I think picking away similars is one of the toughest jobs of editing.  I can't help but think "what if a designer wants a little different look".  Generally I would guess I err on the side of including too many shots.

Do you think it is worthwhile to include variations in the 'smile' from closed lip smile to 'toothy smile' or is that easily overkill?

I would go with the second and lighten up the bg a bit.

Ah, but remember there are some buyers who always ask for more serious expressions.
Submit both, but leave some time between uploads.

Ah, but remember there are some buyers who always ask for more serious expressions.
Submit both, but leave some time between uploads.

Yeah, that is what I have done in the past and would be tempted to do with this case unless convinced otherwise.

Gostwyck makes a good point though, which is the reason persuading me to NOT upload both.  If there is only one image to pick from the buyers (hopefully) pick the only image available pushing that images stats (sell through rate) higher and thus pushing search rank higher.  If there are two images to pick from, those two images have to share the sales.  On sites like Dreamstime where more sales = a higher price/sale it is even more important to try and force sales on the higher ranked images by not having too many similars.   

That said, if you have worthwhile similars you increase your overall database exposure getting more images on page 1 or 2 or 10, wherever the buyer is looking...

I preferred the darker bg myself - it gave her better contrast on the back of the hair, and also more of a sense of being 'inside' the shop.

But as Gostwyck said, Sean and Lisa are the experts on 'what sells'.

Yeah, I was actually planning on uploading a dark background and light background to compare the results.  As Yuri is pretty set on the light background strategy (and Sean obviously agrees) that is probably the better seller.  It is certainly less distracting.

But back to the subject of the thread - I'm not sure what the strategy of uploading different shots to different sites would prove. I think I would just end up creating more work for myself editing more images and end up not knowing anything more than when I started. 

don�t have anything to add regarding the pictures but need to say how is possible that you are still learning regarding stock? curious how can someone so experienced like you still with doubts?

How is it possible to ever stop learning (about stock or any subject)? That's what makes it interesting and that's what makes the difference between the top sellers and the rest.

Post-process 2 or 3, then maybe you could upload the toothy smile and see how it does, sales-wise. If after a couple of months, no sales, upload another.

Quote from: gostwyck on March 22, 2011, 06:52

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 22, 2011, 06:46

don�t have anything to add regarding the pictures but need to say how is possible that you are still learning regarding stock? curious how can someone so experienced like you still with doubts?

How is it possible to ever stop learning (about stock or any subject)? That's what makes it interesting and that's what makes the difference between the top sellers and the rest.

so true, I agree 100% as I do learn everyday but I am very new to stock regarding Tyler, yourself or others in this post, I found this great but after so many years doing the same ligthing setups, directing models and uploading/selling it is hard to imagine someone with doubts

Not even Sean stop learning!

We would be in trouble if we stop.

yes, they are different enough - but Dreamstime won't think so

I prefer the second one, but others may well like/need the first one; so, upload just one on Dreamstime
and both on all other sites leaving decision to buyers where they can

If I was going to go with my instinct, or what I have 'always done' I would just take them both, but I have been thinking lately that perhaps I should change strategies and edit much much tighter than I generally do.  Like cut down my selects by half.  I have tried that in a couple shoots recently and am still pondering and looking at the results but I am always interested in hearing what strategy others have.  It is important not to sit still or think we have things 'figured out'

After 6 years I've still not varied from the conclusion that trying to predict which images out of a series will be the most popular is almost impossible. Sometimes a potential best-seller is fairly obvious but that's about it. The images that do well on one agency may well bomb on others and vice versa. Sometimes the initial images of a series will have disappointing sales but then, some months later, I can upload another image from that series ... and it does take off. Weird.

Great series, Tyler!  If I had to choose one of the other photo only, it would be the second one.  I like your edit, where you have lightened the background.  Don't like the "nuked" background though, as it is less obvious where she is. 

To me, those two shots are different enough to upload both.  I have heard Europeans prefer less toothy grins (you would know if that's true better than I would) and Americans tend to go with the bigger smiles.  So different markets for each. 

Not only are the smiles different, but the reserved smile is a wider shot, with more copyspace.  I would probably crop the toothier one to a square to better emphasize the girl, then upload the other one wide.  Hopefully that would differentiate them enough. 

But like Gostwyck says, it is impossible to know for sure which will be the better seller. 

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Good points on the nuked background, I agree, since I went to the work of actually shooting in a grocery store it is smart to retain some of that information.  That said it is also nice to isolate the subject over a near white background making the background very unnoticeable offering just a hint of location.

I have also noticed the european / american preference.   If someone see's an image of an overly smiley person on an advertisement here they say it looks 'american' (for better or worse).  There is an obvious preference for more natural, less 'over the top' models in Europe contrasted with the over the top - barbie type model preference (with overdone smile) in America.  Teeth for example can be a little crooked or a small gap or a shade or two off snow white.  The first time I saw such models in an ad I was quite surprised.

I did a few microstock shoots in New York a couple years ago and had an a-ha moment.  I realized how people get those models with the big happy smiles... you shoot in America.  as they say... 'everything is bigger in America' ... the smiles are no exception

CERTAINLY WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY OVERKILL!!!!!!! that is not similar its the same photo!

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on March 29, 2011, 08:00

Quote from: sjlocke on March 22, 2011, 08:24

To me, the darker bg says "I could only light the person in the front and took what I got in the back".  A lighter bg says "I had full control of the area" (even if you fake it).  Also, I'd take out some of the pink color, overall.

No disrespect intended but I was under the impression that stock photography was intended to serve the image needs of buyers not a venue to prove your photographic skills by "controlling the area". I'm not a stock photography expert but I am a graphic designer with going on 2 decades of experience and I know something about images. Dark areas recede and lighter areas advance. If you want the subject to pop and the background to be, well, in the background, the darker image is better. I'm not really a fan of the Yuri Arcurs style of blowing everything out to look bright, happy and shiny.

On top of that, as far as being useful for design, the dark background provides a far better foundation for placing text. It recedes into the background (as it should) so it won't fight for attention with the message.

If I saw the image with the darker background in an ad, I'd think the company went on the cheap and either got a photographer who couldn't light well, or bought an inexpensive stock photo.  It doesn't look like it was purposefully created that way, but instead was the result of minimal flash usage.  And if I thought that about the ad, I'd probably think that about the product as well.  I already think that when I'm driving down the highway and see poor stock photos on billboards, which I tend to find an inordinate amount of poor design on.  (not that the image in the OP is a terrible image or something

In this case, I'd have adjusted shutter speed/ISO/aperture to get more ambient from the background, with adequate fill to make the model pop.

And when you design a billboard you can do it anyway you please I suppose. I however, find the image you posted far too busy in the background for text and would likely edit the image to darken it or even blur it so that the actual message stood out. You would then look at it as a bad photo so what are you gonna do?

I have often been fascinated by the different ways photographers and designers view images. Designers don't look for the same things as photographers. We look for elements we can use to create commercial artwork i.e. the photo is simply a part of a larger whole. Photographers like to see images that stand alone as good photos and frankly that can limit their value to a designer. I don't want photographers deciding for me what i can do with the image. It's a bone of contention for me and has been for many years because good stock is not the same as good photography. You expose it and compose it to be a great photo (and it is a good photo on it's own) and I then have to edit the crap out of it to make it useful.

I prefer leaf's photo with the darker background.

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that would be a great billboard shot or anything.  It was more "here's how I'd balance the light".

But I'll be quiet now. No offense to anyone.

I hope not.  This has been a really interesting exchange.  I have gotten a lot of useful info from your posts.  Keep it comin'! 

IMHO, the two smiles are ok, but the rest is too much the same. If feels like playing one of those "7 errors" games.

My thinking is pictures with lighter backgrounds sell more as a whole than the darker ones since these pics blend better on lighter/white backgrounds. Kind of like the characters really stand out as the light backgrounds recedes into the page.  Im not sure exactly what kind of work digitalexpressionsimages does, but the majority of the microstock images i see on ads online or print is usually the image itself just cropped and with text outside the image. I would likely bet that the majority of the images bought on microstock sites are just used as is or with a slight crop and plopped on some sort of a white or a light background with minimal design experience needed. Its also likely that dark texts are used more commonly than light text.

My thinking is pictures with lighter backgrounds sell more as a whole than the darker ones since these pics blend better on lighter/white backgrounds. Kind of like the characters really stand out as the light backgrounds recedes into the page.  Im not sure exactly what kind of work digitalexpressionsimages does, but the majority of the microstock images i see on ads online or print is usually the image itself just cropped and with text outside the image. I would likely bet that the majority of the images bought on microstock sites are just used as is or with a slight crop and plopped on some sort of a white or a light background with minimal design experience needed. Its also likely that dark texts are used more commonly than light text.

Oops, one more thought. For the record, light areas don't recede. Bright colours and bright highlights draw the eye. When I look at sjlocke's image the brightest spots, at least on my monitor, are the freezer door in the background, second from left, and the area to the right of the model. Try as I might, I can't keep my eye from going to that  freezer door.

Also, the goal is contrast. Form and function are equally important. You can't have a beautiful piece of work that fails to get the message across. That would be pointless. So, you would place text so that it's readable and therefore use dark text on light backgrounds and light text on dark backgrounds. But you want the text to draw the eye, not the background.

Lastly, as far as the kind of work I do, I would be willing to believe that i am different in my approach from every other designer in North America and perhaps the only one with more than "minimal design experience" but I tend to doubt it. These are basic design principles. I crop models and objects from images to use as I choose all the time. Which is maybe why you don't recognize them when you see them. I get ideas in my head that I reproduce and I use stock images as elements in those concepts because it's the message and the whole that matters, not the individual images. That's my belief, as I suspect is the case with most designers.

Please re-read what i said above... i said light areas recede into the page (the page that is right next to the image is usually a light color like the background color of this and many internet pages...)

I keep coming back to this thread and posting even though I don't want to.  I did read your post correctly I promise but you seem to be speaking in generalities. Yes, if a page is light or white then a light background would have less contrast but if it's not white or light then your theory stumbles. I see all kinds of background colours in ads and magazines and on the web: dark, light and everything in between. Your use of the term "usually" just doesn't apply. however, I still maintain that the images in question are not so much light as they are bright and bright does not fade into the background. perhaps my use of the word light in my previous post was in error and I should have said bright which is what it is.

And for what its worth, i was talking about the creating for the volume business that is microstock. I should have been more clearer in my earlier post that while your points are valid, they are just a small part of the bigger microstock market. I was in no way referring to you when i said minimal design experience so im sorry if it somehow came across that way. I just know there are all kinds of buyers out there. Many of them have minimal design knowledge.

Have no fear my friend I did not take your words in a negative way. I only used that in my comments to demonstrate that I'm not really atypical in my views as a graphic designer.

Now I'm going to leave this thread alone. I think I've said everything I need to on this subject and in fact i've gone totally OT.