MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Your images RM v. RF? How do you decide?  (Read 6306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 09, 2008, 16:53 »
0
For those of you who are submitting both to micros and macros.... how do you decide? Do you keep your "best" shots for macros? Or the other way around ("best" shots, if they get picked up in micros can make a lot of $ monthly at micros)?

How about splitting a series? Same subject, different angles/zoom/etc? Same subject but some are clearly better than others? Or do you base decisions based on substance?

Where am I coming from with this? Just spent half a day at Niagara falls today... can't make up my mind about where to upload the images now ;)

 Arghh :) any tips appreciated!


chumley

« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2008, 18:36 »
0
.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2008, 18:23 by chumley »

« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2008, 11:54 »
0
I try to divide my images as following:

Microstock RF:

-no people shots. If I was a model for someone I'd like to know that the images cannot be used forever over and over.
-images with not-so-perfect lightning
-generic, "universal" subjects
-images that are easy to produce very fast, low production value

RM (almost my all macrostock images are RM):

-people shots
-technically good shots with good lighting
-special subjects (they won't sell as microstock anyway)
-"lucky shots" special moments that are hard to capture
-images that are hard to produce, high production value
-editorial photography
-"creative" and "artsy" shots (that would propably be rejected by microstock inspectors anyway :))

What comes to imagery from Niagara falls...
Word "Niagara" returns 4569 images. On iStock there are 466 matches for "Niagara".
It seems like a well covered subject on both sites - that makes it a tough competition.
I'd say you have to have very good images, maybe from some special angle and/or the best light - otherwise the images could only be a waste of time. I'd still post the best images to macro and the b-grade ones to microstock.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 12:26 by Perry »

« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2008, 16:51 »
0
There was a thread about this a few weeks ago.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2008, 17:12 »
0
There was a thread about this a few weeks ago.

Regards,
Adelaide

And there will be more.......different point of view.....different thread....Both are welcome.

« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2008, 21:00 »
0
There was a thread about this a few weeks ago.

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes, I saw it. It was quite short, too, may be one or two replies. Which begged me to raise this issue again hoping to get a broader perspective. Thanks for pointing it out though :)

« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2008, 21:40 »
0
I tried to do a search, I remember there was a thread in which I thought I had also posted, but I did not find it.  I found another two older threads discussing the subject
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3856.0.html
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,4577.0.html

but in neither of them I say more explicitly what I sell as RM when available (which is basically architecture and recognizable landscapes, plus some special images). I wonder if I am confused about the recent thread.  ???

Regards,
Adelaide

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2008, 22:10 »
0
Easy, news, editorial, or if it took allot of work to make one photo, and it might sell once on Macro, that's where it goes. One sale for $100 or more is equal to up to 400 sales on micro for the same payout.

If I had to crop, it's too small to upsize to 48MP, or it's something that would not sell macro, if it's food photo, isolated macro "stuff", or intended for microstock, it gets dumped into Micro, where it will potentially sell for a longer period of time. It's entertaining to create shots just for micro.

This is my personal view: if it's up on Macro, it doesn't go on micro and visa versa. I think I have one similar shot that's both, but one has a person in it and one doesn't, so it's different enough.

I don't see why someone might have the prime shots, full size on macro and some leftovers, minimum size on the micros? I don't do it, but it's not selling the same pictures. Maybe I'm wrong...

« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2008, 10:28 »
0
I try to divide my images as following:

Microstock RF:

-no people shots. If I was a model for someone I'd like to know that the images cannot be used forever over and over.
-images with not-so-perfect lightning
-generic, "universal" subjects
-images that are easy to produce very fast, low production value

RM (almost my all macrostock images are RM):

-people shots
-technically good shots with good lighting
-special subjects (they won't sell as microstock anyway)
-"lucky shots" special moments that are hard to capture
-images that are hard to produce, high production value
-editorial photography
-"creative" and "artsy" shots (that would propably be rejected by microstock inspectors anyway :))

What comes to imagery from Niagara falls...
Word "Niagara" returns 4569 images. On iStock there are 466 matches for "Niagara".
It seems like a well covered subject on both sites - that makes it a tough competition.
I'd say you have to have very good images, maybe from some special angle and/or the best light - otherwise the images could only be a waste of time. I'd still post the best images to macro and the b-grade ones to microstock.


Is that you, Harmon?  8)

To answer the op - I just do it the easy way - my camera's resolution isn't large enough to be able to submit to RM agencies, and it seems the only RM agencies I ever come across don't accept RF shooters anyway!  LOL!

grp_photo

« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2008, 15:35 »
0
Very different work to RF versus RM
RF: stills, graphics, backgrounds etc
RM: people and editorial

« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2008, 16:18 »
0
I try to divide my images as following:

Microstock RF:

-no people shots. If I was a model for someone I'd like to know that the images cannot be used forever over and over.
-images with not-so-perfect lightning
-generic, "universal" subjects
-images that are easy to produce very fast, low production value

RM (almost my all macrostock images are RM):

-people shots
-technically good shots with good lighting
-special subjects (they won't sell as microstock anyway)
-"lucky shots" special moments that are hard to capture
-images that are hard to produce, high production value
-editorial photography
-"creative" and "artsy" shots (that would propably be rejected by microstock inspectors anyway :))

Well said, it is the way I do it.

tan510jomast

« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2008, 16:53 »
0
I try to divide my images as following:

Microstock RF:

-no people shots. If I was a model for someone I'd like to know that the images cannot be used forever over and over.
-images with not-so-perfect lightning
-generic, "universal" subjects
-images that are easy to produce very fast, low production value

RM (almost my all macrostock images are RM):

-people shots
-technically good shots with good lighting
-special subjects (they won't sell as microstock anyway)
-"lucky shots" special moments that are hard to capture
-images that are hard to produce, high production value
-editorial photography
-"creative" and "artsy" shots (that would propably be rejected by microstock inspectors anyway :))

Well said, it is the way I do it.

you mentioned difficult to catch shot.

but something like say "birds" is very common in micro.
but what if it's a lucky shot, like capturing the bird taking off in flight, like really closeup with fine details,etc...
right down to the splash of the water...

would this still be RF? or would it be too restrictive or specific,
and would be wasted in RF.

good topic, i must admit, as it is very informative.

« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2008, 19:45 »
0
Unless it's a pidgeon in a park, or something like that, any specific bird I put on macro (RF or RM). 

Regards,
Adelaide

dullegg

« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2008, 21:22 »
0
Unless it's a pidgeon in a park, or something like that, any specific bird I put on macro (RF or RM). 

Regards,
Adelaide

more please madelaide,
it is to your experience that birds, wildlife ie. ducks,bluejay,etc..
you avoid putting them on micro?
 ???     advice with experience appreciated and welcome!

« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2008, 01:13 »
0
you mentioned difficult to catch shot.

but something like say "birds" is very common in micro.
but what if it's a lucky shot, like capturing the bird taking off in flight, like really closeup with fine details,etc...
right down to the splash of the water...

would this still be RF? or would it be too restrictive or specific,
and would be wasted in RF.

It all depends. If it was a great image of a rare bird taking off in flight it would definitely be RM.

RT


« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2008, 01:49 »
0
If the shot is tough to get and the RM market does not have good representation of the particular subject then a home in RM can be a good choice.

Probably the best formula you'll get.

« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2008, 17:36 »
0
more please madelaide,
it is to your experience that birds, wildlife ie. ducks,bluejay,etc..
you avoid putting them on micro?
 ???     advice with experience appreciated and welcome!

I'm not sure my advice counts so much as I am not very successful in either micro nor macrostock.  ;D  It's just that I don't like to sell such specialized type of photo in microstock.   I'm sure that bald eagles sell a lot in the micros for the USA market, but my bald eagle is not in the micros.  I sold it once, as RF. Didn't make a fortune out of it, but I'm happy. 

We have Ecopics here with an amazing collection of wildlife, and he sells them at micros, and it seems he has good results.  It's more a personal choice.

Regards,
Adelaide


tan510jomast

« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2008, 15:50 »
0
I like this thread to be rejuvenated as I think this is a very valid question
for newbies, and perharps some oldbies too, who are contemplating of
expanding to RM.

To set the balling rolling again, here's something :
what's with festive season photographs? valentine 's day, christmas,
or even the recently past canada day, independence day,etc..

Would you long-time RM submittors stay with RM, or RF?

« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2008, 16:56 »
0
This is a tricky question to answer, since markets vary very much.  For very generic shots, those that are all over many micros and that are very indistinct I would go RF.  For something special, more unique, I would go RM.  The tricky part is that many generic shots still sell as RM, since the buyer may want to have a photo that has some degree of a history in terms of previous buyers, to prevent ending having the same image as a compatitor, as has happened before.  In the end, the more broad rule is that if a shot is unique, rare, or if you want to have control over its usage it should be RM. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
50 Replies
18818 Views
Last post June 11, 2007, 22:12
by a.k.a.-tom
6 Replies
4149 Views
Last post January 23, 2008, 04:06
by sharpshot
43 Replies
10218 Views
Last post August 18, 2011, 01:41
by Shank_ali
4 Replies
2413 Views
Last post September 30, 2018, 20:57
by stockload
23 Replies
4718 Views
Last post January 05, 2021, 08:13
by ravens

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle