MicrostockGroup

For those of you who are submitting both to micros and macros.... how do you decide? Do you keep your "best" shots for macros? Or the other way around ("best" shots, if they get picked up in micros can make a lot of $ monthly at micros)?

How about splitting a series? Same subject, different angles/zoom/etc? Same subject but some are clearly better than others? Or do you base decisions based on substance?

Where am I coming from with this? Just spent half a day at Niagara falls today... can't make up my mind about where to upload the images now

 Arghh any tips appreciated!

I try to divide my images as following:

Microstock RF:

-no people shots. If I was a model for someone I'd like to know that the images cannot be used forever over and over.
-images with not-so-perfect lightning
-generic, "universal" subjects
-images that are easy to produce very fast, low production value

RM (almost my all macrostock images are RM):

-people shots
-technically good shots with good lighting
-special subjects (they won't sell as microstock anyway)
-"lucky shots" special moments that are hard to capture
-images that are hard to produce, high production value
-editorial photography
-"creative" and "artsy" shots (that would propably be rejected by microstock inspectors anyway )

What comes to imagery from Niagara falls...
Word "Niagara" returns 4569 images. On iStock there are 466 matches for "Niagara".
It seems like a well covered subject on both sites - that makes it a tough competition.
I'd say you have to have very good images, maybe from some special angle and/or the best light - otherwise the images could only be a waste of time. I'd still post the best images to macro and the b-grade ones to microstock.

And there will be more.......different point of view.....different thread....Both are welcome.

I tried to do a search, I remember there was a thread in which I thought I had also posted, but I did not find it.  I found another two older threads discussing the subject
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3856.0.html
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,4577.0.html

but in neither of them I say more explicitly what I sell as RM when available (which is basically architecture and recognizable landscapes, plus some special images). I wonder if I am confused about the recent thread. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Is that you, Harmon? 

To answer the op - I just do it the easy way - my camera's resolution isn't large enough to be able to submit to RM agencies, and it seems the only RM agencies I ever come across don't accept RF shooters anyway!  LOL!

Well said, it is the way I do it.

Unless it's a pidgeon in a park, or something like that, any specific bird I put on macro (RF or RM). 

Regards,
Adelaide

It all depends. If it was a great image of a rare bird taking off in flight it would definitely be RM.

I'm not sure my advice counts so much as I am not very successful in either micro nor macrostock.    It's just that I don't like to sell such specialized type of photo in microstock.   I'm sure that bald eagles sell a lot in the micros for the USA market, but my bald eagle is not in the micros.  I sold it once, as RF. Didn't make a fortune out of it, but I'm happy. 

We have Ecopics here with an amazing collection of wildlife, and he sells them at micros, and it seems he has good results.  It's more a personal choice.

Regards,
Adelaide

This is a tricky question to answer, since markets vary very much.  For very generic shots, those that are all over many micros and that are very indistinct I would go RF.  For something special, more unique, I would go RM.  The tricky part is that many generic shots still sell as RM, since the buyer may want to have a photo that has some degree of a history in terms of previous buyers, to prevent ending having the same image as a compatitor, as has happened before.  In the end, the more broad rule is that if a shot is unique, rare, or if you want to have control over its usage it should be RM.