Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Illustrations or photos? which is better in terms of return?

sinyi87 · Joined: 27 Feb 2010 Posts: 18

Hello illustrators,

Have you ever think that being an illustrator is way time consuming? u need to spend hours just to produce 1 good quality artwork, whereas photo contributors shoot a whole bunch of photos in one shot, and could easily increase their artwork's quantity in a shorter period of time.

What are the pros and cons for illustrations and photos? which is better in terms of time spent and return?

jadehawk · Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 403

the stock-photo market is way more saturated than the stock-vector market. It seems that most photographers make very little money per shooting session, and it's becoming more and more expensive to produce the sort of good quality shots that will be noticed and will sell well.

I'd say at the moment, it's still more profitable to be a stock illustrator than a stock photographer

mythja · Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:02 am

it depends how profitable your illustrations are. i don't say it's easy to create a good photo that will sell, but i still find it less of a damage if my photo won't sell comparing to hours or days of work on a vector that is not successful.

ecuadorrebel · Joined: 23 Aug 2009 Posts: 456 Location: Quito, Ecuador

It all depends on the quality and marketability of the image. A good photograph is generally not simply a point and shoot. It takes thought, setup, proper lighting, angle, etc. There can be more time spent on a good quality photo than on a single vector, depending on the complexity of either.

If you look at the all-time best seller photos vs vectors you will see that they all took more time and effort than simply snapping a shutter or drawing a picture.

hiepdng · Joined: 03 Oct 2005 Posts: 489 Location: USA

It depends on your skill. I knew one photographer here made around 10k/month by shooting models. I don't think he could make that amount of money with illustration. I also so knew that one person here made around 3k-4k/month with vectors, and I don't think he could do that with any camera.

If you are not a great photographer, I suggest you go with vectors, because market needs them. If you look at my gallery, they are almost vectors even though I can say I am a good photographer. I even took photos for weddings, I took landscape... I have some thousand photos not submit yet because they don't sell as much as vectors. Some of my photos here are "no need" from my collection at home.

theohrm · Joined: 16 Aug 2009 Posts: 465 Location: Ireland

daveh900 · Joined: 29 Nov 2010 Posts: 30

francesa · Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 433 Location: Florida

I have been concentrating on digital art lately. I've been searching the forums to see if "paintings" are acceptable, but I can't seem to find a thread that addresses this. So... I can do photos - I have a decent portfolio. I can do illustrations - but find them tedious. I've been having a ball doing digital art and selling it elsewhere as "fine art" but I have a fondness for making Shutterstock richer. Would they accept my "paintings"?
You can see what they're like here:
francesa-miller.artistwebsites.com

jadehawk · Joined: 29 Sep 2008 Posts: 403

there are scans of watercolor paintings for sale on shutterstock, so as long as the paintings are commercially viable as stock, I think you'd be able to upload them.

Mike Price · Joined: 06 Jun 2008 Posts: 2933 Location: South Wales