Hey, new here, and very nervous about the Stocksy application. I should have looked into it more before applying, but after waiting soooo many months for their call to artists to open back up, I submitted my application the moment I got my notification -- yesterday..

Ugh.. after reading more, I am hoping I didn't choose the wrong kinds of pictures.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tanya_little/collections/72157644752692958/ -- Portfolio collection on Flickr

I also connected many other social media sites (Flickr, Facebook, Website, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, etc).. do those have any influence on their decision, or just the images you submitted for your "portfolio?"

I mainly shoot lifestyle of my boys, and have been a Getty contributor for almost 4 years. Not having much luck with microstock, however, as I've been told my images are not "stocky" enough.. I have some images on Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia, Dreamstime and 123RF (in addition to my large portfolio at Getty), but those microstock sites have been very difficult for me to add to my portfolios.. especially Shutterstock..

So, no holding back.. think I even have a chance getting accepted with Stocksy?!

Thanks so much, I will definitely take a look!

Thank you so much for the links! I have access to Getty's creative research (for contributors), so it's nice to see other trends in the stock industry. I changed my one "Favorites" album on Flickr into four separate "Portfolio" albums, so perhaps this will help. The overlap is sometimes difficult to distinguish for me, heh..

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tanya_little/collections/72157644752692958/ -- Portfolio Collection

Thank you so much! I followed your Flickr link and just love your stream over there! Good luck to you as well!

Same here. I have second thought of my submitted photos.

Like comment after Tudor, if you don't get it, then it's not a place for you.

That must be one awesome photographer... 

I don't agree that there is a very narrow style, although I understand why one might get that impression by looking at the main page, which is more tightly curated.  But in the overall collection, there are images with shallow depth of field, and images taken in bright sun with tiny apertures.  Natural lighting and artificial lighting.  Highly styled commercial shoots and family snapshots.  VSCO-type filters and no filters.  Bright colours and muted colours.  There are certain things you won't find on Stocksy, like coffee cups isolated on white (although...), or workers on backgrounds crossing their arms (except...), but I don't agree that there is "one distinct style" of images on Stocksy.  Jasmin, you have different styles in your own portfolio.

When I started at Stocksy, I also had the impression that there was a "look" I was supposed to achieve, and that I would have to upload everything else to other sites.  What I've actually found in the past year and a half is that they have accepted literally any style of shooting and editing I have felt like doing as long as it's well executed. 

jen, you have a great portfolio at stocksy -   I like it very much!

I don't think that if stocksy rejects a file or a series that it means the file is badly done or cannot be sold. Far from it. It just needs to go elsewhere where it can find a good home. And what they accept and reject tells me what style they prefer. But I don't consider it as an evaluation of the commercial value of my work.

Just like the artists that have not been accepted. Their work is not bad or cannot be sold. I mean their work is often already selling successfully somewhere else . stocksy just prefers someone else's style more.

If they accept a file it means it goes with the look they are working on, if they reject, it is just not their style. There is no other way to run an edited collection.

There is a huge world of styles that are not present on stocksy. People and objects on white the most obvious ommision, but also the classical business looks and a huge world of still life that is simply not there. All the things NOT done on an old wood background, also parody, creative photoshop fantasy works, kitsch, all things ugly,also the documentary types of portfolios,i.e. people who collect any kind of butterfly under the sun, or roses with correct latin names etc...i mean there is so much you can do in stock.

But I think by having the most trendy collection, living the moment is what makes stocksy so special. If you want "normal" stock or the diversity of "every style" you'll go to SS, istock or getty.

If the stocksy style was not so distinct, why would anyone go there? The customer would then have to waste time sorting through all styles again.

I really love the collection, I look at the new images every day and find them very inspiring. Browsing stocksy is like going on holiday, at least for me.

My experience is actually "supporting" Tudor's point: The "less commercial" images used to be the ones sitting in my iStock portfolio with 0 downloads.

However, the conclusions I drew are slightly different: Not "shoot more commercial images" (especially if that means to focus only on stereotypical stuff in studio) but "find a better place for the less commercial images". I am convinced they would have a chance if they were accepted in Vetta but they weren't. Now some of them ended up in the Stocksy collection and they are not selling often but if they do, it equals 10 or 20 or 250 downloads on Shutterstock with one single sale. That's what those "less commercial" images need: A higher price. Putting them on microstock is going to kill your images (and your mindset).

If your vision is blinded what sells in microstock, you won't understand that there is a group of buyers out there who are not looking after the common stereotypes and clich�s that make microstock images successful. I am still with microstock and continue to shoot for microstock. But I am well aware these days that some images will not make more than 38 cents (if at all) in their lifetime if I put them onto Shutterstock & Co.

There is a market for microstock images, and it has been growing over the past years. First iStock, then Shutterstock were very successful. And they have a huge volume in downloads that never existed before. But after all, adding up the revenues, they only make up for about 25-30% of the market volume. It's just that you won't hear a lot about the other 70-75% of the market because most of them are not going to talk about it in MicroStockGroup.

jen, you have a great portfolio at stocksy -   I like it very much!

Thank you very much!