I've been lurking for a little while, as I would hate to be the newbie who doesn't bother reading up and figuring things out for herself.  I've read enough to know that, rightly so, the last thing everybody wants is yet another Jane-come-lately horning in on what used to be a good thing, thinking she's going to upload pics of grandma's dentures or her dog's paw and start raking in the $$.  That's not me, I don't think -- at least I don't have any delusions about this being "easy money".  On the contrary, it sounds like darned hard work.  I almost didn't bother registering, but I realized that the more I read, the more questions were beginning to crop up, so ... here I am.

Oddly enough, the reasons for my interest in microstock have less to do with money and more to do with purpose and finding that it sounds like a good fit for me.  I didn't just get a camera last year, I think I got my first DSLR (a D70) about 6 or so years ago (whenever it first came out), and since then have had a variety of Nikons.  I also had a portrait photography business for a while that I never formally "quit", but rather let languish because my main business got too busy.  While I have always loved photography, and loved photographing people, I quickly found that I liked to do what I like to do, not necessarily what other people liked.  I found myself wanting to shoot people for my own aesthetic reasons, rather than what the client might want.  Not good for a portrait photographer!  LOL  I still enjoy the occasional shoot for friends, etc., but I allowed it to be relegated back into a hobby and haven't updated my portrait website in a ridiculously long time, so it's a bit dated now.

Anyway, I've always been drawn to shooting things that other people might not find typical -- I like textures, rusty gates, weird puddles, a cluster of rowboats, whatever -- and found myself shooting that kind of stuff in between the typical family snapshots, etc.  I was well aware of "stock photography" (didn't know it was called microstock until just recently) and had bought several images over the years from iStock, etc. for various things -- blogs, invitations, etc.  Why it never occurred to me that there were photographers on the other side of that transaction, I'll never know.  When I finally put two and two together, it really clicked for me.  It seems to include everything I LIKE about photography -- concepts, unique shooting styles and subjects, no client demands (other than keeping marketability in mind) -- and excludes everything I DON'T like about certain jobs/businesses -- dealing with irritating people, 9-5 hours, etc.  I readily admit that I have ADHD and although I rather like the way my mind works, it hasn't always been ideally suited for your typical job.  I can hyperfocus on certain things for periods of time, then I need to allow myself a "refresh period" where I do something else for a day or two ... or three.  Seems like microstock allows flexibility, creativity, encourages competition, demands your best work (which I admittedly have a lot to work on), and on top of that, pays you accordingly and passively (or residually, I should say), something I find quite interesting.

I realize I'm finding out about this at the tail end of what seems to have been an exciting ride (sure wish I'd paid attention in 2005 instead of just photographing toddlers!), but I'm happy to have discovered it at all.  I do promise I'll try to keep dumb newbie questions to a minimum.  I'm quite blown away by the quality of so many of your portfolios and it really makes me want to focus on the technical side of photography.  It will be hard for me because with portraits, it's more about a look or emotion and not always about being tack sharp at 200%.  I'm confident that I'll be learning a lot to improve my photography skills.

I'll end by asking one newbie question.  I am trying to research the heck out of the type of photos wanted/needed/definitely NOT wanted, and I can see that's going to be a tough thing to figure out.  I keep hearing that what is wanted is natural, out-of-camera images, and yet the most interesting, cutting edge and popular photos seem to be heavily Photoshopped -- I see montages, HDR, filters, etc.  I, for one, absolutely LOVE that stuff and am a fair PS user, but I'm confused as to whether to submit that sort of thing or not, how much artistic license do you dare take?  Perhaps those are the types of images you can add to your port once you've established yourself with more technically pure images?

Thanks, and I'm happy (if a little nervous) to be here.

Lisa

Lisa,
You can look at the websites and see their "most downloaded" shots, but you also have to take into account the length of time those most popular shots have been there. As many search engines on these sites do, they will pull up the most popular images and rather than dig through the pile, the buyers will continue to download them just because. Things do change and what was popular last year may not be this year. The key is to get a niche, that category that is not well covered by all the millions on top of it. That is difficult as well. A lot of buyers don't want those "plastic looking images" anymore. They want more realistic shots. You must remember you must have model releases and property releases. Anything that is copyrighted will have to be cloned out if you don't have property releases. Even the design on the models clothes. Just because an image is popular, unless you have one that can better it, there is really no reason to upload a shot based on that. Chances are everyone else has already tried to master it and it would be buried in the bottom and never see the light of day. You need to look at the areas that are not well covered to get an idea what would be the best subject to shoot.
Good luck

You also must realize that what sales at one site won't even get the lite of day at another. Different sites have their own type of buyers. What one site may consider a "snap shot" and rejects it on those grounds, another site approves and you can sell a ton of them. Again it all depends on the site and their reviewers. I personally drew my port out of Fotolia because the rejects were always my big sellers at other sites and what they accepted were many times rejected at the others. I had hardly any sales there and when they decided to give all the contributors a "pay cut" I got out. You gotta take it with a grain of salt. As time goes on you learn this. Microstock standards are high and getting higher every day. It's really a lot harder to get into these sites than it use to be.

Portraits expressing emotion sell surprisingly well. You just have to entertain/drive your model (ADHD and making funny faces helps) and click at the right moment. Zombies and graveyard diggers don't sell.  

The technical challenges for stock are DOF and tack sharp eyes. I wouldn't go under F8.0, contrary to "artistic" portraiture. To get it tack sharp, set your cam all on manual and just one focus point which you put on the closest eye, and use a monopod always. The video of Yuri Arcurs (I lost the link) on YT about the "freeze" moment helped me a lot. A big inspiration for natural and attracting expressions is Kurhan.

Sean ... you're welcome! 

FD -- good to know about the portrait potential.  I really do enjoy doing portraits and think I could probably do okay with those, only I have quite a dearth of possible subjects right now.  My two kids are willing victims, and while I know that I could ask any number of friends to pose for some photos, the new world of "this photo could feasibly show up anywhere" is a bit much to ask of even my best friends.  I do, however, have a good friend and neighbor who actually happens to BE a model (impossibly attractive, but in a wonderfully wholesome way); I wonder what her feelings would be on the subject.  I intend to find out!  When I feel more sure of myself, I may look into hiring a model or two.

Lisa -- great to meet another Lisa!  Thank you for your encouragement, it means a lot.  I will definitely take your advice to look around my daily life for inspiration.  My main business involves jewelry, so I have a ton of jewelry related items around.  I've never tried food photography, but I sure enjoy looking at it.  And I'm extremely comfortable with portrait work, so I'll wrestle my kids and hubby into a few images, I'm sure.  I know any landscape/nature stuff is totally saturated, but we go to Maine every year (gorgeous scenery there) and I live in NJ where, depending on which direction you step, you can be in the mountains, at the shore, or in NYC, so I'm hoping to find some inspiration all around me.

I'm relieved at the notion of NOT doing what other people are doing.  I'm getting to know my strengths and weaknesses, and quite honestly, my weakness is definitely stark, studio photography.  It did intimidate me a bit to see so many highly stylized, studio-lit images.  I have a couple of Alien Bees and reflectors, but I rarely used them because I've always preferred natural/available light.  I know I'll have to perfect my lighting skills, but I'd prefer to go my own way and hopefully hit on something that feels more innate to me.

The one thing I've promised myself is that I won't go all crazy buying things I think I "need".  I'm fortunate enough to have decent cameras and adequate lenses for now (two 50mm 1.4 and 1.8, 85mm, a Macro, and a couple of zooms), a couple of tripods, and scant lighting (if I MUST).  I bought a couple of books and told myself that's IT.  For now!  Someday I'd like a good telephoto, but that can wait.

Now I just need to shoot with the intention of shooting for stock.  I have lots of "almost there" images dating way back that could have been perfect ... if ONLY I'd paid better attention to the image quality.  I'm sure the sharpness suffers greatly.  But I'm starting to get a feel for the next steps to take.

Again, thanks!
Lisa

@Handust (Lisa),

Jewelry is notoriously difficult to shoot well.
If you can master that, you have found yourself a niche.