I would have to disagree. Once you get the technical aspect of it down, it's really up to everyone's different nature. I mean you can arbitrate specific topics because they are holes in the industry, and that is probably some aspect you don't have to share, but all in all I think taking pictures of things you are interested in, know something about, and/or are close to you make up the bulk of most non-professional microstock photography.

So I guess the answer to the question really is, slowly explore what you find interesting, and wrap your technical know-how around it.

IKEA stuff is similar. Sometimes it is recognizable, sometimes it is not. I avoid anything that I think is risky so I don't waste my time.

Again, take your time. Read the other thread.

Carefully.

Same exact complaint, same exact reason provided. My purpose is not to spend a day convincing you I am telling the truth, it is to find resolution to the issue. Advice on how to resolve it, or whether I should even try. Your refusal to acknowledge the issue exists is really no one else's problem. So again, please, go read, educate, then provide feedback if you are so capable.

Not everyone want to publicize their portfolios in a forum buddy. Either I'm making it up because I have a lot of time on my hands (and I've created multiple accounts on this forum to create another thread that complains of the exact same problem in order to reference it to give myself credence) or you should step out of your comfort zone. Either way, if you're not here to help, don't pollute the thread with your personal emotions.

If you see this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/depositphotos/change-in-reviewing-process/

It looks like they are having some rogue reviewer making odd rejections for the same reason I outlined.

I am a contributor on every microstock site on the list from the top tier to middle tier and have an acceptance ratio of above 80%. I've applied twice at DP with my best photos and all of them have been rejected.

Obviously they have some issue and this is not legitimate but I'm wondering if it's worth trying again. I sent them an email but this lack of professional screening makes me wonder if it's worth trying with them in general.

"No commercial content"

Cool, thanks for that stat. So about 50/50. That makes more sense to me. I guess I was concerned that the subscription sales are what the multiplier is... which is tough... do-able, but tough.

I guess that's not really my point. I'm not complaining persay - I'm surprised that this is the business model.

For people who make a reasonable amount each month - is it mostly subscription or on demand revenue?

With their monthly subscriptions these places let people download full resolution (XXL) images for $0.33/image. iStock on the other hand charges on average $6/full resolution image, even on a subscription account (as far as my math works out).

Doesn't that seem ridiculous? Do most of your sales come from these low end purchases? I wouldn't mind if the small or web sized images were being sold at that rate but 6000x4000 images for $0.25 a pop seems like robbery.

Is there a list (or can we compile a recent one) of all the software available for contributors to upload and categorize images with titles, descriptions and keywords to the main stock agencies?

JPSDK, you have really given me awesome ideas. The crawling thing (perspective in the same environment) is a fantastic idea. I have both a wide zoom and a macro lens so I can work that out great.

Quote from: JPSDK on June 04, 2013, 14:08
People have a tendency to photograph pretty things:
Pretty flowers, pretty, women and pretty landscapes.

But it can help you to do the opposite.
Fx "broken". Photograph everything broken: broken glass, flat tire, broken piece of wood etc.....
or everything rotten.
Those pictures also sell and they are not so abundant as the pretty ones.

Just make sure, as usual with stock photos, that your compose the image so it supports the keywords you have photographed.

That's a great idea, and i myself was leaning that way too.

Quote from: Anyka on June 04, 2013, 12:47
The best thing you can do is shoot the things you know a lot about.  I know absolutely nothing about sports, so that subject is taboo for me.  But if you (or some one in your family) have a hobby (music, ballet, gardener), profession (baker, farmer ...) of special interest, then you are likely to make better photographs of that subject than anybody else, and you don't even have to do any research!   Then, after shooting the subject on white, start shooting it "in action" or against the background where it belongs.

Hey thanks, that's a good suggestion. I guess my hobbies are computers and gadgets, so it is limiting in that sense, but yeah, I can expand on other things.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 04, 2013, 11:16Yeah, it's easy to sign up and buy equipment.  Harder to create.

Very helpful.

Thanks for the other suggestions though. Still finding it hard however.

I basically have all the gear I want and need, and am a contributor on most agencies. However aside from food and general objects on white I find it hard to come up with ideas for stock photos.

Do any of you have any methods or tips or activities that may assist me in coming up with ideas?

Like looking at other stock photos and generating a unique variation? Something that provides results, because it's becoming frustrating!

Ah, okay. So not distracting, but also supportive.

If it is not distracting and not supportive, then it is unnecessary, right?

You have been very helpful!

So you are saying that a more contrasting background would be better than having the same flowers in the background?

Regarding that first image, if it was just snow in the background, would it still be supportive (ie, the contrast or lone flower etc)?

Thank you for the critique.

I see that even though the portion in focus is focused, it is indeed not as crisp as I want it, and yes stopping down a few notches would give it a crisper look.

With the DOF being too shallow I figure we want to see the whole flower because it is the main object of the scene.

Regarding #1, if the leaves in the background had some reflected light into them giving them more color and life, the flower took up a slightly large portion of the frame, and the entire flower was in focus, aside from the LCV, would it be closer to a technically acceptable photo for stock?

Ah, I think I understand.

So you would want the foliage to be a relevant part of the image, or more relevant than it is right now. See, the way I saw it is that the contrast makes the flower stick out even more.

But I guess you can have the contrast but bring out the colors in the background more so that there's more information for the eyes to process.

And yeah, I see how if you reflect light into the shadows you just get more details for the eyes to catch.

Starting to understand - fill your image with visual information - anything underexposed or too dark is lost, anything too bright or overexposed is lost, so the trick is to have focus points and shadows without comparisons that are too harsh (most of the time) so that the viewer gets all the information in the picture.

yes?

tab62: Thanks! So what you mean is you'd rather see more of the flower in focus and not just the tip?

jsnover: Can you explain what you mean by too much leaf and not enough flower? Is it because the flower is too small, or as tab62 mentioned out of focus?

Or should there just be less copy space and be more focused on the flower itself?

Can you expand on the lighting critique? I received a lighting critique elsewhere as well and am totally unclear on what needs to be improved with it.

Thanks.

I believe I could cut a little bit of space off the right side, but other than that I would appreciate any detailed critique on if this is acceptable stock content, and if not other than the composition what technically needs to be improved.

Thanks.