photographer to shoot smart and think about why you are placing your images in one collection vs. another, and what can happen over time,  if you want to keep making a profit from shooting stock photography full time.  


Do you think it is important, or will be important, for individual stock photographers, to have their work on their own web sites?
I think it’s important for any photographer to have their own work on their own websites.  Everyone is web-savvy these days and if you don’t have yourself professionally represented online, your potential models or clients may question the quality of your work, your intentions or you may just be closing the door to many potential job opportunities. 

Do you believe that Google Image Search is, or will become, a significant factor in the world of stock photography?
Yes, I think any image search engine, including Google image search, is going to keep becoming more and more significant as time goes on.  Understanding Google analytics is a very complicated process but it should not be ignored, since more and more people do a direct Google search to find what they are looking for, online.   Phone books are a thing of the past.  I know that I have personally received unsolicited work from a Google search alone, so why wouldn’t someone else take advantage of at least properly tagging their images and personal websites to help increase their marketing and exposure?

What advice would you give someone just starting out as a stock photographer?
Question everything and learn from the answers your receive, communicate with other stock photographers and your editor; and most importantly, stick to your own style and learn how to apply sellable concepts to your images vs. trying to change your style to what you believe is ‘successful’ stock shooting style.

What advice would you give a jaded veteran such as me?
Keep your head up and look back to help prepare yourself for the future. Be aware of and open to change and work with it vs. against it.  Analyze your sales history and draw your own conclusions as to why your images did and did not sell, then apply that information to your future shoots. Keep taking creative risks and stick to shooting what you are good at vs. trying to reinvent the wheel. 

Are you optimistic about the future of stock photography (and why or why not)?
Change is happening and honestly, I am more curious vs. optimistic about the future of stock photography.  I know it will not disappear, but also am unsure of how profitable it will be, compared to the past.  So much is going on right now …..I do not think that anyone will be able to make any clear predictions about it’s future until people’s spending habits (and art buyer’s budgets,) go back to normal and the economy stabilizes.  Regardless, I do know that the previous way that photographers used to go about producing stock photography is now part of the past.  The bar has been raised and much more effort is now being placed on the photographers shoulders, then ever before.  It’s no longer about pushing a button to document a simple concept.  Now it’s about creating an image that tells a story in a very new, interesting and creative way.

On a positive note though, I do feel optimistic that those photographers who are open to change, are willing to take creative risks and who pay close attention to the business aspect of their stock photography, (analyzing their commission statements, etc. )  These are the stock shooters who are on top of their game and in the end, will have the holding power to float above this current wave of change in our industry.