I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get. 

Sedge..
Really interesting point of view, that can teach us a lot.

you are correct with the softer look, in fact they prefer blacks softer, natural skin tones and soft light. To me a lot of it looks like it's shot in Canada during winter as the light is muted, lucky buggars. Not all of it (I've seen some stuff there that is contrasty, HDRish, oversaturated and sharp), but certainly the curated stuff.

I'm not so sure about less post processing through, but I don't use Lr so I don't have the VSCO plug in that many seem to have. I think your "instagram" comment is valid and why not? it's on trend right now, and may well go on for a decade.

Hmmm...  Sounds like a boutique operation along the lines of peopleimages offering a certain look and feel subset of what is available on the main sites.  So these sites are not going to be quaking in their boots about the competition

Well, iStock now has Yu-know-who as a pseudo-exclusive, and they're now toe deep in my native natural lighting, which previously was unacceptable there; so they may be taking notice.

Im currently working with an action that enhances contrasts, tone down colours and lay a sepia layer over everything.
The instagram look.

and so what?

I produced an action that could make microstock pictures look bright and shining, the opposite is just as easy.

Quote from: heywoody on September 22, 2013, 16:43

Hmmm...  Sounds like a boutique operation along the lines of peopleimages offering a certain look and feel subset of what is available on the main sites.  So these sites are not going to be quaking in their boots about the competition

Well, iStock now has Yu-know-who as a pseudo-exclusive, and they're now toe deep in my native natural lighting, which previously was unacceptable there; so they may be taking notice.

IS are accepting a lot of things they wouldn't have previously (including from me).  The point really is that IS, SS, DT, FT would all have this style, level of quality and subject matter but have all other styles catered for also.  On Stocksy / Offset it would just be easier to find and there maybe a slight "designer label" vibe for those who care about such things.

I live in the desert and use the bright natural light here with (mostly) minimal post processing. 

I do a lot of experimenting on Flickr though with off camera lighting which is what they asked to see (weird). Guess that explains why my portfolio was rejected! It is extremely varied and probably confusing to sift through. Eh well. Still a neat/brilliant concept I wish them the best of luck!

Oh, we had three weeks of hot weather here this summer, which was three full weeks longer than the last two years. Then it was jeans, jumpers [1], cagoules.
But of course, we can get harsh, contrasty natural lighting too, just not as often as you do. That's the days when passers-by say, "Oh, what a lovely day for taking pictures".

[1] That's the UK use of jumper meaning sweater, not the US meaning of pinafore dress. (apparently)

I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.

Nah. It's too far up it's own arse for my liking. Sorry but stock ... is stock ... is stock ... and good-old-fashioned basic 'stock' will always win out.

Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites. That's why I am not persuaded to join.

I like the general concept but I don't think it is strong enough to work commercially in the photographers' interests. Sorry but 50% of X is still a lot less than say 30% of 10X.

Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.

Honestly, if I put the images I have on Stocksy on the other four sites I'm selling on, I doubt they would make more than a few dollars a month.  There's an audience that wants what Stocksy is selling, and they're willing to pay a reasonable fee.

Quote from: Sedge on September 21, 2013, 22:51

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures

I don't understand why anyone would use "conceptual" as a keyword. What would it look like? How could I photograph it? All the other keywords you mentioned are definitely concepts in my opinion so I would disagree with your conclusion that there is not a lot of concept work.

I have many images purchased on the word concept. Probably in conjunction with another word, but the word is used to search.

Quote from: Sedge on September 21, 2013, 22:51

I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:

1) Over-saturation of colors:  Actually, quite the opposite.  A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you.  Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.

2) Very little post-processing:  I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.

3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects:  For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera.  No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.

4) Not a lot of conceptual work:  A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague.  Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results.  I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.

5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera:  No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc.  There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.

6) There's very little HDR imagery.

7) No illustrations (yet).

I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list.  What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 

1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration.  Lighting is often soft and subtle.

2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look."  There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing.  This isn't a criticism.  This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television.  The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).

3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality.  It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells.  Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).

I'm really rooting for Stocksy.  Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.

Nah. It's too far up it's own arse for my liking. Sorry but stock ... is stock ... is stock ... and good-old-fashioned basic 'stock' will always win out.

Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites. That's why I am not persuaded to join.

I like the general concept but I don't think it is strong enough to work commercially in the photographers' interests. Sorry but 50% of X is still a lot less than say 30% of 10X.

That's fine if you're happy being so reliant on SS.  I'm not so confident, having seen how my earnings can crash on other sites and having seen that it has already happened to some on SS.  Stocksy could be one way to diversify.  I liked it when my earnings were spread over many sites, as a non-exclusive that's hard to achieve now.

Seems to be some confusion here. That low contrast soft crushed blacks look which some people do so well (actually a whole range of different styles) is completely different from the look people get when they couple flat lighting with bad processing. It's also about the palettes used etc - ie about how the colors are processed. It's really simplistic to compare bad lighting and poor processing with a deliberate style used well and in context.

I don't have a stick in this fire. My work is rubbish. I need to change. But I definitely know good work when I see it and have a good sense of what is being used and where. Reading these threads I find myself wondering what blogs or magazines some people here are actually reading every day or whether they can see what they are looking at.  And what other contemporary media they see everyday. Here, below for example, are 4 lifestyle sites / magazines which all have a deliberately contemporary look and feel. And have another look at, say, some of those beautiful Swedish, French and US design and lifestyle blogs (and add 20 or 30 to your daily feed). Look at where those pictures are being sourced from - ie who is actually using them. Then look at this year's crop of annual reports - even many of the big industrials have gone over to a much more contemporary style since the past few years. Ditto in-flight magazines etc. Great looking photography seems to be the norm now - certainly everywhere I look. Meanwhile - we get almost no junk mail anymore - the sort of print which used to feature the microstock stuff which was heavily used 8 or 10 or even 5 years ago.

http://www.kinfolk.com
http://marrowmag.com
http://collectivequarterly.com
http://www.puregreenmag.com