Author Topic: Do Effects Sell Well (Read 10526 times)

Will Dutt · « **on:** July 14, 2011, 18:57 »

After browsing through varies microstock sites I found that there are only a few amount of photos with effects such as Black and White, Sepia, Negative ect.

This leads me to two questions of curiosity, Why is this? and Do effects not sell as well as colour?

If anyone has an answer, please feel free to share

Mantis · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2011, 19:10 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 14, 2011, 18:57

After browsing through varies microstock sites I found that there are only a few amount of photos with effects such as Black and White, Sepia, Negative ect.

This leads me to two questions of curiosity, Why is this? and Do effects not sell as well as colour?

If anyone has an answer, please feel free to share

Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever. You limit the image usefulness in most cases by doing that. Give them the full monty and let them be the manipulator. Your images will be more marketable that way.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2011, 19:14 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 14, 2011, 19:10

Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever. You limit the image usefulness in most cases by doing that. Give them the full monty and let them be the manipulator. Your images will be more marketable that way.

Ahk, good point. It's just that my main interest in photography is landscape, icons (buildings ie- Eiffel Tower) and animals. I find taking black and white and sepia shots more interesting. Also it seems that selling microstock photos mainly evolves around what the industry wants and less what you want to shoot, but that is fair enough.

Mantis · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2011, 19:21 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 14, 2011, 19:14

Quote from: Mantis on July 14, 2011, 19:10
Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever. You limit the image usefulness in most cases by doing that. Give them the full monty and let them be the manipulator. Your images will be more marketable that way.
Ahk, good point. It's just that my main interest in photography is landscape, icons (buildings ie- Eiffel Tower) and animals. I find taking black and white and sepia shots more interesting. Also it seems that selling microstock photos mainly evolves around what the industry wants and less what you want to shoot, but that is fair enough.

This is a general rule. Doesn't mean your shots won't sell. Just that, "IN GENERAL" submitting pics in their native format of color is the most acceptable way to go. Give it a try. Part of stock is testing new ideas, concepts and styles.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2011, 21:32 »

'Ahk, good point. It's just that my main interest in photography is landscape, icons (buildings ie- Eiffel Tower) and animals'

Don't plan on quick or lots of sales. Everyone with a camera wants to license their 'landscape, building and animal' shots. That's some of the most oversaturated stuff right there.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2011, 21:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 14, 2011, 21:32

Don't plan on quick or lots of sales. Everyone with a camera wants to license their 'landscape, building and animal' shots. That's some of the most oversaturated stuff right there.

Quick sales is defiantly not what I am aiming to achieve. My microstock goals are:

To produce high quality images of things and places I want to shoot
To build up a large gallery/portfolio of my work
To develop a knowledge of how the industry works
And to earn enough allowing me to travel and take more wonderful shots.

Currently as we speak I have around 30-50 raw files that I am planning to submit in the future, many of which I already have plans for.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2011, 21:54 »

Of those, likely 10 will be accepted and will likely get lost in the crowd. I certainly wouldn't expect to start today with pictures of buildings, expecting that to finance traveling the world.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2011, 22:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 14, 2011, 21:54

Of those, likely 10 will be accepted and will likely get lost in the crowd. I certainly wouldn't expect to start today with pictures of buildings, expecting that to finance traveling the world.

Can I send you a PM with some of my work for you to criticise?

click_click · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2011, 23:19 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 14, 2011, 22:00

Quote from: sjlocke on July 14, 2011, 21:54
Of those, likely 10 will be accepted and will likely get lost in the crowd. I certainly wouldn't expect to start today with pictures of buildings, expecting that to finance traveling the world.
Can I send you a PM with some of my work for you to criticise?

Actually, I would like to have a peak at some of your shots as well.

If you post a couple of your best into the critique forum, some top contributors will be able to point you into the right direction like which agency would be most suited for your style etc.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2011, 23:43 »

Quote from: click_click on July 14, 2011, 23:19

Actually, I would like to have a peak at some of your shots as well.

If you post a couple of your best into the critique forum, some top contributors will be able to point you into the right direction like which agency would be most suited for your style etc.

Sure no worries. The watermarks on my photos are very bad, I used some free program which literally destroys the photos.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2011, 23:47 »

Don't worry about the watermark, they're never pretty

but you have to protect your stuff somehow.

Make sure you post the images in full resolution, that way you will receive the most accurate feedback.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #11 on:** July 15, 2011, 00:03 »

Just created a topic regarding my portfolio, you can read and comment on it here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/photo-critique/my-style/

Thanks

BTW: I reajusted the size when I uploaded to fit message boards better, instead of posting the images in the topic I sent a link to a slideshow of the images via [url]imageshack.us[url]

Perry · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2011, 01:23 »

Quote from: Mantis on July 14, 2011, 19:10

Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever.

But 99% of designers doesn't know how to do a GOOD B/W conversion with filtrations, local contrast enhancements etc.
The really good B/W conversion isn't just some "effect" that is achieved with a press of a button.

I have a few black and white images (and they do sell some). Those images exist because:
* The image are the kind that just are much better in black and white: B/W supports the idea and mood.
* The image has bad color, for example mixed light sources.

I never submit the same images as color and B/W versions.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** July 15, 2011, 05:27 »

I have two images in sepia that sell better than their originals. Also some images in which I applied a colorization do as well or better than their color counterparts. I agree that not all buyers are willing to edit anything, and that edited version may look just like he wants - either the color hue or the mood or the general look.

In fact I've seen few instances of my color photos in use with any effect of that sort. Cropping and resizing seem to be the most common editions.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #14 on:** July 15, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 15, 2011, 05:27

I have two images in sepia that sell better than their originals. Also some images in which I applied a colorization do as well or better than their color counterparts. I agree that not all buyers are willing to edit anything, and that edited version may look just like he wants - either the color hue or the mood or the general look.

In fact I've seen few instances of my color photos in use with any effect of that sort. Cropping and resizing seem to be the most common editions.

Can you post me a link to your Sepia image?

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2011, 07:52 »

Quote from: Perry on July 15, 2011, 01:23

Quote from: Mantis on July 14, 2011, 19:10
Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever.

But 99% of designers doesn't know how to do a GOOD B/W conversion with filtrations, local contrast enhancements etc.
The really good B/W conversion isn't just some "effect" that is achieved with a press of a button.

I have a few black and white images (and they do sell some). Those images exist because:
* The image are the kind that just are much better in black and white: B/W supports the idea and mood.
* The image has bad color, for example mixed light sources.

I never submit the same images as color and B/W versions.

99% are incompetent huh? Interesting. That's essentially what you're saying. However, even if that were true what makes you think simply owning a camera makes one better at black and white conversion? As a designer, I hate black and white photos in microstock. I'm looking for elements, to use in a design as i see fit not someone to make creative decisions for me in the name of "art". There are a few buyers who are looking for photos to use as is and those kind of art photos will sell to them so if you're looking for only a few sales go for it. Don't think your artsy creative black and white will appeal to the masses though.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2011, 08:48 »

Quote from: digitalexpressionimages on July 15, 2011, 07:52

Quote from: Perry on July 15, 2011, 01:23
Quote from: Mantis on July 14, 2011, 19:10
Fairly simple. Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever.

But 99% of designers doesn't know how to do a GOOD B/W conversion with filtrations, local contrast enhancements etc.
The really good B/W conversion isn't just some "effect" that is achieved with a press of a button.

I have a few black and white images (and they do sell some). Those images exist because:
* The image are the kind that just are much better in black and white: B/W supports the idea and mood.
* The image has bad color, for example mixed light sources.

I never submit the same images as color and B/W versions.

99% are incompetent huh? Interesting. That's essentially what you're saying. However, even if that were true what makes you think simply owning a camera makes one better at black and white conversion? As a designer, I hate black and white photos in microstock. I'm looking for elements, to use in a design as i see fit not someone to make creative decisions for me in the name of "art". There are a few buyers who are looking for photos to use as is and those kind of art photos will sell to them so if you're looking for only a few sales go for it. Don't think your artsy creative black and white will appeal to the masses though.

I had the same reaction to the "99% are incompetent" comment.

As a designer, I agree with you about looking for elements. For six years I worked for a company where I designed monthly newsletters specific to certain professions. The images I used were typically one or two isolated objects, maybe in combination with a full image. That image gave the reader an instantaneous idea of what the article was about. Not always, but a good portion of the time.

High end ad agencies, etc. are interested in the "artsy" stuff...IMHO, the majority of companies/designers using images need elements that may or may not be used in combination with other elements.

As far as black and white...there are instances where I have seen images that conveyed a certain feel when changed to black and white. The color version just didn't have that same feel. But I think that most times, it's better to submit the image in color. Maybe the 1% of competent designers will be able to transform it to b&w!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** July 17, 2011, 19:33 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 14, 2011, 18:57

After browsing through varies microstock sites I found that there are only a few amount of photos with effects such as Black and White, Sepia, Negative ect.

This leads me to two questions of curiosity, Why is this? and Do effects not sell as well as colour?

If anyone has an answer, please feel free to share

NO and agencies don't usually accept them either.

The whole thing about buyers can change them is a contradiction of something that's not perfect and then the answer is, we want images perfect and ready to use, the buyers don't have time to edit them. Many buyers can't edit images...

So which is it? HUH?

This is a no win question. That's why I let people answer for a few days before pointing out that if you do effects, they have one answer and if you don't have perfect images, then they have a different answer.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** July 17, 2011, 19:56 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 14, 2011, 19:14

Also it seems that selling microstock photos mainly evolves around what the industry wants and less what you want to shoot, but that is fair enough.

Yup, that's the Alpha and Omega of stock, especially with the micro model which need to you sell images in bulk to be viable.
For stuff you actually like to shoot, there's always Flickr, personal websites etc.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** July 17, 2011, 20:04 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 15, 2011, 00:03

Just created a topic regarding my portfolio, you can read and comment on it here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/photo-critique/my-style/

Thanks

BTW: I reajusted the size when I uploaded to fit message boards better, instead of posting the images in the topic I sent a link to a slideshow of the images via [url]imageshack.us[url]

You appear to live, as I do, in an area with predominatly flat light. IStock don't like flat light (or contrasty or dappled light either).
Can't honestly see any of the photos you have there being accepted, far less selling (sorry).

Will Dutt · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2011, 20:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 17, 2011, 20:04

You appear to live, as I do, in an area with predominatly flat light. IStock don't like flat light (or contrasty or dappled light either).
Can't honestly see any of the photos you have there being accepted, far less selling (sorry).

No worries, I dont believe any of them would be accepted and sell, they were just hobby photos taken with my Sony Cyber Shot and some on my mobile. I think the hot air balloon is really the only one with a small amount of potential.

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2011, 21:21 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 15, 2011, 05:30

Quote from: madelaide on July 15, 2011, 05:27
I have two images in sepia that sell better than their originals. Also some images in which I applied a colorization do as well or better than their color counterparts. I agree that not all buyers are willing to edit anything, and that edited version may look just like he wants - either the color hue or the mood or the general look.

In fact I've seen few instances of my color photos in use with any effect of that sort. Cropping and resizing seem to be the most common editions.

Can you post me a link to your Sepia image?

This is one of them. Not a good image, surely would never be approved these days, but even had an EL for it in one site:
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-549587/stock-photo-holding-the-bible
And I found it on a book cover:
http://troublingher.com/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do Effects Sell Well (Read 10526 times)

Will Dutt

Mantis

Will Dutt

Mantis

Sean Locke Photography

Will Dutt

Sean Locke Photography

Will Dutt

click_click

Will Dutt

click_click

Will Dutt

Perry

madelaide

Will Dutt

digitalexpressionimages

cathyslife

RacePhoto

ShadySue

ShadySue

Will Dutt

madelaide

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors