My Style

[Will Dutt]

Hi MSG,

I am pretty new and am hoping to be editing and releasing photos within the next 6 months. Currently I have just under 30 "decent" photos which I am considering to upload once I have captured another 20 or more.

I am also going to be buying Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom soon to help aid my photos. My current photo gallery has no computer editing and was taken with a Sony Cybershot Camera and my old Sony Ericsson Mobile.

Here are currently 12 photos from my current portfolio. All effects were done via the camera or phone.

http://imageshack.us/g/39/beachsepiawtmk.jpg/

All forms of critism is welcome, please keep in mind that I haven't had the chance to edit the photos. If you have any tips to help improve my photography skills, then please share. I am very interested in which agency(s) you think will best suite me?

Kind Regards
-Will Dutt

P.S.
Sorry for the disgusting watermarks, this free program I downloaded is rubbish!

[click_click]

Again, don't worry about the watermarks. They're perfectly fine.

I suggest to post the images or at least the links to the full resolution images directly here on the forum.

You will receive less responses, when forum members have to click through galleries in order to reach the final full resolution file to evaluate.

Also, despite clicking on the zoom tool the images are still small. It's pretty much impossible to get valuable feedback if the quality of the images cannot be entirely checked.

The more information you provide, the better the feedback will be.

You might receive feedback on the commercial value, choice of subjects and composition though.

Try to post three to five of your best shots in full resolution. That will be a good start.

[Will Dutt]

Do you mind if I put the images into a .zip? It will just be easier for me that way.

[click_click]

No, you don't have to send them to me. I think it's best if several people can look at the images here on the forum.

You can create an account with photobucket.com or something similar, there you can upload your full resolution files with the watermark.
Once uploaded, you just post the links here in this thread so everyone can check out the images.

Off to bed now.

[Susan S.]

Can't tell anything about these due to small size and jpeg compression -  except that several of them would likely get a lighting rejection/overfiltered (for sepia) at istock. You need to have images that will pass inspection at 100 per cent view. None of these are likely to be particularly saleable (we all have similar shots in our portfolios and most never sell - the ballooning one is probably the most stockworthy.) Landscapes only sell if they are of named really touristy locations or are drop dead fabulously gorgeous, capturing exactly the right light (and preferably both) and then post precessed with finesse- none of yours look like they fit either of these criteria.

What sells of the new stuff these days are high production value, people (preferably multiple people) shots. A sony cybershot camera is unlikely to make the quality grade. It's very difficult to get anything accepted anywhere that is going to sell images with anything less than a DSLR - some of the compacts with larger sensors like the Canon G series can get accepted if you shoot in RAW (so all the in camera processing applied to jpegs can be turned off) and have optimal lighting. A mobile is definitely not going to make the grade. There's little point in trying to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse by spending moeny of photoshop or lightroom if you don't have a worthwile camera.

[Perry]

To the original poster: I can't see how these images could be used in commercial or editorial contexts. Maybe the hot air balloon has some potential, but the rest are just snapshot of random things and views. The competition is very hard these days, I think you should first concentrate on photography and AFTER that start selling stock. And start to look at images in magazines and advertisements and try to get into the mindset of the image buyer: which kind of images are used for which purposes.

[Will Dutt]

That's the thing I hate! Microstock isn't about selling what you love to shoot, it's about selling what sells well and what the market wants.

My quality of images aren't worth being accepted, fair enough as they were taken with hobbyist equipment. I am currently also a hobbyist who would like to eventually start selling in the stock industry.

First off I think I have to generate at least 10 images that Istock will accept, from there I can only keep expanding my portfolio.

What was your opinions of the purple flower?

I shall put the images up now.

[Susan S.]

Flowers (at istock at least) have to be pretty * perfect to be accepted and won't cut it for an application image and generally won't sell anyway. This one doesn't look perfect (unimaginative composition, just centred,  doesn' t look sharp even at the tiny size you have posted)

[Will Dutt]

@Susan S.
Could I please see your portfolio/gallery?

[Perry]

That's the thing I hate! Microstock isn't about selling what you love to shoot, it's about selling what sells well and what the market wants.

In that sense it's just like any other job.

What was your opinions of the purple flower?

I wouldn't try to send them flowers, especially not in the first test submission. Stock sites are already filled with images of flowers. Flower shots should be really spectacular to get accepted.

[Will Dutt]

So what are microstock agencies looking for? Is it fashion, models, objects? Can someone point me into the right direction towards what the agencies are looking for?

UPDATE: The link now leads to ImageShack where all images are in their original size.

[Freedom]

@Susan S.
Could I please see your portfolio/gallery?

Well, she didn't ask for critiques.

You must face the fact that stock photo industry including micro has become a highly professional and competitive battlefield, you must strive to become a pro. If you only want to shoot what you like and get wows, you will be disappointed. I don't mean to discourage you, but your purple flower will not get accepted due to poor lighting, composition, lack of sharp focus and poor subject.

[Will Dutt]

You must face the fact that stock photo industry including micro has become a highly professional and competitive battlefield, you must strive to become a pro. If you only want to shoot what you like and get wows, you will be disappointed. I don't mean to discourage you, but your purple flower will not get accepted due to poor lighting, composition, lack of sharp focus and poor subject.

Understandable and fair. I wanted to see Susans portfolio to see what she is shooting and her image quality. Is anyone willing to show me their portfolio? And finally, who are some of the "giant" photographers in the industry apart from Yuri Arcurs?

[Perry]

So what are microstock agencies looking for? Is it fashion, models, objects? Can someone point me into the right direction towards what the agencies are looking for?

Not fashion. But "Lifestyle".

People http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=people (Sort by "Most Popular")

Objects
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=object (Sort by "Most Popular")

This is what your flower image would need to compete with (1,370,298 search results: http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=flower (Sort by "Most Popular")

It's not a good thing to try copy existing images, but it's always a good thing to see what the competition is so you can make your images better and/or different.

Shooting ideas: Shoot something you know lot about, something you are specialist at. Shoot some location that isn't accessible for the general public. Follow the news and trends to see what images could be needed for illustrating different topics. Have a notebook and a pencil and write/draw ideas for images. The idea is half the work IMHO, the shooting part is just mechanics

[Pauws99]

I suggest you browse the sites to see what sells some have advice on what they are looking for.

I've been doing this for just under a year its a VERY steep learning curve - stuff I thought was excellent a few months ago I wouldn't consider submitting now. Economically if I costed my efforts and rewards so far it would be a disaster but I view the first year as an investment in learning!

[Freedom]

Roses do sell. Here is an example of a purple rose:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2651158-purple-rose.php?st=da7371e

[Will Dutt]

People and Lifestyles seem to be the current fad. Scenery will be effective as long as it is something that hasn't been submitted before, is technically correct and looks drop dead gorgeous.

Can anyone give me some more feedback on each of my images individually?

Thanks

[Susan S.]

But that is an artistically composed, well lit rose! Not just an available light rose plonked in the middle of the image.

If you want to see my port, clicking on the little istock symbol at the bottom of each of my posts should take you there. I'm an istock exclusive hobbyist who doesn't actively contribute (and haven't done for over twelve months). My port earns me enough to keep me in photoshop and illustrator updates and pay for camera gear from time to time to make it a self sufficient hobby. Nothing more (and that's mainly as I have a couple of decent sellers that were uploaded and caught attention 4-5 years ago and still sell regularly).

While I'm not a professional I do have a very high acceptance rate - I'm good at the technical side but not really interested in providing what the microstock industry wants to sell which is why I've never bothered to go the next step and really try to increase my effort.

[Will Dutt]

@Susan:
Absolutely love the black board and chalk mathematics photo!

[Susan S.]

@Susan:
Absolutely love the black board and chalk mathematics photo!

Not exactly high art and took precisely two minutes to set up and take on a two foot tall kiddy chalk board after a buyer request. And earned around $600 between the vertical and horizontal format since then. I doubt either would be accepted now, although they still sell.  They filled a niche, when there was literally none of that stuff on istock and now there are hundreds if not thousands of the same thing. I just got there first. 

[lthn]

Never really anuderstood why ppl have endless questinarries and conversations about this. Go to a stocksite, type basic keywords for the subject you might want to shoot and arrange by popularity (donwload, whatever...) and check out the pics, thats what you need to do, and thats that. After all, a picture is worth a thousands words... 

Imho the first most problematic part for most shooters starting out is resources like really attarctive models and nice locations, second is getting enough strobes + high quality lenses. The rest is pretty much self-explanatory from the pics.

[cobalt]

The landscape with the hot air ballon is the only one with a real commercial value IMO.

Stock is not about what you like, but what the customers need and will pay money for. How is a car dealer going to advertise with these images? Or a bakery? Or an insurance company?

You can collect ads in newspapers to see what commercial images look like.

Because stock is very competitive you need very good equipment and professional skill set to make money. If there is a photography school near you, I suggest you take as many classes as you can in studio lighting, portrait, photoshop. Ideally enroll in a program for commercial photographers.

Also if you know photographers volunteer to assist in as many shootings as you can. Weddings are good to practise professional lighting under very difficult conditions. In the beginning you will only be allowed to hold the reflector, but maybe they let you take some additional shots.

The skills you learn while assisting will help you when you set up your own shootings.

The biggest difference between stock and photography as a hobby is that a stock image is preplanned and intentionally composed. You don't walk around with a camera and just shot what you see.

It starts with researching what images are already available in a subject you are interested in. Then you have to find a niche or a series of images that you think is missing in that field. You can make drawings of an image series, to get a first idea about useful image composition.

Then you scout the location, decide on the best time of day to shoot. Maybe take test shoots to check the light. You think about how much artifial light you want to bring to the set, reflecters, light formers, speed lights or strobes...You have to find the models, decide on the clothes and style they should were, how to do the make up. What props will you need? Chairs, table, Food, books, computer?

And then what is the best way to arrange all that?

What aperture do you need? Which lens? Maybe a lens baby or special filter? How many assistants to help you with the shoot?

Then you shoot.

Then you pack it all up, thank the models, put the furniture back, go home.

Next day: download images to your computer. Identify usable files for a series. Postprocess for a few days or two days...and then...keywording, uploading and any on site descriptions, lightboxing, image links...

And so on.

Commercial photography is very hard work.

Even if you don't shoot lifestyle and just want to do landscapes or food, or flowers, there is a lot to thtink about, to prepare, to organize, to learn.

I love doing it, it is fun. But it isn't for everyone.

So good luck with your journey :-)

[madelaide]

That's the thing I hate! Microstock isn't about selling what you love to shoot, it's about selling what sells well and what the market wants.

Good to know you have a clear perspective about it.

From someone who likes to take landscape/nature/architecture photography: don't expect much from microstock with these. Ask yourself if adapting to the "microstock style" is what you want to do. If you are good in what you like, you may consider selling prints, posters, calendars and even macrostock photography may lead to some sales. Microstock is not just about shooting people (I don't), but it is very saturated in many subjects. You have to produce better and more eyecatching images than already online, otherwise the return may be very below your expectations, with scattered sales.

The good thing is that I haven't uploaded in years and still every month I see some money, despite the dilution of my mere 200-400 images in an ocean of millions. It may be more difficult to get there these days, because sites probably got even pickier. My photo portfolio in microstock is basically from a good compact camera shooting only JPEGs (surely led to rejections on many occasions due to noise inthe most irrelevant areas of the image!).

[Will Dutt]

Thanks Cobait and Madelaide! I am hoping to break even and shoot 50/50, half of what I like and the other half on what is going to sell.

Cobalt I think I'm going to need a lot more experience and skill to start producing high quality photos like my hot air balloon shot. I have a couple of beachside locations around me which I want to shoot, except I shall follow your guide and use a tripod.

Thanks to all the helpers

[Sean Locke Photography]

To the original poster: I can't see how these images could be used in commercial or editorial contexts. Maybe the hot air balloon has some potential, but the rest are just snapshot of random things and views. The competition is very hard these days, I think you should first concentrate on photography and AFTER that start selling stock. And start to look at images in magazines and advertisements and try to get into the mindset of the image buyer: which kind of images are used for which purposes.

Agree with this and everyone else.  The balloon one looks interesting.  The rest are just things thousands of others have already shot and are not selling in any noticeable amount.

Likely, micro isn't something you really want to do, if this is the kind of thing you like to shoot.  You just think you want to do it.

[luceluceluce]

I like your images, but the bw ones seem a bit flat and are unlikely to do well in the land of supershiny. It may be an idea to start learning one of the black arts of photoshop - frankenscaping. Frankenscaping means ignoring reality because that's too piffling and just creating the world like a jigsaw.   Keep a box of skies, and have a box of foregrounds and sprinkle in windy paths and lonely trees and terrifyingly powerful sunrays.  

There seems to be tons of frankenscapes on the front pages (unless I'm massively confused about what reality normally looks like) - and most them just seem to be fields, so you don't have to climb annapurna, canoe through the sundarbans at the risk of tiger attacks OR get up at 3am in order to land the one shiny quarter dollar that many agencies assert as being appropriate recompense for our intensely hard labour.

[lagereek]

Will!  everything is too flat!  this is not atmospheric lighting, its flat. You must understand, Micro today is not an archive for dust or leftovers. Youre up against Pros, etc.
This stuff will never pass the IS inspectors.

[Karimala]

I am also going to be buying Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom soon to help aid my photos. My current photo gallery has no computer editing and was taken with a Sony Cybershot Camera and my old Sony Ericsson Mobile.

I sure hope you're not planning on submitting mobile phone photos!  As a former image reviewer who once was charged with approving/denying contributor applications, I can guarantee your images won't be accepted...ever.  And good luck with the Sony Cybershot.  I denied about 1/3 of the applications submitted primarily because of problems generated by these types of cameras. 

[Karimala]

Will!  everything is too flat!  this is not atmospheric lighting, its flat. You must understand, Micro today is not an archive for dust or leftovers. You're up against Pros, etc.

This stuff will never pass the IS inspectors.

I have to agree.  Will, you would be best served taking a photography class or two (plus Photoshop) before getting into commercial stock photography.  Just being honest.   

[Will Dutt]

Likely, micro isn't something you really want to do, if this is the kind of thing you like to shoot.  You just think you want to do it.

Microstock is defiantly something I want to do, the fact is just prior to today I thought I could waltz in and start selling my images. All the feedback from family and friends was good, obviously they don't live up to the standards in the industry and have already been shot a million times.

[Sean Locke Photography]

First rule of photography:  RTFM
Second rule: Never listen to family and friends.

[Will Dutt]

First rule of photography:  RTFM
Second rule: Never listen to family and friends.

Lol, something to brighten my day.

As many have stated I think it is best that I sign up for a online photography course. Does anyone know of a good course?

Thanks

[cathyslife]

I like your images, but the bw ones seem a bit flat and are unlikely to do well in the land of supershiny. It may be an idea to start learning one of the black arts of photoshop - frankenscaping. Frankenscaping means ignoring reality because that's too piffling and just creating the world like a jigsaw.   Keep a box of skies, and have a box of foregrounds and sprinkle in windy paths and lonely trees and terrifyingly powerful sunrays.  

There seems to be tons of frankenscapes on the front pages (unless I'm massively confused about what reality normally looks like) - and most them just seem to be fields, so you don't have to climb annapurna, canoe through the sundarbans at the risk of tiger attacks OR get up at 3am in order to land the one shiny quarter dollar that many agencies assert as being appropriate recompense for our intensely hard labour.

Ha! That's an excellent word for those shots.

Posted by: sjlocke
First rule of photography:  RTFM
Second rule: Never listen to family and friends.

Excellent advice!

As far as online photography courses, I personally think you would be far better off 1. taking your DSLR and going out and shoot, shoot, shooting until you know what each and every setting on the camera is for and what it does. Because there are a ton. 2. If you want to take a course, sign up for one at your local college so that you get to shoot with a bunch of others in your same situation. The feedback from other students and the teacher will help tremendously. And you will get to see how and what others do both from a technical standpoint and from a creative standpoint.

[luissantos84]

Hi Will/John!

I guess you need to open a few agencies and see what "stock" really is, you have said before that it may mean not what you like to shoot and that is true (I do actually shoot what I want but I am doing mainly studio stuff, not the long term plan but..), give it a little time with research and look for the content there is already on agencies and see if it will work for you

[Karimala]

Likely, micro isn't something you really want to do, if this is the kind of thing you like to shoot.  You just think you want to do it.

Microstock is defiantly something I want to do, the fact is just prior to today I thought I could waltz in and start selling my images. All the feedback from family and friends was good, obviously they don't live up to the standards in the industry and have already been shot a million times.

Ask yourself honestly: Are you sure you want to get into the stock photography business?  There's a lot more to it than just shooting whatever you like with whatever camera you have on hand.  Get ready to:

1) Spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and continuing education.  The camera body alone should be replaced every few years.
2) Spend significantly more time on editing, keywording, uploading, and dealing with the daily details of running a business than you will actual photography time.
3) Have agencies regularly tell you that your photos look like crap (you'll need a really thick skin).
4) Compete against some of the best stock photographers in the world.   

[cobalt]

I would also recommend a photography class with real people. You need to practise how to shoot, how to light, how to set up your equipment. An online class is good for photoshop.

Once you�ve signed up with an agency you can ask around in the forum to see if there is another newbie in your area that you can team up with.

Learning stock is great fun and even if after a year you decide you want to go back to shooting flowers and family, you will have learnt a lot. It certainly forced me to become a much better photographer.

[madelaide]

Will,

I think your priorities are inversed. If you are looking after a photography course, it appears that your photo skills are too basic. Family and friends are not the best to give advice, and the samples you provided show you have a long way to learn just in terms of composition (most images have very centered horizon lines, to begin with). Try this 13-question quiz to see how you go:
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Home-Quiz.cfm

It's nice that you've embraced photography, and I hope you go on with this passion, but it's a long way before you can take it to the commercial level, IMHO.

I agree with the others that a real life course is better. I've never done one myself, but I was taught photography by my father, who knew a lot about composition and exposure - and those were film days in which you really tried to get the right exposure in just one or two shots.

Give it time, learn, try, shoot a lot. Digital cameras make it much easier to learn by trial-and-error, but it should not be a try-and-hope-one-is-good. Understand what you are doing with the different setting, what results you get, then learn to choose the settings you need to obtain what you want. Once you are past this point, then you can try your skills for commercial purposes - microstock, macrostock, art photo, whatever suits you better.

[Mantis]

Will,

I give you huge cudos for coming into this forum and asking for help.  And taking the high road for the feedback you're getting.  It's called having think skin.  If you keep listening to these fine photographers' advice, create a plan (tiered plans each with a desired outcome and metric that helps you understand whether you met that outcome) you can make it.

1. Skills (shooting and key wording)
2. Initial Shooting Plan
3. Shoot
4. Post process
5. Upload to a couple of agencies
6. Assess any rejections (get critique)
7. Start building a port around your new competencies
8. Grow competencies = grow port
9. Make a few bucks

I think you have the attitude to make something work for you.

Good luck.

[Will Dutt]

1. Skills (shooting and key wording)
2. Initial Shooting Plan
3. Shoot
4. Post process
5. Upload to a couple of agencies
6. Assess any rejections (get critique)
7. Start building a port around your new competencies
8. Grow competencies = grow port
9. Make a few bucks

I think that is a good plan that I should set up and follow. I hope to purchase a DSLR Camera soon.

[ShadySue]

I am also going to be buying Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom soon to help aid my photos.

Although if you're a student you can get these at a great discount, seriously consider buying Elements and using the savings to add to your camera/lens fund.

[qwerty]

I am also going to be buying Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom soon to help aid my photos.

Although if you're a student you can get these at a great discount, seriously consider buying Elements and using the savings to add to your camera/lens fund.

I didn't think you could use (officially) student versions for commercial works even if you are a student.

[Will Dutt]

I didn't think you could use (officially) student versions for commercial works even if you are a student.

All they need is a student ID card.

[Susan S.]

They keep on changing the terms and conditions of the student/education versions. 
Ah, here we are. the education FAQ
http://www.adobe.com/education/students/studentteacheredition/faq.html

"Can I use my Adobe Student and Teacher Edition software for commercial use?

Yes. You may purchase a Student and Teacher Edition for personal as well as commercial use.


Can I use Adobe Student and Teacher Edition software on more than one computer?

Adobe Student and Teacher Edition software may be used on two computers only. This is ensured through a product activation procedure, which is performed online.

Can I upgrade my Adobe Student and Teacher Edition software?

Adobe Student and Teacher Edition software can be upgraded to a commercial version when the user is no longer a student or teacher. "

[TheSmilingAssassin]

Will,

I'm going to be brutally honest with you cause that's what you're looking for, yes?

Your enthusiasm is great but you're a long way away from uploading, I believe.  Looking at your photos, the only one that's stocky is the balloon as other's have mentioned, but even that needs work.  People are saying that the images are too small for them to critique them but I say if they're not obviously beautiful in the size you've provided then they're not good enough in any size.  From what I've been reading, I don't think microstock is for you or perhaps microstock alone isn't for you.  You're more interested in photographic art rather than commercially oriented photos.  If you improved your technique, you might be better off selling printed versions of your work rather than just microstock.  

That peach rose is pretty boring and looks like a photo everyone typically has of a flower in their backyard.  The purple rose could have had some potential if done properly.  You should have wet it first, taken a close up and possibly sold prints of it.  As it is, it's just a poor photo of a really nice rose.  The B&W image between the two flowers could have had some potential if done properly.... again not so much for microstock, but for print.  You should get rid of the person in the background for starters and perhaps manipulate the photo to add contrast.  If you really enjoy monochrome photography, you might want to pick up some HDR skills.  The rest of the images in your gallery are just terrible and not worth a comment.  If you can't see that they're terrible on your own then you really need to spend some time looking at quality images and learn from them.

Here's some B&W photos of a designer pal that I've featured in my poor neglected blog.  I love his stuff and he does really well selling prints...

http://sunnymarsdesigns.blogspot.com/2010/11/featured-photographer-highton-ridley.html

Also check this link out...

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2E4fzQ/www.hongkiat.com/blog/water-photography-black-white/

Compare your work with some of the best and ask yourself, do you measure up?  You really don't even need to be asking questions in here because the best of the best photographers aren't here... there's some really good microstock photographers here though but from what you seem to be interested in shooting, I think you need to compare your work with artists who produce similar work and figure out what they're doing with them, how and where they're selling them.  If you have a passion for shooting artistic photography then stick to that and bugger off micrstock.  There's probably more money in the other anyway.

Make use of googe

Cheers and good luck!

[SNP]

so, pseudo...didn't you just recently state in another thread that you're not even a photographer? to the OP, look...you seem to want to give this a go. quit asking questions and go do it. see if you have the knack. if not, go do something else. good luck 

[TheSmilingAssassin]

so, pseudo...didn't you just recently state in another thread that you're not even a photographer? to the OP, look...you seem to want to give this a go. quit asking questions and go do it. see if you have the knack. if not, go do something else. good luck 

Didn't I also say that one doesn't need to have a clue in producing photos to be able to review photography?  Looks like you don't have much experience outside of microstock... or outside of iStock for the last 4 years.  iStock isn't what it's cracked up to be.  Actually it's pretty crap lately and at the end of the day, it's just microstock.  I don't think iStock's 15% commissions will help finance Will's desire to travel lol. 

If this guy has a preference for producing fine art, then he should consider other avenues outside of microstock because there's more to gain outside of it (not just financially).  Joining microstock four years ago is a lot different to joining it now.  Also it's up to him whether he wants to take my advice, not you.  Personally, I find it difficult to bother with the opinion of anyone that's been kept in a bubble for the last four years.  It's probably difficult for you to believe, but a lot goes on outside of iStock

[Will Dutt]

Pseudonymous,

Your reply is excellent, many have asked me the question if I really want to do microstock...and well the answer is I do! I am working hard on building up knowledge, techniques and skills that best suite microstock photography.

However, I loved the photos in the links you sent me (Especially in the second link). Some of those Black and White images were breathe taking.

The reason I want to do microstock is because it allows me to build up a genuine photography foundation. Of course I want to travel and take amazing shots like those featured in your links, hopefully one day if I work hard and excel in microstock I will have the funding to do so.

Also my current work is just down right rubbish, mostly taken with my mobile phone. I do have plans to purchase a DSLR and start producing some "quality" shots.

Thank your for your reply,

Sincerely
-Will Dutt

[ShadySue]

I am also going to be buying Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom soon to help aid my photos.

Although if you're a student you can get these at a great discount, seriously consider buying Elements and using the savings to add to your camera/lens fund.

I didn't think you could use (officially) student versions for commercial works even if you are a student.

You couldn't back at PS7, but you can now.

[Roxxstock]

Will
I only came across this website today and have been browsing out of curiosity at the forums and discovered your threads. Although having been a professional photographer for over thirty years I am fairly new to the 'micro' stock image market albeit having been aware of it's growing existence for a number of years, PS Don't be fooled by my user name I have never sold stock images I just made the name up - my cat's called Roxx! Amongst many of my fellow professional and accredited press photographers stock photography seems to have a reputation of being a bit low end - the sort of place you go to when your either retire or don't have any commissions. Basically, if you're looking for a picture of a kettle isolated on a white background or a toothy cheesy model smiling at the camera you go to a microstock site. The growth in these sites is mainly due to non-too-fussy companies looking to buy cheaper images for ad campaigns and equally non-too-fussy advertising agencies looking to buy cheap images and upscale their charges to their client basically ripping them off.

Photography is a profession and one that can give you a great deal of satisfaction and money too. If your looking to develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is toward stock sites. I say this for one reason, these places are where budding amateur snappers aspire to go with their cheap low/mid end DSLR's, where they can make a few dollars each month. Will, you must have a higher ambition than that. I guess from your posts your a youngster just getting into this area, take the advise of a seasoned pro - don't set your sights too low. Photography is not about a perfectly lit, sanitized pretty picture. It's about capturing a moment in time that stands the test and marks a record of that time.  Photography is not about taking pictures of kettles, keyboards, staged business meetings with cheesy models for a few bucks.

In regard to equipment, keep your mobile phone to make telephone calls and buy a decent camera. It is not going to be cheap to get started but you can always grow your 'kit' over time. I started out with good cameras over thirty years ago and believe me, it makes a big difference. In those days we used film SLR's, and I had an Olympus OM1 and an Olympus OM2N - still have them and even use them sometimes now and again when teaching. When the world went digital most professionals were wary until the resolutions could match our beloved Kodachrome 25. When they did (and in some cases exceed) many pro's switched. Today I use Nikons for nearly everything, D3, D3X, 700 and an older D40 (for teaching and snaps). If you can, get one of the newish Nikon's - their 7000 it's nearly as good as the 700 and less than half the price. Check out a useful website www.kenrockwell.com he does very useful comparisons and generally supports the Nikon brand. Personally, I would stay well clear of anything from Canon, Sony, Olympus - the quality is low end and don't be tempted just because their cheap - their aimed at the amateur market, at least with Nikon, even the mid price ones, you're getting into a stable of professional kit which you can grow. Bear in mind also, as you are starting out, switching brands later when you realise you made a mistake is going to be very expensive. Painful as it might be, start out on the right foot now if you can. Don't skimp on lenses either, generally, stay clear of the compatible lenses like Sigma and Tamron - their never as good (I am generalising a bit) as a branded lens - Nikon make really good lenses but so do Canon, albeit the Canon camera bodies are poor and therefore, for me, a non-starter.

I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop - as they are rapidly diminishing their market share and treat both customers and I also believe contributors very badly. I was sent a link to one of their forums recently by a pal and I have to say it was laughable how the 'admins' (which they are called) treat people on the discussion boards. I work with Getty images (who own iflop) and I have heard some horror stories from the guy's there! One stock site that I understand does have good reputation is called Shutterstock.com - they are the biggest stock site and I understand act very professionally.

Get your feet wet by getting in touch with some local professional photographers and ask if you can spend some time with them watching, observing and helping. Most pro's will probably allow you a few days. I have guy's and girls regularly helping me out and it actually is quite fun, particularly during semesters and holidays. Or approach your local paper and volunteer to supply pictures to them, if your pictures are good enough maybe they'll use them and probably pay you for them as well.

Forgive the irony, but I would not take too much notice of what you read on forums either - even after a day of reading a few posts a lot of it (albeit basically good advice) is the blind leading the blind. Amateurs, even gifted ones, are amateurs and pro's are pro's. There is a difference and you need to mix with real photographers which means getting out there and seeing how they work, I doubt you'll derive much wisdom here, again forgive the irony.

Finally, Good luck in your ambitions, I wish you well and remember one thing, it isn't about taking a picture that sells something else - it about a picture that sells itself.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

Will
I only came across this website today and have been browsing out of curiosity at the forums and discovered your threads. Although having been a professional photographer for over thirty years I am fairly new to the 'micro' stock image market albeit having been aware of it's growing existence for a number of years, PS Don't be fooled by my user name I have never sold stock images I just made the name up - my cat's called Roxx! Amongst many of my fellow professional and accredited press photographers stock photography seems to have a reputation of being a bit low end - the sort of place you go to when your either retire or don't have any commissions. Basically, if you're looking for a picture of a kettle isolated on a white background or a toothy cheesy model smiling at the camera you go to a microstock site. The growth in these sites is mainly due to non-too-fussy companies looking to buy cheaper images for ad campaigns and equally non-too-fussy advertising agencies looking to buy cheap images and upscale their charges to their client basically ripping them off.

Photography is a profession and one that can give you a great deal of satisfaction and money too. If your looking to develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is toward stock sites. I say this for one reason, these places are where budding amateur snappers aspire to go with their cheap low/mid end DSLR's, where they can make a few dollars each month. Will, you must have a higher ambition than that. I guess from your posts your a youngster just getting into this area, take the advise of a seasoned pro - don't set your sights too low. Photography is not about a perfectly lit, sanitized pretty picture. It's about capturing a moment in time that stands the test and marks a record of that time.  Photography is not about taking pictures of kettles, keyboards, staged business meetings with cheesy models for a few bucks.

In regard to equipment, keep your mobile phone to make telephone calls and buy a decent camera. It is not going to be cheap to get started but you can always grow your 'kit' over time. I started out with good cameras over thirty years ago and believe me, it makes a big difference. In those days we used film SLR's, and I had an Olympus OM1 and an Olympus OM2N - still have them and even use them sometimes now and again when teaching. When the world went digital most professionals were wary until the resolutions could match our beloved Kodachrome 25. When they did (and in some cases exceed) many pro's switched. Today I use Nikons for nearly everything, D3, D3X, 700 and an older D40 (for teaching and snaps). If you can, get one of the newish Nikon's - their 7000 it's nearly as good as the 700 and less than half the price. Check out a useful website www.kenrockwell.com he does very useful comparisons and generally supports the Nikon brand. Personally, I would stay well clear of anything from Canon, Sony, Olympus - the quality is low end and don't be tempted just because their cheap - their aimed at the amateur market, at least with Nikon, even the mid price ones, you're getting into a stable of professional kit which you can grow. Bear in mind also, as you are starting out, switching brands later when you realise you made a mistake is going to be very expensive. Painful as it might be, start out on the right foot now if you can. Don't skimp on lenses either, generally, stay clear of the compatible lenses like Sigma and Tamron - their never as good (I am generalising a bit) as a branded lens - Nikon make really good lenses but so do Canon, albeit the Canon camera bodies are poor and therefore, for me, a non-starter.

I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop - as they are rapidly diminishing their market share and treat both customers and I also believe contributors very badly. I was sent a link to one of their forums recently by a pal and I have to say it was laughable how the 'admins' (which they are called) treat people on the discussion boards. I work with Getty images (who own iflop) and I have heard some horror stories from the guy's there! One stock site that I understand does have good reputation is called Shutterstock.com - they are the biggest stock site and I understand act very professionally.

Get your feet wet by getting in touch with some local professional photographers and ask if you can spend some time with them watching, observing and helping. Most pro's will probably allow you a few days. I have guy's and girls regularly helping me out and it actually is quite fun, particularly during semesters and holidays. Or approach your local paper and volunteer to supply pictures to them, if your pictures are good enough maybe they'll use them and probably pay you for them as well.

Forgive the irony, but I would not take too much notice of what you read on forums either - even after a day of reading a few posts a lot of it (albeit basically good advice) is the blind leading the blind. Amateurs, even gifted ones, are amateurs and pro's are pro's. There is a difference and you need to mix with real photographers which means getting out there and seeing how they work, I doubt you'll derive much wisdom here, again forgive the irony.

Finally, Good luck in your ambitions, I wish you well and remember one thing, it isn't about taking a picture that sells something else - it about a picture that sells itself.

ROFL!  iFlop, that's even better than iSuck.

Your post by far is the best I've read in here so far   Thank you!!

[Will Dutt]

Thanks Roxxstocks, you gave some good advice regarding cameras.

I hate to sound rude after you gave me a great reply and a all round good post to read. However, I am fed up of people going "Stock isn't for you", "Why do you want to do stock" and "To develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is towards stock sites".

And where is the true nature of photography? As you said it is a profession, but is also a profitable hobby for many. The idea I find fun about microstock is the fact that it is already saturated with photos, challenging me to create new ideas that haven't been done before.

You mention that microstock is for amateur photographers....well if you stumble past my photos I am 100% amateur. My personal opinion on stock photography is that it is a great foundation into the photography industry. You build up a good stock portfolio and you can be profiting for the rest of your life, which also leads to funding for other hobbies and adventures in life.

Finally, starting with microstock I think is ideal. In the future once I have a better understanding of photography and some decent skills I may start to change photography pathways.

For now I am sticking with stock. If you dont mind I would like to PM you about other "professional" pathways within photography.

Kind Regards
-Will Dutt

P.S.
I think your post may insult many microstock photographers who have different opinions to you. Many people do make a sustainable living off Istock.

[ShadySue]

Ah, Will, you're learning that not all that glisters is gold.  
Always bear in mind the 'T' word.

[Roxxstock]

Dear Will

I was not expecting you to reply so quickly!

My mistake, I should have read your original post more carefully, I gleaned from reading it originally you were looking to make a career in photography. If stock photography is what you want to do then fine, as an amateur photographer you should be able to get some pictures accepted on those sites and make a few dollars in the process. Good luck with that.

My points were related to getting started professionally. I do stand by my points on equipment and gear generally, even the stock sites I believe had a minimum quality level that must be adhered to.

In regard to upsetting amateurs that was not my intention. I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.

At the end of the day Will, it's all about what makes you happy and if your heart is set on doing microstock then do it - good luck with that.

[Sean Locke Photography]

I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop

Lol, the "pro world".

[cobalt]

Roxx,

a pro is someone who lives of their work. There are loads of people who make a full time living doing stock. For them taking on an assignment is the thing they do on the side...and only when it really is worth it.

Personally I enjoy the freedom of working on my own time, not having to run after clients, not having to run after my money after doing my job, not having to waste my time educating clients why I can do better work than their neighbour "with a good camera".

A good portfolio brings in money even if you are ill, or while you are on assigment. You can even can take time out to train in new fields (video, 3D) without worrying where the money will come from in the meantime.

Maybe some people want to wait until they are retired before they get into stock, but I prefer the freedom that comes with stock. To be at the beck and call of clients isn�t for everyone.

Nobody is forcing you into stock, but stock is certainly a very profitable business if done right. As an assigment photographer you probably have never properly understood how the business side of stock works or you wouldn�t be ignoring all the money that you can make in that market.

ETA: Sean put it better...

[Sean Locke Photography]

I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.

This little bit makes me think Roxx is not quite who he proclaims to be.  The statement is a bit "I know nothing, but oh, by the way, I heard this...", made with full knowledge of the topic.

It would have been a bit more convincing if you misspelled his name .

[Sean Locke Photography]

The reason I want to do microstock is because it allows me to build up a genuine photography foundation. Of course I want to travel and take amazing shots like those featured in your links, hopefully one day if I work hard and excel in microstock I will have the funding to do so.

Your desires are not exclusive to microstock.  You may have been blinded by all the "make money with your rubbish shots" blogs out there.  There are other photography avenues to pursue.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

I hate to sound rude after you gave me a great reply and a all round good post to read. However, I am fed up of people going "Stock isn't for you", "Why do you want to do stock" and "To develop a proper career in photography the last place you should look is towards stock sites".

But Will, you've come here seeking advice about what's "stocky".  People have suggested you take more people shots and other "stocky" type photos but as you've said, you prefer to keep taking photos of landscapes, flowers, animals etc... subjects that are well covered and will be rejected.  If you want to photograph what you want to photograph then to be successful, you're better off looking at alternatives to microstock.  This is why people (including myself) are saying Microstock is not for you since you really don't want to produce the typical microstock images.  Microstock is on a downward spiral and really, it's not for anyone starting out anymore... only the hobbyist that doesn't give a rat's arse about selling their images next to nothing.  I've seen so many contributors talking themselves up here and rubbishing people but when I find out who they are and look at their portfolios, they sell like 10 images a month lol.

Many have made a living from microstock but they started in the game when competition was low and commissions were higher.  They have thousands of images in their ports and you're just starting out.  By the time you build a decent size port, they'll have doubled theirs because with their experience they will produce images much faster than you.   Your images will be lost and hardly ever seen.  You're also forgetting (or are unaware) that these established microstockers are feeling the squeeze themselves... even Yuri.  They're having to work much harder for much less than they did when they first started and even a lot of them are thinking about alternatives.  iStock, which you have your heart set on for some reason, pays the lowest commissions in the industry.  Recently they cut contributors cut from the crap 20% commission to 15%.  Why on earth would you want that?  A lot of non-exclusives have left the agency and a lot of exclusives have become independents so they can eventually leave the company or build portfolios elsewhere.  If you want to make a living in microstock, you have to be as good as these high earners just to get noticed.  You will be new so your images will be placed at the bottom of the millions of other images.  A lot will never sell, even if they're top notch images.  Why would you want your images going stale on a microstock site when you can do something else with them and have money coming in?  If you really want to do micrstock fine, but my advice is to not lock yourself with one agent... spread your images around, sell some prints, sell directly to customers, do some freelance work.  Don't just do stock because realistically, although microstock agents are booming and making money, the sad truth is, the contributor is seeing the opposite effect.  The bigger the companies grow, the smaller the piece of the pie we all get.  If I had to rely on microstock for a living, I'd be dead lol.  I do some custom design work, I sell on microstock and I sell on PODs.  I'm not a photographer, I'm an artist/designer/illustrator.  My earnings have grown each month... except for microstock which has dropped despite my port growing.  This is my breakdown of my earnings in June:

Microstock:      $132
Zazzle:            $225 (I had a bad month)
99designs:       $642
Custom work:   $680 (customers gained from Zazzle and 99 designs)

I've been doing this for only a year.  I'm a management accountant and have been an artist since I was about 8.  I've only just begun doing graphic illustrations... I sort of discovered it by accident.  I had no clue about graphic art over a year ago.  I don't produce for microstock... that would be bloody boring.  I produce artwork and break it up into pieces and sell them here (like scrap) or I add my leftovers to stock.  My portfolio at microstock since I've started has grown but my earnings have reduced.  Do you understand now?  I don't think $132 is going to send you to Africa where you will take some awesome wildlife photography that will earn you a few more pitiful sales.  Stop listening to those people that puff out their chest and brag about how good they are... they're not that good and they don't make that much money.  The ones that do are still feeling the pinch but they're here bragging hoping someone like you will see their post and will click on their referral links and you will then earn them more money.  You will continue struggling, feeling disappointed the entire time until you eventually quit or find some other way of making money.  I'm just trying to spare you the disappointment so you can look outside of microstock and either follow another path... one you love or follow a few different ones.

As I said earlier, I like your enthusiam but you should take some of Roxx's advice and think about using that enthusiasm to better yourself as a photographer... you can still contribute to micro but you should spread your wings a little and not lock yourself into something that's obviously dying.  The micro companies won't die but our passion and our earnings will.  Roxx�s post was a little over the top and extremely entertaining (for me).  I don�t necessarily agree with her because I have seen some talent here.   Sure microstock is considered low end.  As a designer I see that all time from customers... �no microstock please�.  It's almost considered rude to provide them with stock.  A lot of microstock contributors upload the cheesy stock but who cares... if they sell then they sell and if they�re able to make a living out of it, good luck to them.  But selling cheesy stock is getting a lot harder as time goes on. A lot of the microstock contributors have put in years of time and effort into this.  They're feeling the hard times but this industry has sucked the life out of them and a lot of them are too worn out to even think about alternatives... they're too tired to start over.  If they were starting out in the business now, knowing what they know, I'm sure they would branch out into other areas.

Bloody hell, that was a long post!

[ShadySue]

I don't think $132 is going to send you to Africa where you will take some awesome wildlife photography that will earn you a few more pitiful sales. 

And even if it did, the sort of stuff people want to buy is oversaturated, and the more niche stuff (unusual species, unusual behaviour) may get you one, two or no sales on micro. Trust me, there's no value in having the only example of something on a micro site if precious few buyers are interested in that subject.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.

This little bit makes me think Roxx is not quite who he proclaims to be.  The statement is a bit "I know nothing, but oh, by the way, I heard this...", made with full knowledge of the topic.

It would have been a bit more convincing if you misspelled his name .

I have to agree, I thought this post was a little 'try hard' but at the same time, I'm not so sure that Yuri is as popular outside of the microstock world.  I've put up a poll in my facebook page asking if people know him..

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512

No one's answered yet, they're probably googling him, don't give a stuff about him or sick of seeing his name... we'll see tomorrow.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

I don't think $132 is going to send you to Africa where you will take some awesome wildlife photography that will earn you a few more pitiful sales. 

And even if it did, the sort of stuff people want to buy is oversaturated, and the more niche stuff (unusual species, unusual behaviour) may get you one, two or no sales on micro. Trust me, there's no value in having the only example of something on a micro site if precious few buyers are interested in that subject.

Wow Sue, I'm impressed that you read my neverending post.  I personally would have skipped it

[cobalt]

Will,

if you want to do stock just do it.

You cannot know if you will be a good stock photographer unless you try. And noone is stopping you from selling prints, shooting weddings or exploring anything else while doing so.

Stock photography requiers technically very clean images. I teach a class on stock photography at a school for photography that specilizes in art. The reason they want me there is because the technical demands of stock are good preparations for assignment work later.

Plus, the students can earn a little money on the side. Certainly beats serving coffee or working at Mc Donalds as a side job.

Also remember that stock is not limted to photography. I would anyway suggest to take a DSLR that does video and look into shooting video on the side.

If you work as a pro photographer you will get many clients that will ask you if you can "do the video as well", obviously unaware how much work that is. But many photographers will provide it as an additional service, so you might as well take a look at that.

It is also not true that the commissions are going down. the returns per sale have gone up a lot in the last 6 years, from a few cents to over 30 Dollars or more depending on size. Number of downloads have dropped with the price increases, but if you do make a sale, you will be getting a lot more money than i did when I started in 2005.

It is true that it has become a lot more competitive, but there are plenty of buyers out there.

[SNP]

I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop

Lol, the "pro world".

so Sean, you're like King of the Amateurs....way to go, you might be able to even go pro one day if you keep up all that hard work.

[heywoody]

.....It is also not true that the commissions are going down. the returns per sale have gone up a lot in the last 6 years, from a few cents to over 30 Dollars or more depending on size. Number of downloads have dropped with the price increases, but if you do make a sale, you will be getting a lot more money than i did when I started in 2005......

From the meter thingy you're right at the top end on IS and may well be getting $30 / download - folks in Will's position (comme moi) are still looking at averaging in cents rather than dollars... 

Will,

IS is not the place to start - much easier to try sites that don't have an "entrance exam" in the beginning to get a feel for what will and won't be accepted...

[TheSmilingAssassin]

Thanks heywoody, I was going to say the same thing.  Cobalt, you're a long time exclusive.  For non-exclusives (where Will will start), commissions have come down.  There are threads here discussing downloads for just $0.08.  That's insulting, even Will's mobile phone pics are worth more than $0.08 ... to someone

On a side note though, that poll I created on my facebook page is bringing in some interesting results about Yuri.  So far 10 have voted and only one knows him.  I find that surprising as 95% of my 'fans' are either artist, designers, photographers or customers.  The ones who replied are not customers.   Hmmmm.

[luceluceluce]

I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.

This little bit makes me think Roxx is not quite who he proclaims to be.  The statement is a bit "I know nothing, but oh, by the way, I heard this...", made with full knowledge of the topic.

It would have been a bit more convincing if you misspelled his name .

I have to agree, I thought this post was a little 'try hard' but at the same time, I'm not so sure that Yuri is as popular outside of the microstock world.  I've put up a poll in my facebook page asking if people know him..

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512

No one's answered yet, they're probably googling him, don't give a stuff about him or sick of seeing his name... we'll see tomorrow.

I live in one of the top ten paradises of the world, so there are a lot of togs here on assignment from the telegraph, or thomas cook or other splashy magazine things.

I'm kind of like a dog that when it sees another dog will instantly run over and try and sniff its camera - so I meet a lot of them. All of them instantly become alert (possibly the same way you become alert if someone deposits a giant dog poo on your lawn, but still alert) when I mention microstock and all of them, bar none, have heard of Yuri, or more accurately 'some guy from denmark with a funny name, Yorgi or something, built his own kitchen in his studio...'

[luceluceluce]

I noticed you mention a particular stock site, iStockphoto. Even with my limited experience in the microstock market even I have heard about these folks. In the pro world their called iFlop

Lol, the "pro world".

so Sean, you're like King of the Amateurs....way to go, you might be able to even go pro one day if you keep up all that hard work.

Aside from the fact that every new field is generally pioneered by amateurs because the 'pros' are waiting for a tested business model, and the olympics are full of amateurs, and the word professional just means someone who makes money from their rather enjoyable hobby and not, as commonly believed, someone invested with a divine right to monopolise a niche, aside from all this microstock is the King, Queen, Royal Duchess and Archchancellor of the Internet.

[heywoody]

.......aside from all this microstock is the King, Queen, Royal Duchess and Archchancellor of the Internet.

Actually, I think those positions are probably occupied by porn 

[TheSmilingAssassin]

I don't know any personally and I don't even think I know any professionals that contribute to microstock sites with images either. Some probably do make a living from microstock, even I have heard of one guy from Scandinavia, Yuri ? - but a Getty colleague said he believes even he is jumping soon and will sell his pictures through his own website. No doubt he will make some serious income doing that.

This little bit makes me think Roxx is not quite who he proclaims to be.  The statement is a bit "I know nothing, but oh, by the way, I heard this...", made with full knowledge of the topic.

It would have been a bit more convincing if you misspelled his name .

I have to agree, I thought this post was a little 'try hard' but at the same time, I'm not so sure that Yuri is as popular outside of the microstock world.  I've put up a poll in my facebook page asking if people know him..

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512

No one's answered yet, they're probably googling him, don't give a stuff about him or sick of seeing his name... we'll see tomorrow.

I live in one of the top ten paradises of the world, so there are a lot of togs here on assignment from the telegraph, or thomas cook or other splashy magazine things.

I'm kind of like a dog that when it sees another dog will instantly run over and try and sniff its camera - so I meet a lot of them. All of them instantly become alert (possibly the same way you become alert if someone deposits a giant dog poo on your lawn, but still alert) when I mention microstock and all of them, bar none, have heard of Yuri, or more accurately 'some guy from denmark with a funny name, Yorgi or something, built his own kitchen in his studio...'

LOL Wisconsin is one of the top ten paradises of the world?  I live in Australia so I think my paradise dog poo's all over your paradise

Back to Yuri, I thought he was supposed to be a legend the way everyone follows his every move.  His celebrity status aside, I don't think he's any better than a lot of other decent photographers in micro... he's a marketing genius though.

[TheSmilingAssassin]

.......aside from all this microstock is the King, Queen, Royal Duchess and Archchancellor of the Internet.

Actually, I think those positions are probably occupied by porn 

[luceluceluce]

.......aside from all this microstock is the King, Queen, Royal Duchess and Archchancellor of the Internet.

Actually, I think those positions are probably occupied by porn 

I'm a republican  - for real leadership you need a democracy, not a monarchy. Porn would be more like the Silvio Berlusconi of the Internet.

[Susum]

So what are microstock agencies looking for? Is it fashion, models, objects? Can someone point me into the right direction towards what the agencies are looking for?

Not fashion. But "Lifestyle".

People newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=people [nonactive] (Sort by "Most Popular")

Objects
newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=object [nonactive] (Sort by "Most Popular")

This is what your flower image would need to compete with (1,370,298 search results: newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=flower [nonactive] newbielink:http://www.tmart.com/Camera-Chargers/Brand--Samsung/ [nonactive] newbielink:http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=flower [nonactive] (Sort by "Most Popular")

It's not a good thing to try copy existing images, but it's always a good thing to see what the competition is so you can make your images better and/or different.

Shooting ideas: Shoot something you know lot about, something you are specialist at. Shoot some location that isn't accessible for the general public. Follow the news and trends to see what images could be needed for illustrating different topics. Have a notebook and a pencil and write/draw ideas for images. The idea is half the work IMHO, the shooting part is just mechanics

Although I am not the specialized photographer, but I like the life in recording joyfully very much in my picture, then always felt that is very good. Your suggestion, I thought that is very good.