MicrostockGroup

Hi all,

About a month ago I submitted my first batch of 10 images to some Microstock sites, and it was particularly interesting to see what was rejected and what was accepted. I chose to start submitting to ShutterStock, iStockphoto, Dreamstime and Fotolia as they seem to be the 'Big 4' in Microstock.

I have written a detailed post on my blog about it ('My First 10 Microstock Images'), so I won't go into the details here, but I will provide some conclusions.

1) ShutterStock are very picky. Even images that were accepted by the 3 other agencies were rejected by Shutterstock.

2) Not all back ends/management systems are created equal...I have used a number of Content Managment Systems, so I believe the account management areas of Microstock agencies should be as easy and robust as the best of those. iStockphoto is by far the worst. Dreamstime is probably the best once you have a look around and Fotolia is not too bad. I cannot comment on the Shutterstock back end in full since I am not yet accepted there yet, but the submission system was good.

3) If you get multiple rejections for an image, the agencies don't always reject for the same reasons. One image could be rejected by one agency for too shallow a DOF, and another might reject the same image for poor lighting.

I wouldn't say I put my best 10 images forward this time around, but I thought this was an interesting result and might provide some insight for others starting out or looking at dabbling in Microstock.

CG

People who are serious about stock would likely put their best work (stock work) for sale.

The images you submitted will never sell, at IS at least.  They are just the kinds of random things people shoot when walking about with their camera.  While the attempt at gaining referrals is admirable (?), you'll have to work harder to actually "make a few extra bucks on the side by dabbling in microstock photography whilst I fill in time between my day job".

Almost fully agree.  These are simply not commercially viable subjects, except for the road shot with the streaked lights.  I myself have bought shots like this before.  Shots like that have actual commercial use, but there are so many out there, you'll have to do something unique to stand out.

I've said it a hundred times here, but you're new, so I'll say it again for your benefit.  Quality isn't what will make your stuff sell in microstock.  You've passed the quality test, and now you're in the submitter pool with tens of thousands of people just like you but experienced at this.   A very small handful make decent money at it.  Their secret?  Figuring out subject matter that sells.  First and foremost, try to find niche subjects with decent demand but little competition, or if you can't find those elusive topics and end up covering areas that are oversaturated, you HAVE to tackle the subjects in a very unique way that makes you stand out.

So when you're considering a shoot, first ask yourself, "who will buy this and why."  Imagine a commercial application for the shot.  Sure, somewhere out there could be a calendar publisher who might want your cute llama shot, so that picture might get one sale a year.   Look at your initial 10 photos and be honest... who will buy them and how will they use them?  The only one with any real commercial prospects is the road shot.  It has literal value for articles/products/blogs/etc. about transportation, and it has conceptual value as a symbol for speed/future/progress/etc.  This is the frame of mind you MUST be in if you want to make decent money at this.

So best of luck to you, but the odds are against you.  The good news is that most people never learn the secrets that I just described, so if you heed these words, you'll have a serious leg up on them. 

I disagree with those who don't see any commercial value in the batch.  I see commercial value in all of them.  We can never predict what kind of project a graphic designer will be asked to work on, or what kind of photograph the designer will need.  So when one of the sites rejects a photo for LCV, it always makes me chuckle because we've left the realm of the objective and quantifiable technical realm and entered the realm of the completely subjective, which can be subject to the whims and moods of the inspector.  For example, I once shot a model in a long, flowing dress underwater.  She wasn't doing anything - just enjoying the water with slow, deliberate motion.  We had no clue what it might be used for, but we liked the idea and the resulting footage.  Lo and behold, it got picked up for use in a music video.  That's not something that anyone could have predicted.  Thus, it seems to me a good idea to avoid the subjective and opinion on the part of inspectors, and stick to the technical.

That said, there are a few that I don't think I would lead with for my first ten.  Others I would, like the black-and-white one.  I think the streaked traffic has been done so much that it's cliche.  It too me eight submissions to SS before I got accepted, and it seemed like a moving target.  Two of those submissions were all photos that had passed inspection in previous batches.  But I finally made it, and I'm seeing daily sales.  Sometimes, though, I still think I get an inspector whose girlfriend broke up with him the night before.