Getting digital photo files accepted by online stock agencies

[comperry]

<p>Hello all,<br>

For the last month or so I have been trying my luck in submitting some of my digital images to online stock photo companies...Up until now I have only submitted images to two of them..<br>

I am frustrated and confused with these companies and myself ! Out of the 20 or so submissions I have had only 3 of my digital photo images be accepted and placed in their libraries..I have been submitting the highest resolution files and files that I think should be technically good enough to be accepted..<br>

Most of my rejections seem to be due to the technical aspect of my images when blown to 100%.... These are images that I have had printed by photo labs and they turn out to be good quality prints at 8x10, 11x14. 16x20..A couple of days ago I submitted two more files..In my opinion these files had good vivid colors right out of the camera, and I did minimal to no alteration beyond making the horizon straighter prior to submitting the files..<br>

I am wondering if there is a good reliable way I can look at each of my own files to see if they are technically good enough before I submit them to these companies such as I-Stock photo, Getty, etc ....<br>

I use I- photo to upload and process my photos and my computer/ monitor is a Mac-book Pro.. I am also trying to sell some of same images on Etsy..I am wondering if trying to sell images to stock companies that deal with designers who want stock images is a different animal from trying to sell my professionally printed images to the public consumer that shops on Etsy?<br>

I am starting to lose confidence in my judgement of whether my photos are images of good or poor quality :/<br>

Lisa</p>

<p> </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Lisa -</p>

<p>What camera are you shooting with? Some stock agencies look at the metadata to see what body you are using and will not accept any images unless the camera is on their list.</p>

<p>Second thing - All images require some sharpening out of camera. If you're submitting right out of camera with no edits - then your images aren't going to be as sharp as someone who is doing some basic sharpening.</p>

<p>Third - Stock agencies don't like images - no matter how clear - that are not shot at base iso or that have visable noise artifacts in them. When I'm shooting stock - no matter what body I'm using the ISO goes to base.</p>

<p>Finally - stock is a big market - meaning there are thousands of people shooting thousands of photos everyday and submitting them to the agencies. The sucessful stock shooters shoot 1,000 plus images a week and submit them to the agencies. The law of large numbers (aka the shotgun approach) definitely applies - since they submit thousands of images - not 20-30 - they get 50 or so that stick. Each week.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Don't let it get you down, Lisa. Having your work rejected by a stock photo outfit does not mean that it is bad work. All it means is that it does not come up to often arbitrary criteria that are purely technical (or mechanistic).</p>

[comperry]

<p>Thanks guys, I feel better.. I shoot with my Canon digital rebel Xsi (12 mp SLR camera) ..I have been submitting images that were shot at 100 iso..My numbers are definitely not there, lol.. I go out and shoot once a week to once every 2 weeks( about 200-300 images at a time)..<br>

Lisa</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Some stock agencies look at the metadata to see what body you are using and will not accept any images unless the camera is on their list.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the modern equivalent of agencies only accepting shots where the Hasselblad V notch is visible at the side of the image. there are stories about photographers who were un-successful with agencies until they filed a V notch in their non-Hasselblad cameras!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Shooting at the highest quality DOES pay. If you look at Getty Image's pricing schedules, the images that pay the most are the ones that can be printed large at 300dpi. It's hundreds of dollars in price potential. Of course, the lion's share of volume is "internet sized" images, that might only pay $10 gross. For every large print that they sell, hundreds or thousands of small internet files are sold.</p>

<p>I'm using a 7D and a 5D MkII and Getty doesn't hold it against me if I happen to shoot at ISO 800, which I do a lot for birds and wildlife, but they have never approved anything with noise. FYI, Getty's minimum file size that they'll accept is 3MB, but they love 15 and 20MB files.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>At one time, stock agencies only accepted digital files of at least 50mb, but that was before anyone was shooting digital--they lowered the mark when film shooters vanished!</p>

<p>I know a guy who made $10-20,000 a month from stock sales back in the 90's and then several years ago his agency told him they wouldn't accept any more images from him in the future. His work didn't change (although the prices it had once sold for certainly did), it was more than he had a real contract with them, they moved to offering less, much less, than 50-55% to shooters as had been the long tradition. With so many shooting and many agencies accessing things like flickr for content, they just pick and choose what they think they can sell at very low prices/commissions--and then sell the work for nothing. I have had incredible images sell for less than $10 and I personally wouldn't send an image or write up an invoice for that--they probably sold 100 images to that buyer or it was done on-line. I <del>hate</del> dislike stock agencies.</p>

[funcrunch]

<p>I use the Alamy stock agency, follow their guidelines very closely when submitting photos, and have never had a submission fail quality control. Now, actually <em>selling</em> the images on the other hand...</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>@steve - I have had a stock agency (which shall remain nameless) turn down images from a Nikon D40 - because it wasn't on their list of approved cameras. The funny thing is that the same image sold via another agency.</p>

<p>Dave</p>