Okay, 5th Times The Charm! I just uploaded my 3 "approval submissions" to be a contributor to iStock.
It was cool to see the history of what I had submitted over the last few years. I can't believe what photos of mine I considered good! It's encouraging to see yourself improve. :-)
Here's what I submitted today. Please keep your fingers crossed for me! I would love to do stock photography!
Good luck! You have some really nice photos in your project.
As someone who sells photos via a stock photography company, a couple of thoughts -- please don't take these the wrong way, and bear in mind I'm frequently wrong:
The baseball shot is a really lovely shot, the light is magnificent. However, stock companies will not generally accept shots with product names, as they have design trademarks and they would be violated if the shot was sold commercially. The shot is better photographically for having the logo visible, but from a stock perspective, they are likely to ask you to remove the logo. The shot could still be used editorially with the logo, but that reduces the potential market significantly. See here for iStock's specific rules: http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/legal-requirements-products-objects.
The rocks are again a really beautiful shot, and a great stock shot without question. Again, trying to look at it from their point of view, the photo doesn't have a full range of tones -- it looks slightly 'washed out', and looking at the histogram shows that it doesn't have any true blacks. This can be very easily fixed in 10 seconds in Photoshop or Lightroom -- but they might reject it until it is, as stock photography companies can be very picky about technical details. It is minor on this photograph, so they might not mind.
The bird is a lovely photograph, and I can imagine how pleased you were to capture it -- it's a better shot than I've ever managed of a hummingbird. However, you are up against people who are using lenses costing $5000+ to do bird photography, and unfortunately the quality of photographs is very hard to match with more consumer-level equipment. Unless you capture a really 'magic' moment, you'll probably find that it's hard to sell bird photos to stock companies without spending a lot of money on equipment.
As I say, I think these photographs are excellent, especially the baseball shot. And looking at your project, I think you have a number of photos that would be good sellers as stock photography shots. If you are rejected, I don't think that it's due to your photography not being good enough, but I do think that you have photographs that, while you might not like them as much, might be a better portfolio to submit specifically to a stock photography company.
Let me know if you have any questions, and feel free to ignore me, especially once they accept you!
@abirkill I will not ignore you, Alexis! Your feedback was very kind, and thorough! Thank you for such a helpful reply.
I definitely see what you mean about the hummingbird. I hesitated submitting it, but I wanted to submit something "alive" since I had two other inanimate shots. So, that was my most interesting composition of something alive. I don't expect that one to sell though, you are right. I might have been better to submit another inanimate object.
I know about the logos as well, but I was under the impression that they were okay in "audition submissions," just so they can see what you are capable of. I might have misunderstood that though. I will just have to re-shoot the baseball shot at some point.
Interesting info about the rocks lacking true black. I will see what I can do about that in photoshop...thanks!
And finally, I do have a question: Which photos in my project stood out to you as good stock photography? I am very curious now, and your outside perspective is very helpful! :)
@allegresse I would hope they would ignore the logo issue for a audition portfolio -- fingers crossed! Quite a lot of my photos have to be edited to remove things like this when I sell them as stock photographs -- to the point where I'm slightly reluctant to submit some of my harbour shots, because cloning off all the names on every boat in the harbour is tedious beyond measure!
If I had to (quickly) pick three photos from your project that I think would do well as stock photos, I'd choose:
This is a really simple shot but really well executed. The narrow depth of field works well and the focus is spot on, picking out the details of the sugar granules. The background is clean and uncluttered, which makes it more flexible as the buyer can wrap text around the actual jar, if using it in an article or advertisement. I would possibly just get the clone brush out to remove the dark spot in the very bottom left corner.
(In either B&W or colour, as you prefer). A shot that really conveys distance nicely. Shots like this with simple 'keywording' for themes ('love', 'happiness', etc) are very popular with stock photography sites because they are easy for people to find who don't actually know what kind of photo they want, just what emotion they want to express. Additionally, the light is interesting here, and I think the shadow of the photographer makes it. The person in the photograph isn't identifiable, so it shouldn't need a model release (and if you are unsure about submitting photos of friends or family, this might be just the right side of your comfort boundary).
Again, a simple shot, but simple shots are often the best for stock photography, especially when executed well. Again, a really easy photo to keyword (globe, travel, road trip...) and the sort of photograph travel agencies and magazines will snap up. Again, great depth of field, and the soft glow effect works well at the edges. I might remove the border if possible, as that would make it easier to work with (and the buyer can always add a border if they want one).
As I say, your portfolio lends itself (I think) to stock photography -- far more so than mine, as landscapes are not nearly as popular as 'still life' and people photography. I also think you have a number of good people shots where the subjects are identifiable -- you would need to decide if you are happy for these to be sold as stock photos (and get model releases), but if you were I think they would do well.
@abirkill Extremely helpful, thank you! I too like the jar shot, but it didn't seem like a contender to me because I found it a bit too dark. Easily re-shootable though. You've definitely given me some things to think about. I'm surprised you think landscapes don't sell as well! I thought it was the other way around. Your landscapes are fantastic, btw!
@allegresse Thank you! It depends on the landscape shot and the still life shot, of course, a stunning landscape will certainly sell, but if you come up with (for example) four still life shots that really simply, cleanly and beautifully convey Valentine's Day, Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas, you would probably sell considerably more over the course of a year than someone with a lot more landscape photographs would.
Well, I didn't pass. The frustrating thing is that they didn't even tell me why so that I could learn and grow! They just said my work wasn't up to their minimum standards and linked me to the "rules" (that I had already read), and said I could re-apply in 90 days. Oh well, I will just take @abirkill 's suggestions as he was far more helpful!
Oh, and apparently (according to the rules), the fruit on the white background trend is over. Just a little fyi for anyone thinking of submitting to iStock.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
As someone who sells photos via a stock photography company, a couple of thoughts -- please don't take these the wrong way, and bear in mind I'm frequently wrong:
The baseball shot is a really lovely shot, the light is magnificent. However, stock companies will not generally accept shots with product names, as they have design trademarks and they would be violated if the shot was sold commercially. The shot is better photographically for having the logo visible, but from a stock perspective, they are likely to ask you to remove the logo. The shot could still be used editorially with the logo, but that reduces the potential market significantly. See here for iStock's specific rules: http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/photography/legal-requirements-products-objects.
The rocks are again a really beautiful shot, and a great stock shot without question. Again, trying to look at it from their point of view, the photo doesn't have a full range of tones -- it looks slightly 'washed out', and looking at the histogram shows that it doesn't have any true blacks. This can be very easily fixed in 10 seconds in Photoshop or Lightroom -- but they might reject it until it is, as stock photography companies can be very picky about technical details. It is minor on this photograph, so they might not mind.
The bird is a lovely photograph, and I can imagine how pleased you were to capture it -- it's a better shot than I've ever managed of a hummingbird. However, you are up against people who are using lenses costing $5000+ to do bird photography, and unfortunately the quality of photographs is very hard to match with more consumer-level equipment. Unless you capture a really 'magic' moment, you'll probably find that it's hard to sell bird photos to stock companies without spending a lot of money on equipment.
As I say, I think these photographs are excellent, especially the baseball shot. And looking at your project, I think you have a number of photos that would be good sellers as stock photography shots. If you are rejected, I don't think that it's due to your photography not being good enough, but I do think that you have photographs that, while you might not like them as much, might be a better portfolio to submit specifically to a stock photography company.
Let me know if you have any questions, and feel free to ignore me, especially once they accept you!
I definitely see what you mean about the hummingbird. I hesitated submitting it, but I wanted to submit something "alive" since I had two other inanimate shots. So, that was my most interesting composition of something alive. I don't expect that one to sell though, you are right. I might have been better to submit another inanimate object.
I know about the logos as well, but I was under the impression that they were okay in "audition submissions," just so they can see what you are capable of. I might have misunderstood that though. I will just have to re-shoot the baseball shot at some point.
Interesting info about the rocks lacking true black. I will see what I can do about that in photoshop...thanks!
And finally, I do have a question: Which photos in my project stood out to you as good stock photography? I am very curious now, and your outside perspective is very helpful! :)
If I had to (quickly) pick three photos from your project that I think would do well as stock photos, I'd choose:
This is a really simple shot but really well executed. The narrow depth of field works well and the focus is spot on, picking out the details of the sugar granules. The background is clean and uncluttered, which makes it more flexible as the buyer can wrap text around the actual jar, if using it in an article or advertisement. I would possibly just get the clone brush out to remove the dark spot in the very bottom left corner.
(In either B&W or colour, as you prefer). A shot that really conveys distance nicely. Shots like this with simple 'keywording' for themes ('love', 'happiness', etc) are very popular with stock photography sites because they are easy for people to find who don't actually know what kind of photo they want, just what emotion they want to express. Additionally, the light is interesting here, and I think the shadow of the photographer makes it. The person in the photograph isn't identifiable, so it shouldn't need a model release (and if you are unsure about submitting photos of friends or family, this might be just the right side of your comfort boundary).
Again, a simple shot, but simple shots are often the best for stock photography, especially when executed well. Again, a really easy photo to keyword (globe, travel, road trip...) and the sort of photograph travel agencies and magazines will snap up. Again, great depth of field, and the soft glow effect works well at the edges. I might remove the border if possible, as that would make it easier to work with (and the buyer can always add a border if they want one).
As I say, your portfolio lends itself (I think) to stock photography -- far more so than mine, as landscapes are not nearly as popular as 'still life' and people photography. I also think you have a number of good people shots where the subjects are identifiable -- you would need to decide if you are happy for these to be sold as stock photos (and get model releases), but if you were I think they would do well.
Hope that helps!