Stock photography can be a part time activity for some people. Even highly trained and successful professionals in other fields are engaged in shooting  stock.

Quentin Bargate is a photographer undertaking commercial, landscape, botanical, portrait, food and general photography from his studios based in North Essex, England.
Quentin is a Licentiate of the Royal Photographic Society (LRPS) and a consultant and principal photographer to Barleigh Stock, a new online stock photo library.
Quentin is also a Principal of Quentin Bargate & Co and a trained shipping lawyer, holding a Master’s degree in Marine law and Policy, and having worked in shipping law since 1983.

Quentin was interviewed by Theodoros Papageorgiou with questions regarding his involvement, perspective and experiences with the stock photography field.

Theodoros Papageorgiou: Tell us a little about how and when you became involved in stock photography.

Quentin Bargate: I have always been a keen photographer, and dabbled in stock photography some years ago without much success.  Then In 2003, I decided to make a much more structured effort to make something of stock, and set up a small specialist library, Barleigh Stock, spending a not inconsiderable amount of my own money in the process.

TP: You are a successful lawyer and you have your own law firm, Quentin Bargate & Co . You are also a photographer , you shoot stock and you undertake assignment work.  Why did you decide to pursue a second career in stock photography?
 
QB: Interesting question.  My original career plan way back was to go to art college.  I always had artistic inclinations.  But I ended up studying law as a safe option – not that I am complaining, as I have enjoyed a great career in major global law firms headquartered in London, including 14 years as a partner in Simmons & Simmons, before forming my own firm, Quentin Bargate & Co, in 2004.
 
TP: Is there a possibility that you might leave your business as a lawyer and become a full-time stock photographer or do you have concerns about the viability of such a decision?  
 
QB: The idea is appealing.  I love photography, but realistically I need to earn more from stock than at present for this to be a viable option.  I’ll therefore carry on doing both for the time being.
 
TP: Do you think you could make a living in stock photography without doing assignments, weddings, etc.
 
QB: Yes, it’s possible.  Treat it as a full time job, and its definitely possible.  The mistake is to think it’s an easy option – its not. It takes dedication and hard work, like all careers.
 
TP: You are also a consultant and principal photographer to Barleigh Stock agency that represents the work of 10 photographers. Do you plan to accept more photographers in the near future? If so in which subject areas.
 
QB: The business plan for Barleigh is under review so at present, we are not currently looking for new contributing photographers.
 
TP: You license RM imagery through your agency website. Is this your marketing choice or do you also license RF at barleighstock?  
 
QB:  We have a few RF, but its mainly RM.  
 
TP: You also sell RF imagery through Alamy under the pseudonym "Douglas Freer". Why do you use an alias to sell your RF imagery?
 
QB: I thought it would be useful to brand rights managed and royalty free differently.  At the time, I still had a few RF images on Alamy, but I have now also decided to focus all my RF efforts on Microstock sites.  I have asked for the few RF images I have on Alamy to be removed, which will happen in April.  Going forward, I will only use the Douglas Freer alias for Microstock.  
 
Of course the more interesting question is why I’m focusing RF on microstock sites.   The answer is I think that they are the logical end game of royalty free.
 
TP: How many images currently do you market RM and how many under the RF licensing scheme?
 
QB: A few thousand RM, mainly on Barleigh, but I am building up numbers now slowly on Alamy.  So far as RF is concerned, I have around 400 images on Shutterstock, and 315 on iStock, which is not that many, but then historically I have focused on RM imagery.
 
TP: Is your largest return per image/year on RM or RF licensed images?
 
QB: It changes.
 
TP: You also sell Microstock (RF) through Shutterstock and istockphoto. Do you believe that the Microstock companies are expanding the market by targeting customers that could not otherwise afford more expensive imagery?
 
QB: Yes, I do have images on those sites, and also on Fotolia and 123 Royalty Free.  There is a huge market made up of small designers, community magazines and others who cannot afford to pay big bucks for a single image from old style libraries.  They have benefited hugely from Microstock.  But I think it goes a lot further than that.  I see some evidence of deeper market penetration with large companies also using Microstock images.  One of mine recently appeared in a fine art paper manufacturer’s national campaign, for example.
 
TP: What do you have to say to those who believe that the Microstocks are devaluing stock photography?
 
QB: It’s a ridiculous argument.  Look at Napster.  You can now download a music track for a few cents.  Why should photography be different?  Its not being devalued, its being revalued more realistically for a new market, and commoditised.  
 
A number of quite recent events have transformed the stock photography market and made the development of the micros inevitable, in my view.  
 
The first is the Internet, and the move online of traditional stock photo libraries. The Internet is the new power tool for picture researchers, and has been for several years now.  
 
The second is the increasingly high production values of small publications that need images to fill their pages, small website designers and others.  These businesses are thirsty for high quality, but inexpensive, imagery.
 
The third is the advent of inexpensive, high quality, digital cameras. There are no film development or scanning costs to consider.  
 
Fifth is always-on broadband internet.  Four and five have striped out most of the costs of taking and electronically submitting images to stock libraries.
 
Sixth was the foresight of a guy called Bruce Livingstone, who saw the gap in the market and started the first Microstock site, iStockphoto.    
 
TP: Getty images recently acquired iStockphoto. What are the consequences of this from the phototographer’s perspective?
 
QB: There has been fevered debate about this since the announcement on 09 February.  There are two theories.  The first is that Getty, recognizing the threat Microstock poses to its high value core business, acquired iStock in order to suppress it.  I don’t think this idea washes.  They could have done this a couple of years ago, but its now too late; there are too many other Microstock sites that could step in to fill any breach.  
 
The second theory is that Getty wants a slice of the action, just as Jupiterimages does with its recent acquisition of Stock.xchng and Stockxpert.com.  IStock is the biggest Microstock, so they have acquired it on a “if you can’t beat them, join them” basis.  
 
It does I think signal the moment when microstock went mainstream.  It’s a pretty incredible moment in stock photography.   If Getty plays it right, they could use their considerable marketing muscle to greatly expand iStock’s penetration in foreign markets.  
 
TP: When RF started, many had something to say about the quality of the RF imagery but now there’s really no dividing line between RM and RF image quality. Could this also happen with Microstock in the near future?
 
QB: In the future?  It already has.  There is some exceptional work on the microstock sites alongside the more mundane, but still useful, material.  The process of inspection at the micros filters out most of the technically inferior rubbish.  I’d wager I could take six shots from the micros, and six shots from a large traditional library mix them up, and you not be able to distinguish them.  Technically the micro shots could have an edge.
 
One of the problems is how incredibly difficult it has been historically to get work accepted at the leading traditional agencies like Getty or Corbis.  Even more recent libraries seem distant from most photographers.  The microstock sites are user friendly and easy to work with.  They provide an outlet for many thousands of frustrated photographers.  Its no surprise they are growing so fast.
 
TP: Do you think that there is the possibility for experienced stock photographers to capitalize on the Microstock model and feed the Microstock market with really good images and get some fast cash by disregarding the long term impact to the market?
 
QB: In a word yes.  The impact is already there.  Resistance is, as they say, futile.  Follow the example of Getty and get stuck in.  Many already are, although they may be keeping a low profile while doing so.
 
TP: You are also the moderator of the "Microstock" or "Micropayments" Yahoo group. Why did you start this group? Are you somehow banking on Microstock?
 
QB: Can’t you feel it?   A revolution is taking place, a little like the early days of the Internet.  When I became interested in the micros, my first though was “what a brilliant idea”, my second thought was “why the heck did I not think of that?”  and my final thought was “let’s get involved!”.  The agencies own forums are too tightly controlled and monitored by “forum police” to be useful for anything except technical questions.  A truly independent forum was desperately needed, so I started one – just as I had done in 2000 for professional scanning with the ScanHi-End group.  It has been widely welcomed by many, including some senior site staff.  Input from group members has already helped to shape policy at more than one microstock site.
 
TP: What are the most common misconceptions that photographers have about Microstock?
 
QB: I guess there are two I’d focus on.
 
The first is that photographers are giving away their work for a few cents; you can’t make money that way.  But when you analyze the statistics from contributing photographers, the microstock photographers are making as much or more than the traditionalists on an average per-image return per annum basis.
 
The second is that the work is low quality amateur rubbish.  Not true.  The quality is generally high.
 
TP: What would be your advice to professional stock photographers considering the distribution part of their imagery through Microstock?
 
QB: Give it a go, but be prepared for a rough ride initially.  It can be pretty tough to see your images rejected for quality issues, but it happens to everyone.  Deal with the issues and move forward.  The micros are actually quite fun.
 
Also be prepared to shoot for the market.
 
TP: How do the marketing concepts and the target group of the contributors of Microstock sites fit within your professional concept? For example this is from Shutterstock: “Turn your hobby into cash with this exciting program.” ”Does it cost anything to become a submitter? No - We want to pay you! It's free to contribute photos - and you will get paid for each downloaded photo.” This feels like a playground, how do pros handle this situation?
 
QB: I agree, but that is just one site, and its marketing blurb.  It seems that Shutterstock, perhaps more than some others, has gone after the hobbyist in a big way, with ads in Popular Photography, for example.  On the other hand, it does bear out what I said earlier in answer to question 12.  
 
TP: How would you feel about your assignment and RM customers knowing that you submit your photography to Microstocks and that they can get some of your photos for $1 and that their neighbor, the hobbyist photographer submits there also? Is this the main reason that you use a pseudonym for your Microstock images?
 
QB: The pseudonym came before the micros.  I chose to use a pseudonym for “branding” reasons.  But I don’t try to conceal the dual identity – as this interview confirms!
 
I sell different work RM.  Notice I did not say “better”.
 
TP: What would be your advice to newcomers in stock photography? Should they start with Microstocks or with a “traditional agency” with very tight editing policies and high standards?
 
QB: I don’t really accept your premise.  The standards at the microstocks are not necessarily less high or tight than at traditional agencies.  It’s a big mistake to think the micros are an easy option.  Most microstocks have a rule precluding interpolating images to larger sizes, for example.  With traditional agencies, the usual rule is the reverse; you have to uprezz to 40mb or 50mb.  I think the Microstock rule against upsizing is preferable, and it’s a rule I also introduced at Barleigh before I had even heard of the micros.  Also, if you look at an agency like Alamy, a very popular mid-range traditional agency with nearly 5 million images, there is no content editing at all, whereas the leading microstock sites edit for quality (noise, etc) and content.
 
My advice is to start with the microstocks, because that way you’ll learn faster through the review process and faster feedback on what does and does not sell from buyer downloads.  
 
There is no doubt in my mind that the microstocks are a great training ground for photographers getting in to stock, as well as being a good RF outlet generally.  But it will ultimately depend on the work the photographer is producing.  It’s well worth studying the content on the microstock sites to see what does and does not feature highly.  IStock is particularly good for this because it lists the number of times images have been downloaded.
 
TP: Microstock sites use a different marketing concept regarding their contributors. The contributor profiles and images include features like those found in general community sites (image ratings, Blog, Profile, testimonials, forum threads). These features are there for a reason.
It seems that Microstock sites cultivate the sense of a “community” amongst their contributors. Have you noticed these “features”?
Are Microstock sites making a smart use of community features to help and educate their contributors or are they trying to capitalize on the sense of a…“community” while they are 100% business oriented and keeping the lions share from sales?
 
QB: What you are quite rightly saying is that the microstocks are leveraging the true power of the Internet in a way the traditional libraries have not.  I think this is smart, certainly.  
 
That’s the positive side, but on the negative side, I also think that this enables the microstocks to shield themselves a little too well from criticism of the percentage of sales paid to photographers.  I do think that some microstocks should pay a higher percentage of their image sales to their photographers.  The community spirit does compensate for this for some, but not for me.  It’s something that the newer sites, like Fotolia, for example, are addressing.
 
TP: There’s a lot of buzz around Microstock lately. JupiterImages Invested In Stock.xchng And Stockxpert.com. Alan Meckler, CEO of Jupitermedia says: “There is no ecommerce business in the world that would not gain sales by having a significant community position--many "just do not get it."  “
What do Microstocks offer to the “community” in your opinion? Do you feel part of that “community”?
 
QB: Remember that the members of these communities include many image buyers as well as the photographers.  I feel more of an observer than a fully paid up member, because I don’t buy in to the “woo, yay” culture.  I am well past taking anything at face value; otherwise I would never have started the Micropayment forum.  But having said that, the community aspects are part of the microstock success story.  The traditional libraries have just been too distant, too “precious”.  They should have seen the microstocks coming, but they did not.
 
TP: Are the submission standards much lower for the Microstock sites? For example most of them accept Jpegs.
 
QB:  Not lower at all, generally.  With the exception of maybe a tiny number of top traditional libraries, they are as high or higher, in my opinion.
 
Neither is there anything wrong with jpegs, when saved at their highest, and therefore effectively lossless, quality level, as the microstocks normally require.  Don’t forget jpeg stands for joint photographic experts group – jpeg’s are designed for photographers.
 
TP: What is your average return per image/year with Microstock in relation to RM and RF licensing?
 
QB: That between my accountant and me!  But the micros are doing well thus far.
 
TP:  What types of photos are appropriate for Microstock? How do you decide which of your photos are for Microstock?
 
QB: You should start by looking at each micros and what their top selling images are. Business situations and people, isolated objects, food, conceptual work, architecture, the list goes on.  There is not much that they won’t accept.  Surprisingly for some, perhaps, they are not keen on sunsets (unless they are really great), pets, or anything snapshot-like.  It’s a mistake for a new photographer to think the micros are an outlet for all those pictures of Aunty Maud, or the family dog. The micros are selling to business, and the quality and variety has to be good.  
 
However, if I have criticism of the microstocks, it is that sometimes they do not fully understand the value of the more art orientated image or technique.  They need to look more closely at this.   
 
TP: Which type of your photos do you license as RM? What are their common characteristics?
 
QB: Large format film, landscapes, more conceptual shots.  No hard and fast rule.
 
TP: Are there any large companies amongst those who have purchased licenses for your Microstock images?
 
QB: Often you don’t know, but I have recently seen one used by a fine art paper company, Permajet, in a UK ad campaign.  I confess I do have mixed feelings seeing that image used that way, as the company probably paid only a few dollars for the image.  But then again, they would not have used it at all if it had not been on the microstock sites.  You have to look at the overall position.
 
TP: What are your future plans for Barleigh stock and your involvement in stock photography in general?
 
QB: I am writing a book on stock at the moment.  Watch this space.  Barleigh is at a crossroads, so I cannot say anything more about it at this stage.  Personally I plan on increasing the size of both my RM and RF portfolios.  I’ll be sticking with the microstock sites for RF work.
 
TP: Is there anything you’d care to add to this interview?
 
QB: It is interesting how iStockphoto have recently introduced extended licensing that more closely approximates traditional library fees.  We may see more hybridization among microstock licensing models in the future.
 
Another important distinction is between the subscription sites, like Shutterstock, where you pay a monthly or quarterly fee to download a certain number of images, and the single sale agencies like iStockphoto.  Will one come out on top?  Can the two models co-exist?   
 
Finally, note that the microstock sites are moving in to other related areas.  Shutterstock has just begun accepting stock footage, for example.  Flash animations and vectors are accepted at several sites.  The innovators continue to innovate.  It’s an exciting time in stock for all except the few ostriches who refuse to meet the new challenges that lie ahead; to them I’d say if Getty have seen the value of the Microstock agency model, so should you.

 
Quentin Bargate / Douglas Freer

Links
Quentin Bargate Photography
Barleigh Stock
Quentin Bargate &  Co [Solicitors offer solutions for business]
Yahoo micropayments group