What Works In Stock Photography & Why: Just wondering. I entered a site and had 6 of 10 ruled not good enough. Re-entered and had those original 4 ruled not good enough. Two different...

artlover Loc: NM

Just wondering. I entered a site and had 6 of 10 ruled not good
enough. Re-entered and had those original 4 ruled not good
enough. Two different viewpoints. What's up with stock anyway.
Is it falling by the wayside? Just wondering???????????????????? :mrgreen:

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

What were their reasons for rejection?.
I have some pics on a stock agency and have had quite a few rejected for various reasons, mostly 'little commercial value'. I have not figured it out yet, but it appears to me that the photos we take for pleasure or show is a complete different animal to the photos needed for commercial use.

artlover Loc: NM

Your right. Mine had very little commercial value according to the site. They were not accepting any of the sort of mine did
not fit into the realm of what the "techies" do. I did not
understand why anyone would want what they were accepting.

As I have stated previously, elsewhere on this site, I did not
know the power of how to describe something I took. To me a
rock was a rock. I didn't have the prose to make poetry of my
shots. What noise?

What I liked and saw at the Fine Arts Museum was different than
was available for stock photos. Hope this makes sense. I saw
the best of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and guy named
Cunningham. I looked at photo magazines and could not understand why anyone would like certain shots and not mine.
Why the colors did not look natural. It all had to do with the
CAMERAS.

I am a senior and have seen some great photos of the past and
shrugged. Why were the originals worth so much. What didn't I
know? What didn't I see about commercial value?

I found out what the trouble was. The whole business of stock
photography is a negative factor.
:-)

Tea8 Loc: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.

I have been looking into stock sites as well and wondering the same things. I have very few that I would even consider sending in for them to look at, but I have wondered how certain images have made it there as well because they were very different from all the other photos in the category they were in.

Scubie Loc: Brunswick Georgia

I have been a award winning photographer for many years, I have sold hundreds of images to magazines and advertising agencies. These new stock houses will not waste time with you if your images are not perfect...I think most have qualifications that will eliminate, all but the best. I don't think they pay enough for me to submit any of my images, but that is my opinion.
I like to sell directly to magazines using Photographers Market and I have clients that use alot of my images. I like to be in control.

ddrum Loc: San Diego

Thank you so much for that information. I'm going to look into that. Don

Donald Green wrote:

I have been a award winning photographer for many ... (show quote)

TimothyBuss Loc: Virginia/West Virginia

artlover wrote:

Just wondering. I entered a site and had 6 of 10 ruled not good
enough. Re-entered and had those original 4 ruled not good
enough. Two different viewpoints. What's up with stock anyway.
Is it falling by the wayside? Just wondering???????????????????? :mrgreen:

Well, yes it is, with the advent of "microstock." A way for hobbyists to sell work at very low prices. Some photographers do make a fair living from microstock but not many. It's fun and rewarding to know that a photo you took was good enough to be sold, that is why microstock has become so successful. The problems in that professional photographers are what they are because they understand what it takes to create a photograph that will meet the requirements for the uses intended. Simply because a photograph looks good does not mean that it is something that can be used commercially. There are websites that list the various reasons why microstock agencies accept or reject photos.

I do not sell to such outlets because I have no interest in getting paid pennies while the agency is getting dollars. In my view it is a rip-off. An example of this is an article I came across where a woman was gushing over how she had one of her photos published on an IBM website. Came to find out that while it was true, she was paid $3.82 for it.

gledor42 Loc: Folsom California

I'm thinking of trying out a microstock site but
Also have the same negative fears that they
make the dollars while we make pennies.
Is there anyone out there who actually makes
maybe a couple a hundred bucks a month
as they claim or is it completely a waste of time.
I'm a senior myself trying to supplement
my meager fixed income and photography
Has been my passion for over 5 years now.
Any comment or suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Thank you.

gledor42 Loc: Folsom California

Donald Green wrote:

I have been a award winning photographer for many ... (show quote)

I'm thinking of trying out a microstock site but
Also have the same negative fears that they
make the dollars while we make pennies.
Is there anyone out there who actually makes
maybe a couple a hundred bucks a month
as they claim or is it completely a waste of time.
I'm a senior myself trying to supplement
my meager fixed income and photography
Has been my passion for over 5 years now.
Any comment or suggestion will be highly appreciated.
I hear it's very difficult to break into
the Photographers Market.
Thank you.

gledor42

TimothyBuss Loc: Virginia/West Virginia

gledor42 wrote:

I'm thinking of trying out a microstock site but
Also have the same negative fears that they
make the dollars while we make pennies.
Is there anyone out there who actually makes
maybe a couple a hundred bucks a month
as they claim or is it completely a waste of time.
I'm a senior myself trying to supplement
my meager fixed income and photography
Has been my passion for over 5 years now.
Any comment or suggestion will be highly appreciated.
Thank you.

I am always happy to help a passionate photographer, especially someone in your position. Send me a private message and I can help you get set up to make money. There is a way...

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Artlover, just an fyi, "that fellow Cunningham " is a woman. Imogen Cunningham.

The fine art photography world and the commerical world including stock photography are extreme opposities.

However, many fine art photographers do commerical work (usually to eat on a regular bases) Ansel Adams being one.

FOr those looking to enter the stock trade you might think about making images of everyday places and things. These types of images are used for illustrating in books, etc.

Donald has a good point.

Something else to remember, these sites have thousands of images to review, they probably spend seconds reviewing one image and it has got to jump out at them to catch their attention.

thefunxtr Loc: Atlanta

I actually spent quite a bit ot time comparing images that were already posted to some of mine before submitting. One of my favorite subjects to shoot is squirrels and I literrally looked at every squirrel image I could find on one the sites before submitting mine. I know that we all think the pictures we take are "better" than what we compare to, but in this case I will challange that I didn't see many on the site that were as good as this on that was rejected ... reason given "too similar".

Momma and Baby

TimothyBuss Loc: Virginia/West Virginia

thefunxtr wrote:

I actually spent quite a bit ot time comparing ima... (show quote)

You are absolutely right... Great pic...

TimothyBuss Loc: Virginia/West Virginia

photocat wrote:

Artlover, just an fyi, "that fellow Cunningha... (show quote)

Right on the money.....

edmixon Loc: Orange County CA

Curious about how to get in contact with magazines??