It seems to me that each new site that appears is soon overrun by the same images that can be downloaded from any of them…then after a while the big producers step in, or are paid an incentive to place images, and flood the site with tens of thousands of what are basically similar images…then what difference is there between the micro sites save a never ending spiral of competition on pricing…which is inevitably driven lower.

I can’t really see the point of producing specifically for micro at their price points…but am starting to make good money from out takes and model tests that I get a release for.

What is needed is for mid stock to gain a foothold, preferably with exclusive images that cannot be bought at flea market prices from the mainstream micro sites.

could it be that you forgot the most important reason? For being successful in Microstock you need to think of yourself as an assembly line worker working in your own factory.

You know better than me that Microstock requires a very structured, disciplined approach were a high output of cliché images is key while too much creativity and risk taking is more of a hindrance.

Mediocrity is not every bodies cup of tea.

12. Majority of the reviewers have no idea or experiences of real world printing. I’d choose an tack-sharp image with great colors and tonality and a bit of noise over an soft and oversaturated – but noiseless photo with blown-out highlights any day.

13. “Too many” rejections are really hard to take when your work is much better than those on the site already.

14. Microstock sites generally prefer over-clean, bland, tacky and kitschy images.

Perhaps the key to be able to grasp and become successfully in both micro and macro is to have two different mental approach to the shoot. While on macrostock you must have eye to catch the moment in macrostock you must ‘visualize’ the final result and do whenever is necessary to achieve it.

Although easy to say on paper, I realize, this is not easy to be put in practice…

Regards,

Antonio D’Albore

-Lee

Thanks for your contribution – nice comment. I forgot you were previously a non-micro pro… such is your fame in microstock!

-Lee

It sounds like you did a lot of smart research, which is obviously the key.

My friend shoots editorial (sports and entertainment) and portraits (music industry) and as he himself pointed out to me, there are few media publications left that are serious about the quality of the photos they publish.

It’s definately not a lack of knowledge or skill on his behalf, but those rock concert photos are certainly sell to magazines with a lot more noise than would pass in other parts of the market, including microstock. He’s often shooting at ISO 1600 with his D3 and is delighted with how “little” noise there is.

I also like what you say about challenging ourselves, though I’d suggest it’s more of a competitive advantage rather than a responsibility.

-Lee

Ive personally started with direct contracts and later tried also macrostock agency. Cant say I do great in microstock but after nearly 2 years shooting for macrostock agency I did pass SS on the first try, however IS was another story. The main problem is “artifacts/noise” and this really makes me sick. I completely agree with that “knowing too much” – sometimes I think the editor must be kidding;) Still keeping acceptance at SS about 85% and IS + DT slightly over 60%:)

Maybe the other problem is completely different business strategy, you need large portfolio and not too specific. Some topics (eg minerals, tropical orchids or whatever too specified) will not generate proper income just because there is not wide public buying them. And you MUST keep uploading, once you stop, the income decreases drastically. Not so bad at IS but images at SS “die” very fast. You must keep both quality and high quantity. Good technical quality + high quantity of average pics will generally earn much more then small portfolio of super pics with seldom uploads.

OOH ME ME!!!

My first few YEARS of microstock were terrible. I hated it – I was making 6 figures in photography and couldn’t get more than 7/20 accepted at Shutterstock in any one batch. Your list is fairly accurate on my issues with the transition:

1) Feeling like I knew more than the reviewers.
2) “Noise” is something photographers in the field deal with – it happens. At a wedding, you don’t use ISO 100. It’s pretty much suicide to stay on ISO 100 the whole day.
3) Going from “well lit” to “perfectly lit” is a challenge I still deal with, daily. I want to make 100% perfect images and it doesn’t happen … yet.

As far as “Do you know who I am?!” that’s definitely something I ENJOY about this business. In the wedding industry, people “know” me. I gave myself a challenge to see if that was related to one thing that happened (someone who became a good friend of mine is a super-high-end photographer) or whether that was related to me. I wanted a “second chance” to build up some sort of name & credibility and see who I was, I guess.

Great article – I know a lot of pros who are getting into microstock and I’ll definitely direct them to this post to show them what to expect!

M

I don’t know how your friend is working but for me, moving from traditional RM agencies to microstock, was plain and straight.
For me, whatever the client is, image quality and fine tuned workflow is a must.
Of course, I dedicate a lot of time studying, making experiments, investing in new technologies and keeping me informed at the edge of what is necessary to be up-to-date.
I believe that is responsibility of each photographer to challenge ourselves toward continuously improvement in style, techniques and fresh ideas.

Regards,

Antonio D’Albore