Would any of these make it?

[caressati]

Hi,

I'm considering trying to enter the microstock business for fun, as a side thing, and as a way to develop my skills. I am definitely not at an professional level, but I learn, and I intend to challenge myself to improve and to finally sell some images.

My main problem as I see it is that I'm specialised in pet photography, mainly cats and dogs. I've been reading articles and browsing agency collections, and they all say that pet photography is a surefire way to get rejected. Does this hold true 100 %, or can a very good pet photographer get in? Not saying I am one, but I would be willing to work towards it. I have limited experience at other fields, althoug that would also be good to work at.

Any comments on the below images would be greatly appreciated. These have been minimally processed (just wb and contrast tempered with) and are all at ISO 100.

http://stirredreality.com/stock/6.jpg [nofollow] (please ignore the blemish; I'm interested in what would make this work colour-, composition- and subjectwise)
http://stirredreality.com/stock/3.jpg [nofollow]
http://stirredreality.com/stock/5.jpg [nofollow] (too snapshoty?)
http://stirredreality.com/stock/4.jpg [nofollow] (does this contain fringes? I'm not good enough to tell)
http://stirredreality.com/stock/2.jpg [nofollow] (is this subject matter at all commercial?)

Thank you!

[mtkang]

i guess as long as it is a good images with commercial value, agency will still take it.

but i notice both of your shots, the sign, and the mouse toy are under shades, it is under exposure and too small (mouse).

basically it takes some good images to sell, but since it is for fun, you may just start with what you had taken.

Personally, dreamstime is the one many beginner tried out since there is no approval is requested to start uploading, then fotolia. Shutterstock and istock needs to get approval by submitting some good enough photos.

you may check out a post in my blog http://wp.me/pPDGb-24 to get an idea of those agencies.

it takes some time to get some consistent earning, and remember to check out alamy.com. It maybe a better place to sell photos for some photographers, especially occasional photographers.

If your purpose is just to get some photos to be sold and get some returns, shutterstock is the one you have to try the best to get in.

enjoy it.

[caressati]

I agree with what you said about the photos. If I were to submit anything, I would start making lists of things I wouldn't to shoot and then stage them - these are snapshots and as such the subject matter is (hopefully) better than the execution.

I realise it takes time to get in and I don't mind. That only adds to the challenge and I have plenty of patience anyway.

Thanks for your comments and tips!

[leaf]

Shooting animals isn't a recipe for rejection but they have to be great shots.  There is one stock photographer (actually two that work as a team) that ONLY shoot animals and are doing very well.  If you just follow your pets around the house and take shots of them though, then yes, that is a recipe for rejection.

What you need to ask yourself when you take the shots is "what can this be used for", or what type of website, brochure would really want to use this image?  If you think of something then do a search on the micros.  Then ask yourself if you would rather use your image than what is already there.  If not, you need to create something better/ different.

In regards to the images you posted, I would say the biggest problem is cropping.  You seem to crop at odd spots making the images look chopped off.

[mtkang]

Snapshots can make it too, just try to use basic photography concept, like for the 1st portraits, try to look for a clean background. for your 2nd portraits the depth of field bring attention to the face, but there seem not enough of contents to tell what the lady is doing, looking at something? relaxing?

we all are started with something what we are shooting, one can get improved through whatever they are shooting. It also doesn't make sense to start shooting lady business model or some concepts shoot that needs more experience or equipment.

Just enjoy what you are shooting but put more consideration on technical skills, and you may come out with some portfolio strong enough.

 

[donding]

I agree with mtkang about the portrait's. When I look at them the first question that comes to my mind is what in the world are they looking at? If you're trying to display a concept it needs more content. Plus the cropping issue, most agencies do not like that and will reject it for bad composition.

As for the mouse. I don't think it would make it. Who would want to use it or what concept are you trying to display? Like Leaf said you gotta ask your self that question. You gotta remember these will be used by ad agencies and designers and the like. Don't get me wrong, they are good photos, just don't think they would make it through the inspection process. It has been getting harder and harder to get approval at a lot of these agencies.

Good luck and keep on trying.

[caressati]

Thank you. I appreciate the comments and I intend to learn from them.

None of the photos are actually cropped, but that doesn't change the validity of your comments. If they appear to be cropped, they should have been shot from a farther distance as far as I'm concerned.

I think re: the mouse photo that I was trying to go through images I'd taken that were taken at ISO100 and not totally, completely worthless for retail. Guess I got a little desperate in the process, plus I admit I need to learn what does sell and what does not.

About animal images in general - what type do sell? I could imagine shots such as this: http://stirredreality.com/stock/1.jpg [nofollow] (I know - poor lighting, obstructed background, focus is off by 5 mm and there's dust in the foreground) are overrepresented because they're so easy to take and almost always turn out cute regardless of animal. Do more exotic animals help? For instance, I have taken plenty of close-up shots of snow leopard kittens and peregrines (all at too bad ISO but otherwise fine). Do you have any general ideas here? I've looked through what sells on the sites but I honestly can't seem to find a consistent theme to it.

[leaf]

None of the photos are actually cropped, but that doesn't change the validity of your comments. If they appear to be cropped, they should have been shot from a farther distance as far as I'm concerned.

By saying an image is cropped to tight, it doesn't matter if it was done in photoshop or in the camera, either way is still cropping.

When you frame a picture in the camera you are essential cropping out everything that isn't getting in the image.  So as this sounds like the case for you, try and take a step back and make sure you look at all four corners of the frame when you are composing and make sure the subject has a little room to breath.

[molka]

no they wouldn't. the first is an okay portrait, but the background is too busy for stockyness. the rest is pretty poor, I definiately not a great fan of the microstock standrad for photography (it's a cesspool of corniness with added amateurish waaay overprocessing for the added trailorpark - bad - taste feel) but I would understand them not wanting those. The poor gal on the second portrait looks like she fell and got her head smahsed againt a pipe : )

[FD]

About animal images in general - what type do sell?

Just look. Why are you asking for the obvious? Don't you know how to handle search engines?
Look at this dog shot (378 downloads on DT alone). Can you match it?
Check Eric Issel�e. He only shoots animals: 36K sales. Can you match him?

I could imagine shots such as this: http://stirredreality.com/stock/1.jpg (I know - poor lighting, obstructed background, focus is off by 5 mm and there's dust in the foreground)

If you know it (that goes for your first 5 shots too) why ask?

Do more exotic animals help?

Can you match this lion?

For instance, I have taken plenty of close-up shots of snow leopard kittens and peregrines (all at too bad ISO but otherwise fine).

Otherwise fine? If your ISO is off and the image is noisy, just upload them to Flickr or FB.

Do you have any general ideas here? I've looked through what sells on the sites but I honestly can't seem to find a consistent theme to it.

Keep looking. If you think any of us found the holy grail, do you think we would spill the location to our (future) competitors and educate them?

Honestly, I didn't want to mingle in this thread since I would sound rude. I thought it was a joke. If you seriously ask if this shot has fringe (the fringe is an elephant in the room but the image is totally flawed on every other aspect: commercial usability and especially lighting) and "you're not good enough to tell", I suggest you search another hobby. Judging from those 5 snapshots, you just have no talent. Sorry but it will save you time and needless frustrations.

You may block and curse me now.

[caressati]

Nah, it's cool. I don't intend to let you ruin my day just because somebody pissed in your corn flakes and you don't know the difference between critique and rudeness. I'm glad your comment wasn't the first though; at least now I know the entire forum doesn't consist of assholes.

Sorry to spoil your evil keyboard ninja pleasures. Have a nice day!

leaf and molka: Thanks for your comments!

[molka]

About animal images in general - what type do sell?

Just look. Why are you asking for the obvious? Don't you know how to handle search engines?
Look at this dog shot (378 downloads on DT alone). Can you match it?
Check Eric Issel�e. He only shoots animals: 36K sales. Can you match him?

I could imagine shots such as this: http://stirredreality.com/stock/1.jpg (I know - poor lighting, obstructed background, focus is off by 5 mm and there's dust in the foreground)

If you know it (that goes for your first 5 shots too) why ask?

Do more exotic animals help?

Can you match this lion?

For instance, I have taken plenty of close-up shots of snow leopard kittens and peregrines (all at too bad ISO but otherwise fine).

Otherwise fine? If your ISO is off and the image is noisy, just upload them to Flickr or FB.

Do you have any general ideas here? I've looked through what sells on the sites but I honestly can't seem to find a consistent theme to it.

Keep looking. If you think any of us found the holy grail, do you think we would spill the location to our (future) competitors and educate them?

Honestly, I didn't want to mingle in this thread since I would sound rude. I thought it was a joke. If you seriously ask if this shot has fringe (the fringe is an elephant in the room but the image is totally flawed on every other aspect: commercial usability and especially lighting) and "you're not good enough to tell", I suggest you search another hobby. Judging from those 5 snapshots, you just have no talent. Sorry but it will save you time and needless frustrations.

You may block and curse me now.

the puppy is cute, you need patience and luck for the 'expression' but 'photographically' there's nothing special about it. The shot if the lion is poor and dull, as for funny part of it seemingly holding a sign, that's just low. you really got yo brain stuck in this microcap, setting semi crap like that as an example, how about linking tim flach or something respectable?

[molka]

Nah, it's cool. I don't intend to let you ruin my day just because somebody pissed in your corn flakes and you don't know the difference between critique and rudeness. I'm glad your comment wasn't the first though; at least now I know the entire forum doesn't consist of assholes.

Sorry to spoil your evil keyboard ninja pleasures. Have a nice day!

leaf and molka: Thanks for your comments!

nice of you despite me being kinda un-infromative, but I don't consider myself on the level of giving out photography instrucions (maybe in 10 years, unless somebody particularly asks me for it), and I also doubt that kinda thing can be done thru the net, message boards etc...

[stockmarketer]

The bulk of the responses here -- targeting the mouse photo as the most problematic -- show why most people fail at microstock.  Most submitters don't have an awareness as to what gives a photo real commercial appeal.

It's NOT about technical perfection.  Setting aside the technical quality of the shots, the mouse shot is the one that has the most potential.  It's the one that has drama.  It's the one that SAYS SOMETHING.  There's probably several concepts going on there -- "catching someone's attention,"  "thrill of the hunt," etc.   (I'm not saying that this is technically a good shot -- maybe it would get in, or maybe you need a few more stabs at it to get the composition just right -- but that's the direction to go for sure.)

So there's the real secret that the others won't tell you because they want you to fail, or because they haven't realized the secret themselves.  Concepts sell.  Pictures that practically tell a story right when you look at them.  A buyer wants your shots if they CONVEY A MESSAGE.  And the image that screams its message loudest is the one that will get downloaded, and downloaded VERY OFTEN.

Others here will tell you to give it up, that you don't have talent to frame a shot correctly, your technical skills aren't up to their level, or some other worthless criticism.  Yes, the microstocks want images that pass a technical sniff test, but most importantly, they want stuff that sells.  Focus on creating more images in the spirit of the mouse shot, and you'll get in and do well.

[rubyroo]

Yes, the microstocks want images that pass a technical sniff test

I'm off to buy some catnip...

[leaf]

The bulk of the responses here -- targeting the mouse photo as the most problematic -- show why most people fail at microstock.  Most submitters don't have an awareness as to what gives a photo real commercial appeal.

It's NOT about technical perfection.  Setting aside the technical quality of the shots, the mouse shot is the one that has the most potential.  It's the one that has drama.  It's the one that SAYS SOMETHING.  There's probably several concepts going on there -- "catching someone's attention,"  "thrill of the hunt," etc.   (I'm not saying that this is technically a good shot -- maybe it would get in, or maybe you need a few more stabs at it to get the composition just right -- but that's the direction to go for sure.)

So there's the real secret that the others won't tell you because they want you to fail, or because they haven't realized the secret themselves.  Concepts sell.  Pictures that practically tell a story right when you look at them.  A buyer wants your shots if they CONVEY A MESSAGE.  And the image that screams its message loudest is the one that will get downloaded, and downloaded VERY OFTEN.

Others here will tell you to give it up, that you don't have talent to frame a shot correctly, your technical skills aren't up to their level, or some other worthless criticism.  Yes, the microstocks want images that pass a technical sniff test, but most importantly, they want stuff that sells.  Focus on creating more images in the spirit of the mouse shot, and you'll get in and do well.

Best response yet

[lisafx]

Concepts sell.  Pictures that practically tell a story right when you look at them.  A buyer wants your shots if they CONVEY A MESSAGE.  And the image that screams its message loudest is the one that will get downloaded, and downloaded VERY OFTEN.

^^ This is spot on.   A clear message is the difference between successful microstock images and the ones that just sit around gathering dust before going to the dollar bin.

My favorite of your shots was the mouse too.  Loved your cat's eye perspective on that one and the shallow depth-of-field.  Really makes you empathize with the mouse as you see it is about to be grabbed by the cat and it is totally unaware.  (yes, I do realize it is a fake mouse)

I didn't see anything wrong with your portraits.  They are perfectly good if you were doing them for the models.  But as others have pointed out, they don't tell enough of a story for them to work well as stock.  

Some of us around here have been at this so long, the critiques may be pretty harsh.  That doesn't mean they aren't useful.  In fact, a critical evaluation is worth a lot more than false praise, just to make you feel better.  

When I look at my earliest photography efforts and first stock submissions, I just have to wonder what I was thinking.  You can't always tell by looking at someone's early work whether they will make it or not.  The difference between people who make money in microstock and the ones who don't is largely a matter of effort. I've seen people grow from taking snapshots of their back yards and pets, to professional stock photographers, with enough hard work.  

Unfortunately the websites just don't need content they way they used to, and aren't inclined to give people the chance to grow into their abilities anymore.  Now you have to already be good at producing technically perfect, visually appealing stock oriented photos before you even bother signing up.  

My suggestion - look at magazines, tv ads, billboards.  When you can produce the quality of images that are in those media, you can be certain you will do well in stock.  Until then, hone your skills by reading books, magazines, etc.  Popular Photography and Shutterbug have been very helpful.  And the forums at DPreview.com are practically a college level course in photography IMO.  

[ShadySue]

I know you were just showing these pics as a f'r instance, but can I just point out that the micros tend to be extremely nervous, to the point of neurotic, about soft toys.

[luissantos84]

how about this:

open an agency, could be perhaps fotolia, type a subject (people, isolation, travel, animals, whatever).. now look at that "stock photos", now do a few similar just for practicing, don't think I cannot do better than those just DO them (think as hobby), I can tell you that a big % of my work is worst.. with time you will do better for sure (composition, lighting, camera settings)

What can I tell you more? When I started (year and half ago..) I bought my first SLR without thinking of stock, it was an old dream of mine, always wanted to have something big LOL from which I would take awesome pictures (sometimes I feel I do) This means I have no background in photography, no books, no nothing.. Ok a few time reading here and there but I haven't got a single book, not saying this is a good thing, it just my way, keeping expenses low in all aspects

The main reason is that everything is possible, I won't be rich or be called stock photographer soon lol but I can still have a few sales around the world

I started at FT (it is a hard agency but got no "entry exam", upload, get rejections, improve and do it on your own, I just bumped into forums few time ago, guess that helped me out!)