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.

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.

Recently, they also added an on demand service for customers that do not need as many images.  This is closer to the model at IStockPhoto and other sites.  Downloads of this type pay several dollars each to the photographer.

Shutterstock also supports enhanced license sales, the payouts for which depend on your earnings level at Shutterstock.  Generally though this is $20-$30 – though these sales are far less frequent.  Finally, they offer an archiving service that pays the photographer five cents for each image archived (in addition to the payout when the image was originally sold).

Shutterstock’s success is based on a rather simple principle that I and a number of others have disagreed with.

The basic principle is to highly favor buyers over photographers.  While any photographer that has had an issue to discuss with Shutterstock has become enraged with their response, the truth is it makes good business sense.  Their feelings are that people will be most happy when they have great sales – not when they are treated well.  Recently a friend of mine found a picture of his on a book on Amazon.com.  He felt that this violated the licensing agreements and e-mailed Shutterstock about it.  They never responded with an accurate response – essentially telling him to take a hike.

However, what they have done is create a very appealing site for buyers.  The subscription plan turned out to be genius – as other sites have since tried to emulate it.  My sales on Shutterstock are currently far higher than any other site and comprise approximately 50% of my total sales.

Now let’s get on to some specifics.

Acceptance process

In order to be able to submit pictures to Shutterstock, you must send them ten images.  At least seven of these images must be deemed worthy by the reviewer – otherwise you have to wait a month before trying again.  Therefore it makes sense to send them your top ten pictures that you are confident will pass the reviewer.

Submission process

In terms of reviews, Shutterstock is in general not as tough as other sites such as IStockPhoto.  Their reviewers used to be the most wildly inconsistent of all sites – but in recent months I have found IStockPhoto to be more inconsistent.  Still, you are at the mercy of the reviewer that goes through your pictures.  Some reviewers are definitely tougher than others.  Added to this is that all pictures in your queue – regardless of when you submitted them – are reviewed at once by the same reviewer.  Therefore small batches of pictures spread out over time tend to work better and limit the chances that your pictures will be slaughtered by a very tough reviewer.

In terms of the actual submission process, Shutterstock is one of the easiest sites to submit to.  You have no limits on the number of shots you can submit per day or per week – unlike most other sites.  This can allow you to quickly build up a portfolio.  The process is also quite simple.  Assuming you have keywords in the images themselves you only need to select at least one but no more than two categories per image.  Unlike other sites, Shutterstock has only one level of category and there aren’t too many of them.  This means that bulk uploads are quite quick.

Advantages of Shutterstock

Unlike other sites, images of a lesser quality will actually sell on Shutterstock – though you will not get many downloads.  Still, almost every picture I have submitted to Shutterstock has sold at one time or another.  This is certainly not the case with other sites.  This is a result of the subscription model – editors are not as selective in their images and will download a number of them and decide later which ones they actually want to use.  The subscription model also means they may occasionally download pictures that they like but do not need if they do not expect to reach the limit of 25 for the day.

This is the quickest site to build your portfolio on, mainly because they do not limit your uploads.  The uploading process is also quick and simple.  I find myself submitting far more images here than on IStockPhoto – not just due to the upload limits but also because IStockPhoto is a real pain to submit to.

Perhaps most important of all, this is the site where you’ll generally make the most money.  If you only submit to one site, I would submit here.  Of course, Shutterstock (unlike options available at other sites) do not prevent you from submitting your images elsewhere.  In addition, I have found my sales increasing here while they have been falling at some other sites.  I suspect that the market is slowly moving from more buyers than sellers to one where there are more photographers than buyers.  This has lowered my sales at most other sites except for Shutterstock, where even when I do not submit I have found my sales increasing.

Finally, Shutterstock allows the submission of editorial stock, which many other sites do not accept.

Disadvantages of Shutterstock

There are of course disadvantages to submitting here.  As I have already mentioned, if you have an issue with an improper use of a license or something else, don’t expect a response from them.  They do not have a phone number of photographers to call and if you try (as I have) they will tell you to send them e-mail and hang up.  E-mails sent to them will take at minimum two days for a response but several weeks is not uncommon.

I should also warn you about the forums – which remind me of all the bad things that went with high school.  I would highly advise that you not tread there.  I have not seen a useful thread in months and they are flooded with people with far too much time on their hands.  My suggestion is to focus on submitting pictures and not get caught up in them.

Shutterstock is among the trickier sites to get accepted at due to their one month waiting rule.  Many photographers I know signed up, were rejected, and never bothered to try again.  The inconsistency of their reviewers doesn’t make this any easier.

Shutterstock, unlike some sites like IStockPhoto, does not accept artistic shots.  This makes business sense, as these photos tend not to sell well.  Still, I have heard several complaints from photographers who sent beautiful pictures there – only to have them rejected for focus or ‘not worthy as stock’.  This of course made them quite upset as some of these images had previously won contests or are being displayed on walls.

Finally, Shutterstock does not allow you to resubmit images.  You can post images you feel were improperly rejected on the forums and they may allow you to resubmit it.  If they catch you otherwise you can receive a warning.  After several warnings you will have to send ten new images to be reaccepted.  Personally though, I find that if you wait several months and resubmit the pictures you will not have problems because the rejected pictures are deleted after several weeks.

However, for beginners I would not recommend resubmitting rejected images.  More often than not, when I look at the image the reviewer is often correct.  I will have more to say about this in a later post.

Conclusion

Despite its flaws, if you intend to get involved in microstock photography this is the site to use.  It’s kind of like doing business with New Yorkers (which is where I believe they are located) – business is business but don’t expect them to be nice.  Still, if you want to earn money in microstock – Shutterstock is the place to be.

No related posts.

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

The following are breakdowns of how each site did.

StockXPert (5.76%) – Overall it seems like it was a wise idea to join this site.  Sales are still the lowest of all the sites where I submit, but the percentage has grown from 1-2% of total to something a bit more meaningful.  This is also the easiest site to submit to, as I do not need to categorize my pictures.

Fotolia (7.52%) – I have noticed Fotolia becoming more erratic with their reviews.  Pictures that are rejected at both Shutterstock and IStockPhoto – whose rejections once I look at the shot I agree with – were accepted by Fotolia.  On the other hand, a good number of shots that are accepted by both are rejected for reasons I do not agree with – though it’s not worth the bother to resubmit.  Only a few sales late in the month prevented Fotolia from moving to last place, though their days solidly in third place appear to be over.

Dreamstime (10.34%) – It is not overly difficult to submit here – though a bit more difficult than Shutterstock – but I am pleased with the numbers.  I suspect that Dreamstime will solidly occupy the #3 slot for some time.  Their review system is a bit weird – and I’m not talking about the actual reviews.  Currently I just submit my shots there and look at the sales – I don’t really have an idea how many shots they accept/reject.

Shutterstock (37.85%) – For just the second time Shutterstock comes in second to IStockPhoto, though the race was very close.  Perhaps IStockPhoto’s new subscription element is hurting them, as I have noticed a dropoff in sales.  Still, as I mentioned above I saw the same results this year as I did next year, so I won’t really know if anything is up until next month.  Supposedly this month there will be a raise, so I expect May’s results to be higher.

IStockPhoto (38.53%) – In a narrow race IStockPhoto edges out Shutterstock.  This month they began a subscription plan, but I have yet to really see a difference in the pattern of sales.  Perhaps next month I will start to see more subscription downloads.  It does seem that IStockPhoto was less affected by the slowdown than Shutterstock, reflected in IStockPhoto being tops in sales for the month.

No related posts.

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

The following are some details I noticed about each site this month.

StockXPert (2.95%) – I now have most of my portfolio submitted to this site.  They are they most paranoid site in terms of potential rights issues and as a result most of my best selling shots were not accepted.  As this is the easiest site to submit too, I will likely continue to submit here even though my sales are low.  Still, this site has improved somewhat from the last two months.

Dreamstime (6.41%) – This was a rather standard month on Dreamstime, which had respectable but not outstanding sales.  It is certainly worth the effort to submit here, though I don’t pay attention to which shots are accepted/rejected.

Fotolia (7.37%) – Fotolia started out the month quite strong and at the beginning of the month was close to Shutterstock in sales.  However, after the middle of the month sales slowed considerably and it came close to being overcome by Dreamstime.  Of the Microstock sites, I still think this is the least professional site among them.  Right now obviously new buyers are coming in at a faster rate than sellers (displayed by the fact that my sales increased without submitting).  However I suspect some day that will end and Fotolia will be one of the first ones to go.

IStockPhoto (40.82%) – For most of the month IStockPhoto was in the distant lead over Shutterstock.  However, as with most months, sales at IStockPhoto remained erratic while sales at Shutterstock were steady.  The reviews at this site are still the most helpful and I like the fact that resubmission is encouraged.  However I still disagree with those who go exclusive with IStockPhoto – as you can make a lot more by diversifying.

Shutterstock (42.45%) – There has only been one month so far where Shutterstock was not top in sales and this was not the month.  In some ways I was glad that I did not have time to submit much this month as they were plagued by a rogue reviewer that rejected the majority of shots as “No commercial value”.  A number of the most popular photographers there were hit with this and were more than a little upset.  I’ll see soon whether this has been fixed, as I plan to submit a number of the pictures I have posted here recently – and I find that a flip of a coin is more helpful in determining whether they will be accepted on Shutterstock (not so on IStockPhoto, where they are accepted as long as there are no technical issues).

In terms of new sites, I applied to Lucky Oliver and was rejected.  I don’t really care much though, as after reading about others’ experiences this is more of a circus than a web site to sell pictures.  Ironically the major flaw of this site is favoring photographers too much over buyers.  They seem nice, but I don’t want to waste my time if the sales aren’t worth it.

I was accepted at several new sites – 123RF and a few others.  Perhaps this month I will take the time to finally get my portfolio up there.  I also tried out a new tool called ProStockMaster – but I found it unusable.  If I had the time I would write my own tool, but for now I will manually submit my shots – which once you have a system isn’t too much work.

No related posts.

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

Shutterstock (44.8%) – Last month, IStockPhoto took the lead for the first time.  I was curious if this trend would continue but this month but the answer was a resounding “no”.  IStockPhoto did regain a lot of ground at the end of the month, but Shutterstock easily came out ahead and came close to getting half of my total sales.  What is even more interesting is I did not submit any new shots until the very end of the month, which suggests that my sales increase was due to new buyers and not necessarily new shots.  In even better news, the forums on Shutterstock mention there may be a raise in May – so it seems likely that my earnings will continue to increase here.  The simple reality is, though they are not pleasant to deal with, this site does bring in the most money.

IStockPhoto (37.16%) IStockPhoto had a month similar to last month, but this month came behind Shutterstock in sales.  Based on these sales I suspect going exclusive with them in the future would be a very poor choice.  I must admit though it is a pain submitting images here, as they now check that the keywords match the image exactly and their opinions often differ from mine.  Still, their reviews were quite fair this month and several good images – including two for which I just sold large prints – were accepted by IStockPhoto but rejected by Shutterstock for not being of commercial value.

Fotolia (8.73%) This month was slightly better than my previous month.  Reviews here seem to be getting very unpredictable.  On one hand, images are reviewed very quickly – usually within 24 hours of submitting.  On the other hand, image rejection sometimes seems to be random.  A recent batch of shots there was massacred, though Shutterstock and IStockPhoto accepted most of them.  After working with other sites, Fotolia seems to be poorly managed.  They have gone through a number of bumps, including a disastrous upgrade early last year, and my sales have never fully recovered.  Still, it is currently third in my earnings and worthwhile to submit shots to.

Dreamstime (7.12%) This was a rather quiet month for Dreamstime.  I submitted a large batch of photos at the end of the month but they have yet to be reviewed.  Sales are not very common here, but the commissions tend to be larger than sites like Fotolia.  Then again, my portfolio on this site is much younger and smaller than Fotolia’s.

StockXPert (2.20%) A slight gain from last month has me not ready to ditch this site yet.  I currently do not have my best selling Dubai pictures on here, so I will add them and see what happens.  I suspect that eventually sales here will be similar to Fotolia and Dreamstime.  This is also the easiest site for which to submit images.

In March I hope to take more shots.  I already have a number of insect and spider shots awaiting, though admittedly they tend not to do very well.  All sites, except Fotolia, generally accept them.  Usually for each shot I get a handful of downloads over time.  Very often when one image gets downloaded, all of my other shots of the same insect also get downloaded.  So for instance I’ll either get no woodlouse downloads (most days), or every woodlouse image will be downloaded.  On IStockPhoto, sales are much slower, though some of my better ones like the ladybug eating an aphid have received a number of downloads.

I’m also thinking of submitting to other agencies.  LuckyOliver is mentioned often, though I have seen vastly different reports of sales.  I will probably do some investigation to see if there are other sites worth submitting to.  All in all I was very pleased with my sales this month and that will definitely have an impact on future equipment purchases.

No related posts.

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

What got me started on this thinking was a recent post on Myrmecos blog.  The blog questions whether IStockPhoto and other microstock sites are threatening the insect photography business.  The conclusion is they are not – mainly because clients in the insect photography business require species identification on all shots and the shots should be of top quality, often showing specific behaviors of the species.  I agree that IStockPhoto, or other microstock sites, do not compete here and do not really threaten this specialized industry.  I also suspect that they are unlikely to threaten it in the future.  However, as I will explain below, there exists the possibility that they can.

Getting straight to the point, I think the reason professional photographers are being threatened boils down to a fundamental difference in philosophy between the microstock sites and the traditional stock sites.

Traditional sites deal with photographers, microstocks deal with images.

What do I mean by this?  Anyone can sell images on the microstock sites, but only a select few photographers may sell them on the traditional sites.  Even further, the barrier to entry into the traditional stock sites is very high, often requiring image submissions that are too high for those who are not full time professional photographers.  However, the barrier to the microstock sites is very low.

I have seen a number of pros dismiss the microstock sites as “amateurs”, but the reality is far from that.  It is true that, on average, the quality of microstock pictures is inferior to those at the traditional stock houses.  However, there are a number of very good photographers on these sites with images that easily rival the top sites such as Getty, Corbis, and Alamy.  Many of these photographers live outside the United States, where access to these agencies is even more difficult.  The reason that these people are selling pictures on the microstock sites instead of the higher paying traditional sites is not about economies of scale (sell one picture for 25 cents thousands of times and it mounts up), it is the perception that they cannot sell their images on the higher paying sites.

Another example is myself.  I am not a full time photographer and I am still learning the craft.  When you look at the nature photography of places such as Minden, the shots are clearly a level above my average shot.  However, I do have a handful of shots that could probably compete and sell on there.  I also have a handful of travel shots that would sell at sites such as Getty and Corbis.  I would absolutely love to earn higher commissions on these shots, especially my nature photos.  However, because I would only be able to submit a handful of high quality shots and I would not be able to submit images often, the vast majority of these sites would not give me the time of day.  Therefore, I sell my images on the microstock sites and take what I can get.

The easiest way I see for traditional stock houses to remain relevant in the future is to lower the barrier of entry for photographers.  Note that I do not mean they should lower the quality of images.  If a photographer comes with only one image that is truly saleable in their opinion, and a hundred shots that are not saleable, they should accept the one image and sell it.  If the barrier of entry for photographers is lowered, you will see more of the better photographers selling their top images at the traditional fees while the rejects are sold on the microstock sites.  In fact, this is what many professional photographers do today.  The key, though, is to accept the fact that amateur photographers do have the capability to create an occasional image that can compete with the images of the top pros, and that image deserves to be sold at a higher price than the portfolio of the photographer would suggest.

Another argument that I have seen, advocated by pros such as Dan Heller, is that photographers should instead look to sell their own images.  This can be accomplished through building your own web site and their are a number of people who have succeeded here.  I think for some photographers this is a valid choice and personally I find the information on his site to be among the most useful resources of information out there on building a photography business.  His books are very useful to someone starting out selling pictures.  However, creating your own site to sell pictures is itself a sizeable barrier.  As I work long hours I find it unlikely that I would have the time to build such as site, even though as a software developer I know how.  For those living abroad, the barrier is probably even higher. 

The other reality is, at least now, I probably would make more money selling my photos on the microstock sites than on my own site, as then I would have to drive traffic.  On the sites where I currently sell my pictures, the site makes the effort to bring buyers in – I just need to worry about creating images they would buy.

However, the main issue I see with creating my own web site is the following.  As an amateur I do not have a subjective opinion on my own photos.  Photographs that may seem perfect to me may cause a potential buyer to barf.  If I want to sell an image for several hundred dollars, it has to be worth several hundred dollars to the buyer.  Yet as an amateur how will I know this?  That’s why microstock sites, and traditional stock sites, have reviewers that weed out the unsaleable images.  Amateurs (and I would argue even professionals) need that feedback not only to improve, but to also make sure they present only those images buyers would potentially be interested in.  If a buyer comes to my web site and sees poor images, he will not spend time searching through the site for better ones but will instead assume that all shots are poor.

As I mentioned above, it is true that IStockPhoto and other microstocks do not currently threaten specialized industries such as insect photography.  However, imagine that a company was started that employed a few trained entomologists.  The entomologists would take part in selecting which submitted photos to accept and would also verify and add species definitions and behaviors.  For amateurs such as myself, I would glady submit to that site as long as I felt my images would sell better there – which they likely would if the agency specialized in nature photography.  While it is certainly questionable whether such a company will be created or even if it would be economically viable, the possibility is out there.

Here’s wishing that at least one traditional stock house lowers its barriers for photographers, because I will be waiting in line to sign up.

No related posts.

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

The following are more detailed result from this month and my opinions of the different sites.

IStockPhoto (47.5%) – I had my best month ever at IStockPhoto in January and my pictures are really beginning to take off. Perhaps in the future I may go exclusive with them but right now I would only make about 20% more going exclusive and given the fact that IStockPhoto is still less than 50% of my sales this doesn’t make sense. This was the first month that IStockPhoto was my top producer. Of all the different stock sites this one is probably my favorite as they are the most cordial and consistent with their reviews. It can be difficult to get pictures accepted, but when I look at the rejected pictures based on their reviews the rejections tend to make sense.

Shutterstock (36.1%) – Shutterstock had a decent month for me in January, though it was not a record month. However, this was the first month that Shutterstock did not take first place. They were the first microstock that I started submitting to and I have by far more pictures there than elsewhere. Although my sales are decent there I’m not particularly fond of them. Whenever I’ve had to deal with them directly they have been very rude and they do not seem to care about their photographers. Also, their reviewers are wildly inconsistent. Whenever I submit a large number of pictures I will pray for a decent reviewer. Some reviewers are very accepting while others reject everything – even those that were accepted at much tougher sites like IStockPhoto – with the rejections not making sense.

Fotolia (8.0%) – Fotolia still seems to be recovering from a massive blunder several months ago when they upgraded to a new version of their software. My sales have been slowly picking up there though and at the beginning of the month I wondered whether they would beat Shutterstock. Fotolia has become much tougher with their picture selections – however they have the fastest review turnarounds. Their reviews seem for the most part to be fair. They are now a bit tougher in acceptances than Shutterstock, but not as tough as IStockPhoto.

Dreamstime (7.2%) – Dreamstime is one of the newer sites I have applied to and it was only this month that I submitted most of my photos. This is a nice start and I suspect that Dreamstime will be a stable, though not top, earner. Of all the sites they have some of the most helpful blogs on their main page and they have very interesting photo contests, though I don’t take part because the images tend to sell better on IStockPhoto and Shutterstock (their contests require the images to be exclusive to them).

StockXPert (1.1%) – I am currently quite disappointed in this site, even though I just joined. They seem to be paranoid about taking any shot that has the tiniest potential for copyright – so they reject pretty much any building. A number of other photos that have done fine on other sites and which even IStockPhoto didn’t have a problem with were rejected. Still, I have a large enough number of pictures there that the sales should be higher. I will likely submit some more this month and fix up the image groups to see if I get more downloads. If I don’t, then I’ll probably stop bothering with this site.

No related posts.

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