Holy Crap Is IstockPhoto Expensive!

Some of their vector drawings and photos are expensive, but most are reasonable at about 3 credits for a usable size. I think it depends on the source of the image and also whether it's an exclusive image. They do offer the best quality images of any of the micro stock sites in my opinion though, but personally I seldom use 20 credit images as decent, cheaper substitutes are available most of the time.

However, don't complain too fast about 20 credits. Head over to gettyimages.com as an example. $125 for a 500x700px image, often no better quality than the ones you can pick up at micro stock sites for just over a buck. There are many other stock sites as well where you can easily pay upward of $50 for a low resolution image.

For low cost images, also try bigstockphoto.com, dreamstime.com, stockxpert.com.

I think you're viewing the screen with the hi-res selected as a defauly.

A x-small web size image is usually about 1 credit.

To re-enforce the other's comments, the x-small is 1 credit and usually good for web design. I've used the next size up a few times when the graphic was a bigger component of the design.

FWIW - the default selection that comes up when you view an image (like when you're ready to buy it) is the 20 credit one - just click on the size you prefer and it will update the credit cost accordingly.

I do agree the vector items are a bit stiff - have used a few and they were high quality though.

Gary

Yeah, I used to buy a lot of photos and vector files from them but their prices are way too expensive now. I use more vector files than I do photos, so if anyone knows where to get high quality vectors at cheaper prices than istock, let me know.

Actually, $20 to $30 dollars would be dirt cheap for a company designing a brochure, building a premium website or spicing up their corporate magazine.

Let me add Stockxpert to the list, most photos for the web are only $1.

Art

Thanks Steve,

Someone mentioned a Government site (all public domain) for pics as well I have used it but have since forgotten the URL. Thanks for the tips about using the small images if they are of good resolution they could be blown up and still be usable for banners, etc.

I was just shocked at the price I about spit up my coffee....As usual there are ways to adapt and overcome.

You can use the Advanced Search on iStockPhoto.com to only get results that are "affordable"

It's a text link for Advanced Search in the header on the right

When the Advanced Search window pops up, you'll see "Search by file sizes and prices" on the left.

You have dropdown menus to select files that will include minimum result of size/price that you want to appear.

Photographs
For Photographs, "xsmall" and "small" are typically just 1 to 3 credits and they are usually a good size for blog posts (varying with individual providers, but approx 300x400px - 600x800px).

You will want to choose much higher resolution (bigger sizes) for print or even for ebook covers, etc. if you are using high quality Photoshop actions that create the ebook covers in high resolution.

You can also use the little icons next to the Photographs dropdown menu to exclude horizontal, vertical, or square photos as well (huge time saver!)

Illustrations/Vector
Under the photographs options is the Illustrations dropdown which will give you the option to search by how many credits the images cost.

This is available with illustrations (vector), because there is only one size (vector files can be opened at whatever size you want without losing quality).

Hope that helps
Cheers
Jay

Are you making the banners for a package to resell? that is the only case where it is that expensive for web resolution.

you can use stock.xchng - the leading free stock photography site

it only needs to be given credit in most cases.

We use it for ebook covers of packages with plr or any resell right.

the images are not that professional, but with some nice backgrounds they end up looking really good.

Laura

I've always used Dreamstime.com

They just recently increased their prices a little, but I believe they are still quite a bit cheaper than most other stock sites.

it depents on the photographer, but yes istockphoto is expensive, but if you look around there are enough free sites

About a year ago - maybe a little bit more - I was browsing in my local bookshop and came across one of those turn-stands containing CD packages. Most were instructional stuff (of the "Learn Spanish At Home" variety) but something that caught my eye on the top shelf was a set of 4 CDs containing 500,000 royalty-free images of every conceivable subject. The package contains web graphics, photographs, clip art, and images of individual things (with transparent backgrounds). The price? €12.99!

Right next to it was a 3 CD set containing 50,000 high-quality (some VERY high quality) royalty-free photographs divided in 20 categories, including people, holidays, food, vehicles, sports, wildlife, lifestyles, education, business, industry, argiculture, etc. The price? €9.99!

Needless to say, I got both and I don't think I have needed to pay for or download a single image since.

IStockPhoto might be charging $30 for a single image (20 credits X $1.50/credit) but my local bookshop only charged me €22.98 for 550,000 images... which is about 0.004178 cents per image!

Regards,
Tommy.

Actually, iStockPhoto is one of the cheapest places to get (decent) quality stock photos.

Try GettyImages, or try to actually hire a stock photographer... it costs much much more, and rightfully so.


Personally, I hate iStockPhoto because it brings the market value down for working stock photographers (which is why I'm no longer a pro). It bothers the hell out of me that people think that $1.50 is too much for an image that you're using for your BUSINESS that MAKES YOU MONEY. Especially when it probably took the photographer a decent amount of time to set up, capture and process that photo.

Don't forget that us photographers have sometimes tens of thousands of dollars invested in equipment... so $1.50 (which the photographer only sees about $.30 of) for an image isn't even close to paying for expenses.


If you think piracy for your precious little products are bad... try being a professional photographer.



Don't even get me started on those of you that don't think high quality photos are worth the money...

I was under the impression that there was certain pics from flickr you could use but that whole common license stuff baffles me. Kind of like PLR and MRR so many people want to take it and call it PLR but when you ask it really isnt the PLR I thought it stood for.

With this 2 year old thread resurfacing... and scrolling the list of what USED to be free stock image collections... I'm noticing a trend that sniffs distinctly of DeBeers.

It looks like the stock photo sites are buying up the freebie sites as soon as they get any traction at all... just to make sure there isn't really any free alternative to their overpriced product.

Makes ya go Hmmmmm?

Yeah there are too pricy and I don't see the value in those prices when there are so many free sites and cheaper sites that one can go to. They can keep those prices, specially since their selection is not better than anywhere else.

Hey there Warriors; I was recently searching for some images myself, and I definitely did not want to rack up a huge bill. With some time spent in search of such a source, I came across a site called Photl.com ? Royalty Free Photo Stock: Buy And Download Photo Images

Here is info from the site:

The unique feature of all photo images is that they are not widely circulated and are contained only in photl.com base.

Free Download 849 x 565 pix! The best tariff plans for commercial use (Extended Royalty Free):
by subscription from 0,012$ a photo single photo - from 0,15$ to 1$

* You can buy a picture now in any resolution, by clicking on the "buy now" or put it in a basket and take advantage of discounts, or pay the fare. Or download it for free in the resolution of S (849x565px) after a simple registration.

Let me know what ya think;
Joe

I usually find something on morguefile.com I can use and Jazzup in photoshop!

I use dreamstime usually, they have a good selection but still expensive..I rather buy the pictures for that price, instead of getting sued and pay 100000x the price

im a photographer that sells on istock and for the massive 20 credits they charge per photo i get a massive 9 to 60 cents an image.

bigstockphoto.com has a great selection and you can easily pay per image, $3 - $5 each.

Exactly - iStock got greedy. Same quality, quantity, ease of navigation etc. at Pond5 dot com with every image priced at $1-up!

MBDirect

That's nothing...good price, and I use them all the time.

If you think that's expensive, wait until you get a letter from Getty images or similar, and they want $10,000 for using their images without permission.

I usually use DreamsTime which is cheap compared to other stock photo sites. For blog posts, one usually requires under 500x600 sized photos and these come at about 1 credit (about a dollar). Make sure that you use the filter of restricting to 1 credit when searching for photos.

I use Royalty-Free Stock Photos, Illustrations & Vector Art | Depositphotos®

You can get a small image that works for blog posts, banners, or ebook covers for about 50 cents.

iStock used to be my no 1 stock photo agency income earner, but that's no longer the case. Their traffic is way down, their upload process is a pain in the *ss

Why pay? there are many many sites that will allow you to use their photos for free. Just read their terms of use and follow their rulings and you don't have to pay a single cent for stock photos anymore.



Qamar

Yeah, iStock is really expensive. However, I looked for some decent photos for my sites and their quality was better than anyone else I tried (especially for people shots).

I think I would use iStock for a crucially important image (like a photo used in the header), but for general editorial photos I couldn't justify the expense.

I like to use images from the Creative Commons section on Flickr - they're free, but have various requirements. For most you just need to give an attribution to the photographer.

my office uses it and i thought it was cheap

I just dont like the idea of my paid credits expiring. I paid for it, why should they expire?