pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: critique my subjects and style?  (Read 7054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 28, 2011, 22:44 »
0
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!!


« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2011, 22:58 »
0
put them up for critique at shutterstock and you will get the low down .

traveler1116

« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2011, 23:01 »
0
You are kidding right?  This image has the date on it...http://www.flickr.com/photos/atramos/6168128264/#in/set-72157627717036088

« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2011, 23:09 »
0
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

« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2011, 23:47 »
0
Most of these are just walk around snapshots.  Shot at eye level.  You've got to work a bit harder at it.

« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2011, 00:06 »
0
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 wont get you far also, look at the current stock state, things dont look as bright as a few years ago (not saying it aint possible just hard), check agencies etc

just my 2 cents, always wanted to say this here  ;D

RT


« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2011, 04:42 »
0
put them up for critique at shutterstock and you will get the low down .

I wish everyone would go to the SS forum for advice - the less competition the better  ;D

« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2011, 05:02 »
0
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...

« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2011, 09:01 »
0
put them up for critique at shutterstock and you will get the low down .

Really?^ In my humble opinion that is the epitome of a "good ol boy" network with just a few arrogant profiles running the show.  I buzz through their critique forums and simply find very few useful critiques, and not many of them from a volume standpoint, either. But that's just my opinion.  Your experience may be different. Istock used to have a good critique forum but since people like Sean and Joanne have quit critiquing, I don't seem their forums as useful as they used to.

« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2011, 09:36 »
0
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 dont 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 dont 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?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 09:38 by cobalt »

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2011, 10:02 »
0
put them up for critique at shutterstock and you will get the low down .

Really?^ In my humble opinion that is the epitome of a "good ol boy" network with just a few arrogant profiles running the show.  I buzz through their critique forums and simply find very few useful critiques, and not many of them from a volume standpoint, either. But that's just my opinion.  Your experience may be different. Istock used to have a good critique forum but since people like Sean and Joanne have quit critiquing, I don't seem their forums as useful as they used to.

I think that's the point RT was making too.

« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2011, 10:54 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2011, 12:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2011, 12:18 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2011, 12:24 »
0
you can set it as an option that people can license your photos through Getty if they like one of them
Ah thanks Tyler, I didn't know that.

« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2011, 13:24 »
0
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.

« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2011, 15:06 »
0
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 dont 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 dont 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.

« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2011, 18:02 »
0
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 dont 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 dont 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.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2011, 18:06 by Mantis »

« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2011, 18:38 »
0
^ 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.

« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2011, 18:47 »
0
^ 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.

« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2011, 20:47 »
0
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?

« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2011, 00:58 »
0
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)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 01:01 by Perry »

RacePhoto

« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2011, 13:47 »
0
 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.

Oh No, I thought it wasn't about the money? ;)

In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow.

Oh yeah, they grow bigger, we get shrunken commissions.

simply unsustainable maybe I can do a song about that, it has an interesting ring? Nat King Cole anyone?

" It's not about money...it's about sending a message" Or maybe that was the wrong quote, that's from Batman?

iStock sold $72 million worth of images in 2007, a figure expected to jump to $262 million by 2012.   :o

Yeah, it's not about the money according to iStock. In fact the whole Microstck industry is only about the money.

« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2011, 15:35 »
0
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..

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2011, 19:13 »
0

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


Why would you want to keep it as a hobby when you could become one of many happy cheerful micro contributors?  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2836 Views
Last post June 23, 2008, 05:13
by nicemonkey
14 Replies
7263 Views
Last post January 12, 2010, 23:14
by RacePhoto
9 Replies
5722 Views
Last post November 10, 2011, 08:23
by digitalexpressionimages
2 Replies
2793 Views
Last post November 18, 2013, 12:02
by Yay Images Billionaire
8 Replies
2885 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 16:18
by MxR

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors