Sure it would demonstrate tension.  You can see the water clinging to the straw as well as to the sides of the glass. 

Woops, I stand corrected. Though it's not as dramatic as my image in regards to demonstrating these scientific principles. Sure, my photo may not have the same level of interest or appeal to everyone. We're all individuals with different tastes and you can't please everyone. Though I will say one thing - in all my 20+ years of photography, I can't recall ever being as lucky as I was with this image.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 06, 2017, 04:53

The BBC doesn't necessarily pay high prices

No surprises there. The BBC once contacted me through youtube - asking me if they could use one of my videos for a childrens TV show. They wanted the footage for free. Not only that but they wanted me to sign away my rights to the footage to them. Glad I didn't do business with them on that occasion. And that's not an isolated incident. Ive heard of other instances of the BBC asking other people for free use of their footage. And on those occasions, the video shooters rightfully refused.

I would say no on principle too, although in this case you could well end up making a lot more than through a micro sale thanks to DACS...

you could well end up making a lot more than through a micro sale thanks to DACS...

Is that the British Journal of Photography? I'll have to look more into them.

how does 'other people having seen the image' dispute the possibility that 'it isn't really as interesting as you think it is'?

Interesting to who? Interest is subjective. The image is interesting to me as it is to the other people I have shown it to. Therefore it's likely that it will be interesting to other people too. Though it may not hold the same level of interest for everybody as we all have different tastes and preferences. Like I said, you can't please everyone. We're all individuals.

By the way, despite being an avid reader of photography books and magazines for a number of years, I haven�t come across too many images like mine. I do have two books which each feature a very similar kind of image � one of those being a very nice example. Even a google image search didn�t find too many of these kinds of images. And I couldn�t find any such image in the Science Photo Library (yes there were photographs in there that demonstrated surface tension but nothing like mine.) So what I have produced is certainly not common.

And regarding refraction, there is certainly nothing unique about how it's portrayed here but what i think makes it rather special, in my opinion, is that the refraction is temporary, or momentary. The refraction in this image only existed for a fraction of a second (resulting from a disturbance in the surface tension.) It was impossible to see this in real time and I just happened to trip the shutter at the right moment.

I could be wrong but just having one good image isn't going to get you accepted anywhere.  I'd put it on Alamy as RM and see what happens.

That sounds like the sensible thing to do. I'm not a member of Alamy as yet but Ive heard some good things about them. Out of curiosity, would Alamy have any issues with selling potentially similar images on microstock sites? I do have a few other images from the same photo session and I'm not sure if they would be considered similar or not for their purposes (though they are similar in some ways.) The subject is the same and the location is the same (black background) and I guess the framing is sort of similar. Though the others don't have the kind of surface tension disturbance or the refraction elements that I mentioned.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on April 06, 2017, 14:01

you could well end up making a lot more than through a micro sale thanks to DACS...

Is that the British Journal of Photography? I'll have to look more into them.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on April 06, 2017, 18:15

how does 'other people having seen the image' dispute the possibility that 'it isn't really as interesting as you think it is'?

Interesting to who? Interest is subjective. The image is interesting to me as it is to the other people I have shown it to. Therefore it's likely that it will be interesting to other people too. Though it may not hold the same level of interest for everybody as we all have different tastes and preferences. Like I said, you can't please everyone. We're all individuals.

By the way, despite being an avid reader of photography books and magazines for a number of years, I haven�t come across too many images like mine. I do have two books which each feature a very similar kind of image � one of those being a very nice example. Even a google image search didn�t find too many of these kinds of images. And I couldn�t find any such image in the Science Photo Library (yes there were photographs in there that demonstrated surface tension but nothing like mine.) So what I have produced is certainly not common.

And regarding refraction, there is certainly nothing unique about how it's portrayed here but what i think makes it rather special, in my opinion, is that the refraction is temporary, or momentary. The refraction in this image only existed for a fraction of a second (resulting from a disturbance in the surface tension.) It was impossible to see this in real time and I just happened to trip the shutter at the right moment.

I think you might find the problem you will have is getting visibility among the millions of images. If the image really is exceptional maybe you could approach scientific journals etc? In the same way that if I were a less moral person if I had a pic of a celebrity in an embarrassing position I would probably go to the newspapers rather than putting it up for general sale ;-)

I got a book a while back called "photographers market" it lists thousands of publications and what they are looking for I never really pursued that route.....you've reminded me perhaps I should.

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on April 06, 2017, 03:04

I don't see that the BBC has any holding on this company yes they use them but it's an independent limited company

I guess I'm mistaken, I read that somewhere a while back.

No youre quite right once they did own it but today its an independent agency. They do buy a lot from them though.

I did another google image search using different keywords and this time, I found some additional photos that are similar to my image. But not a whole lot more. Still not a lot of this sort of imagery on google. I also did a search on Shutterstock and Dreamstime and although they had a fair number of images that demonstrated surface tension, there was nothing like mine. Overall, there seems to be a bit of a shortage with these kinds of photos.

That of course depends on demand for them...it sounds like quite an esoteric subject. If you do a searchg  dreamtimes you can identify roughly  how many times images were downloaded by price level to give a rough idea of popularity.

Hi guys,
I have been working with Science Photo Library for almost 2 years and I am satisfied with results, so you definetely should try it. I have two accounts there - with exlusive images, where I get 50% from sales, and with non-exclusive images, which I also submit to many other microstocks, and I have 40% from sales. They sell images not only themselves but submit them to many partners, including even Shutterstock (offset collection) and Fotolia, and if you also submit there, you should tell them not to submit there, to avoid double submission. Because of so many partners earnings also vary a lot, from near 0.5 pounds to 200 pounds per image. But I submit images as RF, you may select 'rights managed' and prices would be higher.

How about only submit to site where you can set your own price like Pond5 and MotionElements.

With specialist subjects it's probably more important to submit to sites where buyers of that specialist material are likely to look than it is to be able to set your own price.