Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, balajisrinivasan said:

That's interesting. My two biggest sales have actually been through flickr (both for 500$) but they were two in over 10 years on the site. Both would have been rejected on Shutterstock (and maybe other stock sites as well) because back in those more innocent times, I deliberately put noise in my images to make them look "filmy". But I'm happier with those sales than the few cents I'm getting right now.

Had some excellent payments myself for photo's used on book covers in the past. Those sales came about from having some of my photo's judged as being good enough to be in The Netherlands Association of Photographers yearbook. Art directors at publishers looked at that annual and approached photographers of whom they liked the style. I did a lot of non-commissioned work on Polaroid 35mm film/instant in those days and had SS existed then, they would never have accepted it! Made the most money ever on one photo that I made for a client and that they used as a poster. The stylist told me that she'd seen the photo being used on a TV show as a background (without permission or payment) and a specialised lawyer got me 5K in unpaid rights! He took 20% and I got the rest!!

 

Interesting table in that article too........rates for 'influencers':

 

NickPic011 2020-08-17, 10_39_23.jpg

BookCovers.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, stevemart said:

Had some excellent payments myself for photo's used on book covers in the past. Those sales came about from having some of my photo's judged as being good enough to be in The Netherlands Association of Photographers yearbook. Art directors at publishers looked at that annual and approached photographers of whom they liked the style. I did a lot of non-commissioned work on Polaroid 35mm film/instant in those days and had SS existed then, they would never have accepted it! Made the most money ever on one photo that I made for a client and that they used as a poster. The stylist told me that she'd seen the photo being used on a TV show as a background (without permission or payment) and a specialised lawyer got me 5K in unpaid rights! He took 20% and I got the rest!!

 

Lovely images!

I, for one, never understood the idea that some stock agencies have that squeaky clean noiseless images are the only images that are acceptable or sellable. It flies in the face of the entire history of photography, both artistic and commercial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, balajisrinivasan said:

Lovely images!

I, for one, never understood the idea that some stock agencies have that squeaky clean noiseless images are the only images that are acceptable or sellable. It flies in the face of the entire history of photography, both artistic and commercial.

Thanks. I imagine that when microstock came into being and images had to be 'admitted' to the collection by 'non-artistic' editors, the agencies had to set simple rules that were easily followed and that allowed hundreds of images per hour to be vetted. No time for reviewers to hum-and-haw over the artistic/commercial merit! I imagine that's also the reason that smartphone images used not to be accepted and now are because now there's more appreciation/saleability of the artistic/spontaneous/'authentic' photo that can often be made with a smartphone rather than a a more static and posed/directed photo made with dedicated photogear.

I have to admit that I don't have a smartphone so I can't say what I think of the quality of images produced. If the output of my Lumix FZ-82 is anything to go by with its less than 1 inch sensor......I doubt I'll be terribly impressed with smartphone output. Having said that, a family member is building a business based on her iPhone 11 max photos. Colour me impressed by the quality generally and the night/evening photo's especially.

Edit: Just seen this on the contributor page:

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/images-marketing-agencies-want

Mucho Offset and many photo's that wouldn't pass inspection at SS.....sharpness and shadows!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice 

44 minutes ago, stevemart said:

 

Edit: Just seen this on the contributor page:

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/images-marketing-agencies-want

Mucho Offset and many photo's that wouldn't pass inspection at SS.....sharpness and shadows!!

I noticed one of the tips: Upload as Many Variations as Possible....... and if you do SS will reject them for similar content 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stevemart said:

Edit: Just seen this on the contributor page:

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/images-marketing-agencies-want

Mucho Offset and many photo's that wouldn't pass inspection at SS.....sharpness and shadows!!

My favourite one is actually the one shown as example for "Authentic photos". What woman does not run pantsless through grainfields? So authentic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Firn said:

My favourite one is actually the one shown as example for "Authentic photos". What woman does not run pantsless through grainfields? So authentic!

I only do it at weekends. I spend the rest of the week dealing with the injuries the prickly wheat makes on my thighs. No gain without pain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Here's my batch of 65 images. Wish me luck :) 

634e7588-7366-4d16-b8f3-e9682a72158f.jpg

All the best. Talent rather than luck should see you through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Firn said:

My favourite one is actually the one shown as example for "Authentic photos". What woman does not run pantsless through grainfields? So authentic!

That last one would be rejected because of the grafitti too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, balajisrinivasan said:

I, for one, never understood the idea that some stock agencies have that squeaky clean noiseless images are the only images that are acceptable or sellable. It flies in the face of the entire history of photography, both artistic and commercial.

Beats me too ..! 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way what about the graffiti, rejected by SS, but Rex SS Editorial accept them

 https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/images-marketing-agencies-want

Ok, but how to pay the model with the small income 🤔

And most of this photos are sold in OFFSET SS not even in SS !!

OFFSET SS, a photo sold minimum 279 dollars and a lot of money for the photographer

Classic SS, a photo sold peanuts and peanuts for the photographer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with the submission Alex.

Thanks for the tips also, I was accepted at Arcangel, and will shoot for book covers as a mini project

My submission (might help others)...

arcangel.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shirley Cronin said:

Good luck with the submission Alex.

Thanks for the tips also, I was accepted at Arcangel, and will shoot for book covers as a mini project

My submission (might help others)...

arcangel.PNG

I'm not naming my files like this... 😕 Am I doing it wrong? @Alexandre Rotenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Studio 2 said:

Congratulations on being accepted at Arc @Shirley Cronin I love your submissions. You are very talented. Thank you for sharing. 

Thank you and Alex, I wouldn't have known about Arcangel otherwise, so thought I would share my set to show what gets accepted (not all of which I will be able to upload due to size/lack of release etc). Also, I only sent low res files for the submission, and a few of the above were crops. I think the main thing was having a lot of people and vertical images...and I like to shoot quite minimalist/abstract so that gives plenty of copy space too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2020 at 8:29 AM, Studio 2 said:

You can send them 20+ photos or links to photos online (no numbers given). Their submission information isn't as helpful as it might be. Maybe give it a try. Good luck. 

"If you would like to send us samples of your work, please email us at least 20 low res jpegs ( 600 pixels )or low def mov files to newcontributors@arcangel.com"

I went this route, worked for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stopped_clock said:

"If you would like to send us samples of your work, please email us at least 20 low res jpegs ( 600 pixels )or low def mov files to newcontributors@arcangel.com"

I went this route, worked for me :)

Congratulations 🥂 A great alternative to microstock in a failing market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 2:10 AM, Shirley Cronin said:

Good luck with the submission Alex.

Thanks for the tips also, I was accepted at Arcangel, and will shoot for book covers as a mini project

My submission (might help others)...

arcangel.PNG

Great selection, not surprised that you were accepted. Beautiful shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...