Many claim that shooting for mirco has made them better photographers.

This may well be true for many, even though I feel that one should not even attempt to submit if one feels theirs skills are sub par.

I came from the old school days of film. I was working by my father�s side in a darkroom at the age of 5 and had my own darkroom by the time I was 12.

I had learned the rule of thirds, the inverse square law, proper metering, hyperfocal distance, reciprocity failure, relationships between depth of field & f-stop/focal length, push & pull processing, dodging and burning etc., long before many of the people running microstock sites were even born.

No, I�m not 110 years old now.

So, has micro made me a better photographer?

Well yes, IF being a better photoshopper counts as being a better photographer. What I have learned is to be hyper critical of every file @ the 100% pixel level. I have leaned that the �grain� we put up with and even sometimes emphasized from the film days is a major no-no. I have learned not too push a file to extremes that induce �artifacts� even for the purpose of artistic expression.

What is your conclusion?
Has becoming a microstocker indeed made you a �better� photographer?

I'm learning a different way to approach "objects."  I guess that makes me better?  Or, maybe just more approaches to crappy pictures?   

Microstock has made me a much better photographer, no doubt!

Know more about Photoshop than I do about photography (no formal training). It would be a good idea for me to take some night classes at the university to learn more about photography basics or at least buy a good book. There are also a couple of photography clubs in my area that could be useful and fun.

Definitely, I wouldn't have gone this far with Photoshop without microstock.
But then again, I am now looking at CA where once there weren't any 
It's a double-edged sword !

Before microstock I was a serious amateur - camera club member - shooting film. Went digital, joined an online digital camera club (PassionForPixels) and read an interview with hidesy by Perrush, and joined istock. Shooting for stock has forced me to pay more attention to the technicalities, to take more effort over correct exposure and composition (yes those shadows really do detract from the image), to try new genres and to invest in better equipment. I used to do a lot of walk-around photography, record shots mostly, and now I'm much more conscious and creative with my image-making. I even joined the istock Steel Cage community to stimulate my creativity, as creative artistry is one of my weaknesses. So in almost every respect being involved in microstock has encouraged me to improve as a photographer and as an artist.

ETA: And as for Photoshop...well, I've won 5 battles in the cage.

Yes Claude, I do remember grain.

As far as instant feedback goes... Don't forget Polaroid!
When shooting super expensive sheets of view camera film (up to 8x10 inches) we always shot a Polaroid first to check things out.

ha ha nosaya, my response crossed yours and we both ended with remembering Polaroid, what a coincidence, or are we just thinking one mind, lol.
And thanks to Ansel Adams who was the one who worked at Polaroid before he became the great Ansel that everyone adored.

no, i already knew how to use the camera (all formats 35mm-8x10 view) since i was 15 after working in a commercial studio as an apprentice photographer assistant and retoucher, with one of the top photographers in the capital.

but i am better at emptying 5 pints of Guinness in 15 minutes after meeting Atilla 

It helped me to produce images which are better technically, and learn how to avoid pretty mundane (and now obvious) errors. It made me look critically at technical aspects of an image, which I didn't even think about before. So - yes, in that sense it helped.

But did it make me a better photographer ? Define "better photographer" first. If we assume that photography is (still) an art for the large part - then not. But, as with everything else, one needs to be proficient with technical aspects of the job before attempting to excel. Overall, no regrets.

Im totally agreeing with this statement

In some ways yes it has, I have learnt a lot more about lighting composition etc. In other ways no, I used to enjoy taking "pretty snapshots" and selling them as greeting cards....then I learnt about viewing at 100% and in some ways to me "ruined" shots that I was happy with and had sold well as cards, and made a great print.

I have come to terms with the distinction between the two types of pics that I now take.

ah, the things we prostitute ourselves for 30cents. 
an art student squeegeeing windshields once laughed being told about microstock, and said she makes 25 cents per car , as her boyfriend  a busker on stilts playing his flute at the underground told me he makes over 200 dollars a day just being there once a week.

i am sure we could all contribute to a best selling paperback entitled, "how i blinded my artistic soul for 30 cents"   

Quote from: sharpshot on May 01, 2009, 16:17

I think I was better before I found microstock.  Quite often now I am thinking about how much a photo will make, instead of just trying to take the best photo I can.  Sometimes I don't take a photo of a subject because I think it wont make money.  That is really annoying and I am trying to get out of that habit.

Agreed.

I used to enjoy just taking pictures and posting them on photo.net for S&G's.  Now before I ever push the shutter I always think will this photo get rejected, does this convey a necessary commercial purpose, what about CA, what about noise?  I was actually more liberal taking pictures with film than I am now with digital...

Has becoming a microstocker indeed made you a �better� photographer?

Definitely yes. I can only second what Lisafx has said:

Absolutely!

I am much better able to produce technically good images.  If you can meet the microstock standards for noise and focus you are way ahead of what photojournalistic or event photography requires.  Also, I have learned way more about lighting and working with models. 

And of course there is the much better gear it has helped finance

I don't think I am a better photographer, but I do know something completely different than I used to.  So I would see it has widened my photographic abilities.

Microstock obsession about perfect noise/CA/focus/artifacting is not necessarily a good thing.  I still think it is a bit insane.   

Well for one I have better equipment because of microstock because I've earned enough money to finally get a decent DSLR and lenses.  I'd say "better" on the technical end since I pay more attention to making sure my images are clean, sharp and well composed.  On another hand though I'd say I'm a "different" photographer because of stock and have even changed my outdoor pursuit habits as a result.
For example, I used to go on hikes just for the sake of going on hikes, but now I choose hikes and other destinations at least in part by their "stock value".
I used to do more fine art orientated photography, but now not so much anymore because stock pays better.

No. Actually I have my own brain and I do not follow sometimes really insane "standards" like no noise or CA/artifacts everywhere policies. These severely interfere with logical way and technical/physical aspects. Absolutely insane requirements on noise, CA, artifacts are very far from reality on micro.

Microstock reviewers are of very disputable irregurarly distributed quality and I think for ppl not really knowing real basics and real world printing, this could severely hurt they quality and artistic judgement. Also keywording is a big problem, while many agencies accept obvious keyword spam, they sometimes ridiculously reject properly keyworded pics. Requiring MR for silhouttes or general part of human body (hands, legs etc.) and PR for shots made obviously from public space is also microstock specialty. The biggest problem I see is spreding of these dangerous habits and insane "standards" to other agencies and public judgement. Technically great picture with bad compo and light is ok for micro, but overall its junk - greatly composed and lighted picture taken on iso400 is junk on micro, however it could be stunning picture. This is what Im talking about...

I agree with sharpshot - its not good to think about money anytime you touch camera...

Quote from: gbcimages on May 04, 2009, 19:06

I tend to agree  with Maidelaide, I personally think the agencies have gone to far on the noise  and focus thing.

This is soooooooo true! And for this we are all worse photographers. To put such an emphasis on technical matters to qualifying photographic skills  is a misnomer. Grain is okay, a bit of blur can be nice, highly selective focus... all are tools and have a place in photography. Taking pictures makes you a better photographer, being evaluated (by a competent source) makes you a better photographer, trying new things makes you a better photographer. I do think microstock does this for a lot of people.

Naw, because of microstock, I can print one section of my image which is magnified to 300% and see no noise. I actually have one framed in my basement next to the pool table. It never fails to attract the comment, "Whatttt's that?"  I said, "microstock discipline, my buyers always insist I check for noise at 300% lol".

Microstock is like being in a hospital... Nooooo germs ! 

Like many other Yes and No!

Yes, I take a much better image from a technical perspective and have a lot to thank the forums for.

No, Shooting for stock has changed what I shoot and why, also how I interact with the subject, now I have stopped shooting stock as I want to build a collection of images that I took because I saw a good shot, and I wanted to take it with no stock agenda, in 18-24 months I will look at my collection again.

Just as a idea of what I mean about stock affecting the interaction with the subject, I went to the coast with my daughter and grandchildren at the weekend, my 4 year old grand daughter was playing in the waves, I lifted the camera to take a shot, she looked up, stopped, grinned and said "Smile!", this took a snap of a family member to a stock style image, and a good reason to change direction.

David   

I don't think that asking "did it make you a better photographer" is as valid as "did microstock makes you lose the passion of being a photographer".

I say this because, if you're a rotten photographer at this time, you won't stand a chance in the world to succeed. In microstock or any form of photography.

But I question the passion, or the loss of passion, or the lack of passion in microstock photographs.  That is why it's important for me to only put on my microstock or trad stock cap only 2 days in the week. Still this is not 2 days of 48 hours , it's more like 4-6 hours on a sat or sun. And this is on top of my day stint as a freelance working photographer. So what else is left for me to keep passion?

I don't know about you, but for someone who has adore the great masters, I would never give up trying to shoot like Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier Bresson,
Cecil Beaton, Karsh,etc... just to be successful in stock photography.

My motivations are different , though, as I mentioned in another thread. I don't live for stock photography, I have an option. But certainly, I can relate to those who do, as I have made friends with some successful people here, as it does require some form of focus (no pun intended) to succeed in this business.

I just don't think I could do it 24 / 7, I would give up shooting , like I did music when I was told to play rock instead of jazz for money in the 80's. I bought a house and a home recording studio, but all in all, it was quite wasted, in the sense that I no longer feel a passion in my music. So I quit that in the 90's.

I don't want to commit the same mistake as a stock photographer.

It's definitely made me much better at shooting 'stock', plus a lot of other business skills like time management, patience, planning, technical photography skills, marketing and more,

Not certain it's been a big improvement on my creativity an composition skills. In fact feel that i have become stuck in my ways sometimes. I have to fight against the urge to shoot 'stock style' when I'm taking photos of holidays, friends or for pleasure. I look back at my work from years ago and its a lot more 'interesting' to look at, I took a lot more time to set up those photos too - now everything seems to be a race

I can see why some photographers slowly move their focus between stock and fine art or portraiture.

I don't think microstock has made me a better photographer, unless you mean better in the technical sense, then I would say perhaps yes. I now know what most microstock sites want, good isolated images and they are boring, dry...and you can crank them out with little or no creativity...it is a business to me (and they pay pittance for all that effort) that is the only way I look at microstock now.

I now do photography more for my own creative pursuit. I no longer think about stock when I shoot, most days, I leave my digital camera behind or I bring along my film cameras/and the Holga as well and I would shoot mostly film/slide. I enjoy it a whole lot more and am much happier with my photography

Since I was really ignorant ... Microstock help me to understand my errors
However one actually learn from the colleagues
Bye  

The biggest change for me, going from amateur to microstocker, is making images rather than taking images. My understanding of lighting and composition has improved enormously.

Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 16:42

Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.

I am a buyer.

Quote from: crazychristina on October 16, 2010, 16:56

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 16:42

Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.

I am a buyer.

Do you buy micro? The equation most photographers here work to is $/dl x dls = $. When $/dl is low the dls need to be high to generate reasonable return, ie, generic imagery. If work is more unique then the dls will be low so the $/dl needs to be higher. Macro is a better place to look for more unique imagery. Of course some photographers place work in all markets, depending on the production values and likely sales of any given image. If a buyer want unique imagery at generic prices however he/she may be out of luck.

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 17:05

Quote from: crazychristina on October 16, 2010, 16:56

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 16:42

Definately not. If someone grew up having art training, especially if in an enviroment that had a lot of influences toward good taste and aesthtetics, it's just a pain in the ass.  It's likely to be pushing anyone away from what would make photography actually great. It's not hard to deliver what they want, but it's severily restrictive without those restrictions having much point - more freedom wouldn't get in the way of business at all, actually it would improve it because it would improve real quality and variety. The whole things screams of being created by blockheads, who's closest experience with visual creativity before getting into managing images, would be something like watching barney the purple dinosaur : )

Microstock photographers tend to shoot what buyers buy. Perhaps you could direct your comments to the buyers. Photographers who wish to produce more artistic work are probably exhibiting that in galleries rather than in stock portfolios.

I am a buyer.

Do you buy micro? The equation most photographers here work to is $/dl x dls = $. When $/dl is low the dls need to be high to generate reasonable return, ie, generic imagery. If work is more unique then the dls will be low so the $/dl needs to be higher. Macro is a better place to look for more unique imagery. Of course some photographers place work in all markets, depending on the production values and likely sales of any given image. If a buyer want unique imagery at generic prices however he/she may be out of luck.

So, tens of thousands of photographers shooting the same generic theme in the same generic style, with thousands joining every month, how is that gonna lead to good sales for them on a longer term?


btw, the original question was: "Has Microstock made you a better photographer?"

Yes I did buy large amounts of micro for a time.

Microstock has made me a faster photographer.

i dont think that doing micro could make you become a better photographer.Doing micro is just for the commercial purpose and its not a real photography.Commercial photography is just for the customers not for the art...thats it!!

"Not a real photography".  Whatever.

Quote from: sobm on October 16, 2010, 19:01

i dont think that doing micro could make you become a better photographer.Doing micro is just for the commercial purpose and its not a real photography.Commercial photography is just for the customers not for the art...thats it!!

"Not a real photography".  Whatever.

haha,maybe i gave the wrong definition..maybe its "commercial" photography not a real "art" photography

This is why I think it's better to think about whether one has learned anything about photography from shooting stock rather than getting bogged down in discussion about what is or isn't 'good photography' and, by extension, a 'good photographer' or a 'better photographer'. The human capacity to misunderstand, evade or subvert a simple discussion shouldn't amaze me by now, but it still does.

Quote from: sobm on October 16, 2010, 22:38

haha,maybe i gave the wrong definition..maybe its "commercial" photography not a real "art" photography

Ahhh, yes. That's the ultimate goal. To be a starving artist.

Yeah, I hate food anyways.

Quote from: molka on October 16, 2010, 17:47

So, tens of thousands of photographers shooting the same generic theme in the same generic style, with thousands joining every month, how is that gonna lead to good sales for them on a longer term?


btw, the original question was: "Has Microstock made you a better photographer?"

Yes I did buy large amounts of micro for a time.

This cycle will happen soon, or did it already happened ?

I dunno, ask istockers 8 )

Quote from: sobm on October 16, 2010, 19:01

i dont think that doing micro could make you become a better photographer.Doing micro is just for the commercial purpose and its not a real photography.Commercial photography is just for the customers not for the art...thats it!!

Um, maybe I misread the question, but I don't see them asking if shooting microstock has made you a better "artist".  Just a better photographer.  

Anyone who thinks photography is "art" probably doesn't know any real artists.  You know - people who use brushes, paints, pencils, clay, etc. to create something beautiful and/or emotionally moving from nothing...

When people suggest what I do (commercial photography) is "art" I always laugh and deny it.  I live with an actual artist, and there is absolutely no comparison.

But in answer to the original question (from over a year ago   ) yes, microstock has made me a much better photographer in several ways:  I know how to light and expose in all sorts of conditions, I am better at directing models, and I have learned loads about how to post process an image.  

And to reiterate, no that does not make me a better "artist"  

I agree but sometimes I feel that I have 1 or 2 very nice photos.. I need that.. Without feeling that would be harder to keep up

Just say no to mediocre entertainment.

I have learned not too push a file to extremes that induce �artifacts� even for the purpose of artistic expression.

That sentence means microstock has taught you how to be a better technician and a worse photographer, in my opinion. Content, communication and composition trump technical excellence. The count-the-blades-of-grass-on-the-pitch-rather-than-watch-the-match mentality that the iStock Pixel Police promote does not make you better photographers.

For what it's worth, I've got twenty years' experience with Photoshop and very few rejections. I'd trade all that in a heartbeat to be able to 'see' through a camera like some of you can. I'm not talking about art versus commercial here, I'm talking about the ability to react to what's in front of you and around you (whether in the studio or out in the field), and being able to get it down in a meaningful way.

 

Quote

I have learned not too push a file to extremes that induce �artifacts� even for the purpose of artistic expression.

 I'm not talking about art versus commercial here, I'm talking about the ability to react to what's in front of you and around you (whether in the studio or out in the field), and being able to get it down in a meaningful way.

 

Correct.  It starts with the ability to �see� the intrinsic or essential aesthetics of an object, place, or situation.  Where one photographer may just walk past, another will have the ability to see the interplay of composition, color or other aesthetic element. That  eye is what makes the artist, then the realization (technique).

Absolutely.  I learned that what I used to take was mostly crap.  I used to have noise and CA everywhere.  My composition was nearly non-existent.  I would get lucky every now and then and end up with a really nice image but it was not repeatable.

Seeing what sells and what gets rejected is a constant learning experience.  The experience of microstock has pushed me to read lots  of books on composition, exposure, etc.

And I am still learning....

Quote from: Juning44 on November 04, 2010, 04:45

Microstock made me a great photographer. I've been reading discussions here and this helped me a lot. Thanks a lot Microstock. 

---

Shakeology Review | Shakeology Scam | Shakeology

It's certainly made you delusional. Thanks microstock!