Yuri just made an interesting post today about the difference in Micro and Macro imagery. 

check it out
http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-macro-stock/

I would have to agree - some of the images he linked would be rejected in a flash at a micro agency.  Yet, they are gobbled up by Getty and sell well.

I still don't think buyers really want "authentic looking images of real people".  

I think they do. At least here in Europe. The lack of "real" looking people in micros is the main reason that something gets bought at macro sites.

"Real" doesn't need to mean "fat ugly people without makeup.".
I think it means more like "normal weight attractive people with light makeup doing things with natural expressions"

I think micros could sweep in much of the good stuff if they changed their image review policies. If I try to send them images that look "natural", they get rejected for composition, uneven light, harsh shadows, color balance, focus, motion blur etc etc.
It's easier to shoot something in studio against one colour background and f/11.

I buy the brand of beer who show the hawtest chicks in their commercials. 

Why does "real" equal poor photography?  ie., we call it "real", because we're trying to emulate people out snapping photos.

No. "Real" photography is something like shooting in existing conditions and natural light. That means the light isn't always as flat and neutral as preferred by microstock sites. Even the DOF can be too short or in the wrong place for the reviewer-attila.

As I said, it's much easier to get studio photos shot with flashes at f/11 accepted than "real" looking images with real light, real locations and real people.

Oh, hey, where's the site what accepts flat light? That's my biggest rejection reason as that's what our light is like, most of the time.

Most sites. I have had my images rejected for both uneven light and harsh shadows. A moderately dull "large softbox" light seems to be the microstock industry standard, no need to get any gobos or snoots.

SJLOCKE wrote: "Or are we the "candid camera".  Looking in on something, somewhere we aren't supposed to be?"

I think that's a big part of it.
Try getting a novice or semi-pro model to NOT look at the bloody camera!

Most of the models I have worked with instinctively find the lens and try to connect with it.
Shooting with multiple models and getting them to interact naturally with each other, is the pinnacle of 'real' in my book.

So this is the more difficult stuff to get and that's what the clients are willing to pay for.

As for the 'creative' lighting? Well, I think that buyers are bored with perfect exposures and predictable lighting.
Is it bad photography? Technically I would say, yes. But who really cares if it sells.

The late Dean Collin's said that one of the most difficult things for a commercial photographer was not dictating to the industry buyers what was good.
We have to produce what sells. It doens't matter that we think that its garbage.

Any creative material is like that...we are told what is good and bad by the people who stand to make the most money from it...and the critics usually go along with this regardless of how lousy the artwork is...the vast majority of people are visual illiterates...why should photography be any different.

And to think I thought the difference was one charged a lot more for images than the other.

I may be cynical but I've always thought macro-stock has a big element of the "Emperor has no clothes about it" - put a high price-tag on something tell people its good, and they will buy it no matter how tasteless and awful it is. Sorry to say but Yuri's examples in this article prove that for me.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 22, 2009, 14:07

Oh, hey, where's the site what accepts flat light? That's my biggest rejection reason as that's what our light is like, most of the time.

Most sites. I have had my images rejected for both uneven light and harsh shadows. A moderately dull "large softbox" light seems to be the microstock industry standard, no need to get any gobos or snoots.

I don't think thats true, it's just most amateur photographers seem to think that a softbox is the best tool for every job.

Hi All,

 Great post by Yuri. I think from him mentioning 20% then he is speaking of RF Macro, RM offers a higher percentage. I believe a big reason why these style of images also make it into Macro as apposed to Micro is the editing factor. Micro is not edited by professionals of the same caliber as Macro, generally. They are stuck to very stringent guidelines set by the Micro companies because of the shear volume and amount of shooters they have to deal with. No selective focus, no movement, etc. Everything pretty much needs to stay in focus to pass Micro editors.
 I think when Macro asks for more real looking people they mean not posed and actually caught in a moment. They don't need to be perfect runway models but they do need to fit the role they are playing.
 I feel his images are strong and will sell well. They are also a lot more fun to create in my opinion. Micro is super but it is starting to find it's fit in the industry which is great. There is room for all three levels in stock you just need to know what each level is looking for.   
 Photographers are still getting accepted by Getty and Corbis but you have to show some creativity that is still usable from the buyers perspective. Every image needs a title or it won't sell very well in any of the markets. The more titles the better the sales, this doesn't mean you have to shoot safe boring shots but you still need to be aware of the message you are trying to present in your images.

Best,
Jonathan