Lately I have been extremely busy and have little time to submit pictures.  As I slowly started submitting a few, I noticed something very interesting.

What I noticed is that IStockPhoto sales have slowed considerably in recent months.  In the past, IStockPhoto vied with Shutterstock as my top site and a few times took the lead.  However, that has changed now.

Today, IStockPhoto is fourth for me in terms of sales.  Only StockXPert brings less.  Another problem is that submissions take a long time on IStockPhoto due to their archaic upload system and their own keyword vocabulary.  As a result, it takes me longer to submit to IStockPhoto than to the other sites combined.  It is even more annoying that after submitting the photo my shot is rejected for a keyword that is pertinent.  For instance I had a picture of Jerusalem rejected for using the keyword “Israel”.

Another interesting thing occurred when I was searching for some photos for a friend a few weeks ago.  I was rather stunned that, despite their claim to having an advanced keyword system, I was unable to find the pictures I was looking for.  I had much better success on Dreamstime and Shutterstock.

Therefore, I have ceased submitting regularly to IStockPhoto.  It simply isn’t worth my time.  I will not close my account there though and I will submit pictures that sell well on other sites.

However, the future of IStockPhoto right now does not look bright.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Lately I have taken the attitude that I will not waste my time with the microstock sites.  I take the shots that I like to take, and later on figure out if something may sell.  This works out the best for me, as I do not feel pressured to take particular shots that I would not have taken other than to sell them.  When these shots are not accepted or are accepted and do not sell, I have wasted my time.  However, if I take the shots I like in the first place, my time is never wasted.

I went through my shots and found a bit over forty that looked stock ready.  Now was the moment for the true test of the 5D Mark II – what would the editing experience be like?

The first thing I was interested to see is the dust.  On my old 5D, this was constantly a problem – especially with my macro shots using the MP-E 65.  On the new Mark II – this is improved considerably.  I have not cleaned my sensor once – even with an air blower – since buying my camera and I change lenses quite often.  Dust was almost non existent in my first 2,000 shots but has recently started to turn up.  Still, it is far less than what I had with my original 5D after even 1,000 shots.  In particular on my old 5D I had severe dust problems in the corners.  With the Mark II, dust is more evenly spread around the sensor and rarely occurs in the corners.  I will still need to clean my sensor from time to time but overall this was a big positive.

My other big concern was the resolving capacity of my lenses.  As many of you know, the microstock sites will reject an image if it is not tack sharp at 100%.  As the 5D Mark II is a 21 megapixel camera, that means getting a tack sharp image is more difficult.  The lens needs to resolve this resolution and I need to hold the camera still enough and use the proper shutterspeed to prevent blur.

The overwhelming majority of my shots used the MP-E 65, 180L macro, and the Canon 100-400.  I can say for sure that these lenses can definitely resolve 21 megapixels.  In general, I found more keepers with the 5D Mark II than I did with my 5D.  How can this be?  The answer is that I have more options with downsizing my picture than I ever did before.  This is particularly the case with the MP-E 65 above 3x.  Now when images are slightly out of focus I simply resize the picture down to around 11 megapixels and things look much better.  I did not have this flexibility with my old 5D.

Of course, I am more cautious about my shutterspeed and keeping the camera steady now.  For instance, I always use a monopod with my 100-400.

The resolution is simply amazing at times.  I was stunned at some of the detail on my fly shots and noticed some things I had never noticed before (mentioned in more detail in an upcoming post).  When I get the shot right on, which is most of the time except when I take the MP-E 65 above 3x, the details are simply stunning.  When the focus is slightly off, I have the flexibility to reduce the size of the shots.

Interestingly enough, the size of the shots produced by the Mark II can be an issue.  While most microstock sites are with the times, StockEXpert rejected one image for being too large.

Even stranger, I am still a bit confused about the results I am seeing with my 180L.  On my 5d, I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed with it.  All of my shots appeared to be slightly soft and in general I felt that my MP-E 65 outperformed it.  Therefore, when I started processing the shots I took with it I was ready to downsize them when I noticed that they were already very sharp and did not require downsizing.  The math certainly does not make sense but my 180L is now a very sharp lens.  I have not setup AF micro adjustment yet and even if I did it would not make a difference as all of my macro shots are manual focus.  I truly have no idea why this is but the results are unmistakable.  Perhaps I have just learned to use the lens better – who knows…

In terms of noise at high ISO, I was quite impressed compared to my old 5D.  With my old 5D the rule generally was ISO 100 and 200 no noise reduction was required.  At ISO 400, I needed to use Noise Ninja.  ISO 800 was iffy and usually the shot was beyond saving but one or two miracles did occur.  With the Mark II, I have no problem submitted pictures at ISO 1600 with a Noise Ninja pass.  I did not have any shots at ISO 400 or 800 so I cannot tell there, but I was awfully tempted to submit the ISO 1600 shots without noise reduction, but still did because I know the microstock sites are picky.  I also submitted one shot at ISO 3200 but I think it will most likely be rejected.  Therefore, I will not hesitate to shoot up to ISO 1600 in the future for stock pictures.  At ISO 6400, the pictures are clearly beyond saving but can still make a good 8×10 of the kids.

Overall I am very happy with the camera and feel that it will definitely allow me to be more profitable in microstock, even though I will continue to take only the shots I like.

Addendum:

At the time I wrote this the shots had not yet gone through the reviewers.  While so far they have only gone through Shutterstock, I at least have some data here.  Somewhat predictably with them, of the 42 shots I submitted only 12 were accepted.  Interestingly, the ISO 3200 image was not rejected for noise, but for poor lighting (which admittedly wasn’t so great).  The following were the rejection reasons:

5 were rejected for noise.  This is typical SS as all but one of the images were shot at ISO 100.  Another reviewer would have probably accepted them.  One of the images was shot at ISO 1600 and was dark.

6 were rejected due to focus.  Most of them were drop photos where the drop is OOF, though the icicles above were IF.

5 were rejected due to poor lighting.  All of them were shots where I had used shadow/highlight which indicates this reviewer did not like the effect.  I kind of agree, but in the past reviewers did not have issues with it.

1 shot was rejected due to ‘overuse of noise reduction software’.  This is interesting as I took the shot at ISO 100 and did not use noise reduction software.

13 were rejected due to ‘limited commercial value’.  This is a big issue with insect shots as it is entirely at the whim of the reviewer.

Overall more submissions will be necessary to see at what ISO I can submit shots.  They did not seem to have a problem with the ISO 3200 image, but perhaps the reviewer did not examine the noise after seeing the lighting issue.  The ISO 1600 image was rejected but it was dark in the first place – so more noise is likely.  Still, two images and a Shutterstock reviewer are not enough to determine the high ISO capabilities of the Mark II regarding microstock.

Focus was not a big issue so I am clearly not outresolving my lenses.  Other than that the issues were very typical with Shutterstock.  For IStockPhoto, I suspect they will agree with the lighting issues and will agree with most of the focus issues – though one or two drop shots may get through.  They will probably reject the ISO 1600 shot, but the shots at ISO 100 they will not reject for noise.  I suspect they will not reject my ‘limited commercial value’ shots, but may reject them for other reasons.

Overall I am pleased so far.  Shutterstock reviewers have become more difficult as the site grows and macro and insect shots are notoriously difficult to get through.  Also of the 42 shots submitted, 30 had no technical problems (I don’t buy noise at ISO 100).  In the past, I have just waited a few months and resubmitted the shots with a high acceptance rate which I may do in this case as well.

All in all I think the Mark II is working very well for microstock.

Addendum 2

I just received the results of my first 15 images from Dreamstime, which is more similar to IStockPhoto in its reviews than Shutterstock.  Of the 15 images, 12 were accepted.  Interestingly enough, the ISO 1600 image was accepted.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is a panorama of the Jerusalem city walls at night.  The taking of the shot has an interesting story itself.  I took this with my Sigma 80-400 4-5.6 OS at 400mm and 5.6.  When I first submitted the shot, it was rejected due to softness.  I was quite surprised at this because I used a tripod, mirror lock, and a remote shutter release.  The tripod itself was on sturdy concrete.  How could it be soft?

To my surprise, when I examined the shot at 100%, it was soft.  The simple fact was, the Sigma was too soft at 400mm and 5.6.  As a result of further investigation, I sold this lens because I could no longer depend on it.  Eventually I will buy a new telephoto, but right now I rarely need one and I’m waiting for Canon to improve on their 100-400mm lens.

The next step I did was shrinking the size of the picture down.  This often works when the shot is a bit out of focus.  Shutterstock accepted the picture and it is a good seller.  IStockPhoto rejected the shot – and it is an interesting point why.

They rejected it for two reasons.

First, they had an issue with the lettering on the buses, which could be copyrighted.  Here is the bus with the best viewable lettering at more than 100%.

Even though I think this is a bit too obsessive, it is easy to remove in Photoshop.  The other issue IStockPhoto had with the picture was the keywords.  According to the reviewer, archeology, Jewish, and tourism are not relevant keywords!  I have noticed in general that my Israel pictures are vetted more closely for keywords than for photos of other places I have been.  In a recent shot of an Ibex near the Dead Sea, the shot was rejected due to the keywords “Dead Sea”.  I changed the title to indicate that the picture was taken a few hundred meters from the Dead Sea itself and the shot was accepted.  I likely will do something similar for this shot – after I Photoshop the buses.

This shot was rejected from both sites, but for different reasons.  Shutterstock rejected the shot due to limited commercial use.  IStockPhoto rejected it for poor lighting.  I’m not sure I agree with the “poor lighting” rejection, but the limited commercial use rejection is plausible.  Many microstock sites will not accept most flower pictures.  Although I rather like this shot, I agree that it is not much more impressive than the millions of other flower shots out there.

This shot, of Petra at night, was accepted by Shutterstock and accepted on IStockPhoto.  On Shutterstock, it is a very good seller and one of my coworkers recently saw it in an advertisement.  The problem I had when taking this shot was it was extremely dark there.  The candles simply weren’t that bright and the monument is huge.  I used by Canon 16-35 2.8L II lens to take the shot but I still needed to take it at f/2.8 with an exposure of 30 seconds at ISO 800.  Because I took the shot at ISO 800, it had noise.  I used Noise Ninja to remove the noise and Shutterstock accepted the picture.  IStockPhoto rejected it due to the use of noise reduction.  I tried reducing the amount of noise reduction, while still removing the noise, but it was to no avail.  IStockPhoto simply didn’t take it.  Still, this is their loss – as the photo is a very good seller on Shutterstock.

This one is actually a trick question.  I have not submitted it to IStockPhoto yet, but Shutterstock rejected it because I had too many similar photos.  Ironically, IMHO this photo is a bit better than the other similar ones that Shutterstock accepted!  The similar ones have sold rather well and I intend to submit this one soon – once the rejected image is deleted from their database.  This isn’t a bad tactic to use, because if all of the shots were accepted at once they would all slow down at the same time in terms of sales.  Spacing these shots out over several months will enable me to get the maximum sales from them.

This shot was rejected due to the poor lighting.  In this case I agree with the reviewer, but thought it was still worth the shot.  Even if it were accepted, there are so many shots of flamingos out there that it would have been unlikely to sell well.  In general, bird shots do not sell very well on the microstock sites – similarly for insects.

This photo was rejected on Shutterstock but was accepted on IStockPhoto.  Shutterstock rejected it due to limited commercial use, but in my experience bee shots are decent sellers.  Compared to other insect shots they sell quite well.  The key thing to remember is that you are at the mercy of the reviewers.  Don’t take offense when you get a rejection you don’t agree with.  Just move on to your next shot and take solace that you don’t have to do their job.  Also remember that you took this shot for yourself, and no reviewer can take that from you.

First I must remind everyone that I am posting these shots here to help you get started in microstock photography.  Please do not steal my ideas – in particular this one.  If I find that these ideas are being used in other photos, I will not continue series like these.

It should be obvious what the problem with the shot is.  The lighting is horrible.  I eventually do plan to retake this picture with better lighting, but I decided to submit this version anyways.  IStockPhoto rejected it due to the lighting – but added a nice comment that the reviewer loved the shot and that I should retake it.  Shutterstock accepted it and it has sold decently well there – even an enhanced license.

This just shows that thinking outside of the box can often have good results.  Try to find ideas and shot that others have not taken, and you will often see good results.

This is the end of the my series on microstock photography.  I hope that at least some of this info has proven helpful and that you are able to earn yourself a bit extra with the microstock sites.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This image was rejected for poor lighting.  It is a complete isolation that took me some time to accomplish.  I took this picture explicitly for stock.  The result… I wasted my time.  This is an example of why you should only take the pictures you like, rather than take pictures just for stock.  If you take only the pictures you want to take, only the extra time spent adding keywords will be wasted if the image is not accepted or does not sell.

Interestingly, some time after this shot was rejected I post processed it a bit more and it was accepted.

This picture was rejected, but I can honestly not tell you why.  There are a number of possible reasons – focus, use as stock, etc.  However, I don’t really care.  I took this image as an experiment for depth of field.  It is a close up of the ball point of a pen with a very shallow depth of field.  The shot will not win any awards, but it was an experiment.  I submitted the shot figuring that it was worth a shot.  Since I took this shot for myself, I was not upset that the image was rejected.

This, and another more edited version of the shot, are my best selling pictures for microstock.  I submitted this original shot some time ago, then performed a better edit and submitted that one.  Both shots were accepted by Shutterstock, while the more edited version was rejected by IStockPhoto but the version above was accepted.  Together, this is the best selling shot for Dubai.  I have made over $1000 in income from microstock just for this shot – so with the right shots you can definitely make money there.  Eventually, I expect the money from this shot to pay for one of the nights we stayed there!

This shot was the result of 200 attempts to get a falling drop.  I took it entirely for myself but thought the end shot may sell.  Interestingly, this shot was rejected on Shutterstock but accepted on IStockPhoto.  I’m guessing that the reason is the shot is more artistic.  Sometimes IStockPhoto reviewers will be more flexible about focus and other things if they really like the shot.  In this case, the drop itself is a bit out of focus.  The flash is also a bit too strong on the drop.  Because of this, the shot was rejected on Shutterstock.  On IStockPhoto several copies were sold but it’s not a great seller.

For those who are wondering what this is, it is a closeup of velcro.  The main reason I took this shot was I was curious what it would look like close up.  I got a kick out of the resulting image and thought others may want the photo.  Of course, the reviewers thought otherwise and this was an easy rejection for them.  Still, I don’t mind because I satisfied the main aim of this picture – which was to satisfy my curiosity.

This has long been one of my favorite frost pictures.  Typically when I show this picture off, I don’t hear much of a response.  I have posted this on the web and shown it in presentations and never have I heard “nice shot!”.  After some time, my suspicions are that this is not a great shot in the minds of most others.  This is an example of a shot that I believed was much better than judged by others.  Clearly the reviewer was in the “others” camp as this image was rejected for not being stock worthy.

Although I still like the shot, I do recognize that it would not sell well.  There are just too many different pictures of flowers out there and my other images of frost that were accepted did not sell well.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Remember, the questions to consider for each image are

1. Was it accepted?
2. If accepted, was it accepted on all sites?
3. Did it sell?

This photo was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  The main reason it was rejected is the Key Arena logo in the lower right corner.  This is very often a problem in city scenes.  Shutterstock, though, had no issue with the photo and accepted it.  It sells quite well and when I recently checked it, it was #10 out of 473 shot for the Seattle skyline.  My only ask is that you do not flood the market more than it is already flooded with Seattle skyline pictures.

This shot was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  In truth, the focus of the shot is debatable.  Given the texture of the dandelion seeds it is very difficult to tell whether they are properly in focus.  IStockPhoto, when in doubt, generally rules the photos as out of focus.  Shutterstock is usually a bit more lenient.  This image has not been downloaded very often, but did receive an extended license.  Note that this image has a number of emotional keywords – such as “freedom” – defined from the free flowing seeds.  Always make sure to include the best set of keywords possible.

This picture was accepted on both sites and is my best selling insect picture.  I think it sells well because it is of a desirable insect (ladybug) and it has a number of “emotional” keywords – such as predator, prey, life, death, etc.  Interestingly, this shot sells much better on IStockPhoto than on Shutterstock.  In general, the top shots usually do sell better on IStockPhoto because they earn more per download.  You usually make more money on Shutterstock though because the lesser images also sell.  This particularly image was used on the BBC web site.

This is also a good lesson for remembering the “other” English.  Ladybugs are called “ladybirds” in England and I always include both words when keywording.  Some microstock sites will do this logic for you, but this is not guaranteed so I make no bets on it.

This shot was rejected.  As you can see in the image below the end of the beak is out of focus.  While the rest of the photo is in focus, the drop constitutes a key part of the photo.  In general, not all parts of your photo must be in focus.  However, if that part is an important part of the photo, it must be in focus or your image will be rejected.

Even if this picture were accepted, I doubt it would sell well.  There are just too many pictures of swans out there.

This particular shot was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  The IStockPhoto rejection was for too much post processing.  I rather like the processing here, but obviously the reviewer disagreed.  I do wish that I had toned down the building in the center a bit.  Still, the IStockPhoto reviewer was likely right as this shot has sold only moderately on Shutterstock.  Skylines in general are good sellers but please don’t flood the market with Seattle shots!

This shot was accepted on both sites and is a decent seller.  In general isolation shots do very well in stock because they allow the graphic designer a good deal of freedom.  In this particular shot, it is not a true isolation as you can see the shadows underneath the legs.  For this purpose, though, most graphic designers will accept that and still use it.  For less complicated objects, you will usually earn more by doing a complete isolation.  There are a number of techniques for isolation on the Internet.  I find that different techniques work with different shots.  For me, shooting the image slightly overexposed and then playing with levels has worked quite well.

One thing to keep in mind with isolation shots though is you must get the isolation right.  When I first started these types of shots I would often receive rejections due to bad editing.  In my case I found that practice makes perfect (OK, not perfect but you get what I mean).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. Was it accepted?
2. If accepted, did all sites accept it?
3. Did it sell?

Here, of course, I am just playing around.  There is no way this shot would be accepted because I didn’t have a model release!  Therefore I never submitted this shot.  Even if I had a model release, acceptance is certainly not a guarantee.  The lighting on the shot isn’t all that great and the shot could benefit from being closer in.

I hope that it’s obvious that this picture was rejected.  From this sized shot, the obvious problem is the lighting.  The face simply is not well defined.  This was one of the earliest pictures I took with my MP-E 65 and was before I learned how to take better pictures with it.  At the time, I was happy with just being close.  Taking close shots that are half decent came later.

Less obvious on this shot are the dust spots.  This shot has horrible dust problems.

Dust problems like this are unacceptable and will always cause an image to be rejected.  Very often they are called “artifacts” by the reviewers.  Always check your shots for dust spots – especially when dealing with macro shots.

While I tend to like this shot, it didn’t have a chance at microstock.  The simple matter is it is not sharp.  The microstock sites will almost never take a soft image.  This shot was also taken with the MP-E 65 and shows the depth of field problems inherent in these types of photos.  At some later date I will try out focus stacking – which should fix this issue.  However, even if accepted I have doubts that this type of image would sell well.  It just doesn’t fit the needs of most graphic designers.

This picture was accepted and is the top selling woodlouse picture on Shutterstock.  It has been downloaded 18 times and has made an entire $5.42.  From this photo it is obvious that insect pictures simply do not sell well.  However, I take the pictures I like and so this was not a waste of my time.  The five dollars and change I made from this picture is money I would have otherwise not had.  Ironically, it’s not that great of a shot but I’ve been rather bored with woodlice so haven’t taken more pictures of them in awhile.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I enjoy photography, and I noticed that when I started making an effort to take pictures specifically for stock, I liked it much less.  Stock pictures are not very interesting nor are they very artistic.  They are meant to sell and to appeal to graphic designers for general purposes.  Even if I did take pictures specifically for stock, if I calculated how much time I spent taking and processing the pictures and averages out my income per hour, there are a lot of things I can do that pay better.  I must admit that I laugh at people who spend hours editing a photo just so they can make a few dollars from it on the microstock sites.

Therefore, here’s my philosophy and strategy for handling microstock.

First, I would advise you to take the pictures you enjoy taking.  Do not take picture explicitly for stock.  Once you have a good selection of pictures, go through them and see if any might be saleable.  Very often you’ll come across a shot with a tree leaning into the side or a poor exposure or something else.  You think to yourself – “that’s a nice shot, but it’s a shame that blah and blah are wrong with it”.  The next time you’re out shooting, I have a feeling you’ll pay better attention to those things.

Therefore, think of microstock photography as both a bonus and an impartial critique.  Those pictures would have otherwise sat on your hard drive.  Why not make a few dollars with them?  Even if you only make a dollar, it’s a dollar more than you would have had otherwise.  Secondly, treat it as a critique.  Very often when I show pictures to my friends I hear – “nice shot”, “great!”, etc.  When I send the same shot to the reviewers, I see a much different response.  Microstock reviewers have no qualms with shooting down the amazing work of art you just send them.  Treat their reviews as impartial criticism and you’ll find yourself improving quickly.

However, I must stress again that you should not make microstock photography “another job”.  It is simply a way to make some money you would otherwise not have and get some good critiques on your photos in the process.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Often the best selling pictures are those others haven’t thought of.  Try to be a bit inventive and try some new things.  Some of my best selling images were ones where I thought “let’s try this”.

However, my best selling images by far are those I took on vacation.  Sometimes I have even paid for a good portion of the vacation itself.  Especially if you go somewhere exotic, always remember to bring your camera with you and think about stock when taking photos.  Very often I see a shot that I wouldn’t have thought to take otherwise – but I feel it may be worth a try as stock.  Sometimes the sales of the shot shock me.  Just remember when shooting outdoors to try to take shots during the late afternoon or early morning.  Often this means I have to get up quite early on vacation, but I always find the pictures are worth it – whether or not I sell them as stock.

I always keep stock photography in mind when taking a shot, even if I am not intending to sell the shot.  Who knows?  Very often I find that – when thinking about stock – I improve the shot and my photography overall.  I watch carefully what is in the frame and make sure the shot is sharp – even when taking shots of my kids.  Therefore, when I do stumble on a picture that does well as stock – there is often very little I need to do to it.

In terms of where to start, I recommend that you start with Fotolia first.  This is not the site where you will make the most money.  However, it is the easiest one to join and you receive very quick feedback on your photos.  Once you have a selection of photos that were accepted there, join Shutterstock – where you’ll begin to make a better profit.  Once you are comfortable with microstock photography, join IStockPhoto.

If your photo is rejected, don’t take offense.  I also don’t recommend resubmitting the picture, unless you have strong reasons why it should have been accepted and you feel that the picture will sell well.  Your time is valuable, and if a picture isn’t accepted I wouldn’t bother spending any more time on it.  This takes a bit of time getting used to as many of us don’t like to see rejections, but instead of lingering on the ones that didn’t pass, spend time taking and improving the next batch.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Always account for camera shake either by using a tripod together with a remote release and mirror lock, or use a high enough shutterspeed.  The rule of thumb is to use the reverse of the camera lens – so a 400mm lens should have a shutter speed of 1/400, but with today’s lenses that contain IS and various optical tricks there are often exceptions to this rule.  Still, keep your shutterspeed high if you are not using a tripod.

I always try to stay at ISO 100, even on the Canon 5D.  With some of the newer cameras capable of better high ISO handling, you may be able to go higher without risking the possibility of requiring noise reduction.

Finally, always check for blowouts when taking shots.  These will almost always cause your image to be rejected.  Proper exposure will often fix this but sometimes you may need a diffuser or need to create an HDR.

Now on to the workflow

The workflow for microstock pictures is quite different from traditional workflow.  While there are a lot of pages and books about different tricks you can do with Photoshop, the reality is you don’t have time for many of them.  You are not getting paid a small fortune for each shot – so spend the appropriate amount of time.  The workflow you go through for a fine art print is completely different from that for a microstock photo.  When post processing photos for microstock, speed is of essence.  This is not a work of art and you have a lot to do.

The following are the top priorities when post processing pictures for microstock.

• Remove noise.  Microstock sites hate noise.
• Remove dust spots, which will always cause your photo to be rejected.  The healing brush and spot healing brush are your friends.
• Crop the shot if necessary, though I always try to get it right the first time.
• Remove logos and other things that I don’t want, such as tree branches leaning into the picture.
• High contrast and high saturation sells, so I always increase these

For those interested in my workflow, the following is the procedure I follow for all shots.

1. Every picture is taken with RAW+large JPG – even snapshots of the kids
2. I only post process the pictures I want to submit or display.  For other shots I have the original JPG.
3. I change the contrast, shadows, and saturation in the RAW converter.  Photoshop has the ability to suggest values for these and I often click ‘auto’, then go back and do it myself if I am not happy with the results.
4. I try not to change the exposure too much as it introduces noise
5. I remove all dust spots.  These are especially common in macro shots – particularly in the corners of the image.  Pictures with sky also show dust spots very well.
6. If I want to remove something on the side of the photo, I occasionally crop.  However I pay particular attention to this when taking the shot and thus crops are rare.
7. Sometimes I clone things out of the shot, though I rarely do this.  This is for the ‘killer’ shot that is being ruined by one thing.  Other times it is to remove logos.
8. If the shot was taken above ISO 100 and I can detect noise, I remove it with Noise Ninja.  I do this knowing it will kill the photo’s chances on IStockPhoto though.
9. The final step is to add keywords.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Without proper keywording, buyers will never find your picture.  No matter how beautiful it is, buyers will never see it.  Therefore, you need to make as full use of the keywording space as possible.  Most sites allow you to use up to fifty keywords and I suggest that you reach this limit for many of your photos.  This does not mean you should keyword spam.  Many sites automatically catch keywords such as “teen” and “sex” and ban you if you are found keyword spamming.  Your keywords must also be relevant to the specific picture.  Choosing a large number of relevant keywords people would actually use is as much of an art as a science.

First, do not even think of adding keywords on the individual stock sites.  All microstock sites have the facility where you can add keywords when you submit the picture.  Do not do this.  Instead, add keywords before you upload the picture in Photoshop, Lightroom, or in whatever software package you prefer.  When you submit your picture, you often just have to click a single button to transfer these keywords over – with a notable exception being IStockPhoto.

The title and description of your photo are also important but not as much as keywords.  Often the title and/or the description will influence whether your photo is considered relevant for the designer’s uses.  However at that point they can see your photo and often decide based on the merits of the actual photograph.  To my knowledge none of the microstock sites use the description or the title when returning search results.  If you intend to submit to Dreamstime, make sure your description is at least five words long and that the title and description are different (if you can’t think of any easy way, add the words “the” or “a”).

So how to you choose these keywords?  The first thing I do is look up competing images on Shutterstock.  Click on the most popular images and look at their keywords.  Incidentally, Shutterstock also makes it very easy to copy the keywords for an image.  Very often I do this, but then go through all of the keywords to make sure they are relevant and useful.  Do not just blindly copy keywords.  Usually I am able to think of some better keywords and I disagree with some of the keywords from the other image.

Another tactic is to look up synonyms for your keywords.  I used to have a software package I wrote that automatically looked up synonyms on an Internet dictionary site.  I was then able to choose which synonyms match.  I believe there are software packages available that do essentially the same thing.  This is a good way to build up keywords.

Always be specific in your keywords.  If you have a picture of a sunset or gorgeous vista – always include the place where the photo was taken both in the title and the keywords.  If you have an interesting flower, include the scientific name, common name, and hybrid if none.  For animals and insects, always include the scientific name and any common names – which are often nonsingular.  For instance pill bugs are called roly polies elsewhere.  Also keep in mind regional differences.  While most microstock sites will translate to/from British English, if the word is uncommon it is a good idea for you to do yourself.  For instance, lady bugs are called lady birds there.

Keywording and IStockPhoto

In short, keywording at IStockPhoto is a pain.  They have their own controlled vocabulary to which you must match your keywords.  This means that, if you submit there, you must take a slightly different approach to keywords.  Generally I keyword as normal for all of the other microstock sites, then change the keywords for IStockPhoto on their site – making changes to the original keywords as necessary.  Since this is the only site that will reject for keywords, there are some gotchas you need to worry about.

Say you have a picture taken in the Middle East.  For most microstock sites, you will want to include “Middle” and “Peace” in your keywords.  You may also enter “Middle East”.  Any some microstock sites, images with the keyword “Middle East” will only be returned when the search terms include “Middle East” surrounded by quotes.  If you use the keywords “Middle” and “Peace” the quotes are not necessary.  The vast majority of search results do not contain quotes.  However, when you submit your photo to IStockPhoto you will not be able to use the keywords “Middle” and “East”.  As these two keywords are not relevant to the photo (taken individually) your photo will be rejected.  The correct action for IStockPhoto is to use the full word – “Middle East”.  This will map to their controlled vocabulary and your image will be accepted if all other aspects of it are OK.  Therefore, on IStockPhoto’s keyword list you will want to cross of “Middle” and “East” and add “Middle East”.

Other tips

Do reuse keywords from other images that are similar.  I do this quite often and it speeds up the process significantly.  However, if I have time I try to think of some new and different keywords.  After all, if searchers cannot find the original image they will not find one with identical keywords.

Always put all nouns in the singular.  Most sites are smart enough to return search results from the plural.  However not all microstock sites will convert plural keywords to their singular forms.

Do not put copyrighted keywords in an image.  Many microstock sites will reject images that contain copyrighted keywords.  Instead, break up the keyword (instead of “Indiana Jones” use “Indiana” and “Jones” – but not on IStockPhoto) if possible or choose a synonym.

When shooting travel shots, look up the history and details about the place where the photo was taken.  Is there an architectural term or historical term for what you are looking at.  I find Wikipedia to be a great source for keywords.  Also consider what emotions the shot conveys.  Do words such as “hard work”, “happiness”, or “sadness” have meaning in your photo?  If so it is a good idea to add them.

I hope these tips will help improve your keywords.  Keywording is definitely a skill you should spend some time improving and is the key to better selling images (or images that sell at all).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.