Times a topic, which one moves me for a long time.
If you look at landscape pictures for example, the bestsellers are completely oversaturated by the colors and partly overworked beyond recognition - but they are bestsellers.

I noticed this particularly blatantly during my last shoot. I personally don't like the bestsellers, but they seem to sell.

How do you deal with it. Do you all turn your color saturation knob all the way up for better sales chances?

Ok, my shots and the competition bestsellers:

https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?load_type=search&is_recent_search=&search_type=usertyped&k=dinant+belgium&native_visual_search=&similar_content_id=&asset_id=217426858

I'm guilty of doing split toning, dramatizing skies (sky replacement when I'm drunk), dodge and burn and using the saturation slider.
At least, for landscapes and travel related stuff, which is quite some part of my portfolio.
I try to not overdo it, but I definitely want to have a highly appealing image, yes. 
I found it out the hard way. Travel related buyers want to sell a dream, not reality.

My editorials are kept to basic editing. Maybe adding a slightly amount of punch with the contrast or saturation slider, and some highlight dimming (I tend to slightly overexpose rather than underexpose) but that's about it.

I don't spend hours of editing on removing brands or people, I feel like it isn't worth my time, as the image might not sell all.
So those shots get uploaded as editorial. But I do try to frame shots avoiding brands or people. Wherever realistically possible.

Edit: the shots of Dinant you showed are not far off of how I would do it by the way.
Maybe I would have warmed them up just a tiny bit while being a bit softer on the blue (seems a bit harsh?), but hey, that's just personal taste.
And if it sells... well, then you did the right thing!

Roscoe, you don't have to feel guilty, my sky is replaced too.
What I'm getting at is that I find the bestsellers on my subject for my taste horribly overworked. But they are selling.

Is that really better:


Edit:
Hmm, after posting my revised version, I'd say the image makes more of an impression, at least in the preview.

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on March 20, 2022, 16:23

Quote from: Roscoe on March 20, 2022, 16:10

I'm guilty of doing split toning, dramatizing skies (sky replacement when I'm drunk), dodge and burn and using the saturation slider.
At least, for landscapes and travel related stuff, which is quite some part of my portfolio.
I try to not overdo it, but I definitely want to have a highly appealing image, yes. 
I found it out the hard way. Travel related buyers want to sell a dream, not reality.

My editorials are kept to basic editing. Maybe adding a slightly amount of punch with the contrast or saturation slider, and some highlight dimming (I tend to slightly overexpose rather than underexpose) but that's about it.

I don't spend hours of editing on removing brands or people, I feel like it isn't worth my time, as the image might not sell all.
So those shots get uploaded as editorial. But I do try to frame shots avoiding brands or people. Wherever realistically possible.

Edit: the shots of Dinant you showed are not far off of how I would do it by the way.
Maybe I would have warmed them up just a tiny bit while being a bit softer on the blue (seems a bit harsh?), but hey, that's just personal taste.
And if it sells... well, then you did the right thing!

Roscoe, you don't have to feel guilty, my sky is replaced too.
What I'm getting at is that I find the bestsellers on my subject for my taste horribly overworked. But they are selling.

Is that really better:

Yes, I have the same feeling regarding overprocessing.
Sometimes I think: Djeez, I took it too far. This won't even fly through the approval process.
But then it did, and then it sells. So there's that.

I have a sky replacement shot published in Lonely Planet.
Whooops.

You made me curious, do you want to post your picture - if not, just forget it.

With all of the competition out there, an image really has to "pop" to get any attention at all.  It's not that the bestsellers are oversaturated, but rather that the real world is too often bland and uninteresting.  The real skill, imo, when confronted with a boring scene, is to be able to see in your mind's eye what it could look like with a few minutes of post processing. 

To paraphrase Roscoe, in my own words: 

People want an imaginary enhanced view, not the true representation of reality.

No I don't intentionally over saturate images. I do increase highlights and contrast in some, and do things to make an image have more "pop". I'm not against adding some color saturation. Yes I do de-saturate backgrounds sometimes to bring out the foreground.

Thanks for the examples Zeljkok, I find your images all very appealing. With the saturation you have held back but. And against a replacement of a boring sky speaks nothing.

Rightdx, the reality often looks boring and dreary. But I was referring more to the examples in my link, there I can not understand the bestsellers. The images are not only unrealistic, but in my opinion technically poorly implemented.

But sometimes I can't stop myself either:

Ralf - I am big sucker for skies & this looks great


Would need to see at 100% how good are the edges at horizon, specially at right side where highrises touch the sky, as that is the hardest part with sky replacement

But, as someone mentioned, does it help the sales? Not sure it does;  stock photography is not about pretty images, rather illustrating concepts where artistic appeal is usually secondary.   

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on March 21, 2022, 02:54

Thanks for the examples Zeljkok, I find your images all very appealing. With the saturation you have held back but. And against a replacement of a boring sky speaks nothing.

Rightdx, the reality often looks boring and dreary. But I was referring more to the examples in my link, there I can not understand the bestsellers. The images are not only unrealistic, but in my opinion technically poorly implemented.

But sometimes I can't stop myself either:

Ralf - I am big sucker for skies & this looks great


Would need to see at 100% how good are the edges at horizon, specially at right side where highrises touch the sky, as that is the hardest part with sky replacement

But, as someone mentioned, does it help the sales? Not sure it does;  stock photography is not about pretty images, rather illustrating concepts where artistic appeal is usually secondary.

Thanks Zeljkok, now we are two suckers of sky exchange here.
I use Photoshop for this and the sky is perfectly swapped in seconds and there are no problems with the edges you mentioned. The images are also accepted everywhere without any problems.

In principle I agree with you that stock photography is more about themes and concepts. Usually I don't worry so much about the competition either and just do my thing.

In this case, however, I did a little research because I knew that hundreds of other photographers had photographed the same subject from exactly the same spot before me.

I wanted to present the topic a little differently and stumbled across the bestsellers, which I personally do not like at all 

I think some people go overboard in post-processing just to get noticed.  Screaming colors, bad HDR's, etc. So if buyer has screen of 100 image icons naturally one that screams the loudest will get attention first

My take is that to be successful in stock, you have to enjoy photography first. Sole motivation can not be just to get sales; if it is, it will almost certainly result in disappointment.  As an example this is my 2nd most downloaded shot on AS:



I analyzed the scene, waited for right conditions, came back with tripod, etc. Really enjoyed whole experience, not thinking about $$ potential.  Amount of post-processing?  Noise removal in shadows and bit of enhancement of cabin light only

Great shot

I have discussed this extensively with our moderation team and when I asked what was the most common reason for rejection, there was exactly zero hesitation before I received the answer "oversaturation." Again, less is more. I use the vibrance slider almost exclusively in LRC and almost never the saturation slider for this reason. I do like to replace the sky from time to time, but as noted here, it should look like it belongs.

-Mat Hayward

This is golden

Quote from: zeljkok on March 21, 2022, 18:25

Quote from: MatHayward on March 21, 2022, 18:12

I have discussed this extensively with our moderation team and when I asked what was the most common reason for rejection, there was exactly zero hesitation before I received the answer "oversaturation." Again, less is more. I use the vibrance slider almost exclusively in LRC and almost never the saturation slider for this reason. I do like to replace the sky from time to time, but as noted here, it should look like it belongs.

-Mat Hayward

This is golden

Yes, and this is what we are told by other professionals too, and in general, I support this point of view.
Yet, coming back to one of the reasons Ralf started this thread:

Quote

If you look at landscape pictures for example, the bestsellers are completely oversaturated by the colors and partly overworked beyond recognition - but they are bestsellers.

And this is also my experience. A clean and rather flat image has very limited chances of selling in a competitive market.
Maybe we're all having different standards of what a highly processed image is, because sure, there are gradations, and is what I'm doing (and bestsellers look like) considered as "normal or acceptable" retouching.

Edit: when I look at my landscape bestsellers: these are all very vivid images, rich contrast, quite some drama every now and then. And I definitely have rather flat images in my portfolio too, from times where I refused to sell myself out to overly processed imagery. I changed my mind, because the more realistic shots rarely sell, unless I have no competition.

I see the problem as it always has been and will be. Mat makes a good point, less drama and adulteration leaves the buyers more options. But here's the other side. Some buyers want ready to use images. Some don't know how to make their own adjustments. Some want fast and good, so they can spend time on something else, like designs and layouts.

There's room for both and there is no perfect answer to the question, edit heavily or edit moderately. The answer isn't either or, it's something of both.

Personally I like the less finished, I try to not have over saturated images. But as Ralf and others can see, some of the best selling are just that. Bright images, bright colors, sharp and higher contrast sell best, but not everything is like that and not every buyer wants that.

I see the problem as it always has been and will be. Mat makes a good point, less drama and adulteration leaves the buyers more options. But here's the other side. Some buyers want ready to use images. Some don't know how to make their own adjustments. Some want fast and good, so they can spend time on something else, like designs and layouts.

I agree. I work with someone who uses stock images, but barely ever touches Photoshop. Not everyone has the interest, even though it surprises me. Photoshop is so much fun to mess around in!

I see the problem as it always has been and will be. Mat makes a good point, less drama and adulteration leaves the buyers more options. But here's the other side. Some buyers want ready to use images. Some don't know how to make their own adjustments. Some want fast and good, so they can spend time on something else, like designs and layouts.

There's room for both and there is no perfect answer to the question, edit heavily or edit moderately. The answer isn't either or, it's something of both.

Personally I like the less finished, I try to not have over saturated images. But as Ralf and others can see, some of the best selling are just that. Bright images, bright colors, sharp and higher contrast sell best, but not everything is like that and not every buyer wants that.

This is sort of like the agencies always claiming they want authentic content with real people in real situations. The truth is they mostly want real people only if they look like models and real situations only if they look like model houses or movie sets.

I think, to summarize, it comes down to this: buyers want an image that comes as close as possible to reality under perfect conditions.
For travel, landscape and nature related stuff, I guess it still means dramatic skies, nice sunsets, bright blue skies, vivid colors, crisp architecture, frozen action of animals doing their thing against a dramatic backdrop. You get the point. Not overly processed and filtered, but still pretty darn great compared to what you will probably see when you go there yourself.

Same for people, interiors, objects, food, or other topics.
Most of the buyers will still go for the great looking cinematic shot, but with a touch of reality.
Staged nonchalance I would call it.

I mean: You can be like this person in the picture too (but you probably won't because the morning rush ruined your mood). Your living room can look like this (but it probably won't because your cat uses the furniture as a scratching poles). Your dinner can look like this (but it probably won't because the kids were hungry and you casually threw a plate before it was properly cooked)

Authenticity is not the same as random snapshots. Far from.
It's about nailing a near-perfect reality, avoiding fakeness and situations that are completely unachievable in a real world.

Just my 2 cents. I can be wrong.

by the way, which software or plugin do you prefer? Luminar, Topaz, On1, Inpixio and so on....

Luminar.
Besides the technical aspects, there is another compelling reason (highlighted below), for trying this great tool, a tool that forced Adobe to compete on sky-replacements.

Otherwise, I'm all for post-processing.  And with all due respect, my experience is different than what Mat is recommending above, even when it comes to my sales on Adobe.

But since the OP asked for critique, the examples posted above are going too far, that sky is too blue, too saturated and it's distracting from the main subject (especially on the "revised" version). Even some clouds have a blueish hue, instead of being white. The same goes for those white buildings turned blue, in the other photo.