Author Topic: Are some categories too saturated and just not worth shooting for? (Read 14652 times)

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

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** August 17, 2010, 01:59 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2010, 02:01 »

Quote from: leaf on August 17, 2010, 01:59

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2010, 02:28 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** August 17, 2010, 07:55 »

Quote from: 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

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2010, 08:31 »

Quote from: 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.

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'.

FD · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2010, 08:46 »

Quote from: oxman on August 17, 2010, 01:44

- 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. 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?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 17, 2010, 09:23 »

Yeh right, find niches.. and find and find! if you haven't found them yet dont shoot LOLOL

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2010, 09:51 »

I was thinking about a plain white background and call it:

Niche on White

donding · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2010, 10:32 »

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2010, 10:40 »

Quote from: donding on August 17, 2010, 10:32

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

oxman · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2010, 11:06 »

Quote

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.

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2010, 13:01 »

Quote from: oxman on August 17, 2010, 11:06

Quote
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.

well that all depends on who you are talking to. Sjlocke has a pretty strict don't ask don't tell attitude

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2010, 13:01 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 17, 2010, 09:51

I was thinking about a plain white background and call it:

Niche on White

haha

jcpjr · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2010, 13:33 »

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?

donding · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2010, 13:42 »

Quote from: jcpjr on August 17, 2010, 13:33

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...

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2010, 13:54 »

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.

louoates · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2010, 14:11 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2010, 14:27 »

Quote from: louoates on August 17, 2010, 14:11

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'.

oxman · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2010, 15:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 17, 2010, 14:27

Quote from: louoates on August 17, 2010, 14:11
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

lisafx · « **Reply #20 on:** August 17, 2010, 16:06 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 17, 2010, 13:54

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?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2010, 16:06 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 17, 2010, 02:01

Quote from: leaf on August 17, 2010, 01:59
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".

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.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2010, 18:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 17, 2010, 16:06

Quote from: cclapper on August 17, 2010, 13:54
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.

oxman · « **Reply #23 on:** August 18, 2010, 09:36 »

Quote

Especially when new images are buried under tons of old good sellers.

Time for a new acronym.

GOSH! = Good Old Sellers Hell

lefty · « **Reply #24 on:** August 18, 2010, 10:16 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are some categories too saturated and just not worth shooting for? (Read 14652 times)

oxman

leaf

ShadySue

sharpshot

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

FD

luissantos84

WarrenPrice

donding

luissantos84

oxman

leaf

leaf

jcpjr

donding

cathyslife

louoates

gostwyck

oxman

lisafx

RacePhoto

Dreamframer

oxman

lefty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors