Heading out camping for 4 days, for what will probably be the last trip of the year.
The real question is can I get anything that’s remotely stock worthly while camping? Frankly I think it’s doubtful, as nature-type shots do not seem to be wanted so much. But we’ll see what I can pick up!
I got an interesting email from iStock today in response to my application:
Thank you for taking the time to apply as a contributor with iStockphoto.com.
The iStock administrators have asked that you upload new samples based on the feedback provided below. You’re welcome to return in 3 days, upload some new samples and we’ll re-process your application.
If you’ll recall iStock Submission requirements make you send just three photos. Two of the three were accepted, including the bumblebee shot below, that was rejected by Shutterstock and Fontfolia.
The photo they didn’t like was the high-key shot of Sioux. They felt that the highlights were blown out 
However I’m very encouraged that they gave the opportunity to resubmit rather than just rejection the application out of hand.
Now I just have to figure out what to replace the high key shot with!
I have a macro lens that I just love to death – so much so that sometimes I feel like shooting macro is just cheating. It seems like you can shoot just about anything in macro and it’s interesting.
Not having a lot of time for shooting this week I borrowed a needle & threat and snapped off a quick couple of macro shots just to have something new to submit for stock.
The shot was picked up at once. It just doesn’t seem fair that something that takes just a couple of minutes can so easily get accepted over the nature-type shots that I can spend hours hiking around getting.
My friend and fellow photographer Emily brought the best toys over the other day – the Norman ML 600 monolight strobe.
Emily purchased a whole pile of used lighting equipment for a crazy good price, and brought some over saying, “This way you can figure out how they work and teach me.”
I’ve always wanted to work with strobes, because it’s just the most logical way to handle photographing people and eliminating the need for inane amounts of light to get decent shutter speeds. I’ve never actually used strobes for two main reasons:
The monolight however, was a joy to work with. It has a built-in optical slave – so I just used my camera flash (set to lowest output, with diffusion filter, pointed straight up) and when the camera flash went off, so too did the monlight.
Emily is supposed to come over with more strobes soon and we’re going to play with them more thoroughly. I’m anticipating a delightful experience of actually using the camera hand-held in the studio! Delight!
So I’ve gotten the first couple of reponses from my first couple of stock photography submissions. Shutterstock requires you to submit 10 photos, of which 7 must be accepted. Alas I did not get enough accepted photos, for a variety of reasons that we’ll go over shortly. Thus I was not accepted; however, I can reapply in 30 days – which I will do armed with new knowledge!
Fotolia doesn’t have a requirement that a certain number be accepted, and I have several photos accepted and available online now. Yay!
I thought it would be valuable to take a look at a few of the photos to see what was accepted and – perhaps more importantly – what was rejected and why. Let’s see what we can learn here:
White background, food, sharp focus (if in a limited area), bright saturated colors. Approved. In addition the shot of the apples lined up was approved, which was similar in concept to this – white background, sharp focus, food. Hmm…. 2 data points is not enough to make a pattern, but it’s something I’m keeping my eye on and trying more of!
Both Shutterstock and Fotolia rejected this on the basis of poor focus. This baffled me a bit at first and I thought perhaps they just wanted the depth of field to be deeper. But then when I really zoomed into the picture I saw that the wing is in perfect focus, but the hairs on the back and the head of the bee are in fact not in perfect focus. Click on the picture to enlarge it and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
You really have to zoom in close to really see the focus problem - which I think tells us something about how these photos are reviewed. So we know to make sure we do that before submitting – and focus is vital!
This was rejected for poor focus and overabundance of photo type. Of course I knew that this didn’t have tack sharp focus. I felt that it helped with the mood of the photo – but again we’re learning that perfect focus is an absolute necessity.
This was approved through Shutterstock and rejected from Fotolia. Fotolia’s reason – and one that I quickly got used to seeing – was Overabundance of Images of This Type. In fact, anything remotely nature related got axed by Fotolia and most of them from Shutterstock as being the kind of photo that they just have way too many of.
Even though the sample size is small, I think a couple of things are clear. Focus must be tack sharp – no exceptions allowed. More importantly (for me) all these gigs of nature-type photography are not useful for stock. Certainly the gems I’ll go ahead and try submitting once I’m in — but they will not be a part of any initial submission!
For now I’m going to stop submitting to new stock agencies and instead shoot some new photos over the next week or so. Specifically I think I’m going to shoot some food on a white background. It’s incredibly easy and seems to be a logical route in. Now again, I firmly believe that an inital submission to a stock agency should show a variety of shot types, and on my to-do list is to get some shots of people (with model releases).
But for now it’s to the grocery store!
Unlike other micro stock agencies, Fotolia doesn’t technically have a submission process to see if they’ll carry you as a photographer. Instead, anyone can submit photos and they’ll just decide whether or not they will host the photos. This makes them without question the least stressful micro stock agency to submit to.
Fotolia accepts images as small as 4 MP. Fotolia has one of the simplest and easiest submission processes.
Unlike other stock agency submission processes, there is no special number of photos you need to upload. After all, they are not evaluating you as a contributor, but instead are just evaluating each photo on a case by case basis.
Once you’ve got your photos uploaded, you’ll be able to view a list with little color-coded icons showing the current status of your photos (which will be “awaiting validation” at this time).
This is a breakdown of the submission process to sell your stock photography to Shutterstock. Like all micro-stock agencies, they won’t put up photos from just any photographer. You must go through their submission process to see if they’ll carry you.
Shutterstock images must be at least 4 MP. You are required to upload 10 images. At least 7 of them must be accepted in order to be carried by Shutterstock. But no pressure!
Shutterstock says their photographer review could take as long as 7-10 days. Once your in photos are reviewed within 3 days.
I have now sent in my submission to iStock. It one of the larger stock agencies, but also one of the more stressful to submit to, because they judge you based solely on three photos! However, I noticed that they did not require a model release for the submissions, so I went ahead and sent in a photo of a person that I don’t have a release for (though I am trying to track the model down now to get a release).
I went with my philosophy that you want a variety of photos, and at least one needs to be of a person. Here’s what I submitted:
My people shot. Interesting, stylish, and with good space for ad copy. Also tattoo is a surprisingly highly searched keyword, which I’m hoping will score bonus points. The downside is this photo isn’t really tack sharp. In the end I decided that the photo was striking enough to compensate (I hope).
I do a lot of nature photography, and decided that this would be my nature-type photography submission, because it’s more stock worthy than your typical pretty landscape. Also tack sharp and, I’m hoping, the kind of photo that’s not easy to get and thus there aren’t a lot like it out there. This bee attacked me shortly after taking this photo.
I went with this for a couple of reasons. It’s a classic studio shot with white background, and I wanted something that showed I could do that too. It’s also a “concept shot,” which is something marketing types love. Is it about being unique? Being hungry? I dunno. Also, of course, tack sharp!
So there they are. It can take months to hear back from a stock agency, so wish me luck!
This is a breakdown of the submission process to sell your stock photography to iStock Photo. Like all micro-stock agencies, they won’t put up photos from just any photographer. You must go through their submission process to see if they’ll carry you.
iStock Photo accepts images as small as 1600 x 1200.
I’ve sorted through my photos, I’ve done endless research, I’ve go my model releases… it’s about to time start submitting photos to the stock agencies!
Here is a list of the major micro-stock photography agencies. I plan to submit photos to all of them, and will update this article with links to each agency as I go through the submission process. The current plan is to go down the list in order.
iStock Photo (http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos.php)
One of the origial innovators in micro-stock. They pay 20% of the price of downloads (more if you’re exclusive, which sounds like a bad deal). They charge $2 – $24 depending on the size of the photo downloaded. iStock accepts photos at 1600 x 1200 or larger (2 MP).
Checkout the breakdown of the iStock Submission Process
Shutterstock: (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=474139)
They accept photos as small as 4 MP. Stutterstock works on a subscription model for their buyers. Buyers pay a fee for a month and can download as much as they want (great deal for buyers – and encourages them to download a lot). Photographers are paid a flat $0.25 per download, but once you make over $500 (2k downloads) you bump up to $0.30 per download. They have a nice fast review process for new photographers which makes them nice as well!
Check out the breakdown of the Shutterstock Submission Process
Fotolia (http://us.fotolia.com/Info/HowToSell)
Fotolia pays from $0.30 to $0.60 per download – the exact amount depends on how many total downloads you’ve had. The more images you sell, the more you get paid for each image you sell. They accept images as small as 4MP, and certainly have the easiest submission process.
Checkout the breakdown of the Fotolia Submission Process
Dreamstime (http://www.dreamstime.com/sell)
Stockxpert (http://www.stockxpert.com/support/help/4)
ClusterShot (https://www.clustershot.com/account/edit)
ClusterShot seems to have an unusual approach, in which they let you set your own prices for your photos. I’ll be digging into this more closely as I work down the list, but my hunch is that it’s a smaller site that won’t get nearly as many sales (bad deal for the buyers).
