Just curious about your top earning photo .. as in how much $$$ you're earned from it, and if that money came in one shot or from usage over time.

My highest net for a single photo is over $10,000 at last count from multiple sales. The largest single license ($5,000 after 50% stock agency commission) being a few years ago when it was used as a backgroundfor six billboards in one city for a 6 month run. The cost to me to make the photo was 45 minutes of time and three rolls of 120 film + processing. And 14 years of finding where to place the camera at what time of year.

E-Vener, that's pretty impressive. May I ask which image that is if it's on your site? I looked at your site and your photos are very nice.

Hmmm, you see photography schools often brag how much their graduates earned. I guess people want to guard it as secret by lack of reponse of here.

Mid 5 figures.

It's a Houston Texas skyline on http://www.panoramicimages.com search for my name and thank you for the compliment.

I would not trust photo school earning claims. Yes there are a very few who do really well., but my take on it is that the majority don't. At least one major school in Santa Barbara California has been formerly reprimanded and fined by the state of California twice for using unrealistic figures in their marketing materials.

I have a B.A. In English from the University of Texas and didn't start considering photography as a possible career until my senior year, but my real education in the business of photography came from assisting a photographer in Houston, Texas (1981-1984) and taking classes from Jay Maisel (A never ending process that started at The Maine Photographic Workshops in the summer of 1983) .

Jay taught me how to start using my eyes and my brain to start thinking in pictures using light, color and gesture, and Ron Scott taught me how to act like a professional, solve technical problems, and to always, always "deliver pictures, not excuses."

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com

First, thanks to Ellis, EA6B, and Jamem1.

Now the vent .. only three people can talk about their top earning photo, and over 100 talk about what watch they wear. Way to go PRO forum !!

Yeah, I am dumbfounded by the watch thread too. Does that have something to do with being a pro, or even photography for that matter?

I am also in Texas and for a single photo shoot using 4 of the images was $10,500.00.Would have to be a lot more in another city like LA or New York. Really think that kind of shoot is gone for me until the economy comes back. Single photo was $1500.00 that took about 3 minutes to shoot and an hour waiting. I think photography is like most commission sales jobs. 20% or less of the people doing it make over 80% of the income. I have found it is not about the quality of my work. Sure my quality is equal to what I get paid but Marketing and who I know or meet gets me a lot more jobs than showing a great photo. Also knowing what to charge is a major part of it. I get hired 50% of the time not ever showing a portfolio, just by them knowing who hired me for the job I am shooting when we met.

I did a landscape photo used for billboards but mostly TV a few years ago. Got $500.00 and if my calcualtions are correct it has been on TV at least 2800 times over 5 years. At least a $5000.00 photo value but they would have never paid that much but should have asked for more.Dumb moves like that is one reason photographers don't always make money. Live and learn. Have never tried selling stock photos. Guess I will take a look at doing some.

Mike Mahoney wrote:
First, thanks to Ellis, EA6B, and Jamem1.

Now the vent .. only three people can talk about their top earning photo, and over 100 talk about what watch they wear. Way to go PRO forum !!

Amazing isnt it

jefferies1 wrote:
Have never tried selling stock photos. Guess I will take a look at doing some.

I recently looked at one collection and one of their requirements was a camera that shoots at least 15 MP.

Can anyone explain this? I "realize" more is better

So by this math a 5D classic is not acceptable...and if it was a MK II there is no guarantee that pic was shot with that camera...

It just seemed rather odd/arbitrary to me...ymmv

The greater the resolution of the original the more final higher end uses (i.e. the higher paying stock licenses) they can successfully market the photos for. It is a client driven cut off.

My biggest selling photo is a landscape made in the Canadian Rockies, so far it's earned me $3,172 and continues to earn every quarter...biggest one time sale was $3500.

Getty focuses on certain camera models to weed out people while Corbis is more focused on the file itself.

My biggest selling photo sold in the late '90s as a two page spread in several editions of Newsweek worldwide:

Molecule

It was ghosted into the background behind an illustration of the heart. It brought in close to $2K. It's a wooden model of a homocysteine molecule. I hung it from the ceiling with monofilament and shot a couple of rolls of 35mm Sensia 100.

Recently, this image has licensed multiple times and has brought in $1500 so far:

President

For the record, I wear a Raymond Weil watch which didn't cost me a thing. My wife won it in one of those department store drop your information in this box for a chance to win this watch and we'll also deluge you with junk mail promotions. If it weren't for this it would probably be a Timex or something similar.

Edit: Meant to link images.

My top earning photo so far has been around £2500, from a single sale and it's not up for resale. The shot was taken whilst working for the client with an agreed price for getting the shot.

$40...:-)

The lack of response may be because most pro photogs don't shoot ONE photo and sell it.

Most pro photogs are hired to photograph someone/something and take many different shots of it/them.

It's hard to quantify a single shot when hired to shoot a subject. This type of question really only applies to stock photography or fine art photography.

It's also not a valid measure of the profit made from any single shot. You need to figure in the cost of time and materials of that particular shot. Your title of *earned* does suggest how much profit however.

I bet anyone who has one big seller of a shot has lots of other shots from that same time period that have not sold a dime and probably have never seen the light of day.

The lack of response may be because most pro photogs don't shoot ONE photo and sell it.

That is a nonsensical reading of his question. Every self-employed commercial or professional photographer or anyone who has ever sold a stock photo, has one commission or a photo that has been licensed either once or a multiple of times that has been a peak earner for them. That is in the nature of the beast.

It's also not a valid measure of the profit made from any single shot. You need to figure in the cost of time and materials of that particular shot. Your title of *earned* does suggest how much profit however.

I bet anyone who has one big seller of a shot has lots of other shots from that same time period that have not sold a dime and probably have never seen the light of day.

Excellent point! The photograph of mine that I mention cost me in direct expenses 2 rolls of 120 Velvia + processing. If you want to include amotized expenses, there was probably a gallon of gas burned, a tripod that had been in use for maybe 15 years at that point and was bought use, an Arca-Swiss B2 Monoball tripod head that I had owned for maybe a year at that point and was alos bought used, A V-Pan Mark III 6x17cm camera that had also been bought second hand the year before, A Minolta Spot meter F (bought new but five years old when the photo was made); a 90mm f/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon lens ( 12-13 years old when the photo was made); a Heliopan center-weighted filter (view camera users will know what that is); and here is the real expense: many years of shooting the skyline from different angles at different times of the year and a lot of thinking about what that skyline meant (was a signifier of) both to me and in the larger context of the late twentieth century and how the combination of those thoughts might be best expressed in a photograph. Obviously others react to the photograph as it continues to sell about 14 years after it was made. I have many other photographs of the Houston skyline that have sold well but that one just happens to have sold the most.

But finally for all of that, it was mere serendipity that I made that single photo, or you could more loftily say it was luck favoring a prepared mind. But when I walked out my front door that afternoon I was not intending to make yet another Houston skyline photo. (And I made others since then), but at the last moment I lost the courage to try for the photo I left my house intending to make.

My original goal was to try to talk Richard Thompson ( http://www.richardthompson-music.com/ ) into posing by a wall size painting of a Fender Telecaster in the parking lot of a guitar shop next to the nightclub they were going to be playing in that night. I chickened out because I was nervous about interrupting the dinner of a musician I admire tremendously. I got as far as getting walking up to the door of his band's bus and then decided not to knock. But I still wanted to make a photo so I drove a little farther and thought let's see what happens here, and lucky for me, something did happen and I am grateful.

Didn't someone try to sell Dave a photo for 2 million?

The lack of response may be because most pro photogs don't shoot ONE photo and sell it.

Most pro photogs are hired to photograph someone/something and take many different shots of it/them.

It's hard to quantify a single shot when hired to shoot a subject. This type of question really only applies to stock photography or fine art photography.

Exactly so! Just because a person photographs weddings or portraits, doesn't make them less a "Pro" and therefore they may not be able to answer that question! You may need to rephrase that question if you are actually after an answer from a "Pro" commercial or stock photographer specifically.

Or if you are interested in how much a wedding Pro or a Portrait Pro makes per job, rephrase it for that aspect of being a "Pro" photographer.

The description: "Pro" has many facets. You need to be more specific in your question.

I think it was a pretty clear question, what is your top earning photo? It wasn't aimed at everybody. Not what is your rate for shooting a portrait or wedding as that would be a different and valid question.

I have two images in particular that have done very well in nature photography, one earning more than $20,000 in its lifetime, the other somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000. My largest single stock sale ever was for $28,500 (several images, not just one). Ahhh, the good ol' days...doubt we'll ever see those kinds of numbers again in stock.