I've been looking at the images at ShutterStock that sell well - their top 50 - and comparing them to images in the 'critique me' forum, which is usually images that have been rejected.

The conclusion that I'm arriving at, is that stock photography is a fundamentally different animal from virtually every other form of photography.

In every other field of photography - be it portrait, wedding, commercial, industrial, you name it - you're trying to tell a story with your image. Each image should stand on its own, and be complete unto itself.

That's not true in stock photography.

In stock photography, you want to create strong visual elements, that ANOTHER person - probably a graphics designer - can use, to tell HIS story.

And that's a fundamentally different situation.

I've boon looking at successful stock images, and thinking "which of these images would be successful if required to stand on their own - as a portrait, for example?" Some could; but most could not.

And that's a key point.

When you're shooting stock, you're not trying to tell a story. You're providing elements - sentence fragments, powerful punctuation, compelling visual 'sound bites' - that let OTHERS tell THEIR stories well.

Interestingly, many of the rejected images DO tell compelling visual stories. They do it too well. In every other photographic arena, we've had to tell an entire story with an image; and we've learned that lesson well.

So, I'm curious. Do the successful stock photographers agree with me? Am I on the right track here? Thanks for your feedback - Charlie