MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which ONE company would you contribute to as a newbie?  (Read 18631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 15, 2010, 08:42 »
0
I am brand new to this concept of stock photography.
I have a DSLR, and I love taking pictures of food and most of all my friends and family. Something about food and my loved ones that I just love to shoot.
Anyways, I stumbled upon this micro stock photography phenomenon through the internet and thought maybe I can make some money on all these shots I have.

Thing is, I have a day job that takes a big chunk of my time. (I'm an English teacher). I currently only have enough time to contribute to one company.

So any good advice on what one company I should invest my time on? Like I said, I'm really brand new at this, don't even know if my stuff is worthy of stock! Looked over some other threads and seem to think that istock and shutterstock might not even accept my stuff due to their strict standards?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!


« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2010, 08:52 »
0
I would say Dreamstime, because

* I would have said Shutterstock if you already had experience, but entry exam isn't easy for completely new person
* istockphoto - same issue with entry exam though it's easier with 3 photos
* fotolia - no exam but too unpredictable, not so good learning from being there
* stockxpert - unpredictable future and entry exam though not very difficult
* others - not worth your time

My own first site was istock - but that was in 2005 when I knew nothing about microstock and I didn't know any other site - just found about istock in a forum post.

« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2010, 09:14 »
0
I am brand new to this concept of stock photography.
I have a DSLR, and I love taking pictures of food and most of all my friends and family. Something about food and my loved ones that I just love to shoot.
Anyways, I stumbled upon this micro stock photography phenomenon through the internet and thought maybe I can make some money on all these shots I have.

Thing is, I have a day job that takes a big chunk of my time. (I'm an English teacher). I currently only have enough time to contribute to one company.

So any good advice on what one company I should invest my time on? Like I said, I'm really brand new at this, don't even know if my stuff is worthy of stock! Looked over some other threads and seem to think that istock and shutterstock might not even accept my stuff due to their strict standards?

You have a day job, why worry about this?  Just enjoy your camera and showing your images to your friends and family.  Everyone that gets or has a dslr doesn't have to join a stock site.

« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2010, 09:30 »
0
Don't let Sean discourage you.  This isn't about easy money; to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, microstock is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.  For me, it was about improving my technique and exploring different photographic subjects long before I saw much of a financial return.  If having your images reviewed, first by the gatekeepers at microstock agencies and later by their customers, appeals to you, then jump in.  But be prepared for some ego bruising as you figure out what they want and what you have to do to achieve it.

There are two parts to producing stockworthy images.  The first is getting the technical details right, the second is producing something a client can use.  Find an agency that's more lenient as to subject, and you'll be able to improve the quality of your images while you work out what makes something better stock.  For me Shutterstock is that agency, but I was lucky enough to join before they put the initial evaluation bar in place.  Now I might start elsewhere and then try SS when you've reached a reasonable level of skill.

Good luck.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2010, 09:38 »
0
I 'd suggest to start with one of the major sites which don't require a test (Dreamstime, 123RF, Fotolia) and then try Shutterstock and iStock after a while.

Shutterstock has very good forums with great photographers willing to help so you may as well subscribe right now and then wait a month or so before trying the test.

« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2010, 09:42 »
0
I am brand new to this concept of stock photography.
I have a DSLR, and I love taking pictures of food and most of all my friends and family. Something about food and my loved ones that I just love to shoot.
Anyways, I stumbled upon this micro stock photography phenomenon through the internet and thought maybe I can make some money on all these shots I have.

Thing is, I have a day job that takes a big chunk of my time. (I'm an English teacher). I currently only have enough time to contribute to one company.

So any good advice on what one company I should invest my time on? Like I said, I'm really brand new at this, don't even know if my stuff is worthy of stock! Looked over some other threads and seem to think that istock and shutterstock might not even accept my stuff due to their strict standards?

You have a day job, why worry about this?  Just enjoy your camera and showing your images to your friends and family.  Everyone that gets or has a dslr doesn't have to join a stock site.

i agree with Sean.
to suceed in micro stock is time consuming, and really not so cost effective . not many actually
make money , and many that do, spend almost every hour on it like a full time real estate salesman .

i don't think you can be a hobbyist and "make money" in micro stock, or any stock . you have to do it full time, esp as a newbie in a business where volume is imperative.

if it were not for being a retiree or someone who has lost a job,etc...
i would say the same thing to anyone as well.

it's not the Mr Locke is afraid of competition. he doesn't need to be afraid of competition, he already is a superman with IS. and i say this sincerely.  and really, Mr Locke did not just happen to pick up a camera and la dee da, he is a top seller . he puts in many hours in his work .
compared to Mr. Locke, majority are simply dabblers.


« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2010, 09:43 »
0
If you choose Dreamstimes, be aware that your files while have to stay there for six month.

My selef   I would go for istock, it s were you will learn more from your rejections.

« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2010, 09:47 »
0
well to counter the sticks in the mud... I would say, yes, do try it.  Microstock doesn't have to be a profession for everyone.  That is the whole idea of microstock - that anyone can play.  It is fun and exciting to see your first sales and a much better (and profitable) alternative to giving them away on flickr.

So to answer your question, I would suggest Dreamstime as well.  Dreamstime has fair pricing and a nice site and pretty good sales.

Shutterstock probably offers the best income for non exclusives (fotolia starting to be a close second) but Shutterstock's entry exam is tough to pass if you are new.

iStock is also a obvious choice, but if you are limited with time, the upload process there is a bit time consuming and like MikLav said - they have an entry exam.  


« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2010, 09:48 »
0
If you choose Dreamstimes, be aware that your files while have to stay there for six month.

My selef   I would go for istock, it s were you will learn more from your rejections.

you try get your images through the test at iStock and Shutterstock and if you manage, pick one of those sites.

If you ever decided to go exclusive with a site, iStock would be the logical choice.

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2010, 09:58 »
0
I am also quite new and with a few agencies now. I'd recommend Dreamstime. There is no entry exam, and you learn a lot. Fotolia doesn't have an exam either but the feedback and all other things there are not so explicative.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2010, 10:01 »
0
I'd try Dreamstime also. If you want you can post some of your photos to the Photo Critique section of this forum and get some feedback by some of the photograhers here. It would be a big help so they could tell you what would work and what may not work.

« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2010, 10:03 »
0
I started with fotolia a few months ago, and I find them good because they're very quick at accepting/declining your submissions.  Having said that, their reasons for refusal are less than useless but at least you get to know quickly if you're on the right lines with your work :)

Dreamstime are good too, but slower and only allow a couple of submissions at a time.

Leave IS, SS StockXpert for later (you could do 123 or Bigstock as well)

Stu

« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2010, 10:28 »
0
I just mention this, because it seems a requirement for anyone with a camera to have to go join a site.  It's something that comes up often for discussion often here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/message/5642

There's nothing wrong with _not_ licensing stock images.  It's ok to just enjoy your photography with your friends and family.  I think people read these articles and get swept up in the hype without a second thought.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2010, 10:33 »
0
There are so many sites that claim you can make huge money with microstock. Well unless you can put all your time and spend alot of money at it, and even then you don't make millions, but you could make a decent living but not untill you get a good size portfolio built up so that can take years to do depending on how much time you are able to spend and the content of those photos

« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2010, 10:37 »
0
I just mention this, because it seems a requirement for anyone with a camera to have to go join a site.  It's something that comes up often for discussion often here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/message/5642

There's nothing wrong with _not_ licensing stock images.  It's ok to just enjoy your photography with your friends and family.  I think people read these articles and get swept up in the hype without a second thought.


there's also nothing wrong WITH licensing stock images.

« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2010, 10:48 »
0
You have a day job, why worry about this?  Just enjoy your camera and showing your images to your friends and family.  Everyone that gets or has a dslr doesn't have to join a stock site.

I'd much prefer that you took SJL's excellent advice but if you really want to do microstock then you might as well do it right __ and without question that means Istock.

Yes, Istock's standards might be marginally higher but then there's excellent advice and help available to get you through. In my view if someone can't get themselves accepted at Istock then they are basically wasting their time doing microstock. Your portfolio will almost certainly earn more at Istock than any other two agencies combined too. Of course just getting accepted is no guarantee that your stuff will sell __ that's just the start.

Try a few searches at Istock on the subjects that you like shooting and see how your images compare to both what is selling and, just as important, what is not selling. Most newbies don't appreciate that the hardest thing about 'stock photography' is understanding the 'stock' bit __ when you start to understand 'stock' then you'll realise that the actual photography is relatively easy.

I've been doing microstock for 5 years and I reckon each image uploaded/approved represents about 1.5 hours work (that includes research, buying props, setting-up, shooting, post-processing, keywording and uploading). It consumes much more time than you might expect.

A rough guide to earnings might be $1 per image per month. Therefore if you want to generate $100 per month you'll probably need to put in about 150 hours work to do so. If your images consistently generate significantly more than $1 per image/month then you are exceptionally talented and, given time to build a portfolio, could make your living at microstock.

« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2010, 10:50 »
0
I'd start with IS
- tough entry will test your willing to go to microstock
- most consistent reviews - good for training

Next - SS. It gives very nice bust to earnings.

After you are confident with your wish and skills - extend to other sites, but not DT for now:
- longest waiting period for removal
- strongest dependency approval rate -> sales

Wait for up to one year and see if exclusivity makes sense for you, if you do not want to go with IS only - upload to DT ones that are are approved on both IS and SS

This is scenario _I wish_ I started my journey :)


« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2010, 10:52 »
0
I just mention this, because it seems a requirement for anyone with a camera to have to go join a site.  It's something that comes up often for discussion often here:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/message/5642

There's nothing wrong with _not_ licensing stock images.  It's ok to just enjoy your photography with your friends and family.  I think people read these articles and get swept up in the hype without a second thought.


I totally agree!

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2010, 11:02 »
0
snaphappy....the one most important thing is this....don't get discouraged when you get rejections, don't give up just because of this....you can actually learn from this. Actually after awhile you get use to it because if you are on several sites, some reject and some accept the same image. All sites have their own type of images that sell well. Just don't get discouraged if you are serious about microstock......with time you get better and better and learn from your mistakes

« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2010, 11:06 »
0
there's also nothing wrong WITH licensing stock images.

Ha!  That's also true...

« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2010, 11:13 »
0
I don't want to be a stick in the mud but I also think you should know that unless you are an EXCELLENT photographer, rarely will you be able to pull photos out of your camera and just upload them without any post-processing.

Things to look for are chromatic aberration, noise, discolored pixels, and a few other things that cause rejections of photos. It is also helpful if you have Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom or even Photoshop Elements to do the post-processing with.

Microstock when I started 5 years ago is much different than today. I learned as I went, but it seems like you would have a better chance of succeeding on today's sites if you knew about the above terms and understood post-processing.

Just IMHO. It will cut down on the rejection frustrations!  :)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2010, 11:34 »
0
The standards of the bigger stock agencies have really become picker and picker  over the years and will continue to to do this. You might as well forget those floral shots, those sunset shots unless they really pop out at you. Most of your big 6 if not all reject these because they already have thousands of these type images and won't accept them any more. Just do a search for the type of images that you usually shot and you'll get an idea how many images they have in that catagory

« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2010, 11:41 »
0
I would strongly advise you against picking a site just because you think it'll be easy to get accepted - in the long run this will do you no favors. If you're going to give it a shot - and I see no reason you shouldn't - then start wtih iStock.

I'm now an exclusive but I was an independent for 4 years - I have uploaded to all the major sites (and a few that are no longer around). High standards, a consistent review process and a large volume of buyers are good if you're going to try and build a stock portfolio. Rejections stink - we all hate them even when they're totally justified and we understand them - but if you're willing to learn from them and improve, it can be a great experience.

You'll hear some chatter about random insane rejections and no standards for IS reviewers, but that's mostly from people who haven't figured out what they're doing wrong and would rather blame the reviewers than look dispassionately at their own shortcomings. It can be hard for some people to do, but that's the way to grow.

Good luck

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2010, 11:46 »
0
Listen to jsnover...she has some good advice and good points to consider.

« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2010, 11:53 »
0
I would strongly advise you against picking a site just because you think it'll be easy to get accepted - in the long run this will do you no favors. If you're going to give it a shot - and I see no reason you shouldn't - then start wtih iStock.

I'm now an exclusive but I was an independent for 4 years - I have uploaded to all the major sites (and a few that are no longer around). High standards, a consistent review process and a large volume of buyers are good if you're going to try and build a stock portfolio. Rejections stink - we all hate them even when they're totally justified and we understand them - but if you're willing to learn from them and improve, it can be a great experience.

You'll hear some chatter about random insane rejections and no standards for IS reviewers, but that's mostly from people who haven't figured out what they're doing wrong and would rather blame the reviewers than look dispassionately at their own shortcomings. It can be hard for some people to do, but that's the way to grow.

Good luck

well spoken.

yes, i agree on all counts whatever you read about IS. they can really be anal . but then again, IS is also where you can improve the fastest, if you can set aside your ego. you will also find the most helpful ppl in IS from their exclusives by writing in the forum.
as a newbie, you will also get the most rejections from IS if you cannot produce a "perfect" shot straight off the camera because IS do not like too much post processing. which i totally think is correct too, as the more you post process, the more it degrades your images.
many ppl say shoot RAW so you can tweak your images. to many, this translate into "you can cheat with RAW if your photography control of getting the proper exposure stinks."

well, it may get you through many other stock sites, but not with IS.

if you want just to get lots of approval, just close your eyes and pick anything under the big 5.
if you want to really seek trial by fire and learn ASAP , go IS. 
yes, i agree, IS is not what any newbie should go with , but if you really can take the beating
and learn from it, IS rejections comes with specific reasons unlike FTor DT ,etc.. hierglyphics rejection explanation.   
since you don't have much time to shoot, i wouldn't bother trying photoshopping to "redeem" your images. this takes a lot of homework too. i would simply read the IS reviewers rejection reason, and reshoot trying hard to not do the mistake they pointed out in your image. much faster than trying to learn photoshop .

finally, enjoy and welcome to the world of S&M, lol..

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2010, 12:11 »
0
Just my personal opinion... I would hold off on Shutterstock until you had about 100 good images that are reviewed and accepted on another site. That way when you pass the initial review... you can take advantage of the "Honeymoon" period there. That Newbie Exposure is great while you have it.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2010, 12:19 »
0
Just my personal opinion... I would hold off on Shutterstock until you had about 100 good images that are reviewed and accepted on another site. That way when you pass the initial review... you can take advantage of the "Honeymoon" period there. That Newbie Exposure is great while you have it.
Oh yeah I remember that wonderful feeling....lol. Actually I got on iStock before Shutterstock. It was quite frustrating and hard to understand, but heh when it happened I was in hog heaven!!!


« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2010, 12:34 »
0
I started with IS two years ago. It took me 2 or 3 iterations to get accepted, but it was the best approach in a long term concerning learning and building a portfolio.


« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2010, 12:59 »
0
Quote
Your portfolio will almost certainly earn more at Istock than any other two agencies combined too.

That is a very subjective statement. Dreamstime, iStock and Fotolia are within a few dollars of each other every month for me. It all depends on what you produce. Some types of images sell better on different sites.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 13:11 by elvinstar »

gbcimages

« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2010, 13:05 »
0
just upload and have fun like all the rest of us. :)

RT


« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2010, 13:09 »
0
Quote
Shutterstock has very good forums with great photographers willing to help sell you their book or photo course........

I've adjusted microstockphoto.co's statement above, this is the best forum for advice, and generally the folk here won't try and sell you anything.

As for which site to join, if you only want one and are doing this part time go with iStock. But I repeat what some others have said, ignore the hype you've probably read and do your own research.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 13:48 by RT »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2010, 13:11 »
0
I earn on all the sites.....outside of Fotolia...but iStock is the biggest earner by far even though my uploads have been very far and few between at the present time, what is on there keep selling.

« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2010, 13:13 »
0
Dreamstime. Upload 3 at a time at most, and wait for the result. Read the rejections carefully. Don't upload in a rush because you will ruin your acceptance ratio.

Only join Shutterstock when you have no less than 100 salable images ready. You will get a high exposure on SS as a new uploader and it makes no sense to waste that on a portfolio of just 20 pictures (LSD72's argument).

When you feel confident enough and your acceptance ratio both at SS and DT is > 70%, apply at iStockphoto.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 13:17 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2010, 15:39 »
0
Dreamstime. Upload 3 at a time at most, and wait for the result. Read the rejections carefully. Don't upload in a rush because you will ruin your acceptance ratio.

Only join Shutterstock when you have no less than 100 salable images ready. You will get a high exposure on SS as a new uploader and it makes no sense to waste that on a portfolio of just 20 pictures (LSD72's argument).

When you feel confident enough and your acceptance ratio both at SS and DT is > 70%, apply at iStockphoto.

Very well thought-out! Sounds like the winning strategy to me.

« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2010, 16:07 »
0
I think of microstock as the Photography School of Hard Knocks - you'll definitely become a better photographer from the expert critique of your images and whether they appeal to buyers. It also challenges you to expand into genres you might not have tried yet (such as shooting professional models in studio). I suggest you forget money for a while, join istock (you'll learn heaps just trying to get accepted) and concentrate on learning how to produce acceptable commercial imagery. Then, if you're still interested and have what it takes it might become an income earner for you. Whatever, you'll learn a lot about photography.

ETA: I strongly recommend that you calibrate your monitor with a hardware calibrator such as the Spyder. Many amateurs don't know about this, but you need to be sure that you see what the inspectors see.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 16:13 by averil »

ShadySue

« Reply #35 on: January 15, 2010, 16:15 »
0
Bear in mind that your friends and family will need to sign a model release which says that their image can be used to promote any product or service (e.g. Viagra, a political party or religion, a product they may not agree with), may have their image distorted or cropped, added to another photo etc., and although there are restrictions, the agency might be 'looser' about these as you might like. Even so, if an image is used outwith the agreement, there's not much you can do once the horse has bolted, e.g. the British National Party (the UK equivalent of the KKK) used micro photos in leaflets it distributed over an area of England. This was against the rules, as the people were depicted and quoted as supporting the BNP (ironically, one of the families used was Italian). But we never heard what, if anything, the agency did about it, and even at that, the leaflets were already distributed.
Probably you've got a greater chance of being run over crossing the road tomorrow, but you and they need to be fully aware of all that.
With that caveat, I third jsnover's advice.

« Reply #36 on: January 15, 2010, 17:10 »
0
Funny, we do like to talk about stock...
HappySnappy hasn't even replied yet.

If you have to pick one only, go for Dreamstime.
Given your circumstances Dreamstime is the best choice by far.

Forget about IStock for the moment.
There are manuals, keywords rejections, controlled vocabulary, chromatic aberrations, over processing, upload limits, a test that is not really all that it looks like, and although the forums are said to be great, unless accepted you can't post a thing over there.
IStock isn't going anywhere. Give yourself a bit of time before applying.

Start with Dreamstime and remember what FD-Amateur said - initially no more than 3-4 images in a batch.
You'll have fun, make new friends and pretty soon you'll be uploading to Shutterstock and IStock, confident and a  HappySnappy :)
Best of luck,


helix7

« Reply #37 on: January 15, 2010, 17:53 »
0
I am also quite new and with a few agencies now. I'd recommend Dreamstime. There is no entry exam, and you learn a lot. Fotolia doesn't have an exam either but the feedback and all other things there are not so explicative.

I'd agree. DT is pretty solid for starting out.


lisafx

« Reply #38 on: January 15, 2010, 17:56 »
0
For me it would definitely be Istock.  If I could manage to get in these days...!

« Reply #39 on: January 15, 2010, 18:29 »
0
I started with Dreamstime and Bigstock.  Photos that were accepted by both became my audition shots for the tougher agencies.  If I had to do it over... I would still start with those two. 

Richard

« Reply #40 on: January 15, 2010, 18:41 »
0
I would try Shutterstock. You will need a bit of coaching first before you submit your initial 10, so be sure to post asking for advice. Really the nice thing about Shutterstock is the instant gratification. As a noobie, you will get downloads almost immediately after your files are accepted. On Dreamstime it's much more likely that you won't get any downloads for the first month. And that could discourage you from doing anything more with Microstock.

« Reply #41 on: January 15, 2010, 19:19 »
0
Wow, I put this post up and called it a night, and then I wake up to all these responses! What a nice surprise! Thanks!

I appreciate everyone's advice. Even though I feel slightly more confused.  ;)

I read my post before and I realize it might have given the impression I'm doing this for money. If I don't make a cent on my photos during this little adventure, that's ok with me. The thought of complete strangers looking at and buying my photos sounds thrilling, so I want to try it.

I also want to learn and grow as a photographer, and take even better pictures. This method seems like a good way to do it, since it really seems flexible time wise.

A couple days ago, I signed up with istock (before discovering this site). I uploaded the three photos... but then I read on the site the review process takes a long time. How long should I expect to wait? A week? A month? And I didn't realize but maybe I was supposed to put a  model release form included with my images? Since it's a test, I thought it wouldn't be necessary? Hmm...

Maybe I'll try and just wait for istock. It seems they give the best feedback (?). And that's what I really want.

And putting up a picture to be reviewed by you guys sounds like a great idea!!!! Maybe I'll try that. :)

ShadySue

« Reply #42 on: January 15, 2010, 19:23 »
0
I don't think you need an MR for your sample shots, though I did hear mention of it once. Bear in mind that even if you get your sample shots all accepted for entry into iStock, they may not get into the collection (even with an MR). That's a shock for some people, but it happens to lots of us.

« Reply #43 on: January 15, 2010, 19:36 »
0
Ok, thanks for the advice!

I posted a photo critique... if your curious:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/photo-critique/please-critique-my-photo!-would-istock-accept-me-%29/

« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2010, 20:07 »
0
I would start with iStock. I was at all the main agencies and a year ago I went exclusive. In retrospect I think it was a good decision, they made the deal very good for exclusives and pretty bad for everybody else.

The problem is that it might be pretty tough to get into iStock these days. If you can get it, I would stay with them and then go exclusive. If you are not good enough (or don't have enough time for them) I would just enjoy photography and stay away from microstock. Like Sean said, not everybody who has a DSLR can/should be a stock contributor. We all have computers but very few of us are programmers.

Good luck!

« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2010, 22:18 »
0
If I don't make a cent on my photos during this little adventure, that's ok with me. The thought of complete strangers looking at and buying my photos sounds thrilling, so I want to try it.

I also want to learn and grow as a photographer, and take even better pictures. This method seems like a good way to do it, since it really seems flexible time wise.

Then you should join flickr, or another website when people comment on each other's images.  Licensing stock imagery is a business that should be taken seriously, even more nowadays then a few years ago. 

RacePhoto

« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2010, 22:29 »
0
Quote
So any good advice on what one company I should invest my time on?

iStock

If you can get photos accepted there, you will make sales and you will know you are doing well.

Getting accepted on a site that sells nothing, is a waste of time. Getting accepted on a site that will take four years before you can collect $100 is a waste of effort. You don't have the numbers of photos for ShutterStock, which leaves only one site that answers your one company question.

I wouldn't hang my laundry on Flickr, let alone any good photos.  :o
« Last Edit: January 16, 2010, 10:13 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2010, 22:54 »
0
If I don't make a cent on my photos during this little adventure, that's ok with me. The thought of complete strangers looking at and buying my photos sounds thrilling, so I want to try it.

I also want to learn and grow as a photographer, and take even better pictures. This method seems like a good way to do it, since it really seems flexible time wise.

Then you should join flickr, or another website when people comment on each other's images.  Licensing stock imagery is a business that should be taken seriously, even more nowadays then a few years ago. 

once more, wise old Mr Locke has hit the nail on the head...
yes, flickr is where you should start .
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 23:06 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2010, 23:07 »
0
I was inpired by this interview with hidesy. Is it still relevant today?

« Reply #49 on: January 15, 2010, 23:42 »
0
Hi Snappy,
I think I misunderstood you.
You don't want to start with one agency and grow from there; what you want to do is to start with one agency and remain exclusive to them.
In that case you've made the right choice already, Istock is the best way to go.
They've got a great Exclusive deal, lots of perks and oportunities and I'm sure you'll enjoy the experience.
Best of luck,

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #50 on: January 16, 2010, 10:08 »
0
If I don't make a cent on my photos during this little adventure, that's ok with me. The thought of complete strangers looking at and buying my photos sounds thrilling, so I want to try it.

I also want to learn and grow as a photographer, and take even better pictures. This method seems like a good way to do it, since it really seems flexible time wise.

Then you should join flickr, or another website when people comment on each other's images.  Licensing stock imagery is a business that should be taken seriously, even more nowadays then a few years ago. 

once more, wise old Mr Locke has hit the nail on the head...
yes, flickr is where you should start .
Personally I wouldn't recommend flickr...I've had problems with people downloading or copy and pasting those photos. I took the ones that matter off there.

« Reply #51 on: January 17, 2010, 02:12 »
0
If I don't make a cent on my photos during this little adventure, that's ok with me. The thought of complete strangers looking at and buying my photos sounds thrilling, so I want to try it.

I also want to learn and grow as a photographer, and take even better pictures. This method seems like a good way to do it, since it really seems flexible time wise.

Then you should join flickr, or another website when people comment on each other's images.  Licensing stock imagery is a business that should be taken seriously, even more nowadays then a few years ago. 

I can only second that. It seems to get more and more popular to use microstock as some sort of photocourse. Dont get me wrong, I dont know you, and I dont know your images either, so please see these lines as some sort of general statement.

I have been an inspector at an agency quite some time ago and you wouldnt believe your eyes what images are uploaded. The word snapshot is rather farfetched for these.
So here is my advice:

  • Try to get an honest opinion (which isnt all that easy) of your friends and families whether the like your images and what could be done to improve them
  • If they like your work you could assume that youve got some talent, (which definitely not everybody has just because he/she thinks so - remember all those casting shows on TV??? Theres nothing wrong with not having talent singing, modelling or photography - you usually have some other talents and should concentrate on these to be successful) . Go and read some books on photography or take a course or something similar
  • Once you did that look at images your really like in magazines or elsewhere. Try to figure out how the images were shot (what makes it stand out, how was the light set up and which perspective did the photographer use).
  • Again ask the friends that have been honest with you from the beginning wether you have improved.
  • If you did, start uploading to the biggest agencies iStock and Shutterstock

Please be aware, that when someone takes the direct route and just uploads to an agency expecting to learn from their rejections, he will not only be much slower in his learning process. Unless he is a very very talented photographer he also exploits others. He uses the time of inspectors and therefore the time and money of the agency without paying for it (as long as you dont produce sellable images). I think nonone of us has an idea of how much it actually costs the agencies to review all those images that are just uploaded with the goal of learning from rejections. That increases the image prices in the longrun, which is good to some extent - but as long as its solely done to cover the costs for the increasing number of rejections theres no benefit for contributors. So in fact that someone does also exploit other photographers that invest a lot of time and money into the business venture microstock (btw: people submitting just for learning also slow down the approval process). Most of them are more than willing to share their knowlodge in other fields, writing blogs and helping in forums, so please value their help.

OK, thats my 2 cents - once again this is not adressed to anybody personally, just a general statement - here I stand waiting for the first stone to be thrown.

ShadySue

« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2010, 05:59 »
0
Nataq's points are valid, but your friends/relatives won't be much use to you [1] unless they're already submitting at the agency/ies you're considering. I haven't seen the images Nataq says "you wouldn't believe your eyes what photos are submitted", and I'm not talking about these. I'm talking about perfectly competent ones which nevertheless have a few artifacts, or are taken in flat light (if that's normal in your area) or contrasty light (likewise), a logo which you need to zoom in to see etc.
Lots of the world's iconic photos wouldn't be accepted onto iStock for all sorts of reasons, and now I sit at camera club competitions thinking stupid things like "The light's too flat" or 'there's a shadow over the faraway eye of that eagle" etc, which are irrelevant in the real world.
So, everything that Nataq says, and then some.
There are many featured articles on iStock - you could usefully spend time studying them. Maybe some of the other agencies have similar, I don't know.
The NYIP website has some basic free-to-access 'how to photograph' articles which are very useful at the composition and technique levels in their ezine: http://www.nyip.com/photo-ezine/ezine.html and podcasts http://www.nyipodcast.com/.
Health warning: the hard info in these articles/podcasts is padded out by an insane amount of waffle. I used to copy and paste the text, cut out the waffle and keep the hard facts on my hard drive for reference. It's there, you just have to find it!
[1] Plus I doubt if I've ever had a friend or colleague not moving in photos circles who doesn't tell me "Your photos should be in National Geographic", so generally take their good opinions with a pinch of salt.
Another useful site is www.betterphoto.com, though nowadays they are mostly about plugging their courses, which I haven't taken, so can't comment on. They have free to access articles indexed here: http://www.betterphoto.com/allAbout.asp. I was an active member there for about a year before joining iStock. I'd say what was most useful there to me was recognising that American general taste for images is different from UK general taste. Since the US is probably the source of most stock buyers, that is very useful. They have monthly photo challenges, and the ability to feed back on each other's images, though it does tend to be of the 'wow, fantastic' variety. But overall if it's just improving your shapshots, that's a far better way to learn than iStock rejections, which tend to be very vague: my most frequent rejection nowadays is:
"We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:

-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance

For information about iStock lighting standards please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=524

For more information on iStock Lighting Standards, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.2_lighting.php

Related Articles:
Lighting and Shadows:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=46
Setting up your own home studio:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=14
Custom White Balance:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=95

Decent Exposure:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=40

If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please visit our critique forum for immediate peer to peer feedback. To visit the critique forum please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=26 "

... which in my case always means flat natural light. So you can see that most of the links, useful in themselves, are of little use to help me to avoid similar rejections in future. (the only thing they could say is 'don't submit outdoor pics 95% of the time from where you live"). That's not to say that the articles on studio work aren't useful in themselves (READ THEM!). But don't imagine that any critique will be personal to your image. All the rejections are pretty general, with loads of links which don't apply to the actual image you got rejected.
The critique forum is good, and you will get personal critique. But @OP, to be honest, if you really don't care about whether you sell or not, iStock isn't the place for you. It exists as a commercial business to sell photos. There are other places to learn, even free/low cost. Maybe others can post here some examples of any I don't know about?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 06:56 by ShadySue »

« Reply #53 on: January 17, 2010, 06:10 »
0
istock claims to be pretty profitable ATM, despite amateurs wasting their time 'learning'. Was a time when their content chief JJRD spoke of istock as a place to 'grow photographers'. Add the fact that a contributor has to pass an acceptance test (3 images at a time) before being able to contribute in quantity (like, 15/week) and I don't think too much inspectors time is being wasted by newcomers.

ETA: I've read a lot of photography books and tutorials, been a member of a camera club and field naturalists club with lots of excellent photographers and I can say that most of the rejections on stock sites are unrelated to other areas of photography. Stock photography is a very particular style  and courses don't tend to teach how to shoot to a particular style unless it's a fine art style that doesn't sit well with producing components for a larger design.

One of the most instructive things I've ever done as far as learning stock style is to have a look at yuri's portfolio (on istock) sorted by age, from the earliest images to the latest. Some of his early stuff wasn't that great, but he developed his style over time. Same for lisegagne.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 06:37 by averil »

« Reply #54 on: January 17, 2010, 08:11 »
0
istock claims to be pretty profitable ATM, despite amateurs wasting their time 'learning'. Was a time when their content chief JJRD spoke of istock as a place to 'grow photographers'. Add the fact that a contributor has to pass an acceptance test (3 images at a time) before being able to contribute in quantity (like, 15/week) and I don't think too much inspectors time is being wasted by newcomers.

I dunno.  I keep seeing plenty of threads from newbies who "love rejections" because it helps them grow, and how great iStock is as a "learning experience" because they knew nothing about taking pictures.

ShadySue

« Reply #55 on: January 17, 2010, 08:20 »
0
istock claims to be pretty profitable ATM, despite amateurs wasting their time 'learning'. Was a time when their content chief JJRD spoke of istock as a place to 'grow photographers'. Add the fact that a contributor has to pass an acceptance test (3 images at a time) before being able to contribute in quantity (like, 15/week) and I don't think too much inspectors time is being wasted by newcomers.

I dunno.  I keep seeing plenty of threads from newbies who "love rejections" because it helps them grow, and how great iStock is as a "learning experience" because they knew nothing about taking pictures.

I think it certainly used to be that people with little experience could be moulded into iStock's ways more quickly than those with a lot of experience in other fields of photography, who know that sub-optimal photos are often used to great profit elsewhere and railled at the thought of images, being sold for so little, have to be pixel perfect. They probably had a steeper learning curve than those who only know where the 'take' button was.

« Reply #56 on: January 17, 2010, 09:06 »
0

I dunno.  I keep seeing plenty of threads from newbies who "love rejections" because it helps them grow, and how great iStock is as a "learning experience" because they knew nothing about taking pictures.

well pointed out, Mr. Locke.
could that be because those who gave them this impression   were many years ago themselves clueless about photography and they were able to become "stock photographers" simply because  microstock was a fledgling , and
as you pointed out initially , Mr. Locke, it used to be easier to get their pictures approved . repeat "USED TO BE".

which is why there is so much emphasis every year on them buying next year's model to "make better pictures for micro stock" ?    ;)
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 11:04 by PERSEUS »


« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2010, 09:17 »
0

I think it certainly used to be that people with little experience could be moulded into iStock's ways more quickly than those with a lot of experience in other fields of photography, who know that sub-optimal photos are often used to great profit elsewhere and railled at the thought of images, being sold for so little, have to be pixel perfect. They probably had a steeper learning curve than those who only know where the 'take' button was.


that may be also a very good point, but  i tend to agree more with Mr.Locke's point of view.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2010, 10:52 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #58 on: January 17, 2010, 11:16 »
0
could that be because those who gave them this impression   were many years ago themselves clueless about photography and they were able to become "stock photographers" simply because  microstock was a fledgling ,

Good point again, that sometimes timing is everything.

« Reply #59 on: January 17, 2010, 15:26 »
0
what ever happened to people reading books and using common sense and study practices? Somebody mentioned using flickr to learn earlier in this thread. I'm not sure if I would recommend that .. considering that there are a billion photographers on there that don't have a clue. It seems you would risk learning bad habits and then have to break them later.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #60 on: January 17, 2010, 15:31 »
0
what ever happened to people reading books and using common sense and study practices? Somebody mentioned using flickr to learn earlier in this thread. I'm not sure if I would recommend that .. considering that there are a billion photographers on there that don't have a clue. It seems you would risk learning bad habits and then have to break them later.
I agree I wouldn't use flickr. Ever Tom, Dick and Harry puts photos on there and besides there is the problem with people cutting and pasting or downloading your shots, thats why I removed all of mine. Also if you plan to ever go exclusive with iStock you'd have to remove them anyway.

« Reply #61 on: January 17, 2010, 16:08 »
0
The problem I had with IS is that everything takes s-o-o-o long - like 2 weeks for a review - and when you're getting started you want some fast feedback.  So I suggest SS, although it's almost all 25 cent subscription sales.  Not only do they review quickly, you'll probably make a lot more sales there, initially, than you would at IS.   After about a year I've found SS has really fallen off while IS makes me a lot more money with half the portfolio.   But at the start, all the feedback from SS was helpful.

I think if I ever really did something in stock and had a big portfolio, I'd drop SS and their cr@ppy 25 cent sales, and go exclusive somewhere - but who knows, that's a long ways off if ever.

« Reply #62 on: January 17, 2010, 16:45 »
0
The real point is more along the lines that if you get rejected for your photo being too blurry and out of focus it honestly doesn't teach you anything. It tells you that you're image is blurry and that's all.

It doesn't teach you about glass quality, focusing or operation. Was the blur created from using a soft lens that will never produce micro-acceptable images to begin with? Did you simply focus on the wrong area in the frame given your subject matter? Were you maybe shooting at 1/60 on a 300mm telephoto at full zoom? Were you shooting a single subject too close with an aperture of f/1.8? Were you shooting multiple subjects too close with an aperture of f/5.6? Should you have braced your body during the shot? Should you have held your breath? Should you have used a tripod? Should you have altered your shutter speed? Should you boosted your ISO (which I never recommend)? Changed your aperture? Switched to an appropriate lens? Added another light source?

The rejection notice didn't teach you any of this and it is not designed to teach you this. Instead of uploading thousands of bad images and expecting to learn from it people should focus on learning how to take a good photo in the first place. Until then they are simply not ready. Microstock is essentially a career. Regardless of how much money you make, you are trying to produce income therefore it is a job. The goal of a job isn't to make a couple bucks and waste a lot of time doing it.

Shooting, keywording, managing and uploading takes a lot of time .. why waste that time when you could "seriously" be learning?

« Reply #63 on: January 17, 2010, 19:42 »
0
You won't even be accepted on istock or shutterstock if you can't shoot a sharp image. I think the major lesson to learn is shooting stock images - images that play well in designs. How many stock images would you be happy to frame? How many art images would be usable stock?

« Reply #64 on: January 19, 2010, 04:19 »
0
Thank you all for your comments!
You've all given me much food for thought, and awesome tips that I will definitely try out soon!!!

Well, I am glad I initially thought of microstock a good way to learn, or else I would have never stumbled upon this website which has such a wealth of information and learning tools!!

« Reply #65 on: January 19, 2010, 09:11 »
0
I'm a bit of a newbie myself, but from my limited experience, I would have to go with Shutterstock...I'm not making a killing, but I get some downloads almost every day.

« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2010, 13:26 »
0
If you can pass the initial photo evaluation, I would say Shutterstock...but if you decide on another agency, I would log into the Shutterstock forums.  They are really helpful!


« Reply #67 on: January 25, 2010, 15:08 »
0
Quote
Shutterstock has very good forums with great photographers willing to help sell you their book or photo course........

I've adjusted microstockphoto.co's statement above, this is the best forum for advice, and generally the folk here won't try and sell you anything.

As for which site to join, if you only want one and are doing this part time go with iStock. But I repeat what some others have said, ignore the hype you've probably read and do your own research.

Ditto

If you drop into the SS critique forums be prepared for the following

1. Expect to have a salesmen knock the wind out of you with the intention of undermining your confidence, low confidence about your photography skills will leave you wide open for future product and service sales.  After all you are in dire need of said salesman's help if you wish to succeed.
2. Expect to have a PM which asks you to call said salesman on your dime so that he can screen your ability to pay and drop a few encouraging words about your potential as a stellar photographer if you are smart enough to buy said product or services.
3. Expect warm and fuzzy comments on the SS forums about your skills if you support the above purchases
4. Expect continued encouragement by said salesman to help promote said product and services, if you help promote said salesman's product and services you can rest knowing that you helped leave future newbies open to the above predatory sales attacks
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 22:24 by gbalex »

« Reply #68 on: January 25, 2010, 15:20 »
0
If it's really only the one then I would go with iStock. assuming that you're good because they'll give you a really hard time if you aren't. And if you do Ok you can always go exclusive a little later down the line.

If the prospect of iStock sounds a little duanting then I'd opt for shutterstock. By far the fastest turnaround and not so picky once they've accepted you.

« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2010, 01:52 »
0
If it's really only the one then I would go with iStock. assuming that you're good because they'll give you a really hard time if you aren't. And if you do Ok you can always go exclusive a little later down the line.

If the prospect of iStock sounds a little duanting then I'd opt for shutterstock. By far the fastest turnaround and not so picky once they've accepted you.

the more I think about it, the more I agree

« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2010, 16:09 »
0
 i have basic kit  cannon450 and mainly shoot with 55-250IS ,started last april ,   when i submitted everything on hard disk, soon realised i was wasting my time, i shoot mainly for rf123 and bigstock  and have 59 and 21 images accepted respectively,  3 accepted with dreamstime ,  and a total of 4 sales(witwoo) 3(rf123) 1 (dreamstime) and use rf123 and bigstock  as quality control, 
id love to produce a photobook of  my sales,  lord knows how long that will take,    but my local college are offering free digital course 10 week, i start thursday,  its very fortunate i have a day job,  but i will keep plugging away

« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2010, 16:19 »
0
This is such a great thread for a newb to read through (which I am).  I couldn't have found a better assortment of opinions on this topic.  What is interesting to me is that there is not a consensus.  What worked 5 years ago might not work today.  What works for Person A may not work for Person B (for many reasons).  Etc.

What readers can learn is that there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach.  They can then use this knowledge to pick what will work best for them.  That's why this thread is so good.  It's all right there for you.  Take the information and make an informed decision that will work for you.

Thanks to all of those that contributed!

« Reply #72 on: January 27, 2010, 16:28 »
0
From my experience, a few months after joining this forum as a newbie, you have to aim for IS and SS

I started out by contributing to the low earners until I was confident I could meet IS/SS standards. I am now signed up with both and, to give you an example, the 9 images accepted by SS as part of my application generated 11 downloads in 24 hours. Those same images haven't sold once in 3 months on low earner/new sites.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #73 on: January 27, 2010, 16:35 »
0
The low end, low earner sites really are a waste of time. In reality their acceptance of every picture you upload doesn't teach you what will sell and what won't. You learn more by joining the bigger sites and that still doesn't guarantee big results...but it helps one learn alot about the composition, lighting...ect..ect

« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2010, 18:04 »
0
I'd say SS. Cos you get results very fast and it motivates you further. If my pictures didn't start selling there I probably wouldn't stay in MS business. Other sites just took took too long to get going.

« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2010, 18:14 »
0
DT does not require to pass a test and you can get used to reviews and get some sales quickly.

« Reply #76 on: January 28, 2010, 01:00 »
0
I was on several sites and dumped them all for istock because they showed the strongest sales, and I enjoyed working with them the most. But what everybody says here about it not really being a lucrative endeavor is very true. To make real money you have to work really hard. I don't have time to put that kind of effort into it, so I slowly grow my portfolio and watch the sales slowly come in. It earns enough for me to buy new lenses and other gear, and it is something I enjoy doing.

But forget about the money for a minute the one thing stock did for me is improve my shooting overall. Today my photos are better exposed, sharper and better compositions than before I shot for stock. The process taught me to look at my photos with a critical eye, and all of my photos benefit from that, even the family holiday shots. And as a graphic designer I shoot for my clients now with confidence, and make more money on that than I do on stock. But I still upload, and enjoy stock when I have time for it.

So my advice is to pick the agency that is hard to get into, has high standards, and an engaging forum because at the end of the day you will become a much better photographer than choosing the easy road. And if you love photography, that will be a better reward than the few dollars you will make.

My recommendation is istock, but there are other good ones too. Every body has a favorite and a bias. Just like Nikon or Canon, Fender Stratocaster or Gibson Les Paul, BMW or Audi. Do some research (as you are doing with this forum) and pick the one that feels right based on what you have learned.


« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2010, 15:07 »
0
I'm very much a newbie with only a dozen or two photos accepted on the "major" sites.   That said, I've had the best luck with acceptances on Shutterstock (sales as well) and after 4 attempts am YET to get on iStock   ???   .   BTW, I also submit on 123rf, dreamstime, fotolia, bigstock, canstock, and cutcaster, all with varying degrees of success.

« Reply #78 on: April 03, 2010, 12:19 »
0
My vote is for Shutterstock.  It's relatively easy to upload and get accepted and the volume of sales is generally higher than some of the other sites.  Having a bunch of small sales vs. one big sale, helps me stay motivated to keep at it.

rubyroo

« Reply #79 on: April 03, 2010, 12:27 »
0
I'd go with Shutterstock too if I was starting again.  I delayed applying for so long because I was just starting and was intimidated by the idea of failing the initial test, but when I finally plucked up the courage I was amazed at the sales volume that SS generated.

ShadySue

« Reply #80 on: April 03, 2010, 12:54 »
0
iStock, but it's harder for newbies now than it was when I started because there's so much compeition. I guess that's the same for all the sites, though.

« Reply #81 on: April 03, 2010, 15:01 »
0
Their are two kinds of newbies
New to photography I would pic Dreamstime new to microstock Dreamstime & SS 

« Reply #82 on: April 03, 2010, 15:03 »
0
IStock is just too many hoops to jump through and some of the rejections can leave you totally confused.  So I vote SS even though almost all the sales are 25 cents - with more sales, you get more positive feedback, which is good when you're starting.

« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2010, 19:55 »
0
Quote
Which ONE company would you contribute to as a newbie?

shutterstock, photospin, istockphoto, fotolia and dreamstime. The others are just a waste of time (my opinion)

« Reply #84 on: April 25, 2010, 10:45 »
0
i have a post in my blog about what microstock website to start..
http://bobobuha.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/microstock-website-big4-2/

one can stop to read around what website for beginner.. because there is no much argument..

dreamstime first, since no test is required and upload directly even though it is not top sales. Followed by shutterstock, istock, fotolia.. when you have enough time for other website then try the rest.

« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2010, 02:52 »
0
.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 13:49 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #86 on: April 28, 2010, 06:16 »
0
iStock gives you the highest sales and most satisfaction IMO. Fotolia gives you the quickest feedback and if you start out with alot of images to upload then it will help a newbie to gauge what will be accepted on the other sites and what won't be accepted anywhere. DT is good and my largest portfolio is there but their standards seem to be lower (many of what I would rate as my poorer images, from when I started out, are located here and getting the fewest views/sales). In, summary I've learnt and earnt the least from DT; iStock is the most satisfying site to get a sale; and Fotolia teaches you the most.


« Reply #87 on: April 28, 2010, 08:29 »
0
iStock gives you the highest sales and most satisfaction IMO. Fotolia gives you the quickest feedback...

I think this is an interesting counterpoint to the microstock experts who seem offended that a newer photographer would be interested in microstock.  Learning and satisfaction comes at many levels.

debmallett

« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2010, 14:32 »
0
This is such a great thread for a newb to read through (which I am).  I couldn't have found a better assortment of opinions on this topic.  What is interesting to me is that there is not a consensus.  What worked 5 years ago might not work today.  What works for Person A may not work for Person B (for many reasons).  Etc.

What readers can learn is that there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach.  They can then use this knowledge to pick what will work best for them.  That's why this thread is so good.  It's all right there for you.  Take the information and make an informed decision that will work for you.

Thanks to all of those that contributed!

Ditto... exactly what Trey said.  Such a great discussion here.  I learned so much from reading this thread and am glad to see the different points of view on where to start (or not start) and the reasonings behind them.  For myself, I I've decided that I'll start somewhere where I have a better chance of getting through - just because I would like to work through the whole process from one end to another.  Do that a few times at a few places, learn the ropes, get some experience, and then get to work on the tougher ones.

Thanks again for all the food for thought!

« Reply #89 on: June 02, 2010, 00:35 »
0
I would go for Dreamstime. you will learn a lot from here.

jareso

  • Boris Jaroscak
« Reply #90 on: June 02, 2010, 06:12 »
0
I would go for Dreamstime. you will learn a lot from here.
Yes I agree. If I were a newbie (although I am still just amateur/hobby photographer) I would definitely go and try Dreamstime. I think it is the best and very friendly place where one can try how things are going in stock business.

« Reply #91 on: June 02, 2010, 06:47 »
0
I would go for Dreamstime. you will learn a lot from here.
Like what? Stock sites are not intended for learning but for selling.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 06:49 by FD-amateur »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #92 on: June 03, 2010, 15:23 »
0
Choosing only ONE agency, it would make sense to choose SS or IS since these are the best sellers for most contributors.

But they both require to pass a test. Not actually difficult with some experience in microstock, but possibly a problem for a newbie. So it's better to start with FT or DT and then add SS or IS as soon as possible.

« Reply #93 on: June 25, 2010, 11:36 »
0
I'm also a newbie, having jumped in to microstock 3 months ago. I, too, have a full-time job and 2 kids, so finding any spare time is very difficult. With that said, I started with DT, then about a month after that, I also added to SS. It wasn't that difficult to upload with both of them. I have found I'm making more money at SS, but I buy from DT for work, so I'll keep uploading to them as I'm familiar with their site.

As for the making money part....I'm also not doing this to make a ton of money. However, if I make enough in a year to pay for a new lens, then that's less money out of my own pocket. I like a hobby that that can help pay for its own equipment.

lagereek

« Reply #94 on: June 25, 2010, 11:42 »
0
As a neewbie?  hmm, let me think......................... yes I probably go for the Getty RM,  easy as pie.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
7219 Views
Last post May 28, 2007, 18:49
by a.k.a.-tom
3 Replies
2925 Views
Last post May 13, 2013, 07:17
by Poncke v2
5 Replies
12264 Views
Last post October 09, 2011, 14:39
by donding
47 Replies
8687 Views
Last post March 10, 2012, 18:02
by wut
37 Replies
5885 Views
Last post June 26, 2013, 08:00
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results