pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: is it worth selling these images on micro?  (Read 12337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 01, 2013, 17:19 »
0
   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.







Ron

« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2013, 17:28 »
-3
LOL, this has to be a wind up, no?  :D

« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2013, 21:07 »
0
   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.







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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2013, 21:10 by Mantis »

« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2013, 22:08 »
+3
" it's worth selling them to micros."

Well, they'll never sell, so I don't now if that's worth it or not.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 08:30 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 09:02 by ShadySue »

« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2013, 08:40 »
0
" 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

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2013, 03:16 »
+1
   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
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 05:43 by tavi »

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2013, 08:22 »
+1
   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.

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2013, 11:18 »
0
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

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2013, 11:20 »
0
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 ...

« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2013, 11:25 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2013, 12:19 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2013, 15:28 »
+8
" 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.

« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2013, 15:31 »
+1
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 birds can be cloned out and their monodirectional movement can be used in many conceptual images. Even in an innovative way.

« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2013, 16:51 »
0
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

</img>
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 03:41 by LesPalenik »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2013, 17:03 »
0
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?

« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2013, 17:10 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 17:15 by LesPalenik »


« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2013, 17:15 »
-1
  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...

« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2013, 17:19 »
+1
25,000 swans on SS. Much better odds than tomatoes.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2013, 17:22 »
0
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)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2013, 17:36 »
+1
  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"?

« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2013, 18:17 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 18:24 by LesPalenik »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2013, 18:32 »
0
I'll give that a miss.

« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2013, 19:09 »
0
That's fully understandable. I also find the hunting permit prices outrageous. Almost as bad as the new Adobe CC subscription fees.

« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2013, 02:34 »
+3
   So, I sold the coots, but a different image with the same birds. Only 0.33:-(




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
54 Replies
21649 Views
Last post June 26, 2009, 16:29
by madelaide
13 Replies
5824 Views
Last post August 24, 2011, 11:41
by PixelsAway
4 Replies
3084 Views
Last post November 02, 2013, 01:59
by adrian3008
0 Replies
1853 Views
Last post November 01, 2013, 13:11
by adrian3008
42 Replies
12764 Views
Last post February 10, 2014, 12:43
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors