MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: tavi on December 01, 2013, 17:19
-
Hi, I made some images of wild birds on ice today, and I wonder if it's worth selling them to micros. The other wildlife pics I have are not selling very good, so I wonder where can I sell these kind for a better revenue. Thanks.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1466085_667528349934104_64382478_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1467283_667516239935315_545379219_n.jpg)
-
LOL, this has to be a wind up, no? :D
-
Hi, I made some images of wild birds on ice today, and I wonder if it's worth selling them to micros. The other wildlife pics I have are not selling very good, so I wonder where can I sell these kind for a better revenue. Thanks.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1466085_667528349934104_64382478_n.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1467283_667516239935315_545379219_n.jpg)
Nature shots must be REALLY well done and have have subject matter that is sustainable, for a few years anyway. I have some very good nature images and they don't sell well. Why? Simply limited demand for that kind of subject matter. I am not an expert on birds by any means, but some here are likely to put them in the same category as an isolated tomato. This is to say that there's "probably" not a big market for them, but if you feel strongly go for it. You have nothing to lose but being rejected, or have images that sit in your port and take up space, or you may have two sellable images. I think some sites like Dreamstime has some kind of algorithm that looks at your portfolio holistically and the more of your images that sell the better your overall placement in search. So cluttering your portfolio with images that don't sell is damaging to yourself. I'd have to dig up where I read that but I'm pretty sure it's right. But it is wise to upload images that are strong, marketable and commercial.
This is not to say that these won't sell. I think Shadysue does a lot of bird/nature shots and maybe she can chime in to give you some advice.
-
" it's worth selling them to micros."
Well, they'll never sell, so I don't now if that's worth it or not.
-
This is not to say that these won't sell. I think Shadysue does a lot of bird/nature shots and maybe she can chime in to give you some advice.
I'm not much help, as I never submitted to the other micros, and have no first hand experience of what sells elsewhere, other than word from a couple of other bird togs I've met who say SS isn't much good for them (their photos are mostly very good to excellent). In fact, one seems to have removed their port from SS and one, maybe two others haven't uploaded there for a while, so I don't think it was "let's not encourage a possible rival".
However, as has been said, there is huge competition in nature, as it's what many people love to shoot. A lot of wildlife is also available CC; a lot of that is pictorially excellent, even if often (not always) the IQ wouldn't have got them into iS under the old standards.
On iS, there's a wildlife photographer (specialising in birds) whose work I've often seen published who started submitting to iStock in May and seems to be uploading his entire back catalogue, some of it excellent, some merely 'good', and already has 8710 pics there, 5978 with 'bird' in the keywords. I think he must have most non-Vagrant UK birds there, in almost every imaginable position. And all at Main pricing, so undercutting those of us exclusives in the genre. :(
He's been on SS under a different name since 2012, but only has 6288 there; and 4,723 on Fotolia under that name amd on DT since June this year with 7,695 .
So, a lot more competition!
As for your photos above, the Swan is very unlikely to sell. Assuming the coots don't have that haloing full size (I've noticed that seems to be a problem when downsizing in CC that wasn't there in CS5, haven't sussed it out yet, it doesn't affect my stock work, only when shrinking heavily for e.g. Flickr) it might have a chance, but hey, what do I know? I have four pics of birds on ice from 2010, and only one has sold, once.
As for selling outwith the micros: the specialist libraries (i.e. the ones which actually bring in sales) can afford to be extremely picky. Usually for consideration for acceptance, you have to submit at least 100, often 200 or more, images of subjects that either are undersupplied or demonstrating unusual behaviours. Normally, these must be almost un post-processed; the stricter agencies require you to supply the RAW file or at the very least be prepared to supply it on request to check that the image has not been manipulated beyond small levels-type adjustments. Certainly no cloning out of distractions. The lighting should be natural, not necessarily microstocky, though it you're lucky enough to have excellent natural light, that's obviously a plus. The micro-style shots of shade-loving plants or animals shot by flash would never be accepted.
However, it's why I bought a camera in the first place (a second hand film camera with a second hand 500mm mirror lens ::)) and I haven't lost my love for wildlife, despite the obvious frustrations. I just need to get better!
Good luck, and put in the hours.
-
" it's worth selling them to micros."
Well, they'll never sell, so I don't now if that's worth it or not.
rofl ;D
-
My images were accepted on SS last night, so I'll let you know if they will bring some sales. Thank you all for the replies, especially ShadySue and Mantis, who were really trying to help. Tavi
-
My images were accepted on SS last night, so I'll let you know if they will bring some sales. Thank you all for the replies, especially ShadySue and Mantis, who were really trying to help. Tavi
Good luck. Please do post any sales you get from these, if you don't mind.
-
However, it's why I bought a camera in the first place (a second hand film camera with a second hand 500mm mirror lens ::))
Hmmmm .... doughnuts! Time was when people lapped them up! ;D
-
However, it's why I bought a camera in the first place (a second hand film camera with a second hand 500mm mirror lens ::))
Hmmmm .... doughnuts! Time was when people lapped them up! ;D
I never liked the doughnuts and very quickly moved to a 75-300mm which was seldom long enough ...
-
However, it's why I bought a camera in the first place (a second hand film camera with a second hand 500mm mirror lens ::))
Hmmmm .... doughnuts! Time was when people lapped them up! ;D
I never liked the doughnuts and very quickly moved to a 75-300mm which was seldom long enough ...
I wonder if the stock inspectors could digest some doughnuts these days. They're different but that doesn't make them wrong.
-
However, it's why I bought a camera in the first place (a second hand film camera with a second hand 500mm mirror lens ::))
Hmmmm .... doughnuts! Time was when people lapped them up! ;D
I never liked the doughnuts and very quickly moved to a 75-300mm which was seldom long enough ...
I wonder if the stock inspectors could digest some doughnuts these days. They're different but that doesn't make them wrong.
Maybe someone could declare them 'trendy', like the lens flares they seem to love which I dislike intensely.
-
" it's worth selling them to micros."
Well, they'll never sell, so I don't now if that's worth it or not.
You might know, what you are talking about, and you might be right, but it is stil an unnecessary rude and hurtfull answer.
-
The coots can be changed into a concept, Like chasing something, a carrot or a gold coin or something better. They can easily be isolated and ½ birds can be cloned out and their monodirectional movement can be used in many conceptual images. Even in an innovative way.
-
A possible problem with your birds is that when viewed by an average American, they might be perceived undernourished.
The trick is to shoot animals with which the buyer can identify. Here is an image of a healthy Canada Goose specimen, suitable equally well for a Sunday dinner table or contemporary stock:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=116377882 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=116377882)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/124399/116377882/stock-photo-canada-goose-116377882.jpg)</img>
-
A possible problem with your birds is that when viewed by an average American, they might be perceived undernourished.
!!!!!!!!!!!
(my keyboard has stuck) 8)
Do Americans eat coots and/or swans?
-
A possible problem with your birds is that when viewed by an average American, they might be perceived undernourished.
!!!!!!!!!!!
(my keyboard has stuck) 8)
Do Americans eat coots and/or swans?
I was once served a combination of a domestic (on the fatty side) and wild (dry) goose with the resulting fat content approaching quite acceptable levels, and found it delicious.
-
After almost 24 hours, no sales on those shots:-(
And if they miss the start at SS, they are dead. Anyway, my new images don't sell well at all. My good sellers are by the time I had less than 500 images. Now with 1500+, no new big sellers...
-
25,000 swans on SS. Much better odds than tomatoes.
-
A possible problem with your birds is that when viewed by an average American, they might be perceived undernourished.
!!!!!!!!!!!
(my keyboard has stuck) 8)
Do Americans eat coots and/or swans?
I was once served a combination of a domestic (on the fatty side) and wild (dry) goose with the resulting fat content approaching quite acceptable levels, and found it delicious.
Goose yes, but coots and swans? Can't be done here. Coots and swans are protected; plus all swans belong to the Queen, except those which have been swan-upped (they used to be eated at banquets).
(getting OT, sorry)
-
After almost 24 hours, no sales on those shots:-(
And if they miss the start at SS, they are dead. Anyway, my new images don't sell well at all. My good sellers are by the time I had less than 500 images. Now with 1500+, no new big sellers...
What's the chance someone woke up this morning and decided randomly, "I want a picture of a swan and/or coot on ice"?
-
A possible problem with your birds is that when viewed by an average American, they might be perceived undernourished.
!!!!!!!!!!!
(my keyboard has stuck) 8)
Do Americans eat coots and/or swans?
I was once served a combination of a domestic (on the fatty side) and wild (dry) goose with the resulting fat content approaching quite acceptable levels, and found it delicious.
Goose yes, but coots and swans? Can't be done here. Coots and swans are protected; plus all swans belong to the Queen, except those which have been swan-upped (they used to be eated at banquets).
(getting OT, sorry)
Susan, in absence of Queen, there are several USA states and Canadian provinces that allow limited swan and coot hunting.
Attached is an excerpt from the Manitoba Hunting guide that you can consult when planning your next trip to Canada.
Just imagine, you could get very saleable pictures Before and After.
-
I'll give that a miss.
-
That's fully understandable. I also find the hunting permit prices outrageous. Almost as bad as the new Adobe CC subscription fees.
-
So, I sold the coots, but a different image with the same birds. Only 0.33:-(
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/944650/165526154/stock-photo-flock-of-coots-fulica-atra-walking-on-frozen-surface-of-the-lake-165526154.jpg)
-
So, I sold the coots, but a different image with the same birds. Only 0.33:-(
Congratulations to your sale! Looking at the clock, I'm guessing it was an European or Australian buyer.
At 33 cents for the flock, it works out to about 4 cents per bird. If those coots were a little bit plumper, they might bring more to the table.
Slightly, off topic - a few days ago, I spoke with two colleagues, who recently returned from a month-long trip to SW Florida, and they both reported a very noticeable decrease of the waterbirds both in the conservation areas and on the beaches. One of them is suspecting an increasing numbers of raccoons who are very adept at raiding the bird nests.
In USA and in Canada, every year millions of honey bees and butterflies perish, most likely due to the agricultural pesticides. I believe that in Europe there is a ban on some of those pesticides, but not on this continent. Whatever kills the bees, it would affect also other insects and indirectly many birds.
Any other theories?
-
This past year I noticed an increase here in honey bees, The last few years before a dramatic decrease. Not scientific, just my own observations. I'm in upstate western New York. I know, off topic to the OP.
-
So, I sold the coots, but a different image with the same birds. Only 0.33:-(
That's a nice photo. :)
Could have been worse, if you'd been a newbie over there.
-
Thank you ShadySue.
-
So, I sold the coots, but a different image with the same birds. Only 0.33:-(
Why the sad face? It's not like that will be the only time that it ever sells. Even if it was, you're still 0.33 richer than before it was licensed.
-
You are right, I should smile. I'm sad because my last images don't sell well or don't sell at all. Even though I uploaded more in the last months, and my acceptance rate is about 90% now, they seem to be non commercial. At the beginning it was under 50, and the new files sold better. And is not so long ago.
-
It won't sell on micro. You can possibly earn few cents with it, but it's not worth an effort, and it will not cover the production costs, unless you have very easy access to some good wildlife location. Wildlife is not popular topic for microstock buyers. If you want to shoot wildlife focus on high quality and try some specialised agencies, but competition is very tough nowdays. I sell wildlife through french agency biosphoto, but have been with them too short to tell if it is profitable. The other way how to make profit with such pictures is direct contact with customers, but again the competion is hard.
-
Thanks Salparadis. Can I upload there for submission images that are already on micros? Cause i can't find the terms for contrubutors.
-
I'm sad because my last images don't sell well or don't sell at all.
they seem to be non commercial.
you are aware of it, and yet you are annoyed at sean's funny comment stating the obvious..
no reason to be annoyed on people's comments.. they are only helpful if you look at it the right way.. and trust me, sean's comment will be more helpful to you, if you one day become a great seller..
I laughed at his comment because it was very well said, with great timing :) because you came and started a thread that sounds arrogant when you look at the title..
is it worth selling these on micros may be read as "is it worth selling these great images on worthless micros"..
at least that's how it sounded to me.. and since the images aren't really as good as thread title implies, the answer was spot on..
-
I'm sorry if you read it like this. I'm not a native speaker so maybe I didn't put it the right way. If that is the case, I apologise.
I was not annoyed by sean's comment.
I didn't say they are great images
...and I said all my new images aren't selling well, even the type that was selling a year ago lets say.
-
is it worth selling these on micros may be read as "is it worth selling these great images on worthless micros"..
at least that's how it sounded to me.. and since the images aren't really as good as thread title implies, the answer was spot on..
I didn't infer that at all.
It's clearly all in the interpretation.
I interpreted it as "is there any point in trying to sell these images on micros?".
-
is it worth selling these on micros may be read as "is it worth selling these great images on worthless micros"..
at least that's how it sounded to me.. and since the images aren't really as good as thread title implies, the answer was spot on..
I didn't infer that at all.
It's clearly all in the interpretation.
I interpreted it as "is there any point in trying to sell these images on micros?".
I thought the same.