Author Topic: Is there any place for art in microstock? (Read 5518 times)

archibald1221 · « **on:** July 22, 2012, 04:10 »

hello,
One of my friend's hobby is photography. It is quite original type of photography he is doing because he is taking photos while flying with motor hang-glider (he is pilot himself). Those photos are really beautiful and artistic.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564032/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564142/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564286/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564398/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564534/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564646/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564790/#in/photostream

This photographer is currently interested in opportunity to start doing microstock . But he doubts about his photos potential in microstock because it is totally different then usual stock photos. I am vector artist so i couldn't give him much good advices. It would be great to hear opinion from photographers. What do you think about these photos? Is it worth to start seriously working in microstock agencies with this kind of photos?

wut · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2012, 04:22 »

No way. I'd try macro

.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:20 »

They might do well on the micros, but micros do tend to be about pixel perfect technical quality, which we can't judge from these small photos.
Macro might be worth a try if the IQ is good enough, or there's the Flickr/Getty scheme. But all require high technical quality. Some of these pictures, beautiful as they are, might get an 'overfiltered' rejection at some outlets.
Good luck to your friend.

Difydave · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:40 »

Yes, great images but no one will be able to make any real comment without seeing a couple of them full sized. (watermarked for safety if you do)
There's no exif with them, but if your friend shot them just as jpegs on the 350D using full auto, with the light levels in most of these shots they will be noisy by today's standards.

archibald1221 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2012, 05:59 »

Thank You for Your advices. I will try to contact him and get full size photos. He also mentioned that he has some doubts about technical quality of these photos and that it can be too low for microstock standarts...But anyway i think it is worth at least to try... As i've heard Fotolia and Istockphoto has most strict requirements for photos. So if it passes there - it should be accepted everywhere else.

Difydave · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:15 »

I don't really know what happens anywhere else apart from iStock, but before he'll be able to contribute there he'll have to pass their application process which is to submit three photographs of different types of subjects for assessment.
That's three completely different types incidentally. For instance, a portrait, a still life and a landscape.
Putting in three of these aerial shots would most likely result in a request for different types.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2012, 06:42 »

I wouldn't all those "art" anymore or less than any of the myriad of other landscapes and aerials already out there. Luckily (for your friend), you can judge performance of those by the site numbers.

Wim · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2012, 07:16 »

Quote from: archibald1221 on July 22, 2012, 04:10

hello,
One of my friend's hobby is photography. It is quite original type of photography he is doing because he is taking photos while flying with motor hang-glider (he is pilot himself). Those photos are really beautiful and artistic.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564032/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564142/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564286/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564398/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564534/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564646/#in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59367401@N02/7620564790/#in/photostream

This photographer is currently interested in opportunity to start doing microstock . But he doubts about his photos potential in microstock because it is totally different then usual stock photos. I am vector artist so i couldn't give him much good advices. It would be great to hear opinion from photographers. What do you think about these photos? Is it worth to start seriously working in microstock agencies with this kind of photos?

Seriously working? no, stock is not just about pretty pictures, that is something most do not get in this business (even reviewers)
He will sell them, might even get by reviewers because they are more forgiving when the images are rare, although Sean mentioned they are not so rare anymore, I haven't checked myself.
The work is beautiful, I love it but he's probably better off on FineArtAmerica then a stock agency. Did he make them available to Getty?
Tell him to do whatever he wants, no harm done in trying, he certainly doesn't require green light from us.

Good luck!

cidepix · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2012, 14:18 »

This is no art

This is the combination of aerial photography + being in the right place at the right time..

archibald1221 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2012, 16:03 »

Quote from: cidepix on July 22, 2012, 14:18

This is no art

This is the combination of aerial photography + being in the right place at the right time..

I wouldn't agree with that

It is not "just being" in the right place - it is choosing right place at the right time and finding beautiful compositions in landscape with your camera...

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2012, 16:31 »

Stunning photos. I'd try to get them in the macro agencies and not bother with microstock for that type of (relatively) rare and difficult to obtain images.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2012, 16:51 »

Might it not be difficult to have photos taken on a 350D accepted onto the macros?

gostwyck · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2012, 17:43 »

If you want to call them 'art' (or anything else) that's fine. Have they got significant sales potential in microstock? Unfortunately not a chance. Aerial images of anything other than major capital cities or tourist hot-spots rarely sell. No matter how good they look there just isn't much of a market for them.

cidepix · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:40 »

Quote from: archibald1221 on July 22, 2012, 16:03

Quote from: cidepix on July 22, 2012, 14:18
This is no art

This is the combination of aerial photography + being in the right place at the right time..

I wouldn't agree with that It is not "just being" in the right place - it is choosing right place at the right time and finding beautiful compositions in landscape with your camera...

Well that's something else, but not "art" in my opinion.. It's not that I want to look down on these images.. They are good looking shots, but I doubt they will even be approved, let alone sell..

Anyone feel free to correct me If I am wrong, but photos MUST first be technically perfect just to be approved.. At least it is the case for vectors..

Let's say they are all technically perfect and approved.. As some others said, I don't believe they have got a big sales potential..

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:50 »

It might be best to try a local agency specialising in that locality. Or maybe an agency that specilialises in that sort of photo (seems unlikely, but when I look at the photo credits in textbooks, there seem to be a log of specialist agencies, which presumably survive on being able to supply specific photos at a decent price, rather than a volume of generic pics cheaply or even moderately. Some of these agencies have been getting credited since the early 80s at least, so aren't disappearing or being subsumed.

However, again, I'm not sure that at 350D would cut it for quality. Don't get me wrong. My first DSLR was a 350D, and if it wasn't for stock, I'd almost certainly still be using it. The bloke who bought it from me uses it at least weekly, in some volume. But my AR went up considerably when I moved on (noise mainly, there aren't many 100ISO days were I live). But maybe the smaller agencies go more for picture quality than pixel-perfection: I don't know.

bunhill · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2012, 05:53 »

If he can do similars to a standard which will pass inspection then a collection of hundreds would definitely begin to have macro potential - especially is he can start to focus on specific details ... traffic on that road, specific crops, specific, weather, specific places etc.

Even just as beautiful pictures this sort of stuff stands a chance of being picked up as the sort of generic, nice but deliberately not-anything, geometric stuff which gets used in e.g. the sorts of brochures which private banks send out about specific investment opportunities. There is quite a demand for pictures which are not about anything specifically and they are harder to source than you might imagine.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2012, 19:59 »

Great images. I think they would fit better in macro agencies. Try Flickr - Getty, as someone have already suggested.

archibald1221 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2012, 03:55 »

Hello again
Here are several full resolution photos of aerial photos. Could anyone make some comment about it's technical quality, please?

https://www.adrive.com/public/yfa7qR/IMG_2884wat.jpg
https://www.adrive.com/public/BRkXYX/IMG_4608wat.jpg
https://www.adrive.com/public/nA37C6/IMG_5297wat.jpg
https://www.adrive.com/public/U4ejAG/IMG_9410wat.jpg

JPSDK · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2012, 04:15 »

They will sell.
They are rare and bright and shiny.

I looked at one in 100% and its not really really sharp enough.
But he could always downsize it or put 4 together in for example "An areal autumn composition)

I can se he is one of thes shapes and colour guys, and he does it well, artistically.

However the pictures would sell MUCH better if they were precise on keyword and concept, like classic stock photos must be.
Now can you imagine how well a nuclear plant taken from above would sell. or a tanker, or a traffic jammed motorway, not to mention a prison.

grp_photo · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2012, 04:27 »

It's okay aerial photography but actually not that great, aerial photography do sell but I doubt this examples will sell on a large scale (they will sell but not that much).

StockBottom · « **Reply #20 on:** August 09, 2012, 09:30 »

sorry this is just aerial photography, not fine-art.

as for sales, i don't think there's any chance to make big sales both on micros and macros, because of the high production costs the few people doing money with these things are working under assignments.

archibald1221 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:03 »

I helped my friend, the photographer to create an account in Fotolia and to upload several photos for review there.... Unfortunately, they all were rejected because of technical problems...

So i guess if he wants to make some money from his photos - he will have to find another way

Anyway, thank You all for Your advices and comments

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:14 »

The best way to make money from them would be to market them locally. There was an enterprising photographer in Scotland decades ago who hired a plane, photographed all the farms and then drove around selling shots of their property to the farmers.

Just displaying them for sale in a local shop might be worthwhile.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is there any place for art in microstock? (Read 5518 times)

archibald1221

wut

ShadySue

Difydave

archibald1221

Difydave

Sean Locke Photography

Wim

cidepix

archibald1221

lisafx

ShadySue

gostwyck

cidepix

ShadySue

bunhill

Konstantin Sutyagin

archibald1221

JPSDK

grp_photo

StockBottom

archibald1221

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors