MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do you think these photos should sell?  (Read 1920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 28, 2016, 20:24 »
0
I've been on here about two years and have only earned $25.00

Any advice?

newbielink:https://www.shutterstock.com/g/john_wingfield [nonactive]


« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2016, 20:32 »
+1
Nice photos.  They belong on Getty, Stocksy, or Offset not Shutterstock.

« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2016, 20:39 »
+1
And your keywording is poor.

« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2016, 21:06 »
0
Yes...I do, but like many of mine, I don't see any that would sell for more than a handful of times.

I'm trying to be far more critical and asking myself....are one or two sales for the image really worth submitting?

An honest, "buyers perspective" judgment of the work I submit has taken me years to apply.   

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2016, 21:23 »
+2
I would say that you should change your image descriptions. Rather than "naming" an image, try to describe what exactly is in it.

« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2016, 22:51 »
+4
It should sell if people want to buy it.

They look nice, has artistic value, but may not have that much commercial value. The majority of your sales probably came from about 10 images. The washed out look makes the images look dull, whereas bright, high-contrast images gives them a more commercial look.

If I'm a tourist website and I want to highlight Jasper, Alberta, should they pick your photo over this one?

https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-39501103/

Ask yourself that question, cause that photo is your competition.

« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2016, 23:02 »
+5
On the keywording, the few I checked didn't have information about the specific place. One, for example, just said Europe in the keywords, another had Pacific Northwest in the title, but no place information in the keywords. If you have photos of locations, you need to be specific about where so prospective buyers can find them.

The other thing is how in demand a location is - some of yours are lovely pictures but I'm guessing are not high volume locations. The feet in the back of a car conveys a message/story and for that, specific place isn't important. More of that sort of thing - story telling versus just location - might also help sales.

« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2016, 23:23 »
0
The photos are pretty good, but if you don't make it easy for buyers to find them, they won't sell.
In stock you can't sell things which buyers don't see. And the competition in this subject matter is gigantic. Gigantic!
You have a very good eye for compositions, but as others mentioned, the image descriptions/keywords are quite poor (for stock photos), honestly.

« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2016, 23:41 »
+1
It should sell if people want to buy it.

They look nice, has artistic value, but may not have that much commercial value. The majority of your sales probably came from about 10 images. The washed out look makes the images look dull, whereas bright, high-contrast images gives them a more commercial look.

If I'm a tourist website and I want to highlight Jasper, Alberta, should they pick your photo over this one?

https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-39501103/

Ask yourself that question, cause that photo is your competition.

I agree with this. I ratchet up the vibrancy/saturation on all my photos. It's what people want. I'll also echo the naming/key wording comments. I'd enjoy thinking up neat artistic names for my images, but I have to think like a buyer and figure out what the heck they would search for. There are probably some other photos of campers with legs out the back of a car, what would I need to search for to find them?

Thankfully with Shutterstock you can change keywords after the fact. Not so much on Fotolia.

« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2016, 03:56 »
0
And your keywording is poor.

Agreed. Keywords are crap. For example this photo with a pair of legs and a dog, https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-428307724/stock-photo-cozy.html
there are many keywords that aren't in the picture, like: marshmallow, stars, night, bonfire, tent, portrait, chow, running, food, fire, roast, white, red, roasting, park, trainer etc.

And then there is no obvious ones like: feet, legs, car, inside, lake, rest etc.

Good accurate keywords are crucial in generating sales!

« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2016, 04:17 »
+2
send those images to stocksy or try different mid/macro stock agencies.


« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2016, 05:41 »
+1
Images are fine in style but there is no message in many of those...just moods.....that is not enough to attract buyers. Your most popular file on the other side has this beautiful look and a strong concept. That is the way to go . Now Shutterstock might be not your best choice with this kind of images and as other have already mentioned Stocksy,Offset,Getty,etc might be much better suited. If you look at Shutter subjects by popularity nearly all of them compete in who moved the saturation slider more to the right side. To my taste most look garish....but hey....buyers rule like in any other business.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2016, 05:45 by everest »

« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2016, 05:44 »
+1
I agree with the others:

Nice images, terrible keywording and descriptions...

Regarding the washed out look, a lot of buyers want that so in my opinion it's not necessary to crank up vibrancy. A lot of trendy advertising (at least in Europe) uses washed out images that are more "real/authentic" than so called "perfect stock photos".

You can always mix it up. Two images, same location/subject: one indie/washed out, one high contrast/cheesy web ad.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2016, 07:09 »
+1
In my opinion, these types of images are more suited to midstock agencies rather than microstock.

« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2016, 07:52 »
+1
Locations can sell fairly but not at high volumes. You MUST have location names included. Otherwise a Canadian shot will not sell because a buyer may be afraid it is just across the boarder and really in the USA (or vice versa). Ohio Magazine does not want it's viewers pointing out that a shot was taken in Indiana - even if it is just of a flower. Always include location details in the keywords.

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2016, 08:18 »
0
People images sell more than landscapes.

Cool images. Make some people shots and try macrostock-midstock

« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2016, 15:19 »
0
Title cabin dog https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-475374184/stock-photo-cabin-dog.html?src=9BJhq_GFgGBNbhIcM5P8xQ-1-29

Keywords

alaska, animal, ape, black, bonobo, borneo, brown, canine, cute, dog, domestic, face, forest, fur, golden, hairy, intelligent, jungle, mammal, monkey, nature, old, outside, paniscus, portrait, primate, retriever, smile, summer, wild, wildlife, young, zoo

I guess you really need to check your keywords it's a photo of a dog (golden retriever I guess)

« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2016, 15:40 »
+1
agree with those colleagues who suggest stocksy, offset,etc..

nice pictures are not micro stock pictures. the problem with travel shots is that there are millions now.
at the beginning of ss career, my travel shots sold a bit, even found them on wiki travel logs, country website, travel agency,etc..
but as soon as someone in that area sees them as top sellers, they go and take their own portfolio of those tourist areas and naturally,
if you are living in say, baffin island, or galapogas, or even jasper,etc..
you can go back there at the right time , all four seasons, and make the best tourist shots for micro.

tourists do not have this luxury, ...
so of course, our images soon become less often sellers.
unless you have unique hard to get images, like that gent from istock many years ago who specializes in antartica arctic shots.

« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2016, 17:53 »
0
Thanks for the advice everyone, I've applied to stock at once but they're pretty exclusive. 

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2016, 17:55 »
0
Quote
Thanks for the advice everyone, I've applied to stock at once but they're pretty exclusive.

Check out Arcangel Images. Been submitting to them for a year now and really like their setup.

marryanderson322

  • Photographer-retoucher
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2017, 17:14 »
0
i suppose it may be sold


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
2445 Views
Last post October 01, 2013, 08:52
by Saul12
3 Replies
1051 Views
Last post July 29, 2015, 21:08
by JPSDK
26 Replies
6144 Views
Last post February 09, 2017, 16:34
by laville071
5 Replies
931 Views
Last post January 23, 2017, 05:19
by alexplp
22 Replies
1470 Views
Last post July 13, 2017, 03:41
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors