Hi all, very new here, not too new to microstock or photography, but it's always been a hobby. Photography, a very large and influential hobby... submitting to stock, more of a footnote. Please don't take that as any sort of smug superiority, it's just meant to serve as an excuse for why I've never really taken the time to nail down exactly what to write in a description.
I have read many threads here in the past few days, and have learned a TON, even though Ive been on istock for 6 years. But, most of you tend to submit, for the most part, different types of photos than me. I submit almost entirely landscapes and nature. So I haven't really found the answer I've been looking for in old threads.
Sorry for beating around the bush. My main question is this: for landscapes like mine, should I include the exact location in the description? Right now I've been: never including it in the title (unless, like SS, there is only one title/description field), sometimes including it in the description, and always including it in the keywords. This really is more just hedging my bets though, as I'm not sure what the best tactic is. For stock photos of a waterfall or meadow, say (which I have many of), would knowing the exact location scare off some buyers? For instance, I have some very popular "rain forest waterfall" images, which I have seen advertised all over the place, including tourism brochures for places that are NOT where my photo was taken. Or advertising tropical rain forests, when in fact the waterfall was a temperate rain forest. Any thoughts on this? Has this been discussed before?
For instance, take my "Hidden rain forest waterfall with lush foliage and mossy rocks"... this thing is all OVER the place in rain forest ads, tropical and temperate. Would adding "taken in North Carolina" diminish its value?
Please let me know if this should go in critique. Since it is more about general landscape strategy, I thought it should go here.
