pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rare Bird Photo. Where to sell ?  (Read 5416 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2014, 14:56 »
0
Not sure how scarce photos of this vulture are but they seem common on some nature sites

http://www.arkive.org/indian-vulture/gyps-indicus/image-G12929.html


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2014, 15:04 »
0
Arkive was started specifically to house photos of rare species, and that remains their specialty, though now you can get very common species there too.
However, there are very strict rules on how the free, low-res, files from the site can be used - an excellent model of how free files can work pro bono and for the contributors benefit. A lot of really Big Name wildlife photographers have images on Arkive.

ShadySue

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2014, 15:39 »
0
Maybe this site?

http://images.sciencesource.com/search?function=query&gallery=8&key=Indian+Vulture


Interesting. I wonder how well that site sells. Surprisingly, I notice it doesn't have any pics of some localised species I just searched for.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 07:03 by ShadySue »

« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2014, 23:48 »
0
Folks, when I was 10 years old and I looked up in the sky I could see a thousand of these vulture in any direction. This photo of 2007 was acquired after a train journey, 3 bus journeys and then a boat. It's the passenger pigeon story all over again.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2014, 00:34 »
0
A rare bird photo should be sold as RM and not RF. It is unlikely to get many sales but if someone does want it, there will probably be few photos to choose from. Therefore they should be forced to pay a decent amount for such a photo. This kind of photo is wasted on micro. Leave micro for very popular animals that sell over and over.

Can you suggest RM agencies, other than Alamy, mentioned above, which would accept one image?

Yes sorry, that is indeed the problem, finding where to put it. It's wasted in Alamy, so perhaps a science/nature type agency like the suggested link above

« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2014, 07:17 »
0
Sciencesource is good but very low alexa ranking. What is the best place for wildlife shots, besides Getty. Any wildlife photographers still reading the thread ? Shadysue you are exclusive to IS with your wildlife stock ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2014, 08:09 »
0
Honestly, if you say it wouldn't be accepted on SS, it wouldn't be accepted on any of the serious specialists. Like I said, most of them require at least 100/200 to get started, of species or behaviours they don't have already on their files, and lots require a commitment of so many new files in a certain period, like 100/3 months, or whatever.

I'm exclusive for RF on iStock, you can't opt out certain genres, and I sell RM on Alamy, but my sales are low there (I don't have much wildlife there).

I had a look at that ScienceSouce site's submission guidelines and contract, and they were very vague, though you had to direct them to a 'portfolio', which I'm guessing would be more than 'a few'.
I wouldn't worry one iota about its Alexa rank. There is hardly likely to be a flood of new people visiting specialist wildlife agencies. If they're any good, they'll be targetting only the specialised buyers, responding to want lists etc. They do say they send out lists of what's wanted.

I do see a lot of the UK specialist magazines. A lot of the articles are either written and photographed by the same person, providing a package, or a writer and photographer have collaborated on an article.
The bloke I mentioned before mostly submits directly to magazines (the strict ones that have to see the RAW file). I don't know if he writes, submits on spec, or if he is commissioned to take photos to illustrate already-commissioned articles. I have seen his pics published, but never anything he might have written.
I have to say also that a lot of these (not all) are published by wildlife charities and their photos are donated or bequeathed (they don't go out of date!) by supporters or taken by staff.

« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2014, 08:45 »
+2
Sciencesource is good but very low alexa ranking. What is the best place for wildlife shots, besides Getty. Any wildlife photographers still reading the thread ?

Well, I'm a wildlife specialist (North American birds, beasts & bugs) reading this thread. But I don't have any better advice than what you've already received. My images sell reasonably well (considering it's a crowded niche) on Shutterstock and Dreamstime, and I also have my own Symbiostock site.

Like you, I've photographed some extremely rare birds, such as the Mangrove Cuckoo. Birders travel great distances in hopes of catching a glimpse of this elusive life-list bird, and I managed to see and photograph two of them together this spring in Florida.

Were my images of those two cuckoos skulking around in the mangroves good enough, I could make my fortune on them. Unfortunately, I never got a clean shot. Those images just aren't very good, so I haven't submitted them anywhere.

If a critter shot isn't high quality, it's not likely to sell no matter how rare the subject.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 08:50 by marthamarks »

« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2014, 12:51 »
0
Thanks everybody, for all your helpful suggestions. I will upload the gyps on IS. On another note, I just wrote pied cuckoo on SS. HA, gotcha ! My shot is a 100 times better than the lone one on SS :) Though I don't think it's gonna sell a lot :) Not like there is a huge demand for pied cuckoos :)

« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2014, 14:08 »
0
On another note, I just wrote pied cuckoo on SS. HA, gotcha ! My shot is a 100 times better than the lone one on SS :) Though I don't think it's gonna sell a lot :) Not like there is a huge demand for pied cuckoos :)


I never heard of a Pied Cuckoo, so I Googled it. Here's the page of photos that turned up:

http://bit.ly/1n9Y3fu

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2014, 16:36 »
0
Likewise for Mangrove Cuckoo: http://tinyurl.com/p6jg2th

Getting anything unique is just about impossible nowadays.

« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2014, 17:02 »
0
Likewise for Mangrove Cuckoo: http://tinyurl.com/p6jg2th

Getting anything unique is just about impossible nowadays.

Quite right. Which is why I shoot wildlife for the pure joy of it. Yep, I confess to being one of those infamous "hobbyists" (ie, retired after decades of doing some other job) that the "pros" around here get huffy about. ;D

Looking at that page of Mangrove Cuckoo shots, I found a few that look exactly like mine. I take too much pride in my work to publish something like that in my name, even for an extremely rare species.

ShadySue

« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2014, 17:09 »
+1
Likewise for Mangrove Cuckoo: http://tinyurl.com/p6jg2th
Getting anything unique is just about impossible nowadays.

Quite right. Which is why I shoot wildlife for the pure joy of it. Yep, I confess to being one of those infamous "hobbyists" (ie, retired after decades of doing some other job) that the "pros" around here get huffy about. ;D

I'm sure most wildlife photographers do it for the love of it - they need the 'day job' to fund the equipment!

« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2014, 17:39 »
0
I'm sure most wildlife photographers do it for the love of it - they need the 'day job' to fund the equipment!

Amen to that! You surely don't recoup the cost of a 400/500/600mm lensnot to mention cameras, tripods, and travel expensesfrom SS subscription sales.

ShadySue

« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2014, 18:17 »
0
Looking at that page of Mangrove Cuckoo shots, I found a few that look exactly like mine. I take too much pride in my work to publish something like that in my name, even for an extremely rare species.
Guess we won't be seeing any of your work on #wildphotofail:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSpringwatch/posts/654589081301270

« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2014, 18:34 »
0
Guess we won't be seeing any of your work on #wildphotofail:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSpringwatch/posts/654589081301270
LOL!!! Nope. I have made plenty of shots exactly like those, Sue, but they quickly disappear into the trash. Not quite sure what the point of that page is, but...

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2014, 18:42 »
0
Guess we won't be seeing any of your work on #wildphotofail:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCSpringwatch/posts/654589081301270
LOL!!! Nope. I have made plenty of shots exactly like those, Sue, but they quickly disappear into the trash. Not quite sure what the point of that page is, but...
Springwatch is a very popular UK TV programme and they have little fun items in their Springwatch Unsprung 'loose-format' programme afterwards.


Shelma1

« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2014, 20:23 »
+1
That FB page is too funny. Love it!

« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2014, 20:38 »
0
That FB page is too funny. Love it!
You got that right, Shelma! And here I thought all my blurry outtakes had no possible use. Shows what I know.

« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2014, 23:52 »
0
Slightly off topic but thought you'd appreciate this:
Last weekend we were at the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn. There were some amazing birds (captive of course) and I got a really beautiful photo of a bird I'd never seen or heard of before. So I'd be able to recall what it was, I decided to take a photo of the wooden sign with the name and picture of the bird on it. And when I did, I noticed that the photo on the sign was  shutterstock!   8)




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4032 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 12:59
by RacePhoto
54 Replies
18237 Views
Last post June 15, 2010, 02:52
by RacePhoto
11 Replies
2972 Views
Last post October 25, 2012, 02:25
by 7Horses
0 Replies
1044 Views
Last post September 15, 2015, 10:56
by 60D
16 Replies
1555 Views
Last post September 27, 2019, 06:57
by Lola Ginabrigeta

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results