MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: oxman on August 17, 2010, 01:44
-
After extensive research into various photo categories at the major sites, it appears to me that some topic areas of microstock are just so overly saturated with quality images that shooting and submitting is pointless.
Some of those include images with:
- stethoscopes
- laboratory equipment (test tubes, beakers, microscopes)
- dual bell alarm clocks
- piggy banks
- gavels (legal images)
- sexy woman
- people on the beach
- flowers
- sunsets
- happy business people on white backgrounds (yuri!)
I am sure there are more. Add to it...
If I am wrong... tell me. I hope I am. But this is how it appears to me.
OX
-
Yeah, I would absolutely agree. If you are just going to shoot what there is tons of on the micro sites then you will be waiting a long time for decent returns. If you want to actually get decent sales you have to find a hole.
If you want to shoot what has been over-shot already, like business, goldfish etc. then you have to do it better than it has already been done, in a new style, or with a new twist.
-
Yeah, I would absolutely agree. If you are just going to shoot what there is tons of on the micro sites then you will be waiting a long time for decent returns. If you want to actually get decent sales you have to find a hole.
But also, it has to be a hole that buyers want filled. I can tell you that it's no use having the only image of something if the market has no interest in that something.
-
Buyers do seem to have very wide interests though. I am often surprised how much something unusual can sell. I also like the challenge of coming up with the only image when doing a simple search in a huge collection. It would be even better if people didn't copy so much but you can't have everything.
-
After extensive research into various photo categories at the major sites, it appears to me that some topic areas of microstock are just so overly saturated with quality images that shooting and submitting is pointless.
Some of those include images with:
- stethoscopes
- laboratory equipment (test tubes, beakers, microscopes)
- dual bell alarm clocks
- piggy banks
- gavels (legal images)
- sexy woman
- people on the beach
- flowers
- sunsets
- happy business people on white backgrounds (yuri!)
I am sure there are more. Add to it...
If I am wrong... tell me. I hope I am. But this is how it appears to me.
OX
If you came to such a conclusion, wouldn't you think keeping it to yourself would be a good idea, so those shooting sunsets happily would keep on doing so, and not peek at your portfolio to see what you think should be captured? I would. :)
-
After extensive research into various photo categories at the major sites, it appears to me that some topic areas of microstock are just so overly saturated with quality images that shooting and submitting is pointless.
If I am wrong... tell me. I hope I am. But this is how it appears to me.
Did you work that out all by yourself? What exactly do you expect with thousands of photographers submitting about 5M new images per year? It's called 'competition'.
-
- sunsets
That's funny since one of my best selling non-editorials over sites is a sunset.
I would add "models" to your list too. Don't shoot models. People are all over the sites. ;)
If people with stethoscopes are out, try ducks with a stethoscope (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=13293753). At the moment I'm making friends with some pigs in a neighbor's backyard. As soon as they don't throw off their headset any more, I hope to make some piggy callcenter agents shots. ;-)
What to shoot? (http://flemishdreams.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=92)
-
Yeh right, find niches.. and find and find! if you haven't found them yet dont shoot LOLOL
-
I was thinking about a plain white background and call it:
Niche on White
;D
-
Many of the sites don't even take sunset's or flower's anymore. Some don't even take girl's with headsets any more. Over saturation is a problem and generally those over saturated categories are the easiest to shot, therefore the reason being over saturated.
-
Many of the sites don't even take sunset's or flower's anymore. Some don't even take girl's with headsets any more. Over saturation is a problem and generally those over saturated categories are the easiest to shot, therefore the reason being over saturated.
Sorry but this is not true.. They might rejected 3 or 4 "similar rejection" but they will take at least 1 (I am not saying that I agree with them), but yes it is better to advice everybody to don't shoot these "over satured subjects" :p
-
If you came to such a conclusion, wouldn't you think keeping it to yourself would be a good idea, so those shooting sunsets happily would keep on doing so, and not peek at your portfolio to see what you think should be captured? I would. :)
Yeah good point. I forgot about the "don't ask, don't tell" element of microstock. :o
-
If you came to such a conclusion, wouldn't you think keeping it to yourself would be a good idea, so those shooting sunsets happily would keep on doing so, and not peek at your portfolio to see what you think should be captured? I would. :)
Yeah good point. I forgot about the "don't ask, don't tell" element of microstock. :o
well that all depends on who you are talking to. Sjlocke has a pretty strict don't ask don't tell attitude :)
-
I was thinking about a plain white background and call it:
Niche on White
;D
haha
-
I'm thinking of submitting a solid blue sky with loads of artifacts and call it...here it comes..."Artifacts!" What else could it be? ::) Think it will get approved?
-
I'm thinking of submitting a solid blue sky with loads of artifacts and call it...here it comes..."Artifacts!" What else could it be? ::) Think it will get approved?
lol....you ought to try it... :D
-
I agree about the inanimate objects. If you can't shoot a different view or with different props than what's already been submitted, I would say it's a waste of time.
People? I don't think that it is necessarily true that the same shots won't sell, using a different model. Designers are always looking for the right "look" for their project and your model might just be it. The problem that I see is getting those images seen amongst the vast sea of already-uploaded people.
-
My marketing sense tells me that if I wanted to sell more images in this business a sure way is to look at the best selling images and try to do it those better or a bit differently. Seeing a certain amount of business that is already there and seeking a piece of it is a time-proven technique no matter what that business is. I would think it is a dull way to do it but it would work for some folks.
-
My marketing sense tells me that if I wanted to sell more images in this business a sure way is to look at the best selling images and try to do it those better or a bit differently. Seeing a certain amount of business that is already there and seeking a piece of it is a time-proven technique no matter what that business is. I would think it is a dull way to do it but it would work for some folks.
True enough but if someone possessed the imagination and skills to improve upon or add significantly to the best-selling topics then they probably wouldn't be here wailing that they're 'just not worth shooting for'.
-
My marketing sense tells me that if I wanted to sell more images in this business a sure way is to look at the best selling images and try to do it those better or a bit differently. Seeing a certain amount of business that is already there and seeking a piece of it is a time-proven technique no matter what that business is. I would think it is a dull way to do it but it would work for some folks.
True enough but if someone possessed the imagination and skills to improve upon or add significantly to the best-selling topics then they probably wouldn't be here wailing that they're 'just not worth shooting for'.
Too often something really out there and unique like the old TONY STONE stuff won't get past inspectors because it does not have that "stock look" IMO
-
Designers are always looking for the right "look" for their project and your model might just be it. The problem that I see is getting those images seen amongst the vast sea of already-uploaded people.
I think that's the challenge for all of us at this point. There are still original ways to shoot things but how to avoid their getting lost among all the similars?
-
Yeah, I would absolutely agree. If you are just going to shoot what there is tons of on the micro sites then you will be waiting a long time for decent returns. If you want to actually get decent sales you have to find a hole.
But also, it has to be a hole that buyers want filled. I can tell you that it's no use having the only image of something if the market has no interest in that something.
Loved both comments. Funny you should mention a good shot of something that no one wants or buys. I have some of those. I'm not telling what they are, someone else might want to copy my "success". :D
As for a better shot of something, no matter how good an old picture is, someone with new equipment, better camera and better lighting should be able to make a "better" version. Whether that's going to get viewed and sold is another issue. I'm not interested in copying good ideas or concepts, so people find that a way of life and inspiration. They look for what's selling and copy it. Personally by the time it's popular, I'd be suspicious that it's already too late. Maybe not?
Then there was a small niche I saw a year and half ago, so I did some shots. I'm done playing, and what do you know, I might recover the expenses in another year. ;) But wouldn't you know it, suddenly where there were a small number of similar images, there's now a flock of people doing the same thing, same background, same size and isolation. Oh well...
My "crapstock" isn't good enough to steal but apparently I've improved enough to make things that are good enough to replicate. ;D
-
Designers are always looking for the right "look" for their project and your model might just be it. The problem that I see is getting those images seen amongst the vast sea of already-uploaded people.
I think that's the challenge for all of us at this point. There are still original ways to shoot things but how to avoid their getting lost among all the similars?
Especially when new images are buried under tons of old good sellers.
-
Especially when new images are buried under tons of old good sellers.
Time for a new acronym.
GOSH! = Good Old Sellers Hell
-
I think is complicating. Because better selling pictures are the one you put as saturated. More complicating when your rejection of different picture conceptual
but the reject reason say No commercial value.
So you do it submit saturated pictures get high approval or risk low saturation
and more rejection.
-
Designers are always looking for the right "look" for their project and your model might just be it. The problem that I see is getting those images seen amongst the vast sea of already-uploaded people.
I think that's the challenge for all of us at this point. There are still original ways to shoot things but how to avoid their getting lost among all the similars?
Especially when new images are buried under tons of old good sellers.
Funny you should mention that, because when agencies use a best match churn to bring new photos to the front, some people complain that their "best sellers" and images with good ratings are showing at the end of searches and new images are getting moved to the front.
I guess there's no winning.
If they have the old, best sellers first, people complain about new and creative being pushed to the back. If agencies present diversity, and allow new images to get views, people will complain that old best sellers are getting pushed to the back? ???
I like the diversity and varied display that gives buyers a different selection. Old timers with good sellers, will want their images first just because they are older and more popular.