I have been a microstock contributor for about a year now and I have to confess it frustrates the hell out of me! I make very little money for quite a lot of work and the sense of rejection and unworthiness is high at times.
When I got back into photography I wanted to do something with my shots in order to make it seem a fully rounded and worthwhile experience. To me if loads of shots just sit gathering cyber dust on a hard drive it seems, somehow, wrong. Microstock provided an outlet as well as, perhaps, a barometer for the quality of my stuff.
The problem is that the microstock sites provide no consistency in their acceptance criteria. They sometimes also give spurious reasons for rejection I have discovered. So when you get a "wrong kind of photograph" rejection I have heard from the horse's mouth that they are sometimes being kind instead of saying "poor quality shot." That helps no one.
On the downside that has left me confused and uncertain about the validity of my shots. On the plus side I have learnt shed loads about artifacts, sharpening, noise etc, etc. I have also learnt that viewing shots at 100% is for wimps! It has got to be 300% at least!
It has made me aware of the limitations of my kit also. I can't really shoot anything at more than ISO200 without risking rejection for noise. I also have a lens which seems not that sharp so have to avoid that one generally.
To sum up my microstock adventures have made me needy and insecure about my shots. Not earned me any significant sums. Made me yearn for better kit. But it's sort of been fun in a bungee jump / roller coaster type of way. I have also learnt lots about what can go wrong with a shot.
I would love to hear about your experiences of microstock so let me have it!
(I love this shot but I can't give it away!):
microstock can be a bit of a soul destroying place I guess, But I still find it more gratifying to sell a microstock image than to receive dozens of trite 'wow thats great - cool' comments from viewers on flickr.
ReplyDeleteas for the ISO and technicalities, it does sometimes feel like you have to 'not take photos' because you cant sell them. In that case then recently I have started to continue taking the photos just for my own enjoyment or for fine art (which does not sell well on stock sites). I'm trying not to get obsessed with 0 noise and crystal clear focus 100% of the time.
There are so many people putting their photos online its hard to get anyone to comment on them, and if they do you often see that they are the type of person who makes nothing but positive comment anway, making such feedback pointless. Negative comments are the best ones, the offer a way to improve your work
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteYou're not alone! Microstock isn't for everyone, is ideal for others, and the rest of us fall somewhere in the middle of the scale.
Many people want to shoot the kind of shots that they enjoy, which is rarely perfectly matched to what works in microstock.
I've found it helps to view microstock as 'heavily commercial', which it is, and keep it separate from your family snaps and artistic photos. This has helped me focus and improve my stock shots and take the rejections more easily.
If you're working really hard but not earning enough to be satisfied (US$1 per photo per month is a guide for microstock) then maybe it's because you're shooting artistic shots and trying to sell them in a commercial market. It's far less common for highly artistic shots to do well in microstock, which may explain your low input to result ratio.
I hope that helps, and I hope you find your balance.
-Lee