Submission advice for iStock

[sdsfsdg]

Hi all,

I'm just wondering how the submission process works with iStock.

The submission page says "submit 3 of your best images", but is this forever? What if I get rejected? Will I be allowed to resubmit? And how long does the review take?

What's the general consensus? Do you make your photos exclusive? Does it pay off? And do people shots sell better than non-people? What are the more successful categories?

[lisafx]

You can submit multiple times to Istock, if you don't get in on the first try.  A lot of us didn't.

The submission standards are really high at this point, though.  Although very good, most of the pictures in your Flikr account are not stock oriented.  The market is pretty much glutted with beaches, sunsets, insects, flowers, etc.

The shots I would submit if I were you are the macro of the muffins, the wineglasses on the banquet table with people in the background, and the portrait of the older man with glasses and a cap.  Those would all make good stock, IMO, and they show that you are capable of a variety of styles.  I particularly like the wineglasses one.  

Be sure to look at all your submissions at 100% pixels and make sure they are in sharp focus and low noise.  

As for exclusivity, Istock doesn't offer image exclusivity, only artist exclusivity.  If you decide to go exclusive with Istock, you would be unable to sell images RF anywhere else.

Hope any of the above is useful.

[microstockphoto.co.uk]

Hi, welcome!

It takes a few days. It's not forever: you can resubmit after a few days. If rejected again, you'll have to wait a little more each time.

There's no general consensus. I don't make photos exclusive - for a series of reasons, basically I think you can earn more by being independent and it's also safer in such a rapidly changing industry.
It pays off in the end, but it requires a lot of time and effort. If you are convinced, go ahead.
I don't do people shots so I can't tell. I do architecture, objects, food, backgrounds... Architecture is the least successful on IS - unfortunately since it's what I like the most

Your Flickr photos "artistic" pictures. I am not saying I don't like them, but I would not submit many of those for the test. You need to remove logos and be careful about copyright/property issues and unevenly lit/dark shadows. As Lisa said, don't submit shores, flowers, animals... they have too many already. I agree on the pictures she chose. I  like your "dark" portraits too (both the mysterious man and the girl), but they may find them too dark indeed. Keep them for later once you're in.

You are the copyright holder basically forever, unless you sell copyright (please don't!). So it's not too late to use for stock. There is evidence that people will buy the same picture at different price points and may even buy a photo which is available for free elesewhere: buyers are lazy (or have no time to lose searching). Actually your eye in your deviant art gallery may work for the test - provide they take the time to understand the selective b/w vs colour effect and don't choose the dreadful "overprocessed" reason for rejection.

[sdsfsdg]

Great feedback. So, higher demand photos could be people, food and scenes yeah?

Once you're in, is there any problem with submitting the more "saturated" images? Is it just the initial intake that's tougher? I don't particularly love the generic shots, but I've seen many crappy flower photos on IS and was wondering how they keep getting in. I've got lots to learn, but if I know I can offer something better, I just wonder if it's worth the effort doing so.

I can easily take more photos for the test, as I have the time right now. I just uploaded another one I did today. I'll have to make the images tell more of a story though I realise that.

Another thing, where do you do your research? Do you actually ask the industry you're targeting what images they want? I've been a designer a few times now, so basically know what I'd select for a project, but I honestly don't know where to begin - there's so many options!

[cathyslife]

snip
Another thing, where do you do your research? Do you actually ask the industry you're targeting what images they want? I've been a designer a few times now, so basically know what I'd select for a project, but I honestly don't know where to begin - there's so many options!

some sites actually have lists that explain what they are looking for. Another idea is to search different categories and see what is selling.

edit: I'm not saying copy what you see, either (I know someone is going to say that's what I am saying!). But you can get general ideas of what sells. For example, if you search for dogs and there are only a few big sellers, you know that's not a good subject to spend your time on.

[lisafx]

Great feedback. So, higher demand photos could be people, food and scenes yeah?

Once you're in, is there any problem with submitting the more "saturated" images? Is it just the initial intake that's tougher? I don't particularly love the generic shots, but I've seen many crappy flower photos on IS and was wondering how they keep getting in. I've got lots to learn, but if I know I can offer something better, I just wonder if it's worth the effort doing so.

Honestly, those saturated subjects aren't going to sell much (if at all) even if you do get them on the site.  The only exception is if you have a sunset, or flower or whatever that is truly AMAZING and completely unique.  Otherwise, it will be lost in the search engine, hundreds or thousands of images behind the current ones you are seeing on the front pages.  Those were probably submitted years ago before saturation occurred, and are only still selling because their past performance earned them a place on the front pages.

Cathy's advice for research is good, as long as you pay attention to the "no copying" part.  There are already hundreds of people all over the world copying the top sellers.  If you can think of a unique take on a popular subject (business, food, lifestyle), you are likely to do very well.  Also, if you manage to come up with a niche that few to none have discovered, that is the key to initial success. 

I guess the bottom line is that this is late in the game to be joining micro.  All the easy stuff has been done to death.  In order to succeed at this point, you need to be better and more unique than what's already there in abundance.  Not trying to discourage you, BTW, just encourage you to bring your A game .

[ShadySue]

Also, if you manage to come up with a niche that few to none have discovered, that is the key to initial success. 

Provided it's one that iStock buyers want to buy (and preferably other contributers can't easily copy).
I can assure you it's no good having the only photos for a particular keyword if no buyers are interested. Sometimes niche images need niche outlets.

[lisafx]

Provided it's one that iStock buyers want to buy (and preferably other contributers can't easily copy).
I can assure you it's no good having the only photos for a particular keyword if no buyers are interested. Sometimes niche images need niche outlets.

I see your point, definitely, but new niches can be opened up.  You can't just get by on copying the subjects that are already abundantly filled.  

Hopefully a bit of common sense applies.  For example - a rare bird or moss or whatever, found only in the deepest reaches of the Amazonian jungle may not be a great niche for microstock.  OTOH, first-hand pictures of, say, cardiac care or some other branch of medicine that is hard to get images of, will sell like wildfire.  

[stockastic]

The bottom line I think is that commissions are now so low that unless you can produce blockbuster images that will sell hundreds of times, the answer to "does it pay off" has to be "no".  And commissions at the big sites seem destined only to go lower. 

A big microstock now has  in excess of 10 million images to sell, and would probably be quite profitable for a few years if it just fired all the reviewers and stopped accepting new images.  They haven't done that yet, but the interest in new images is so low that they're telling their reviewers to spend as little time as possible looking at anything that doesn't jump out of the screen and meet some obvious current need.

[sdsfsdg]

I've recently been doing presentations for the construction industry. Now those images were hard to find.

Well I'll give it a go, regardless it's a good exercise to build up my portfolio. I'd rather work towards a quality set that's useful.

Also does anyone sell their own stock on their own website? I have a web/design business, and it may be complementary to sell images at full price on my site. It's all eye candy

[stockastic]

The idea of bypassing these (arguably) exploitive microstock agencies has been discussed at length.  If Google decided to create a "GoogleStock" search service, that would give us a way to connect with buyers, but there'd be little intelligence exhibited in the search results, just as with Google Images today.  The other issue is that buyers need some reason to believe that the image they pay for is of good quality at full size - the microstocks do provide that assurance.  And then we'd all have to set up our own payment processing and download delivery systems.

The conclusion is usually that some sort of photographers' co-op would be the answer.  I think there are a few of those already, but to make it work, they have to stay small and be very restrictive in who they accept as contributors.

[heywoody]

As mentioned istock are really, really tough - it might be worth trying dreamstime and fotolia also - there is no "entrance exam" and they give a feel for what stock agencies like / dislike.

[molka]

Cathy's advice for research is good, as long as you pay attention to the "no copying" part... 

I'v spent plenty of hours weekly on istock for a year without even realizing the photos there belong different individuals, because they all look the same... and those were the top sellers too.

If you can think of a unique take on a popular subject (business, food, lifestyle), you are likely to do very well.  Also, if you manage to come up with a niche that few to none have discovered, that is the key to initial success. 

I guess the bottom line is that this is late in the game to be joining micro.  All the easy stuff has been done to death.  In order to succeed at this point, you need to be better and more unique than what's already there in abundance.  Not trying to discourage you, BTW, just encourage you to bring your A game .

For DL's to pile up the shot has to be as generic as possible, so being unique is out of the question.

[fotografer]

Once you're in, is there any problem with submitting the more "saturated" images? Is it just the initial intake that's tougher?

The initial intake is actually easier than getting  images approved.  Just because an image passes the first 3 image test  doesn't mean that it will be approved to be sold online and often they are later refused.

[sdsfsdg]

The initial intake is actually easier than getting  images approved.  Just because an image passes the first 3 image test  doesn't mean that it will be approved to be sold online and often they are later refused.

Yeah, I thought IS was a bit easy to get into compared to SS.

I want to get it right, so I'll concentrate on getting some really good basic stock photos rather than using existing. Any topic/subject suggestions on what to submit to SS?

If photography is proving too saturated, how are illustrations and footage doing by comparison? I have a 7D, so I have video capability, and I can pick up vectors I suppose.