Comments on: Affordable stock photography for designers

By: royalty free image

royalty free image — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:09:36 +0000

I see your point when you compare Getty’s prices to small, specialized photo agencies back in the day but I don’t think I was really being that critical of my comps. I was pointing out that you classified them as being affordable which you have now clarified a bit and I was saying that the first two, Getty and Istock aren’t seen as really being affordable anymore. In addition istock forces you to buy credit packages to purchase even a single image and if you don’t use all the credits on that one purchase (i think the smallest is like 15 bucks), the credits expire after a year and you lose them. I was trying to add more details to what you wrote and I guess I didnt do a great job of detailing it 😉

The reason why a lot of these microstock and free image sites popped up, in addition to some of the points you discussed about cameras and the rise of supply, was that Getty was too expensive and designers wanted images they could use multiple times and for a few bucks.

Do you have any data that shows that Getty was affordable besides anecdotal or was it just in comparison to their rights managed competitors? I am just asking and not trying to say I know everything. Their rights managed collection was never considered affordable for anyone outside of an advertising agency, publisher or corporation.

By: James

James — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:49:23 +0000

But Getty Images WAS affordable back in the day, when compared to the old “stock” houses that would charge thousands of dollars for a single image that you could use one time. And that is the context I meant when I said that.

I appreciate your comments, but you have to admit that when you criticize other stock houses when you yourself work for one of their competitors, it doesn’t hold a whole lot of water.

I have never heard of cutcaster, but I will certainly give it a look.

By: royalty free photo

royalty free photo — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:31:45 +0000

I wouldn’t start my article out about Getty Images as being a source for affordable images at one time and its even funny that you have three Getty owned properties linked to in affordable images. One is super expensive (Getty), one is getting much more expensive and screwing contributors commissions (istock) and one is free (sxc). Getty has never been or called “affordable.”

I would call your list a free or microstock listing of agencies and its a good list. Have you looked at http://www.cutcaster.com? Cutcaster offers both free and royalty free images and illustrations to the graphic design community and you can download high res images or detailed vector graphics for just a few bucks. If the price is somehow too high we have a bidding mechanism where you can state the price you want to pay directly to the photographer. We also pay some of the highest royalty commissions in the industry to our contributors.

By: Affordable stock photography for designers | Eastwind Photography.

Affordable stock photography for designers | Eastwind Photography. — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:00:54 +0000

[…] Affordable stock photography for designers […]

By: James

James — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:24:50 +0000

Like I said, I’m not a fan of the credit system – for the very reason you mention. However, if you’re working for a creative agency, design firm, or are a really busy freelancer, a credit or two left-over is the least of your concerns. And to be honest, you really should charge your client enough to cover the credits and your time for searching, etc.

By: lisa

lisa — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:27:13 +0000

I have a few others to add, I’m in the midst of microstock agency research right now. I’m an iPhone developer and graphic designer — easy to understand terms for print use, but for apps…it’s a complete grey area. I’m finding I need to contact all directly to make sure photos for app usage is in compliance with their terms. Anyway here’s a few more, all with various usage rights.

freedigitalphotos.net
imageafter.com
unprofound.com (not great photos)
grungetextures.com (texture photos, decent quality)
bigstock.com
fotolia.com
dreamstime.com
everystockphoto.com

Deviantart.com has so many talented artists, and worth a look. But do contact the artist, each may permit/not permit use.

By: Jonathan Patterson

Jonathan Patterson — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:16:20 +0000

Your istock pricing is a little off. Prices range from about $1.50 to a about $50 minimum for certain images.

By: amack

amack — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:05:28 +0000

Requiring credits is a sleazy business practice because we can’t buy the exact number we need. The result is always a few credits left over—but not enough for the next image, so we buy more and still have a few left over. On top of that they expire, so don’t plan on waiting a year (i.e., using other sites in the meantime) and applying your credits because they’ll be gone. iStockphoto, are you listening?