What is generally considerd as publishale image when it comes to stock agencies?

[starvy]

<p>I appreciate that there has to be a level of interest in the subject matter. There needs to be an element of basic technical quality to the image and perhaps a degree of specialisation as discussed in a recent thread about the shrinking stock market.<br>

What would be the basic tools? Set of near pro level lenses in 35 mm? Above prosumer body and lens setup in dslr setup? Added to that an ability to post process images to induce acceptable exposure?<br>

Reading about the amateur female photographer who used her daughter as a model, I am assuming that one does not have to be a pro to make it.<br>

What size images, what format? What are the agencies taking on newbies?</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>I appreciate that there has to be a level of interest in the subject matter.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The <strong>ONLY</strong> level of interest to sell stock is that of the publisher or agency. Stock photographers provide what a publisher (needs), not what we the photographer think is interesting or visually appealing.<br>

(i.e) Everyone is interested in "pretty pics" to hang on their wall. Publishers are NOT interested in pretty pics for the most part.<br>

Why not?..Because there is a plethora of pretty pics in the world..sunsets, cars, animals, portraits, lighthouses etc...The market for these types of images is over saturated.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There needs to be an element of basic technical quality to the image and perhaps a degree of specialisation</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes if you want to make a living at it, no if you just need a few dollars every so often.</p>

<p><strong>How</strong> you market your images will play a vital role.<br>

Online stock agencies are a crap shoot for most (lottery mentality) where QUANTITY outweighs QUALITY.<br>

Alamy for instance boasts over 4 million images within their archives. The odds of a publisher finding YOUR image and licensing it are nil if you only have let's say, 50 images of frogs. So large stock houses for the most part don't do a lot of marketing on your behalf.</p>

<p>Ya, we're talking about the business aspect again aren't we? :)</p>

<p>OTOH; if you market yourself and target your efforts, you will probably have better success.</p>

<p>Example: Newspapers. These are time sensitive publications. Today's news is tomorrows fish wrap.<br>

Accessing this market means you must not only be available, but reliable to the editor. I have several friends who shoot as stringers and get a fair amount of work. This particular market is just one area of stock photography. The cool thing is that the images (if you negotiate wisely) are yours and can be used in your stock library.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What size images, what format? What are the agencies taking on newbies?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Most publishers will send you their submission guidelines.<br>

Nearly all accept digital submissions now. There are a few hold outs who still want medium format chrome. I no longer market to these as shooting MF and eventually scanning the slides are just too time consuming for what I do.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What would be the basic tools?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Marketing..Marketing and then more Marketing! Done right; sales should follow.</p>

<p>I can't give you a magic formula. You have to first decide what you want to sell, who you want to sell it to and then how to sell it it. (License) is is more accurate.</p>

<p>If you choose commercial, you have to be thinking about model releases etc...<br>

I've done very little commercial stock as getting releases is a real pain in the butt and the advertising world is IMO a closed door to all but the top shooters.</p>

<p>Editorial stock OTOH is the route I chose for many reasons..NOT needing releases for most applications probably tops the list as well as a wider market segment.</p>

<p>Equipment? Knock yourself out.<br>

Almost any current day DSLR digital camera is suitable today for many of the markets..again, check the submission guidelines often found either on a web site or by snail mail from the agency.</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Unique "model-released lifestyle" images. That's what sells.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Kevin pretty much nailed it.</p>

<p>If you are going the stock route (as opposed to the micro stock) then you will need to submit a portfolio of images to be reviewed by the agency - images that you consider to be killer stand a good chance of getting rejected as too common, or something not right that renders them unsellable for a stock agency. Stock agencies will request typically a sample of 10 or so images - then they will review and tell you which are accepted. You don't get to submit until you have 10 or whatever number of "approved"images.</p>

<p>Things that set off flags - Noise - anytime I'm stock shooting - my iso is 100-200 never higher. Exposure - has to be technicially correct. No lens flare, no cloning or obivous touch ups. No visable trademarks (ie Coke, Ford, etc...) People photos - not your typical snapshots. Need releases from all in the photo. Building / Object photos - if the building is unique - need a property release -</p>

<p>Images with people tend to sell better than those without. Most agencies will tell you up front that there are enough photos of bikes, cars, sunsets, birds, flowers, etc... and not to even submit those.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Very different rules for different agencies. Stuff acceptable for Agency A will not work for Agency B. Some agencies are edited, some aren't. The most important parts in finding a good agency that works for <strong>you</strong> are, IMHO:<br />- Agency that covers a subject matter relevant to what you shoot. If you shoot flowers there's no point really in approaching Magnum.<br />- Can you meet the technical requirements?<br />- Do you understand what the agency expects from you and what you expect from the agency? This is the issue I see people have a problem with most often. People that sign on with Alamy for instance and then publicly skulk off in a huff and pull all their 200 images in six months because they haven't made a sale. Stock doesn't work that way - it takes time, planning, effort, knowledge of you subject matter, and the ability to bring something to the table that few others can.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I sell through First Light and Getty Images. I can tell you if it ain't model released, it has zero chance of selling.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>I can tell you if it ain't model released, it has zero chance of selling.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite true for commercial...quite <strong>untrue</strong> for editorial stock licensing.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Spot on Kevin.</p>

[robert_sholl]

<p>Alamy has a list of acceptable and unacceptable cameras. You will find a LOT of affordable ones on their acceptable list.<br>

Probably a no brainer but you will need Photoshop/PSE (PSE 8 is very capable). Not Paint Shop Pro, not Pixelmator. A good noise plugin (I use Nik Dfine) is pretty much an essential too. For skin I use Imagenomic Portraiture. <br>

More from Alamy - Black = 0 and White = 255. Deviate from that and your image will get rejected.<br>

Stick to the "rules" - Don't deviate too far from the rule of thirds, straight lines, etc.<br>

For commercial you have to balance detail with leaving room for text. Here the rule of "filling the frame" does not apply.<br>

Pick and area/topic and get good at it. Play to not just your strengths but the strengths of the place you live. If you live in a touristy area, shoot travel. Some of the "hot" areas right now are travel, camping, outdoor sports (cycling, skiing/snowboarding). Think about what parts of the economy are doing well and those areas are probably selling well. In the next few months political images are going to get hot.<br>

Search the existing catalog of the agency you are submitting to and see what they have. I looked for my area (Monterey CA) and found a lot of the images were out of date and/or low resolution. I made a "contact sheet" of the ones I thought I could update and I am working through those now. It keeps me shooting when I run out of ideas.<br>

Look in any magazine EXCEPT photography, fashion or travel. They all have established channels for photography. When "More" magazine (For women of a certain age) wants a picture of a billboard in the country, they are going to buy stock. <br>

Kevin is absolutely right that it is about numbers and time. Lots of images over a long period of time will normally generate sales. One thing to think about when shooting is how long the image will remain relevant. Anything in the image that can "date" it potentially limits how long it can be used. All those pictures of people at computers with monster CRT screens from the 90's are probably not making money anymore. </p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><em>"Quite true for commercial...quite <strong>untrue</strong> for editorial stock licensing."</em><br>

The market is so saturated, editorial images pay nothing.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p> editorial images pay nothing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I guess someone forgot to tell my accountant that "fact" as well as local, state and federal agencies who (requested) I pay taxes for earning nothing from my editorial only images. Hmmmm? Must be different where you live?</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Ian:<br /><br />I completely disagree. I routinely license editorial images for $200 and up, often ten or more images per publication. The market of sunsets, seagulls against a blue sky, pets and similar stuff is indeed very saturated.<br /><br />I think you're confusing micro stock with editorial. Hugely different things. Or maybe you don't understand the editorial market? At least here in the US it's still working well if you can provide images that aren't run of the mill generic stuff.</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Ian:<br /><br />After having looked through your web site I'm certain there's some misunderstanding here. Most - if not all - of your tearsheets are editorial usage. Magazine covers etc. Are you saying you were paid peanuts for these usages?</p>