Selling photos on stock photo sites

[btrenkel]

will you be announcing the workshop anywhere on CS? i'm keen, my istock though has a good selling photo my acceptance ratio is terrible due to a bad start when i just started off, its quite a reversible change right now though.

Yes - target date is end of May. And announcement will come in 1-2 weeks. Stay tuned

 

[tester99]

i'd like to attend the workshop too if possible.

 

[tester99]

There is more than one. The Australian is here. And the Canadian (actually French Canadian, very French) is here. I've met Lise twice - she is fun, and damn good in what she does with her camera. Learned a lot, by just watching her shoot.

you mean you saw her in person is it?

i looked through her blog, and found that she has this white-bias thing going on. haha.

what i'd like to ask is ( sorry if it sounds noob-ish ), are most of her shots controlled with artificial/studio lights ? If not, how does she achieve that kind of "so-pure" effect?

 

[JacePhoto]

i'd like to attend the workshop too if possible.

There are numerous sharings of tips in this area already. i remb there was a CSer who compiled it into a book that can be downloaded at SGD 5.00

In fact, i have also compiled some important pointers here:

 

[tester99]

thanks for that post! i've read through all of it and will keep that in mind.

 

[JacePhoto]

thanks for that post! i've read through all of it and will keep that in mind.

I just remb one thing... When i looked at fellow new STOCK Photographer's submission, i realised that they are taking their usual approach as a Guy with Cam (GWC) - Sharpening, correcting, enhancing... This is a serious mistakes! In addition, do not post process your picture!!! (Do not add dodging, vignetting, halo, etc).

You shld never do the above. Over enhancing your pictures introduces noise artifacts into what could have been a potential picture sale. If there is any enhancing done, your client would do it themselves (most of them are expert in Graphic Design).

This is a reason why being a STOCK photographer pushes u to become a better photographer.

 

[barracuda]

I just remb one thing... When i looked at fellow new STOCK Photographer's submission, i realised that they are taking their usual approach as a Guy with Cam (GWC) - Sharpening, correcting, enhancing... This is a serious mistakes! In addition, do not post process your picture!!! (Do not add dodging, vignetting, halo, etc).

You shld never do the above. Over enhancing your pictures introduces noise artifacts into what could have been a potential picture sale. If there is any enhancing done, your client would do it themselves (most of them are expert in Graphic Design).

This is a reason why being a STOCK photographer pushes u to become a better photographer.

Well said. :thumbsup: Just to add one more point: some of the old teachings don't apply in microstock. For example, in digital photography, you always hear people say you should have your exposure just right or under-expose a bit. never under expose your photos for microstock, unless u are willing to spend lots of time in PP to remove all the noise particles. Do keep in mind that shutterstock is very particular about noise, anything that remotely looks like noise will render your photo being rejected.

 

[aosis]

Well said. :thumbsup: Just to add one more point: some of the old teachings don't apply in microstock. For example, in digital photography, you always hear people say you should have your exposure just right or under-expose a bit. never under expose your photos for microstock, unless u are willing to spend lots of time in PP to remove all the noise particles. Do keep in mind that shutterstock is very particular about noise, anything that remotely looks like noise will render your photo being rejected.

Agree ... my advice is to do stock photos with correct exposure, and etc. - just like food related photos. White balance, saturation and exposure is critical to show exactly the food we are going to eat.

 

[wildstallion]

i briefly read through the whole thread - seems that most people only subscribed to 2 sites. why is that the case? i mean, no harm subscribing to ALL available sites on the net right? can make more $ at no extra cost to you..

The more sites you submit to the more work you have to do uploading and approving. Time is money. Is it worth doing hours of work on a site that may only get you $5 a month instead of concentrating on a few that give you $100 a month each?

 

[sprintist]

I just remb one thing... When i looked at fellow new STOCK Photographer's submission, i realised that they are taking their usual approach as a Guy with Cam (GWC) - Sharpening, correcting, enhancing... This is a serious mistakes! In addition, do not post process your picture!!! (Do not add dodging, vignetting, halo, etc).

You shld never do the above. Over enhancing your pictures introduces noise artifacts into what could have been a potential picture sale. If there is any enhancing done, your client would do it themselves (most of them are expert in Graphic Design).

This is a reason why being a STOCK photographer pushes u to become a better photographer.

some photos on istock i realised do have certain processed photos and some have heavy vignetting too, perhaps that one target a diff group of customers

 

[tester99]

The more sites you submit to the more work you have to do uploading and approving. Time is money. Is it worth doing hours of work on a site that may only get you $5 a month instead of concentrating on a few that give you $100 a month each?

i'm currently still hunting for jobs actually. so i'll be wasting time anyway if i don't do something.

 

[btrenkel]

I just remb one thing... When i looked at fellow new STOCK Photographer's submission, i realised that they are taking their usual approach as a Guy with Cam (GWC) - Sharpening, correcting, enhancing... This is a serious mistakes! In addition, do not post process your picture!!! (Do not add dodging, vignetting, halo, etc).

You shld never do the above. Over enhancing your pictures introduces noise artifacts into what could have been a potential picture sale. If there is any enhancing done, your client would do it themselves (most of them are expert in Graphic Design).

This is a reason why being a STOCK photographer pushes u to become a better photographer.

Well - only partly true. You've never shot beauty for stock then. You'll be blown away when you see the before and after.

Re noise - you shot wrong from the start; and/or then overdid it in post. Welcome to the mysterious world of rejections

 

[JacePhoto]

Well - only partly true. You've never shot beauty for stock then. You'll be blown away when you see the before and after.

Re noise - you shot wrong from the start; and/or then overdid it in post. Welcome to the mysterious world of rejections

Thanks for enlightening us 'btrenkel', Care to share some samples, etc?

 

[btrenkel]

you mean you saw her in person is it?

i looked through her blog, and found that she has this white-bias thing going on. haha.

what i'd like to ask is ( sorry if it sounds noob-ish ), are most of her shots controlled with artificial/studio lights ? If not, how does she achieve that kind of "so-pure" effect?

Yes, studio lighting. Or to be correct - the right blend between natural and studio; otherwise you can't get this kind of look/feel, which is very much in at the moment

 

[tester99]

Yes, studio lighting. Or to be correct - the right blend between natural and studio; otherwise you can't get this kind of look/feel, which is very much in at the moment

hmm, then she must be very hardworking, to be moving all the lights around in the house for different shots.. lol.

what kind of studio equipment ( and costs involved ) would i need to achieve her level of effect? pretty interested to know. :sweat:

 

[btrenkel]

hmm, then she must be very hardworking, to be moving all the lights around in the house for different shots.. lol.

what kind of studio equipment ( and costs involved ) would i need to achieve her level of effect? pretty interested to know. :sweat:

Lights - I don't know. But a good set of strobes ~10k SGD (Bowen?)
Camera - she's been shooting long time with a Canon 1ds Mk2, then 1ds Mk3. And lately Hasselblad - 50 megapixel. Cost in Singapore ~45k SGD
But the Hasselblad is overkill - rarely anyone needs such large files, or would buy them on istock. Of course, it gives you great latitude in cropping

But the hard part that money can't buy: Ideas, creativity, styling, and an eye for what is needed; and will sell.

 

[btrenkel]

Thanks for enlightening us 'btrenkel', Care to share some samples, etc?

I'll bring that to the workshop ;-). But since someone asked before that landscape is not interesting; and won't sell. Here 3 guys who know what they are doing:

Alex (friend of mine, close to my hometown in Germany) and
Hougaard from South Africa. Love his works - very creative landscape
Ingmar - Austria

Enjoy

 

[tester99]

Lights - I don't know. But a good set of strobes ~10k SGD (Bowen?)
Camera - she's been shooting long time with a Canon 1ds Mk2, then 1ds Mk3. And lately Hasselblad - 50 megapixel. Cost in Singapore ~45k SGD
But the Hasselblad is overkill - rarely anyone needs such large files, or would buy them on istock. Of course, it gives you great latitude in cropping

But the hard part that money can't buy: Ideas, creativity, styling, and an eye for what is needed; and will sell.

ah.. that's a really huge investment.

 

[aezomz]

I went to register at shutter stock . But they required me to upload a picture of my passport. Is it trustable? and did u all uploaded too?

 

[aosis]

I went to register at shutter stock . But they required me to upload a picture of my passport. Is it trustable? and did u all uploaded too?

i joined very early before they introduced this requirement. I guess that should be it. SS is trustworthy.