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.