I've been doing the MicroStock thing for a little over three months now. I think I've had some success...enough to keep me coming back..and I've learned a ton. About a month ago I mentioned in a forum post here that I wanted to share some of my experiences. Maybe it will help some other folks be successful faster and easier.

I'd kicked around the idea of supplying stock online for a couple years. I sort of knew it was out there, but didn't know too much about it. Earlier this year a designer I know used an image from IStock, which he had me alter a bit. That got me curious, and the rest is history.

*My first mistake: I went to IStock first. Now I would council newbies to spend a month or so supplying some of sites with the less demanding image inspectors first. I realize now that I chose one of the pickiest to start with. I had my ears seriously clipped when they didn't just froth lovingly over every image I sent in. "They're insane, my stuff is brilliant," I thought to myself. It took me several tries to get in. When I finally did, I think it was one nice image inspector that finally said "look...right there...top right...the picture is noisy as heck...you'll have to clean that up or submit something different." I'm really grateful to that anonymous inspector. Noise was really a new thing to me...I always thought grain was sexy. Well, I've learned that lesson. Ultimately, I purchased Noise Ninja and that made all the difference.

I realize, now, that I didn't even know what they were looking for. I thought that I had great images they would love. It turns out, they have about 10 gazillion photographers...so they can be picky. I respect that. I now use IStock as my litmus test for retouching. When I'm done with an image, I look it over and think "would it fly on IStock." That seems to work really well across the board. I still haven't made it to my first payout there (almost), but the the diligence I learned on IStock has helped me be successful elsewhere, too. My acceptance rate there hovers around 50%.

*My second mistake. I chose ShutterStock as my second target. That was a real humbling experience. It took me four tries to get my ten images passed and get me into the fold. I thought about just saying forget it. I'm so glad (based on input from people on this forum) that I stuck it out. Attempt four was a charm...and now I love ShutterStock. I actually find that they accept a lot more of my images than IStock does. Not that they are a slam dunk, but they are pretty accepting of good quality stuff. And they immediately outsold everyone else...and continue to do that.

In the midst of doing all this submitting, research, etc...I ultimately ended up supplying almost 30 sites! My plan was to try them out and see who sold and who didn't. I ended up paring the list down a few weeks ago to 12. I suspect I'll make another cut. I left my images up on the other sites, so they continue to sell slowly. maybe I'll see a payout some day off of them...and maybe not.

In the mean time I also ended up supplying two sites that pay up front for images rather than paying by download. One allows you to keep the rights, and the other pays a bit more and you give up the rights for good. I have some contractual obligations not to share too much info...but I will say this is a nice way to get a bigger chunk of cash up front. The site that pays up front AND allows me to keep all rights and sell the images elsewhere paid me over $800 last month. That's pretty cool.

OK. You can probably tell that I sort of just jump in when I decide to do something. So I signed up to be an image inspector on one site (to be unnamed in case I don't pass one of YOUR photos). That really gives me some perspective. I probably pass less than half of the images that come in. The stuff ranges from "amazing" to "you must be kidding." In every case I try to be kind and give good constructive information. I know what it feels like on the other end.

I'm a freelancer. I do film and video work as well as photography. That means I have the time and the work structure to allow me focus efforts and work on building MicroStock into something more than a hobby. My goal is 2,000 images by the end of 2008 (plus images that I sell outright, not counted in that portfolio) and an income of $2,000 from MicroStock per month. I'm pretty sure I can do that...but it's not easy. I worked very hard to get that $1,000 or so last month. When I'm busy with other projects it's even harder. In fact, there are a lot of other things I do that are much more profitable. However, it is getting easier. The more I understand and work the system...so far...the easier it has gotten. I'll keep plugging.

I'd be interested to hear about the start-up stories of others on this forum.

Cheers,

Scott
Creatista

You must work for DT - their reviewers consistently knock out 50% of all submissions. ope you aren't the reviewer who got nasty with me a couple months ago. Ever since I got a reviewer who decided to get personal, things haven't been the same on that site.

Secondly - Shutterstock is not accepting any more photogs according to other posts I have read. They knocked out every thing I sent them three times in a row. So I won't waste time submitting to SS again. They sell a lot for those who managed to get lucky, but they ane primarily only accepting ILLUSTRATIONS now days. Many photogs indicate their aceptance rates have dropped to between 10% - 20%. Based on this type of feedback, I'll skip over them.

Any way Scott- you didn't seem to want to tell us who pays up front. unless you'll get arrested for that.

By the way - here is one for the newbees:
Dreamstime tends to reject 50% of images submitted. So if you submit 20 images, you will have at least 10 rejected. In addition at least 80% of rejections are cited for COMPOSITION. Interesting factor - considering all my images rejected by DT and cited for composition are up and selling on other sites.

Lesson - Different sites have different reviewers and different perameters.

Don't let any one site break your spirit - keep shooting and submitting! Even if you can't be as good as Scot.

Hi Harry...thanks for weighing in.

No I don't inspect for DT. I do have a bit better luck on my submissions there than 50%...maybe 75%? I have a pretty high acceptance rate, across the board, but it comes at a cost because I tend to spend a long time on each image. I seem to work on them anywhere from 20 minutes at my blazing fastest to over an hour for some. understanding the economy of MicroStock, I try not to get too whacked out about every nuance...because left to my own devices I would retouch forever.

Here's my take on ShutterStock...just speculation. I've heard a lot of people say they got in on the third try. It was so weird for me...I didn't even come close the first and second time. And that was using a set of 10 unique images ALREADY accepted by IStock. Then I didn't get in the third time...and I decided to give up. A couple of the sages here told me to at least consider trying again. I did and literally sailed right in. OK...my guess is that they make you jump through a few hoops on purpose. Maybe most photogs go away after one or two rejections. But if you stick it out (and your stuff is good) they snap you up on the third or fourth time. All that said, I love SS and am really grateful I got the advice to keep trying. They became my fastest growing and paying site immediately.

Here are some stats from their site:
2,671,154 royalty-free stock photos
34,374 new stock photos added this week
80,402 photographers
So I think they work by "crowd-sourcing" and don't worry too much about individuals. However, I find them polite and warm when I have a question. And the community there is very cool and forthcoming with advice (the good kind).

My acceptance rate is way over 50%...and it would be higher except that I submit versions of images sometimes and let them decide (B&W vs. Color...that sort of thing). And sometimes they take both. My portfolio is about 400 images, and they have accepted over 230. So my sense is that they are still interested in taking photos.

On the inspector being mean thing. I just don't understand that. Can't we all just get along.

Scott - I know what you mean about processing time. I spent 4 hours on an image that is one of my best sellers on all four sites. Oddly - "Noise" was the opinion of the SS reviewer. Now I can't resubmit that image to them as resubmissions can be a pain; especially if it was rejected over 8 months ago and i don't know the image nimber. I think my last try with SS was about 6 months ago, and I would be like someone submitting for the first time to them.

I think most MS sites work the mass production thing; however I have deteremined that some reviewers must seem to get an impression about a photog for better or worse. That opinion seems to stick. Like when they knock out the majority of images for "Composition". I have over 50 years experience with a camera and not only know the rule of thirds, but also understand Aspenwald's theory of "The Scan Curve." I find most reviewers don't understand that at all.


Above you can see both the rule of thirds (Red Grid) and the Scan Curve (Green S-Curve). The Scan curve shows the path a person's eyes take when viewing a magazine cover or an advertisement. The object is to place your objects so that thy do not encroach in the path of the scan curve. That is where the significant print goes. The eyes start at the upper right; then flow along the S-Curve. Nice theory. The rule of thirds obviously is where the objects should be placed for impact - where the lines intersect.

Admittedly, I do not know as much as you or any other reviewer, but I do understand "Composition". I clearly suspect they just don't like my image and think thy can grab at any excuse rather than just say what it is - "thy don't like it." I can accept that, because it is the truth and accurately put. I also notice that that is not a reason available to the reviewer on their list. Guess it isn't technical enough. Closest thing is "Not stock oriented/No Commercial Value". Thy should at least not insult the photographer with "Composition" when it is obviously not the problem. I test every image with a frid I made up as an overlay before submitting to make sure my subject is lined up with the intersecting lines and does not encroach in the scan curve area.

Any way - it can be a real buster till one grows a thicker skin. I'm thinking about throwing in the towel, because it is very time consuming, and I can make more money doing something else. It can be very frustrating.

Good luck to you newbies!
harry
[/img]

Hi Harry...

Long time to reply.

Like you, I find the inspection process to vary widely. Both from site to site and within sites.

IStock is the only service I will sometimes resubmit to. Because they allow fewer uploads sometimes if I have a few uploads available and no new material at the moment, I'll go back and grab one or two that have been rejected and "fix" them and resubmit. I've only had once or twice when the resubmit didn't get accepted...but I really don't do it very often.

One example of images that get bounced for "composition" is that I will often compose things very hard left or right and/or very hard to the bottom. I used to be an ad agency guy, so I know how much we used and needed copy space...so these images would be perfect (in my humble opinion). However, I'll get rejected from a random site for "composition."

For instance, this shot was rejected for "composition" on ShutterStock, but accepted elsewhere.



The interesting thing is that I'm sending very large images (often 6MP) so they could easily be re-cropped, and I design them that way. I just don't get too worked up about it and move on. On rare occasions...when I have the time and the will...I'll actually contact the site and that almost always resolves the problem.

Probably my most common reasons for rejection are either "artifacts" or "over-filtered." If I get artifacts as a reason (again, usually on one site out of 10 or so in sort of random rotation) I just don't worry about it and move on. I shoot at 100 ISO almost all the time AND use Noise Ninja. So if there's a stray weird pixel or a little noise I just roll with it. Most of my stuff is very clean. I have found that if I get "over-filtered" as a reason that I can drop the saturation on the whole image slightly about 90% of the time and that does the trick. I do use a very, very light touch on the "dynamic skin softener" in the NIK set if I'm doing shots of women. Some inspectors don't like it...even though the style these days is fairly smooth and I think that fits. I use that very sparingly...because it's a big reason for getting rejected if it's even slightly too much. I have to say, on my own inspection, I've had to agree with the sites some times (in the past) that I had been over using that technique. So these days it's better none of the DSS or only very light application.

To your point, I don't think the inspectors are thinking about scan curve or that sort of thing...even thought they probably have some acquaintance with that kind of thing. So often it's taste and a judgement call. I find when I'm inspecting for the one site I do that for that I often am just not sure what to do on a borderline issue...so I make a call and move on. For instance, one of the reasons I can provide from my lis when inspecting is: "Too much like a snapshot." Well, what does that mean? some of Arbus' stuff looked like a snapshot...and it's brilliant. Everything Bresson did was a snapshot... I had a shot of my own recently rejected that I thought was absolutely brilliant. A confluence of light and interesting human subject and expression and meaning and divine sublime imagery...etc. etc. etc. ShutterStock rejected it for being too much like a snapshot. My karma for using that reason when I've rejected other peoples' work! I try to have fun and make a few bucks. I'm still learning all the time.[img][/img]

I have been doing stock now for a little over 2 years, but was exclusive to DT for the first year, and deployed to iraq for most of 2007, so I still consider myself relatively new. I applied to SS and IS just before deploying in February and had 12 and 27 images (respectively) on the two sites, while I had over 200 images on DT. All three sites have done very well for me, although, I am still trying to find a niche on Istock. I have over 90 images there and my sales have not increased the way I thought they would. With only 12 images, I was able to make $100 while I was in Iraq for 10 months. I figured with 10 times as many images, I would be making $100/mo. But, that just isn't true, yet.

I have an 80% approval rating (at least) at all of the sites. Very few of my images get kicked back for technical issues, and my most common rejection is submitting too many of the same sort of image.

I submitted 180 images in the last month to SS and had almost 90% of them accepted.

What I have found, Harry, is that shooting stock is MUCH different than ANY other kind of photography. Whether you are shooting products, landscapes, protraits, weddings, sports, etc. stock is just a totally different type of image. Each site has a marketing strategy that drives their image acceptance. The biggest clue to this is the categories that each on has. I have begun to shoot images specifically for a certain site, rather than shooting and uploading across the board. This works two fold: One: I am not going to get a rejection based on composition, etc. Two: I can make that image exclusive (in most cases) and reap the benefits of a higher percentage of the profit.

Fotolia accepts much different images than Istock. The look and feel of the sites are much different, appealling to a different clientel.

I, too, started out with the bar very high for rejections based on the fact that a) I knew virtually nothing about photography (I definitely didn't have 50 years of experience) b) I didn't know what it meant to shoot stock and c) I didn't understand things like purple fringing, noise, and oversharpening.

I like to shoot stock, but for me, it is just a stepping stone to improve my skills so I can get into commercial photography. Where else can you be taught (if you are willing, and don't take rejections personally) and make money doing it?

Hi guys! It's Harry checking in; haven't been here for a while, but you and Creatista provide excellent information for dummies like me. I got rejected by SS again, but oddly I got accepted by iS.

IS is a whole new twist. The three images I submitted for approval to be a contributor were good enough to pass that test. So I sent them my 15 best shots that had the best sales record over a year on each of four sites. They only Rejected 12 (Seven for Over Filtered) of the 15. And the real kicker was - the three images the accepted for my initial approval were rejected. The only 3 accepted were three that had no sales as theywere part of a very recent shoot. Those 3 were rejected by DT I might add. So now I can boast that I have 3 images on iS and have a 20% acceptance rating. That's 20 times better than SS.

Everthing you two said is true; guess I just can't cut the mustard. I am considering what you said Photojay - cut my sites down to the two best. I guess for me that would be BS and er, I have to think about the other one. My sales aren't great at BS, but my acceptance is at 94%. I almost feel like I know what I'm doing.

On a final note - before I give up, I am going to pick up a D300. At least my snapshots will look a little better.

Hope you two keep setting the world on fire! And bless you Photojay for serving our country at a time of need!

Harry

Hi Harry, Photojay et al...

Harry...I really think the key to ShutterStock is just perseverance. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect they bounce everyone a few times. I don't know of anyone who got in right away (particularly in the last 6 months). It took me three months and four tries. Now they are by far my best seller. I probably average at least 20 a day and 40 a day isn't at all unusual. Plus the occasional extended license. My advice with SS is just hang in there.

Unlike PhotoJay, I don't change my images for any one site. I just figure they will take what they take and reject what they reject. It is interesting to get one of your best selling images rejected for "limited commercial value." Of course, I understand they are running a business and have to make judgement calls. Plus they're human. So I just don't worry much.

I almost (except for IS) never go back and resubmit. Sometimes on IS I will just because they are often VERY picky about filtering (meaning often, saturation). So I'll sometimes slightly back off on the saturation -- very SLIGHTLY -- and resubmit...then often the images fly through. One more thing about IS. Sometimes I submit a little smaller version of the same shot than I do elsewhere. If it isn't 100% pin sharp I'll drop the size a bit. Of course, that limits some sales opportunities for larger versions, so I try not to do it often. Most of the time I just don't submit slightly (and I do mean even slightly) soft images at all - anywhere. I can spend my time retouching images that look great or trying to "fix" the borderline cases. I opt not to work that hard.

By the way...I plan to make this a viable steady income within a couple years. I'm at about $10 to $20 a day right now with 700 images. Plus I have a site I sell outright to that doesn't figure into that number. At 5,000 images, if I keep the quality up I hope to be bringing in $100/day on average.

I'm a freelance filmmaker and photographer...so the steady income will allow me more freedom to do other things that I also love. In the mean time, I can go for a week or so and not do anything in microstock (I'm out of town on a job right now, for instance) and it keeps churning. $10 to $20 isn't making me rich...but it is something like $5,000 for the year if it keeps up. And it does seem to be growing in accordance with the number of images. Plus I'm getting more savvy all the time about what sells. For me it's people, people, people. Good studio and location shots with models, real people, and kids. I probably sell people 4 or 5 to 1 over shots of things.

So keep at it. Have fun. I am!

PhotoJay - likewise thanks for doing your service. We are all appreciative.

Cheers

Scott