Steve Bower

I'll admit when I was first starting out I considered the refrigerator trick" as I couldn't see how else to get the shot (I was lazy and impatient). However, I've been doing it long enough now to know that if you spend enough time in nature (with the right equipment) you can get some "great" shots without stooping to that kind of thing. Spend time learning how close you can get to each subject. Stay low and move slow and you'll be surprised at the pictures you can get. David is right, early morning is the best time for "animal photography". They like the cooler temperatures and the reptiles and insects definitely are less inclined to move if they don't have to.

Gary, You caught me, I guessed, based upon past performance. Sorry, it made a better story. The rest is all true, trust me.?

It's a first: today, SS earned less than any of the other agencies to which I submit (AS, DT & IS). This has never happened before and is especially disheartening since my portfolio at each of these agencies is considerably smaller than here at Shutterstock.

David While I can't argue with Simone regarding "on camera" flash, that is not really what I was recommending (Sorry, I should have gone into more detail) . If all you have is the pop-up flash included as part of most consumer DSLR cameras, my suggestion won't be of much use. What you need to accomplish "bounce" fill or off camera flash is one or more separate speed lights. These units will allow you to rotate the head either upward toward the ceiling, wall or the white card already suggested. This technique may exceed your current equipment and will take a while to learn but is well worth the time and effort. If your subject matter is "static", I would once again suggest a tripod which you may not have, but here again, it would expand your photographic options.

David, It appears that most of your photos are taken using ambient light. Do you have a tripod and a flash. I think most of your shots would benefit from the use of "fill", modified or bounced flash. Preferably "off Camera". Using a tripod would also open up a lot more possibilities, through the use of slow shutter speeds. If you're not familiar with the use of either a tripod or flash I think it might be well worth your time to do some study and experimenting.

You tend to crop far too tightly on the majority of your subjects (i.e. fireworks, food). I don't know if this is a composition choice or you just need to pay closer attention to details. I think you'll find that most subjects need a little "breathing room". Don't cut off people's feet especially at the joint. As the 2 Alex pointed out, the majority of your photos are under exposed. In part, this is due to the time of day you've chosen to take your photos. If you can, take your photos early in the morning or late evening. Harsh noonday sun creates extreme contrast and harsh shadows. Look for that well lit subject, don't just take the photo because you're there. Check out you're competition. What are they doing that you're not?

Great! Sounds like Canon has made the effort to make a competitive mirrorless camera. If they had made the M50 earlier, I wouldn't have made the switch to Olympus. I'm glad it's worked out for you.

While I can't claim huge sales from flowers, plants and wildlife, they do represent a large portion of my monthly earnings. It definitely helps that I have relatives and friends in the plant business. Living in Florida also makes it easier to find and photograph wildlife. If you take enough photographs of anything you're bound to get some good ones that sell. For me, people portrait would be a waste of time as I'd have to learn it from scratch.

Thanks Karl. I wished I had some great insight to pass along in my original post but as Eric pointed out, I didn't. How is the focusing with the adapter? Is it fast enough? If the M50 is anything like Olympus' or Sony's Mirrorless Cameras you're really going to love it.

Jim, I don't think you're going to get many that will claim they are professional. Like you, most of us Love photography and did it many years without making a cent and would continue even if we didn't make anything. While I agree that the majority of the "similar images" will never see a sale, I'm not in total agreement that their acceptance and presence (given SS algorithm) here at Shutterstock has no effect on the sale of "good images". A buyer has limited patience and will only wade through a few pages before they to settle on something for their "project". While this may be an exception, try searching for "osprey bird". The first couple of pages aren't too bad but wait til you get to page three and beyond. Similars, after similars of the "most popular" osprey shots. I DON'T THINK SO. Because of SS popular algorithm, these "garbage similars" chock out the competitive images that actually have been downloaded and might be of interest to buyers. Maybe this is an isolated incident but I don't think so. Try searching the key words for one of your "niche shots" what do you find? Sorry, Jim, if this response steers your thread away from it's intended path.

MIhailin, I'm not an expert, but I might have a few comments that might help. I share your interest in macro photography but I've found that there is little demand for it. If you want to make any money at this you will need to spend your time photographing things that will help a company or individual sell something or help them tell their story (what ever it might be). Look at your competition. How do your photos compare? Are yours as good? What are they doing that makes their photos stand out? Look at the portfolios of those that respond to your question. What are they shooting? Listen to the comments. Don't take them personally. Learn all you can about photography and apply what you learn, Practice, Practice, Practice.

While I can only base my opinion on my experience, I think those of us that have been here a while (nearly 10 years in my case) will outperform those just starting out as we should have more images close to the top of the "popular" search. Additional "oldtimes" need to weigh in on this point.

If you expected to make a lot of money, that's not going to happen and it may be a waste of your time. If you plan on learning photography and hope to make a few bucks on the side, welcome. If you love photography and are more than willing to put in all that hard work to learn the craft, the time spent uploading may be time well spent. Take the comments previously made to heart, learn what makes a good photograph. Photography, like everything else requires talent but most of all hard work and a willingness to learn. Do that and you'll do well.

Karl, I'm Sorry that no one has been able to help you regarding Canon's latest mirrorless camera. I use to shoot Canon as well (5D II) but sold it all and switched to the Olympus' mirrorless system. Prior to making the switch, I purchased (for my wife) Canon's 1st or 2nd mirrorless camera. It wasn't a bad camera (more of a point and shoot) and it accepted all of Canon's Lenses (with an adapter). It was slow to focus but took images comparable to Canon's other APSC cameras. It was considerably behind it's contemporary mirrorless cameras in features and it was obvious that Canon had not fully committed to the Mirrorless technology. That may have changed since then and the M50 may be a great camera. My only recommendation (one I'm sure you have already considered or done) is to check it out at a local camera store or rent it. If this unit will accept your lenses (without an adapter) it might work well as a second camera. Hopefully, someone that actually owns this camera will respond.

Portos, I just happened to check my portfolio for the images you posted. It appears you waded through 4 pages to find those specific photos. Based upon my knowledge of these images I would say that the color you see in these images is more a function of lighting than post processing. The two landscapes were taken on a beautiful clear day in Glacier National Park at an altitude of 12,000 ft. The images of the Armadillo was taken on a sunny day in Florida using Fill Flash (to lighten any shadows). You have many similarly colorful photos taken in comparable lighting conditions. Your photos that lack that pop of color seem to be those taken on overcast days and or taken in the shade. I could be wrong but I thought I'd make that observation. Hope it helps.