Stock photography, worth a try?

[sitnet]

Stock photography, worth a try?[Samples added]

Hey guys

(Cool, new layout, good job )

I am thinking about trying to sell a few photos on a stock photography website. Now I have no experience with stock photography at all, so some tips would be very helpful. As in what is the process of selling photos online, and which website is the best?

I am going to upload a few candidates later, and then I will take your opinions in consideration.

Thanx

Sorry for the low resolution and watermark, but it would very stupid to upload the full resolution usable images. The actual full res photos are all about 18MP (some are cropped, but not a lot). I have added samples of the actual quality.

So what do you think?

P.s the image button is broken, had to input image code manually!

 

[Edduck]

hey sitnet, i have been on shutterstock and dreamstime.com for 3 years now and both sites have paid for a bit of my photo kit! And that's with only about 70 good quality stock pics. Looking at the samples you uploaded I assume you took all of them in JPEG? Stock (and especially microstock) demand the highest quality images, no matter what the subject. If there is the slightest hint of image softness, poor focus, noise (chroma or luminance), poor composition, poor lighting, poor exposure and most of all poor subject matter then there is a 100% chance the image will get rejected. Now this is not all doom and gloom, it is very easy to do microstock right.

The very first thing is that you have to understand who the clients are of stock and microstock libraries and what subject matter sells best. If you go to any of the microstock sites (www.shutterstock.com www.dreamstime.com www.fotolia.com www.istock.com) they are bound to have a link to their best selling images. What do you see on top? PEOPLE! People in business suits, happy families walking on the beach, doctors performing surgery, people answering a telephone... You get the picture. After that any sort of business related theme or object. This accounts for (imo) 70% of microstock sales. And who buys these images? Magazines, ad agencies, designers. What comes after that is everything else in our world and unfortunately, as I found out the hard way in the beginning, photos of animals do not sell very well.... NOW this does not mean you won't sell images of the big 5 or of birds of prey. The key is to provide images that no one else does i.e. you have to be unique and innovative with your animal photos. A photo of an animal also has to tell a story. A bird flying through the air is just a bird flying through the air BUT a bird in an epic mid flight battle with another bird tells of survival and strength.

The second bit, as I mentioned in my first paragraph, is to get the image technically correct. Big No No's for stock are: distracting backgrounds, poor composition and NOISE. Graphic designers are lazy and they would much rather buy an image with the subject matter against a solid colour background than trees and buildings, it is just less work for them to incorporate the images into their designs.

Some simple crit on these images you uploaded, the pics are technically ok however the images are a bit soft and there is a bit of color noise in the shadow.

A final tip (I assume you are using a Canon 7D/60D/600D) If you are serious about getting into stock imagery good L glass is a must to ensure you have a high keeper rate wrt image sharpness and focus. Always try and get the animals from the front as you want to see their eyes and make sure you are thinking "What would a designer use this image for" before you take the shot to ensure your composition and overall look is correct.

Most of all please don't feel discourage!!! There is a wealth of info on the net about stock imagery, google is your friend

Some examples with the same subject matter as your pics:

 

[koffiejunkie]

@sitnet, your watermark is far too prominent and distracting. It ruins the image - makes it hard to get a sense of it. If I was browsing for images, I would flip right pas yours - even if they're great - for that reason alone.

 

[sitnet]

Thanx for all the tips, and the critique definetely helps a lot. Yeah this was the first time I have taken wildlife photography with a DSLR, so practice will definitely make a big difference. And about the photos being unique, I understand, that is probably the biggest selling point. I will also start rather taking in RAW (it is very unpleasant working with RAW images though, but once I get used to the work-flow I presume it will get easier.)

O and about the watermarks, yeah sorry, my paranoia was running over a bit, will make the much lighter as soon as I have time again, and the upload again.

One thing I would like to know, how does one go about copyrighting photo's once they are submitted to a stock photography website. And what is the costs of submitting a photo?

Once again thanx, all is taken into consideration

 

[Edduck]

O and about the watermarks, yeah sorry, my paranoia was running over a bit, will make the much lighter as soon as I have time again, and the upload again.

One thing I would like to know, how does one go about copyrighting photo's once they are submitted to a stock photography website. And what is the costs of submitting a photo?

You don't need to watermark your images when you upload them to stock sites. All the sites automatically overlay copyright signs on web-size copies of your images. The full size image are never made available to the public. So need to worry about someone stealing your images. The only people who are legally allowed to is the stock site (for advertising purposes) and the people who buy the royalty free or rights manages (among other licensing models) licenses for the image.

 

[bwana]

Something to keep in mind is once you've uploaded photos to sites like Facebook and Flickr as well as forums like mybb and outdoorphoto you in effect license them to use your photos if they want to. What that means is you can no longer offer people exclusive rights to those images.

Now I know all those accolades and VWDs you get on sites mean a lot to some people . . . but you can't buy yourself that new lens with a handful of well done's.

 

[mfumbesi]

Lots of useful information here. A few years ago I was also considering stock-photography. I quickly realised that I would need pictures of PEOPLE. That was a deal breaker for me as it meant I had to find models, possibly pay them (there is also stock models by the way), find sell-able settings (meaning people in the park, office, etc) and decent equipment. I hope you do it and prove (me) how being risk averse brings no glory.
Good luck.