Author Topic: New plateau on my learning curve (Read 2226 times)

gaja · « **on:** February 17, 2009, 15:37 »

My AR is horrible, and I have been studying hard to get it better. The last few weeks I have gone from technical rejection reasons (light, focus, composition), to "this is not what we want", "this is not a stock photo", "we have to many of these".

For the early problems it was easy to find books and manuals, and correct the mistakes. Now I'm a bit more frustrated. If I try to take the same type of pictures as the best sellers, I get the "to many"-reject, when I try to find a niche (science), I get a "not what we want"-reject.

I guess one solution could be to try more than one agency, to see if they all agree that my pictures are not fitted for stock. Are there some other micro stock sites that are more fond of scientific photos?

Also, my editorials sell quite badly, should I upload them somewhere else?

tan510jomast · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2009, 15:56 »

you remind me of me

what you're experiencing is the result of trying too hard . also trying to be all things to the stock site and nothing to yourself. i was like that for the beginning. and the more rejections i got the worse i plateau-ed out. if that's even possible to get flatter still

take the advice of lisafx who taught me this: just be yourself, take what you're good at. and don't even look at what's been accepted or rejected. spend more of those energy to make more photos.
and also sharply_done sums it up quite nicely to me, "don't try to compete with me, or lisafx, or yuri. compete with yourself and enjoy making those photographs. the time you stop enjoying it, quit !".

sharply_done · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2009, 16:08 »

Most of your 'not what we want' and 'too many of these' rejections might be avoided by changing how you compose and shoot the subject. Try to imagine how someone might best use the image before you press the button to make it.

Also, and I hate to be the one to tell you, if you're having trouble getting images accepted at DT you have a big problem: they have a high tolerance for bland stuff, and pretty much accept anything. If you can't get an image accepted at DT, it's going to be difficult to get it accepted at other worthwhile agencies.

KB · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2009, 16:50 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 17, 2009, 16:08

Also, and I hate to be the one to tell you, if you're having trouble getting images accepted at DT you have a big problem: they have a high tolerance for bland stuff, and pretty much accept anything. If you can't get an image accepted at DT, it's going to be difficult to get it accepted at a worthwhile agency.

DT isn't a worthwhile agency? They are almost always my #3 earner. If they aren't worthwhile, that means (to me) that only 2 agencies are. Seems a bit odd to me.

I don't know about them pretty much accepting anything, either. They may not be as picky as Fotolia (but then, who is?), but they've rejected enough of my stuff that I know they don't "pretty much accept anything". But they are slightly more accepting than say iStock, for example.

sharply_done · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2009, 17:19 »

Quote from: KB on February 17, 2009, 16:50

DT isn't a worthwhile agency? They are almost always my #3 earner. If they aren't worthwhile, that means (to me) that only 2 agencies are. Seems a bit odd to me.

You need to read more carefully: I didn't say DT was not a worthwhile agency.
I've edited my orignal post so that nobody else can misinterpret what I wrote.

KB · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2009, 17:34 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 17, 2009, 17:19

Quote from: KB on February 17, 2009, 16:50
DT isn't a worthwhile agency? They are almost always my #3 earner. If they aren't worthwhile, that means (to me) that only 2 agencies are. Seems a bit odd to me.

You need to read more carefully: I didn't say DT was not a worthwhile agency.
I've edited my orignal post so that nobody else can misinterpret what I wrote.

Well, I'd say you need to write more carefully!

Your original words are in my previous post, so I'll let others read and decide who needs to be more careful. But I'm glad to see that your meaning wasn't what you originally wrote. If English isn't your first language, then I can certainly understand the mistake, and I'm sorry I couldn't figure out your meaning.

jim_h · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2009, 17:45 »

I don't think these stock companies really know, themselves, what they want. It's a new business and an unstable one - ok let's say "evolving"- and what they want probably changes from month to month.

Collectively these companies have a sort of jaded rich kid personality - they already have everything they actually need, but they want more, but not the same stuff, or maybe the same but better, or maybe something completely different. I'm sure the people running these companies aren't really like that, but that's how it seems from the outside.

I haven't had much trouble getting images accepted. I know what's in a quality image, I can produce it, and the these stock companies accept it. But, nothing I do sells, except for a few 25-cent subscription pickups. It's a fun game in a way, but I think it's going to get old pretty quick unless I can find the Holy Grail - a niche that isn't already exploited a hundred times over...

davey_rocket · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2009, 22:29 »

Quote from: jim_h on February 17, 2009, 17:45

Collectively these companies have a sort of jaded rich kid personality - they already have everything they actually need, but they want more, but not the same stuff, or maybe the same but better, or maybe something completely different.

Nice analogy

Explains the inconsistency pretty * well

gostwyck · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2009, 23:28 »

Quote from: jim_h on February 17, 2009, 17:45

I don't think these stock companies really know, themselves, what they want. It's a new business and an unstable one - ok let's say "evolving"- and what they want probably changes from month to month.

Collectively these companies have a sort of jaded rich kid personality - they already have everything they actually need, but they want more, but not the same stuff, or maybe the same but better, or maybe something completely different. I'm sure the people running these companies aren't really like that, but that's how it seems from the outside.

No sorry, I wouldn't agree __ that just indicates to me that you don't understand enough about the business to appreciate what they are looking for. The fact that you say "nothing I do sells" rather comfirms that and also that the agencies understand their buyers' needs too.

Three or four years ago you really could upload pretty much anything, had a fair chance of it being accepted and it would almost certainly be bought by someone at least a few times. With something like 50-100x more images on-line now it just happens to be a lot more competitive than it was __ and it's only going to get tougher, much tougher, in the future. If you can't hack the pace now then don't hold your breath in expectation of it getting easier any time soon. It won't.

null · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2009, 00:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 17, 2009, 23:28

With something like 50-100x more images on-line now it just happens to be a lot more competitive than it was __ and it's only going to get tougher, much tougher, in the future. If you can't hack the pace now then don't hold your breath in expectation of it getting easier any time soon. It won't.

What I suspect is that we amateurs will be kicked out in the long run and everything will be like in the time of macro, with a limited number of very talented pros. The only difference will be that they used to sell for 100$ and now they will have to sell for 1$ per image.

fotografer · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2009, 02:47 »

That's exactly the way it should be. What is the point of cluttering up their searches with inferior images.

Quote from: jim_h on February 17, 2009, 17:45

Collectively these companies have a sort of jaded rich kid personality - they already have everything they actually need, but they want more, but not the same stuff, or maybe the same but better, or maybe something completely different. I'm sure the people running these companies aren't really like that, but that's how it seems from the outside.

[/quote]

jim_h · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2009, 10:53 »

I put 22 images on SS a few days ago, and now have 16 downloads. But all were 25-cent subscription sales. And it looks like the rush lasts about as long as the images remain "new".

At 25 cents it's hardly worth the upload time. On the other hand, at least some people apparently like the photos. I'm wondering if subscription sales are a bad bet, and it would be smarter to opt out of them.