put them up for critique at shutterstock and you will get the low down .

You are kidding right?  This image has the date on it...http://www.flickr.com/photos/atramos/6168128264/#in/set-72157627717036088. 

Yes, I know about these imperfections like the date-stamp, also one shot taken with iPhone4 the HDR is blurred (if you really look closely), etc. I will avoid these problems if I start shooting for stock.

But how about the general composition and "feel" of the photo? Do I have any talent and a general good idea of what makes a good photo? The other stuff like small imperfections can be learned and practiced.

Thanks

I do enjoy 2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/atramos/6181531883/#in/set-72157627717036088 and http://www.flickr.com/photos/atramos/6167602673/#in/set-72157627717036088

look what it is available on the agencies collections, not easy to join and get pictures approved, you need a few things done properly, like 100% zoom, noise and all that jazz, if you plan to have just 4 or 5 pictures it won�t get you far also, look at the current stock state, things don�t look as bright as a few years ago (not saying it ain�t possible just hard), check agencies etc

just my 2 cents, always wanted to say this here 

Hi All,

I take lots of pictures - for my own enjoyment, using as screen-savers, sending to family members, remembering an exotic vacation, etc - even before getting interested in stock photography.

I recently applied to iStockPhoto and got what seemed like a generic rejection letter (no image-by-image critique).

I'm interested in finding out if my subjects and shooting style are suitable for stock.

I know my images are not perfect, because I did not shoot them with Stock in mind, and also I did not do any post-processing besides very simple one-click image corrections, and also I did not spend much time tagging them.

Here are a few photos I selected: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjwiaF5u

What do you think?
Are any of them "stock material"?
What if I do some post-processing?
What if I re-shoot these same compositions with more attention to detail?

Or should I just give up on this stock thing and stick to photography as a hobby...

Thanks!!

iStock won't give you an image-by-image critique for your application, it's just a more general "let's see what you can do" thing.  The intensive inspections starts after you've been accepted.  Give them your best shots, showing different kinds of subjects and different conditions.

As for your questions:

1. I think some of them are nice shots, you seem to have an eye for composition.  Forget about the seagull though.
2. A few would be OK for stock, assuming they could pass QC, but none are likely to sell much.
3. You always have to do post processing.
4. If you're there anyway, by all means.  Take a look at similar shots by others first, not to copy exactly, just to get a feel for other ways of doing it.

No, I wouldn't say give up on it;  it adds a lot to your hobby, but it is very different to just taking images for fun and it is very much a long term thing, don't expect instant gratification.  As everyone else has indicated, you do have to work hard at it to really get any results.

Judging from your other posts, I think in some ways I was in a similar situation when I started, though that was 5 years ago and it was easier then.  I didn't even have a decent camera at the time, just a collection of 35mm slides I'd gathered over the years before losing interest in photography.  I'd decided to scan the best ones in, just so they didn't molder away in a drawer, and I discovered the stock agencies and submitted a few.  It wasn't easy; slides need a lot of post processing, and I felt that using ICE on the scanner ruined them so dust spotting had to be done by hand.  But, when I started to get a few sales I was inspired again and I'm very glad I did it.  Never looked back.  For me, it's still really a hobby, I don't do model shoots and don't even much enjoy taking staged product shots, though I do try a few out of interest.

But, don't give up on the day job yet...

Stock photography is all about preplanned, carefully composed images in a subject you chose delibaretly. You spend a lot of time doing research on what is already available in the collections, what is missing, then you decide on location, models, props, type of lighting, organize helpers, do the shoot, then spend a lot of time post processing.

You don�t walk around with a camera and shoot what catches your eye. Stock is commercial photography with a clear intention.

Of course you can learn how to do this, but you have to work very hard for it.

And no, the images that I see don�t seem to be shot with the customer in mind. What concept are they supposed to sell with that image? Can they be printed on a pizza flyer or added to the email newsletter of an insurance?

if you want to learn about stock, just look at the images that are used in advertising and product packaging all around you.

The question is: will you even enjoy shooting stock? Or would you maybe prefer to shoot editorial images? Or take portraits of families and get paid for that?

The question is: will you even enjoy shooting stock? Or would you maybe prefer to shoot editorial images? Or take portraits of families and get paid for that?

I appreciate this type of question, because it causes me to think and refine my tastes and defining the role of photography in my life. Thank you. I hope it also helps others on this forum.

As I research this stuff a bit more, I realize I'm more of a "photojournalist" who enjoys shooting "meaningful" editorial images (depiction of something happening in the real-world - a specific time and place) far more than the staged product/model stuff, which actually I have never really done (except to test out my equipment and to sell stuff on eBay). I also enjoy taking "visually striking" photos which may or may not be editorial (I haven't quite figured it out yet).

I would not enjoy commissioned photography of any sort - weddings, baby portraits, etc. That would feel too much like WORK - like my day-job!

Right now I'm leaning towards giving Alamy a try with editorial images. Only problem is my large collection taken prior to DSLR ownership is not eligible, so it'll have to be all new photos.

I'm just curious but why all your photos on Flickr are mentioned to be licensable via Getty? If those images are on Getty, you shouldn't be interested in microstock.

that is just a selection on Flickr.. you can set it as an option that people can license your photos through Getty if they like one of them.

all my photos on flickr can also be purchased through Getty, but they are only listed on flickr and the Getty licensing only goes through once someone wants to buy one.

In which case Atramos, perhaps uploading to flickr is enough, people 'can' technically license your photos there if they are interested enough.

There are many ways to earn money with your passion for photography. But if you like photojournalism, then  you should maybe look into doing some freelance work for a local newspaper. Or tell the story of an event being hosted in your city, accompany the street cleaners for a full day during their work etc...

But that is a very different field, than shooting stock.

Of course you can then offer your editorial images for license on alamy or the many sites that accept editorial content.

You could start a blog around subjects that interest you and then set a monthly subject for yourself to write and shoot about. And from the blog add the links to the stock sites.

Something like that...

Like a pen, a camera is just a tool. With a pen you can write the next Harry Potter, your grocery list, draw a beautiful portrait or draw the next ipad like innovation.

there are as many options as there are people.

It could still be an interesting experience to learn about stock, because the quality standards for commercial photography are so high. It will influence the quality of all your other photography work.

Quote from: cobalt on October 02, 2011, 09:36

Stock photography is all about preplanned, carefully composed images in a subject you chose delibaretly. You spend a lot of time doing research on what is already available in the collections, what is missing, then you decide on location, models, props, type of lighting, organize helpers, do the shoot, then spend a lot of time post processing.

You don�t walk around with a camera and shoot what catches your eye. Stock is commercial photography with a clear intention.

Of course you can learn how to do this, but you have to work very hard for it.

And no, the images that I see don�t seem to be shot with the customer in mind. What concept are they supposed to sell with that image? Can they be printed on a pizza flyer or added to the email newsletter of an insurance?

if you want to learn about stock, just look at the images that are used in advertising and product packaging all around you.

The question is: will you even enjoy shooting stock? Or would you maybe prefer to shoot editorial images? Or take portraits of families and get paid for that?

Excellent advice. This post should be stored for instant retrieval for when the next wave of Flickr-ites ask the "Should I do stock?" question.

Microstock is simply put.....hack photography.  You might enjoy doing it but for the most part what you shoot isn't what you'd hang on your wall in your home.  No matter how you slice it, the isolated bananas, the plastic model loving her job is nothing more than hack photography.  MS is (as it should be) all about money.  It is not about enjoyment, it is about volume, which equates to money...even though you may enjoy it.  Take away the money part and the rest is moot.

^ If you depend on it for a living, yes.

The beauty of it though is you don't have to do it that way.  You can take the pictures you enjoy, and just regard it as a hobby that pays for itself.  A week ago, I bought a 5D Mk II.  Paid for with my last three months income.

Congrats on the 5D Mk II.

Quote from: Mantis on October 02, 2011, 18:02

Microstock is simply put.....hack photography.  You might enjoy doing it but for the most part what you shoot isn't what you'd hang on your wall in your home.  No matter how you slice it, the isolated bananas, the plastic model loving her job is nothing more than hack photography.  MS is (as it should be) all about money.  It is not about enjoyment, it is about volume, which equates to money...even though you may enjoy it.  Take away the money part and the rest is moot.

Sour grapes?

Not necessary. A great part of my income comes from microcstock, but most of the time I would still be rather shooting something else, if I had the choice. If someone thinks that microstock photography is the most interesting or artistic genre of photography... well, I pity them
(Yes, we DO have sometimes fun shooting and even editing is sometimes fun, but still it would be even more fun shooting something else. You know, personal artsy stuff that would never pass QC. Or shooting just weird portraits of people I know and see around me without thinking if the photos have sales potential)

thats like 700k $ per day! even if after all expenses etc etc they get 50% of that is insane, it makes me sick how much they can play the victim with us..