Taking Stock

Getting access to stock photography in the film era was a complicated affair. Stock agencies began humbly in the 1920s, as newspapers looked for an affordable way to illustrate their stories. The practice of using stock grew through the media-hungry years of the second world war, and really took off in the late 1980s and 1990s, as digital technologies like CD-ROMS and modems made transmission easier. Film-era agencies generally fell into two categories—general-purpose stock agencies representing the work of a (relatively) large roster of photographers and smaller specialized agencies that would focus on a subject like sports or architecture. To find an image, creatives would have to flip through page after page of agency catalogs, sometimes arranged according to key themes and sometimes not.

The process of finding the right image would take hours or days, and often it would be easier to settle for an image that was almost-right rather than go through any more books of stock. To use an image, the agency (who you’d have to call) would mail a reproduction, or in some cases an original piece of film. Courier deliveries of film were common, as was insurance against loss or damage. Stock film and videotape footage were even more difficult to find, as there was no quick way to jump to a frame to check for a particular keyword. Many television stations and networks amassed huge libraries of in-house stock footage to use for projects.

Digital capture and transmission of images and footage has changed the stock agency radically, perhaps more than any other part of the photo business. Photographers often made huge sums for their stock work, thanks to the scarcity of images and the complexity of the system. A good stock photographer would make hundreds or thousands of dollars on popular images, keeping a good portion of the revenue. A flood of digital photographers and the simplicity of taking and of sending photos completely shifted the model. While many of the big stock houses tried to maintain a model of providing a high percentage of the sale price to the photographer or videographer, the pressure of the competition often acts as a race to the bottom.

Very few stock agencies still offer the high-cost, high-quality model of premium stock, stock photography captured with the same attention to detail and creative flair of any commercial shoot. Most have moved to microstock, which makes up the majority of the stock business these days, though it is often cited for being the single biggest factor toward the oft-cited “demise” of stock as a career. Microstock gets a bad rap because of the low-prices microstock footage commands. However, very few photographers actually made a living off of premium stock in the film days, and probably a similar number still do. The increased demand for photos and videos has opened up new markets and opened stock up to new photographers.

Microstock has, and does, lower the bar for stock photography, as it lowers the cost, but it reaches a much larger audience, and the lower price is a natural (though unfortunate) consequence of a huge amount of competition and lower barriers to entry. That’s not to say that photographers and videographers can’t make a living off of stock creation—certainly it’s possible, and this issue features several creatives who have done just that. But the world of stock has expanded rapidly, and with that expansion has come a seemingly ever-increasing number of agencies. This roster of agencies provides a look at some of the more popular options available for photographers, videographers, sound engineers and artists looking to create stock and reach today’s audience and their limitless appetite for content.

Shutterstock

Shutterstock is one of the best-known stock agencies of the modern era. The company offers photographs, design elements, music, footage and a collection of editorial images for use in reporting in the fields of sports, entertainment, news and royalty. Shutterstock content ranges from the “typical” stock photo often found in internet memes (women eating salad and smiling) to more carefully crafted work.

Images and graphics can be licensed on a per-use basis ($29 for two images), or as a subscription that ranges from $29 per month for up to 10 images per month to 750 images per month for $200. Videos can be licensed for $79 for HD quality, and while there is no all-you-can-eat plan for videos, bundles are available ranging from five HD clips for $359 to 25 HD clips for $1580. Shutterstock owns a number of the stock agencies, including Offset (below) and Bigstock. ♦ Website: shutterstock.com

Getty Images (and Corbis), iStock, Thinkstock, Photos.com

Corbis was one of the longest-running names in stock, once serving a filmbased workflow, and was one of the two big go-to agencies in the film era. Interestingly, Corbis started as a project of Bill Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) to gather imagery to be delivered in digital picture frames, a concept that never caught on. Getty Images was the other 800-lb gorilla in the stock market room, a big competitor to Corbis, and eventually ended up absorbing Corbis.

Getty provides photography, video footage and music and also creates editorial content. You can (as an example taken from when this went to press) read about the vendors and artists behind the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle—brought to life by Getty’s photo contributors and editorial team. Getty Images proper (as opposed to its subsidiaries) maintains the model of high-price, high-value photos and videos.

A single “large” image or 4K/HD video costs $575, while “small” images and web videos cost $175 per download (bundles are available). iStock and Thinkstock are gateways to Getty’s “microstock,” with prices in the $20-$50 range on the sites (bigger bundles decrease the prices, and both offer flexible plans and/or subscriptions). The site istockvideo.com is an alternate entry-point to iStock that filters by video content. Photos.com puts an interesting twist on the proposition of stock photography by offering prints (with or without frames) of images from the Getty collection.

If you find an image you like on Getty, you can hang it on your wall with a few clicks. Photos.com outputs to canvas, acrylic and aluminum, too, which makes it a one-stop shop for interior designers looking to furnish a space with artwork. ♦ Websites: gettyimages.com, istock. com, thinkstock.com, photos.com

Pond5

It would be hard to find a video producer who doesn’t know Pond5 and their massive library of stock video, music, sound effects and video effects. Pond5 also offers photos, illustrations and 3D work, though they’re mainly known for their video content. The company adds more than 15,000 pieces of content a day and has rolled out AI-based search and discovery tools to make finding the perfect footage easier.

Plug-ins for popular web browsers allow searches on Pond5 based on whatever a user is viewing on a website, and it’s even possible to upload a photo or video to perform searches for similar footage. Pond5 has a deal with DJI to provide high-quality drone footage from FAA Part 107-certified pilots and provides video to Adobe Stock users, via a partnership with that company. Pond5 users can use the pay-as-yougo plan with clips starting as low as $25 or a monthly membership for $200 a month with up to 10 downloads. ♦ Website: pond5.com

Adobe Stock

Adobe Stock has an advantage over most of the other stock agencies in that its library can be searched directly from inside Adobe Creative Cloud apps, with watermarked previews opening up inside those apps to help with the creative process. Adobe offers photos, vectors and illustrations and videos (both provided by Adobe contributors and by Pond5 contributors) and also provides templates for its creative apps. You can download Photoshop, Illustrator, Motion, InDesign and more in order to kickstart a project.

Adobe has plans starting at $30 for 10 assets a month, up to $200 for 750 assets a month (the company considers an asset to be any photo, illustration or template), and video for $80 per clip. Credit packs offer savings to those looking to use numerous videos or assets. ♦ Website: stock.adobe.com

Dreamstime

Dreamstime is probably the biggest stock agency you’ve never heard of. The company boasts 21,000,000 registered members, more than 78,000,000 images and assets, and 400,000 contributors. Dreamstime sells images, audio and video through subscriptions running from $35 per month for five images up to $2,030 per month for 9,000 images (though it often has discounts on these plans).

It’s also possible to buy credits, usable for videos, images or other assets. ♦ Website: dreamstime.com

Offset

Offset, which is now part of Shutterstock, offers “lifestyle” images with a more natural look than many stock agencies provide. (Disclaimer: I have been a contributor to Offset.) Offset images tend to be less “scripted” than many stock agencies, as providing a more editorial and natural look— with an emphasis on family—was part of the company’s original mission, though “classic” stock photos (smiling people having drinks!) have become an increasing part of the library.

Images are available for $500 for high-res and $249 for low res, with “exclusive” licensing available for some images. ♦ Website: offset.com