Creative Microstock Photographers,

Since my new nature stock agency is in its infancy, I am asking for your input as to the creative aspect of "nature" images.  My desire is to have a nature stock agency unlike SS, IS, DT and the others.  It is still going to be an RF agency, with similar pricing, but better commissions (50%), but, it will be a boutique with limited photographers (50 to 100, haven't decided yet).  The official name, according to my attorney is PureNatureStock, LLC.

Now, what exactly is a Nature Image, in YOUR opinion?   

Could we be successful with a site that refuses to allow a beautiful barn in an open field of yellow flowers?  What if a person was using a cellphone next to a huge waterfall?  How about a pair of binoculars to look at a bear?  (What's the difference?)  Are people in nature acceptable? (are people natural?)  How about log cabins in the Great Smoky Mountains?

Clearly wildlife of all sorts will be acceptable, but what if a bear is stealing food from a picnic table at a state park.  Is that a nature image?  Do you see my quandry?

I don't want to make this site so restricting that it is boring to buyers.  How many pretty landscapes and flowers do we need?  At the same time, I don't want to lose the legitimate business of those looking for a guy using his laptop in the park, OR turn buyers away who are looking for pure nature.

I really need your help in deciding these issues.  I will be drawing on you as photographers, and you know what you think a Nature image is. I want to know YOUR thoughts.  My agency title says a lot.  (www.PureNatureStock.com)  Now, please help me figure out what is really nature!

Warm Regards,
Digital Darrell
www.PureNatureStock.com

The word nature, in the sense that we are discussing, means naturally occurring (and not man-made).

So I would be inclined to think that generic nature photography would include scenes that were either all natural (100%) or predominantly natural (>75%).

An example of an all natural scene would be of an animal in its natural habitat (such as a lion on the Serengeti).

An example of a predominantly natural scene might be of a hawk sitting on a wooden fence.  Or a barn/house surrounded by forest/mountains.

In your case, you are calling your stock site PureNatureStock.  IMO, the word pure means 100%, so I would think that you would only want pure nature shots.

But I think that it all comes down to your target audience.  Who do you expect to be your buyers?  Will they be looking for 100% nature shots, or do they want nature interacting with man-made objects?

Some other questions that could be posed (along this same train of thought) would be:

- Are humans a part of nature?  IMO, yes.

- Are animals captured in a zoo OK?  Or does the animal have to be caught in its natural environment?

Since my new nature stock agency is in its infancy, I am asking for your input as to the creative aspect of "nature" images.  My desire is to have a nature stock agency unlike SS, IS, DT and the others.  It is still going to be an RF agency, with similar pricing, but better commissions (50%), but, it will be a boutique with limited photographers (50 to 100, haven't decided yet).  The official name, according to my attorney is PureNatureStock, LLC.

Now, what exactly is a Nature Image, in YOUR opinion?

If you want to differentiate your site from the other agencies you cited, you have to stick with the choice of your name.

For me, a nature image is only associated without interference from the civilized world.  Or, the interference would be to enhance the natural beauty of a place without noticing the human intervention.
Even though humans are part of nature, I wouldn't put any.
Animals in their natural environment would be good.  Animals in a zoo wouldn't.

That's what I would expect from a site with such title.

If you think that it's too limited, then don't be frustrated from the very start, and change the site name.  Although if you do that, then with luck you'll become 'like SS, IS, DT and the others'...

Pixart,

Yeah, I know what you mean about the bride pic.  I deleted about 200 images this morning that were not nature stock.  Some of the images on my site are still under discussion, and this thread will help me decide what to do with them.

As to the number of photographers, that is up in the air.  I do not want thousands of photographers, even though that might mean more money for my company.  I want my photographers to have an opportunity to make some money.  If I limit the number of photographers, and find good productive ones, then they should be able to make more money than with most other sites.  Like I said, I am unsure what to do along this line, and it is part of my evolving business plan options.  I'll have all this pinned down before the LLC is finally approved in the next month or so.  Don't worry about the number...maybe I'll leave it open for a while and see where it naturally settles.  I certainly don't want to become another huge impersonal giant corporate agency with tiny commissions, and little concern for individual photographers.   I guess I'm a Mom & Pop store kind of guy, in a world full of Wal-Mart superstores.

As to commissions, I have priced the site at a similar rate to IS, with much higher commissions.  Do you think a higher rate is justified for basically RF stock?  What if an image is on another site, and the price is lower, why buy it at PNS for more?  Are you saying I would be better off getting exclusive photographers and charging like a prime boutique while only accepting exclusive images?

The RF non-exclusivity is the reason I have prices my general stock at competitive prices to IS, DT, and FT.  Here is my pricing again:

$10.00 for 12+ Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$8.00 for 8-10 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$6.00 for 6-7 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$4.00 for 3-5 Megapixel Full-Size JPEG
$3.00 - 1024 pixels wide Web-sized Large
$2.00 - 800 pixels wide Web-sized Medium
$1.00 - 400 pixels wide Web-sized Small

Anyway, back to the discussion at hand.  What is a nature shot?  You feel a bear stealing food is a good nature stock shot.  Okay; how about a closeup of a boat, half sunk in the river, half full of leaves? 

DD

I like the idea of a sliding scale by the buyers.

100% nature:
- All macro shots that only contain animals, plants, water, stones etc. no manmade objects
- Any landscape that was not shaped/planted by man (wilderness) whithout hints of the presence of man
- All Astronomical images: eg. extreme sunsets, moonshots 600mm+,
- all animal shots where human presence can not be inferred (zoo without fence or feeding tray, playground, toys)
- ....

75% nature
- cultivated landscape with no humans/machines (cotton fields etc.)
- planted trees, pets whithout owners
- manmade landscape (canals whithout boats or manmade objects)
-.....

50% nature
- people in nature but not the main attraction
- some manmade objects in natural looking environment (barn in woods etc.)
- bacically where human influence and nature are balanced

25% nature
- man is main focus in natural environment (bikers, climbers, silhouetts of people etc)

0% Nature
- examples of destruction of nature, spills etc. it used to be nature

What are you guys thinking?

I like the idea of a sliding scale by the buyers.

100% nature:
...
...
...
0% Nature

What are you guys thinking?

It sounds like a good idea, but I have no idea how it would be implemented.  Who is going to decide how much "nature" is in a photo?  The photographer?  The inspector?

Honestly, even though the site name is PURENatureStock, it would be very difficult to limit the site to nothing but non-human nature images.  I think that humans enjoying nature are a very valid subject.  Backpackers in the mountains, people rappelling down the side of a cliff, a fisherman flyfishing in Alaska, a photographer taking images for his stock agency dreams.

Realistically, absolutely pure nature images are rather static and many designers don't want them.    Most designers are interested in people doing things.  Interacting with animals in nature, enjoying nature, or using nature in some way.  That type of image sells as well as the isolated people with paint specks and smiling business people ready to shake hands.

I can picture that a lot of buyers might be plain sick of using images of supermodels on white backgrounds, and might welcome a few good looking real people enjoying themselves in a natural setting.  Most of my sales on SS and IS are that type of sale.  I sell  fewer absolutely pure nature images, but I guess that is due to the heavy competition for those images.

Let me just say that I am not a purist in the sense that I want to be fanatical about nature being absolutely natural.  We are natural too, and a big part of nature.  I am happiest when I am out taking pictures in the Smoky Mountains.  I feel natural at that time, even though I am laden down with camera bodies and lenses.

What I think are Nature images:

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
3. Man-made structures in beautiful settings.
4. People being humans in various ways, including some technology in natural settings. 
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake.
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach.
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree.

Things which I think are not quite nature images:

1. People up close, posed, doing things artificial like typing on computers in a field of flowers.  (How often do people really do that?)
2. Closeups of man made objects like that same sailboat on the lake, with no natural setting.
3. Children playing sports in a school field.
4. A bear in a cage or zoo with exposed captured habitat.
5. A family having a picnic on a picnic table at a roadside pulloff.

All I am trying to say is that a balance must be reached.  I think being a human in nature and doing the things that humans do is as natural as a Lion eating a Gazelle.

We don't need absolute micromanagement of what is a nature image, do we?  Do you think you can decide what is a nature image, based in part on your experience as a stock photographer?

What type of nature images sell best for you?

DD

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
3. Man-made structures in beautiful settings.
4. People being humans in various ways, including some technology in natural settings. 
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake.
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach.
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree.

I agree 100% with 1, 2, 8.  I disagree 100% with 3 and 6.  About the others, I agree only if the human part has an small importance on the scene and is actually interacting with nature.  A person speaking on a cell phone at the Grand Canyon - NO.  A hiker on a trail - YES.  A photo of a beach with kids on it - YES.  A photo of kids on a beach (kids are the prime subject) - NO.

Regards,
Adelaide

I have to agree with Adelaide.

To me, the answer is fairly clear, if not simple:  A nature image is an image in which the emphasis is the natural world.  Note that this does not exclude people, or even the odd artificial object like a building or car.  But, the point of the picture, its central focus, is nature--flora, fauna, and landscapes that do not prominently feature anything artificial.  Under my definition, then, I would judge the following as "natural" images:

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.  (If the emphasis is on the setting rather than the "things")
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)


The following would not qualify as "natural":
3. Man-made structures in beautiful settings.
4. People being humans in various ways, including some technology in natural settings.

Obviously, no matter what criteria are used to determine if an image qualifies, there will be gray areas.  But, I think that if the emphasis in the photo--the interesting visual elements, the parts that give the photo its character--isn't in some way about flora, fauna, or unspoiled land, then it should not qualify.

I have to agree with Adelaide.

To me, the answer is fairly clear, if not simple:  A nature image is an image in which the emphasis is the natural world.  Note that this does not exclude people, or even the odd artificial object like a building or car.  But, the point of the picture, its central focus, is nature--flora, fauna, and landscapes that do not prominently feature anything artificial.  Under my definition, then, I would judge the following as "natural" images:

1. Beautiful places of the earth.
2. Beautiful animals enjoying life.
5. Things people have made in natural settings, such as a sailboat on a lake.  (If the emphasis is on the setting rather than the "things")
6. A bride and groom kissing next to lovely lake. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
7. Children playing in the surf on the beach. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
8. A lion eating a gazelle.  (Gross but natural)
9. A family having a picnic under a beautiful oak tree. (depending on how much a part of the photo the setting would comprise)
...
Obviously, no matter what criteria are used to determine if an image qualifies, there will be gray areas.  But, I think that if the emphasis in the photo--the interesting visual elements, the parts that give the photo its character--isn't in some way about flora, fauna, or unspoiled land, then it should not qualify.

I must say I agree with you Professor!   "A nature image is an image in which the emphasis is the natural world."  That sums my feelings up pretty well. 

Emphasis is the keyword here.  Emphasizing nature in all its forms.  Hopefully leaving few things out over time.  I relish leaving behind model/property releases and creating beautiful artistic pure nature images.  But, I also like shooting pics of cute kids doing things like swimming in a mountain river, and friends looking up at a huge redwood tree.  If people using nature are not valid natural images, why do they sell so well?

Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?

I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin.  To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature.

Nice shot by the way!

Shutterstock also accepts Vector Art which is certainly not created with a "Shutter."

Dreamstime is not a site full of dreamy images.

StockXpert does not have images full of expert created stock, nor are the stock experts or they would be selling more than they do.

So... PureNatureStock can feature natural images of all sorts, including people and things in natural settings. 

So why not name it NatureStock.com instead of PureNatureStock? I think the "pure nature" give a lot of emphasis in something that is not the only focus of the site. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: DigitalDarrell on February 27, 2007, 17:15

Is this a "nature" image, in your opinion?

I would have to say that it is not a nature shot, since the subject is the log cabin.  To me, the picture is of a log cabin surrounded by nature.

Nice shot by the way!

So, you would say the cabin is a "natural" shot, but not a "nature" shot?