MicrostockGroup

After browsing through varies microstock sites I found that there are only a few amount of photos with effects such as Black and White, Sepia, Negative ect.

This leads me to two questions of curiosity, Why is this? and Do effects not sell as well as colour?

If anyone has an answer, please feel free to share

Ahk, good point. It's just that my main interest in photography is landscape, icons (buildings ie- Eiffel Tower) and animals. I find taking black and white and sepia shots more interesting. Also it seems that selling microstock photos mainly evolves around what the industry wants and less what you want to shoot, but that is fair enough.

'Ahk, good point. It's just that my main interest in photography is landscape, icons (buildings ie- Eiffel Tower) and animals'

Don't plan on quick or lots of sales.  Everyone with a camera wants to license their 'landscape, building and animal' shots.  That's some of the most oversaturated stuff right there.

Of those, likely 10 will be accepted and will likely get lost in the crowd.  I certainly wouldn't expect to start today with pictures of buildings, expecting that to finance traveling the world.

Actually, I would like to have a peak at some of your shots as well.

If you post a couple of your best into the critique forum, some top contributors will be able to point you into the right direction like which agency would be most suited for your style etc.

Don't worry about the watermark, they're never pretty but you have to protect your stuff somehow.

Make sure you post the images in full resolution, that way you will receive the most accurate feedback.

But 99% of designers doesn't know how to do a GOOD B/W conversion with filtrations, local contrast enhancements etc.
The really good B/W conversion isn't just some "effect" that is achieved with a press of a button.

I have a few black and white images (and they do sell some). Those images exist because:
* The image are the kind that just are much better in black and white: B/W supports the idea and mood.
* The image has bad color, for example mixed light sources.

I never submit the same images as color and B/W versions.

Can you post me a link to your Sepia image?

I had the same reaction to the "99% are incompetent" comment.  

As a designer, I agree with you about looking for elements. For six years I worked for a company where I designed monthly newsletters specific to certain professions. The images I used were typically one or two isolated objects, maybe in combination with a full image. That image gave the reader an instantaneous idea of what the article was about. Not always, but a good portion of the time.

High end ad agencies, etc. are interested in the "artsy" stuff...IMHO, the majority of companies/designers using images need elements that may or may not be used in combination with other elements.

As far as black and white...there are instances where I have seen images that conveyed a certain feel when changed to black and white. The color version just didn't have that same feel. But I think that most times, it's better to submit the image in color. Maybe the 1% of competent designers will be able to transform it to b&w! 

Yup, that's the Alpha and Omega of stock, especially with the micro model which need to you sell images in bulk to be viable.
For stuff you actually like to shoot, there's always Flickr, personal websites etc.

No worries, I dont believe any of them would be accepted and sell, they were just hobby photos taken with my Sony Cyber Shot and some on my mobile. I think the hot air balloon is really the only one with a small amount of potential.