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.

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.

Framing

In simple terms, your picture must not look like a snapshot.  A snapshot is typically defined as those millions of vacation shots that come out each year of random things.  More specifically, a snapshot is defined as a picture that didn’t require thought and looks like it.  OK, so maybe that’s not so specific.

In order to have a properly framed picture, you need to pay attention to the layout of the objects inside it.  For instance, watch what is creeping into the picture.  Very often trees and other things find their way into the picture.  If you find a branch coming into the shot from the side, use Photoshop to clone it out.  Over time you’ll find yourself able to notice this when taking the shot and reframe the picture appropriately.

If you are taking pictures of buildings, make sure the tops aren’t clipped off.  Many stock sites will reject shots of buildings with their tops cut off – even very tall ones.  In general the entire subject should be in the shot – though there are exceptions to this.  Distracting elements also should not be in the picture.  When taking photos of the beach, try to find viewpoints that have the least amount of garbage – then clone out the rest of the garbage in post processing.

Another interesting aspect of microstock photography is that very often the shot that sells the best has the subject in the center of the photo.  This is against the rule of thirds and will make many artists cringe – but the truth is microstock photos are made to be sold – not to be admired.

Bad lighting

Lighting is something you will just need to learn.  Everyone needs to learn about lighting and I think this is the one area where we beginners often encounter issues.  Positively the best book on lighting is Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting, which I will have an in depth review of in the near future.  While this post will give you ideas on what to look for, this book will tell you how to fix them.

First of all, avoid lens flare.  Sometimes this is a function of the lens and other time results from you shooting into the sun.  Know the limits of your lens and avoid shooting directly into the light.  Although some lens flare can be removed from a shot, in my experience most is quite difficult.

Always properly meter your subject.  In this series I assume you have already mastered metering but I must still strongly emphasize that underexposed or overexposed photographs will not be accepted.  This is often a problem on sunny days.  If you are shooting models on a sunny day, make sure to use diffusers and other techniques to soften the sunlight hitting them.  In my experience photographs rejected for lighting generally have a problem in only one part of the photograph – not in the entire shot.  Most cameras today will tell you whether parts of the shot are overexposed and will give you a histogram for each shot.  Pay attention to them.

One technique I use often for traveling and real estate is to photograph either early in the morning or in the late afternoon.  This provides the best quality light and the most saleable pictures.  Ironically when I wind up on a photogenic site during the day, I pray for rain because the dark clouds often provide better lighting.

For macro photography, make sure to use either a macro flash or a tripod.  Very often I see severe lighting issues in macro shots where the photographer did not attempt to use any lighting other than ambient.

If part of your image is overexposed, don’t fret.  If you feel that the image is worth saving, you can often fix it up in Photoshop.  The two techniques I use most often are painting with lighting and cloning.

No related posts.

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

I will start with a discussion of noise.  What is noise? Noise are those little out of color specs that you see in an image.  It is most common in pictures with a high ISO and an underexposed image.  All microstock sites are uniform in their hatred of noise.  While in some print and display formats (such as video) noise is sometimes desired, in stock photography it is universally despised.  All images must be free of noise.  The easiest way to avoid noise is to not take the picture with noise in the first place.

Read on for how to do this as well as avoid other common rejection reasons.

The easiest way to avoid noise is to use as low of an ISO as possible.  Generally, I always try to take all pictures in ISO 100.  I only switch to higher ISO’s when absolutely necessary.  The following are my experiences with a Canon 5D.

ISO 100 – 200 – Usually this is OK and I do not receive rejections for noise.

ISO 400 – This usually needs some type of noise reduction, though occasionally I can get pictures in without it.  Nowadays I always run ISO 400 pictures through noise reduction software such as Noise Ninja.

ISO 800 – This always requires noise reduction.

ISO 1600+ – Send the image to Flickr.  It is useless for stock photography.

Recently I ordered the Canon 5D Mark II which should improve my noise levels by at least two stops.  Some of the newer Nikon cameras such as the D700 and D300 will also have better noise handling than the existing 5D and on par with the 5D Mark II (but at 12MP vs 21MP).

To remove noise, the best software to use is Noise Ninja.  I generally find that the noise removal built into Photoshop is not sufficient.  This is the only plugin I own and I find it more than worth the cost.  It will work with all sites except for IStockPhoto.  For some reason, IStockPhoto not only hates noise but also noise removal.  They can detect when Noise Ninja was used and will almost always reject the shot.  Therefore pictures with noise removed generally are not accepted at IStockPhoto – which is likely another reason why my sales there are lower.

Focus

In general, images must still be sharp at 100%.  This is the primary reason that I am a pixel peeper.  I make sure to buy only the sharpest lenses that can be used at low apertures and still be sharp.  This is one reason why I still do not own a true telephoto lens.  However, you do not need to own all L lenses in order to take stock photos.  High end lenses just allow you to be a bit lazier in terms of deciding the aperture and shutterspeed to use.  They also allow you more flexibility with lower apertures.  However, if you have an ordinary lens you can still take stock photographs as long as you understand the limits of the lens.  If you have the Sigma 150-500 for instance, I would never take a shot at 500mm f/6.3 – it is almost guaranteed to be soft.  Instead, use f/8 and f/11 and avoid using the full 500mm.  Most lenses perform similarly at f/8-f/11 outside of the extreme limits of the zoom.  Another alternative is to use primes – which are still generally sharper than the equivalent zooms.

Sharpness is not just a function of the lens but is also affected by the settings you choose to take the picture.  Always favor higher shutterspeeds in order to minimize the chances that camera shake can reduce sharpness.

Finally, note that sharpening during post processing is not the answer.  This will almost always get your shot rejected with the message ‘too much post processing’ or ‘too much sharpening’.

No related posts.

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

1. Copyrights
2. Noise
3. Focus
4. Framing
5. Bad lighting
6. Not stock worthy
7. Similar images
8. Releases

Over the next several posts I will discuss all of these in depth.  At the end of this series I will include a number of sample images.  Today, however, I will touch on the extremely lengthy subject of copyright protection.  I will begin by saying that this is an extremely complicated subject that I know little about.  For instance, I’m not exactly sure what the differences are between trademarks and copyrights.  However, I suspect that most of us don’t really care.  What we do care about is whether we can sell a given picture.  Therefore I will simplify this discussion into what you can sell photographs of, and what you cannot.

To begin with, copyrights are a sure way to get a photo rejected.  Most sites are very consistent and strict in this regard – so it is a good idea to learn something about it so you do not waste your time taking photographs that will never be accepted.  So what can you not sell pictures of – in a simple word – something that someone else has put a decent amount of money into and considers to be their own.

A primary example of this is a logo.  Logos are all around us and are an essential part of branding.  Companies like Coca-Cola, Mercedes, and clothing companies put tremendous amounts of money into creating and protecting their logos.  Any image that contains these logos cannot be sold – unless you sell it as editorial stock.  Most photographers would not try to sell a photo of a  coca cola bottle, but a street scene containing a store with a coca cola logo is a different matter.  This must be constantly taken into account with street and city scenes.  Logos are everywhere – over and on shops, imprinted on buildings (hotel logos) and on city buses.  When taking these scenes, you should always keep this in mind.  However, also learn that the clone tool in Photoshop is your best friend.

Another area that many beginning photographers miss is clothing.  A picture of a model running through grass wearing an NFL sweatshirt is bound to be rejected.  The same is true for any branded shirt.  When photographing models, make sure they do not wear any clothing with obvious branding.

Other brands are less obvious.  Most sites will not accept pictures of cars – because the contour of the cars themselves are copyrighted.  This also follows for pictures of cruise ships.  Cruise companies spend millions on the design and look of their cruise ships and experts can often determine the exact ship from a single picture of the boat.

Buildings are even more confusing. First, you must know that a number of buildings and parts of buildings are copyrighted – here is a list to start out with.  Examples of copyrighted buildings include the following

1. Chrysler Tower in New York
2. Seattle Space Needle
3. Sydney Opera House
4. Eiffel Tower (but only at night)
5. Many Museums (interiors and sometimes exteriors)
6. Any Frank Lloyd Wright building
7. Modern sculptures

This is just a small representation of what is copyrighted.  However, if you photograph a copyrighted building, you cannot sell the picture.  A major exception to this rule is city skylines.  If the copyrighted building is not the main subject of the picture but is instead contained with other buildings, then you can sell the picture.  I have noticed that some reviewers do not know this rule and I have occasionally resubmitted images with a note about this.  Nowadays though reviewers are generally very well informed about copyrights.  Note that sometimes copyrighted buildings may be sold as editorial stock, but you will receive far fewer sales.

While buildings are certainly the most confusing and logos are obvious, there are other things that are considered copyrighted that you may not sell pictures from.

Stamps for instance, are copyrighted if unused.  If the stamp is used you may sell a picture of it.

Building interiors are often copyrighted by the owners.  The general rule with houses (interior or exterior) is that if the picture makes the house identifiable, it cannot be sold without a property release.  There seems to be a wide legal range with this rule and as a result most stock sites (with Shutterstock and IStockPhoto being notable exclusions) do not allow any pictures of interiors.  Interestingly enough – they also do not have the ability to accept property releases.

Finally, some things are technically copyrighted but stock images are in wide supply.  For instance, the Canadian government has copyrighted their currency – resulting in many very interesting court cases.  However, stock images seem to be in large supply still of Canadian currency and thus no stock agencies respect this ruling.  Another example is the pyramids of Egypt – which Egypt has supposedly copyrighted.  However, the large number of stock images available of the pyramids leads me to suspect that it is not heeded.

This is just a tiny primer about copyrights.  When you sign up for IStockPhoto, they have a good learning section on it that you must go through in order to join.  For corner cases that are not obvious the reviewers at IStockPhoto will generally be nice and tell you exactly what about your picture is copyrighted.

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.

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.