MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My Style  (Read 23649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 15, 2011, 00:00 »
0
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!
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 02:16 by Will Dutt »


« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2011, 00:11 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2011, 00:37 »
0
Do you mind if I put the images into a .zip? It will just be easier for me that way.

« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2011, 00:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2011, 01:42 »
0
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.

« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2011, 01:50 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 01:56 by Perry »

« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2011, 02:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2011, 02:07 »
0
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)

« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2011, 02:11 »
0
@Susan S.
Could I please see your portfolio/gallery?

« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2011, 02:12 »
0
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.

« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2011, 02:19 »
0
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.

« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2011, 02:22 »
0
@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.

« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2011, 02:25 »
0
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?

« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2011, 02:27 »
0
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 :)
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 02:34 by Perry »

« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2011, 02:32 »
0
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!

« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2011, 02:43 »
0
Roses do sell. Here is an example of a purple rose:

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

« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2011, 02:47 »
0
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 ;)

« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2011, 02:50 »
0
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.

« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2011, 02:52 »
0
@Susan:
Absolutely love the black board and chalk mathematics photo!

« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2011, 03:04 »
0
@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

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2011, 04:26 »
0
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.

« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2011, 05:16 »
0
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 :-)

« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2011, 05:20 »
0
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!).

« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2011, 05:29 »
0
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 ;)

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2011, 05:57 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3546 Views
Last post November 26, 2006, 10:03
by Pichunter
7 Replies
3695 Views
Last post July 02, 2009, 16:21
by madelaide
24 Replies
7053 Views
Last post October 03, 2011, 19:13
by PaulieWalnuts
21 Replies
9588 Views
Last post July 04, 2012, 18:20
by luissantos84
6 Replies
2878 Views
Last post October 18, 2012, 05:20
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors