Attached Link: Click here to get a bit of context on macro/micro stock

Lately I've been toying with the idea of submitting some of my work as stock photography. Yesterday after compiling a (currently rather short) list of shots I thought would work as stock, I had my first pics accepted at the two sites I've currently tried. One is 'macro' stock, the other 'micro' stock and this dictates what kind of portfolio I'll be compiling for each, based primarily on quality... I mean, I think I might find it a bit of a bitter pill to swallow to see a work I consider to be one of my better efforts going for as little as 10 cents a pop for unlimited licensing of the image...!

Anyway, to the point of the thread - I was wondering if any of you guys/gals have had any experience with selling stock and if the arrival of these 'microstock' sites like Shutterstock has been good or bad for you? Do you think they pose a threat to the traditional stock photography market? Do you find one style earns better than the other?

I remember reading someone suggesting it was a bit like Napster for the photography industry, and I think that could well be a fairly apt description, as people are getting online to get images they would previously have had to commission or pay a higher fee for. If professionals, or professional-standard photographers become accustomed to posting to these micro-stock sites, the quality in many areas may match that of the professional stock sites like Getty.... but the amount earned per sale certainly won't....

Some refuse to post their images to these micro-stock sites for fear that if everyone does it then they'll be out of a job as they'll have undermined their original market. But with many reporting equal or greater sales from these sites, is it maybe time for those more 'exclusive' photographers to get a slice of the action, or would they be doing more for their longterm interests from abstaining? .... it's a tricky one eh? Seems to me this trend in the industry must in no small part have been sparked by the proliferation of affordable good quality cameras, which allow an 'average' photographer to take a 'good' photo without necessarily knowing much theory or technical photographic aspects such as aperture etc etc.

Very interested to hear peoples opinions on this, and also warmly welcome any advice from seasoned stock contributors out there ;)

Adam

Hmm some good questions Adam

The thing to remember is who is going to look at the images and that will be Graphic artists and designers and web sites... So images that appeal to them will sell best... In my view it is better to submit your work to some of the better agencies who then tend to commision you to do certain topics they can sell and that way you will get a faIr recompense for your labours..

Also saves you from sending in masses of your work you have no idea what will be done with it..

thanks very much for your input Danny... for the moment I'm mainly starting out with a body of St Andrews shots, as god knows I've got enough on my hard drive which are technically fine but which won't really see the light of day otherwise.... the best of these I think will go to macro stock sites, and I don't think I'll ever load much more than 'good snaps' on micro-stock sites. I've been out a couple of times now with 'stock' on the mind and have to say it makes for a whole different mindset when shooting, but I'm sure I'll get used to it given time to get a feel for what 'works' and what doesn't..

I think this might be an appropriate place to also say thank you to David for your help in this area.

Adam i tried a few times and sofar my photos has been rejected.The rule of Shutterstock is that you must submit 10 Photos and 7 of the Ten mus be accepted before you can upload pictures to be reviewed and accepted before any of your pictures can be sold.I have 101 pictures accepted at Dreamstime and stand at $3.01.At 123rf i have 1658 photos accepted and my earnigs $2.94.At Bigstockphoto they accepted 10 of my pictures and my earnings is $3.00.

interesting to know Christo, having had a look at what seems to do well on the micro sites I'm kinda yearning for some proper lighting equipment... early experiments with desk lamps and tissue paper as diffuser are better than onboard flash but still a bit fiddly...
anyway I just had my first rejection from Shutterstock, seems 6 were ok but that ain't enough... I'll try again with a better selection in a month I guess...
really I'm still building my portfolio and will have much more time to dedicate to this in the coming months... so far I have 32 online at Alamy, 15 at Dreamstime, 10 pending at BigStockPhoto... not much yet but at least I've made some sales =)

should there be a kind soul out there with a properly calibrated monitor and a spare moment perhaps you could take a quick gander at my alamy page and let me know how the photos look in terms of brightness/darkness/saturation...? there might be a slight difference between the newer ones and the ones on page 2, I've been struggling to get consistency reproducing the same colours on the web as on my computer with that site..

cheers in advance for any feeback, here's the link:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/54D0238E-74C4-4228-99EB-7B0DA36AAF1E/1/Adam%20Edwards.html

Adam had a look at your collection at Alamy.Your pictures look fine to me.As always your pictures is of outstanding quality.

Regards
Christo

just a modest selection so far but thanks for the kind words Christo ;)
I think I've ironed out my colour workflow now (slight discrepancies between photoshop, windows, web), got a feeling the harbour ones in particular might be a little dark/saturated tho so may re-upload at some point....
at least now I have the peace of mind knowing the family has just opted for a spyder 3 monitor calibration package which I should get use of by the end of next week, so hopefully will be more confident the review staff are seeing exactly what I'm seeing..
any experience with Fotolia btw?

Adam

I have about 10 pictures which have been accepted.They are also very strict with selecting pictures.

My view is that you are better off having your own website and selling stock direct,you get just what you want and no middleman.

fair point, always nice to make 100% of the commission eh? ;)
but that middleman is however pretty essential in reaching a worldwide audience and I think most people who participate in stock are content to pay for the ability to reach a far greater potential market.... I don't quite understand what you mean by selling stock 'direct'.. I am guessing you mean putting all your (maybe thousands) of photos on your own site and letting people contact you if they want it... would you then sent it to them or have a file available for download? it could potentially clog up the space available on the website which is something you wouldn't have to worry about hosting your pics on a large stock site. also, hosting them on your own site would rely on generating business from the traffic arriving there, which is in most cases much smaller than the largest stock agencies' traffic. if you had a large number of images a search function would be necessary too and people have become used to the keyword system... you would also have to offer a range of prices and licenses which were competitive with the existing stock sites... seems an awful headache just to keep a higher % from fewer views when you could be reaching a much larger audience, making more sales etc... sure a lower % with micro sites but still potential for large payouts with the 'macro' sites...

sorry to splurge thoughts, I guess a few just came to mind and I'm interested in this discussion as I get more involved in this pursuit. if you can tolerate another question, could you also clarify 'you get just what you want'..? is this from a buyer or sellers point of view?

cheers

I get direct contact with potential new clients,and I do have a search gallery option.It has taken a while to put my pictures on my site but I dont have to jump thru someone elses hoops. I have looked at placing my work on stock sites but i just find that many have requirements which I find to much trouble. Yes my approach is a bit laid back but having to face getting pics rejected for a variety of reasons is just too damaging to my eggshell of confidence. My work is judged by myself as Good Enough and certainly I strive to improve ,however I would descend into despair if I allowed my pictures to be nit picked by an unknown picture agency screener.

Drop in to my site and have a browse www.scotaviaimages.co.uk

Unlike most agencies I show many views of the same subject from different angles.

interesting... I'll surely have a browse a little later on when I have a few minutes to spare. I'm pretty familiar with your aerial views tho and always thought they might do pretty well as stock, offering a viewpoint not many people will be able to...

in my experience the stock agencies are much stricter with their quality control until you vaguely impress them with your initial submission... once the foot's in the door I think you can 'get away' with submitting shots which might not have passed initial QC but you know would be useful to someone... true, they seem to care more about a lack of noise/blemishes than they do about artistic integrity but then again that depends on the site.... I don't take rejections as saying 'this was a bad photo', merely that they don't see a potential use or market for it.... I pretty much thought they would be, but my last 6 submissions to dreamstime were rejected solely on the grounds their library already had enough of that subject (clouds, trees, flowers etc).... that itself is fair enough to me, but I get a little irritated when I see a shot online being given the chance which I think is similar but technically no better than mine, which wasn't given the opportunity.

it's no longer about just uploading the 'chancers' that happen to have found their way into your archive over the years I feel..... these days technical excellence is expected, and with archives that cover pretty much every subject, the agencies are looking for innovative types of shots which, personally, I probably wouldn't shoot unless I had this final destination in mind. I guess what I'm saying is that to get ahead it seems you have to have a large archive already then treat the process like a job, adding new files to your online archive each week....

you have the advantage of having a USP for your stock - the aerial viewpoints - I can see how this might work nicely from your own personal site as long as enough people knew of it.... I mean, if someone needs an aerial shot of, say, Scotland, then find your site, I'd say you have a good chance of repeated sales....

my 2p's worth ;)

thanks Meogwli, taking the photos is at times the easy part,it is the promotional work which is challenging and I agree , its getting the pics in front of people which takes knowledge of web promotion.
I still fell it is worth looking at having your own site.

well having had a look at your site I think you're quite justified in thinking so.. seems to be working okay for you and like I said before there can't be too many people with the variety of aerial views you have in certain areas.... have to be honest though, I wasn't a huge fan of the pink/purple background, but then that's just one opinion.... so I'm assuming you don't have an automated download or payment system, rather that a client contacts you in each circumstance, and you work out what they want and send it to them?.... it's an idea I may look into in future years but may be biting off a bit more than I can chew at the moment...

oh and Christo I just got accepted at Shutterstock on 3rd attempt... and only 7 of the 10 passed ;)
for the record I now have some on Alamy, Fotolia, Dreamstime, BigStockPhoto and Shutterstock and think I'll just stick with these until my portfolio is large enough to warrant going further afield..

Adam

Thanks Meowgli for looking at my site. Yes I agree its not perfect, but I have a good deal with the designer webmaster and my budget is limited as a one man band.

An auto system would loose me some contact with the enquiries and you are right, I do have to vary the cost according to use,I prefer to do that off the website.

Very pleased that you have had stock accepted, its not easy.

Congrats Adam.I will have to send you pictures so you can give me advice before i upload at shutterstock. I am still waiting to hear from them.Every time they reject all your pictures you must wait 30 days before you can uplad your 1 st 10 pictures.I sold a picture at 123rf again nearly on $6 there.

cheers =)
yeah no probs I could have a look at them towards the end of the week if you like... let me know and I'll sitemail you my email address.... if it helps any, here's a link to the 7 which made it from my initial batch: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=353383
7 sales on my first day meaning its already my top earner in the very short time I've been doing all this... seems worth the effort persisting to get on there for sure... and I also got accepted at iStockPhoto today which seems fairly similar to Shutterstock, i.e. a market leader and fairly low prices..
it may just be down to what each collection has plenty of already, but almost all the files making sales on one site have been rejected from one of more others in my case...which I think goes to show that exclusivity with any one site would be a foolish move.
it's all very interesting though, and definitely requires a different mental approach to shooting when you know the photo's final destination is stock....
out of interest when did you register with your first agency Christo?

Adam

Adam
Cannot remember. I will have to have a look at all the stock sites wher i am registered.By far my best stock site sofar is 123rf.com.
Regards
Christo.

Indispensible keywording tool created by the top selling microstock photographer Yuri Arcurs:

http://arcurs.com/keywording/index.php

Only found it yesterday but I can already see how it'll save me hours, maybe days in the long run. If you do stock, use this tool - it has been cleverly designed by someone with hundreds of files to upload weekly but who doesn't want to live at a keyboard.

=)