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