several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly light 

IMHO, that was very bad advice your snobby pro-tog pal gave you.

Nobody that I know of equates microstock photography with wedding photography suitable for a couple to hang on the wall in their new home. They're very different critters, each with its own purpose.

I think it *is* possible for a microstocker to develop into a good photographer. Maybe not a "fine art" gauzy bride-and-groom shooter, but there's a big need out there for something other than that.

Quote from: For Real on November 20, 2021, 18:10

several years ago a professional photographer (i.e., wedding) told me that I would never develop into a good photographer doing microstock. It took me a few years to realize what she was telling me.  Most of my images (like 99%) could never be purchased to hang on someone's wall lol! Almost all background images that are all in focus and overly[b][/b] light 

IMHO, that was very bad advice your snobby pro-tog pal gave you.

Nobody that I know of equates microstock photography with wedding photography suitable for a couple to hang on the wall in their new home. They're very different critters, each with its own purpose.

I think it *is* possible for a microstocker to develop into a good photographer. Maybe not a "fine art" gauzy bride-and-groom shooter, but there's a big need out there for something other than that.

There was that guy: yuri arcurs.

From my point of view, being a good photographer is not that relevant for Microstock. A successful microstocker creates images. The images are generated as the market needs them. The photography is only a small part of it.

If you search for an image, you can see that a fraction of the images are pure photography. The biggest part are photomontages, CGI images, vectors, illustrations, composite images. The concept is in the foreground of the success, not the good photography in the technical sense.

There are extremely successful contributors who do not have a single photo in their portfolio. Therefore, I absolutely agree with marthamarks. It is certainly an advantage to be a good or professional photographer, but it is by no means a must.

You will remember Wilm that this was vehemently argued about on the Sstock forum for years. 
A (photographer) contributor would post their portfolio and ask why they weren't getting many sales and a certain section of the community would criticise their photographic skills/sometimes give them photographic advice.
The other section of the community would say that the concepts were wrong.
It has become very clear to me over the years that it's the concepts that matter and good keywording, far more than anything else.
Good execution then makes the images more sellable.
For my Arcangel portfolio that's possibly even more the case as creating images specifically for books feels (to me) even more difficult/precise conceptually.
But then I wasn't very good at microstock.

As we all know, there are different types of photography and different markets for those types. I'm not really an artsy person. I can't draw or paint to save my life, I can't sing and I'm a terrible actor. When I think about photography, I think about those photos that I like to look at and they tend not to be the artsy ones either. I like real life photos thinks such as street scenes and that is what I tend to be drawn to when out and about with my camera. I photograph what I like and what my eye is drawn to.

It seems to work for microstock. My photos sell and, year on year, I sell more of them. I seem to be getting better at it too as the percentage of my portfolio that has sold gets higher too. I know there are others out there who are better photographers than me. But that's okay too. I came to this late in life with no formal education but if I'm progressing then that works for me.

Microstock is not fine art photography, it is useful images. Sure better quality and photography will make the images more attractive, but content is #1.

As for forum advice, I could post my best selling image and ask why it doesn't get downloads and get a half dozen replies explaining what's wrong with it.

We are different, see different, shoot and edit, design and styles are personal, interests vary, and that's good.

What you write is basically correct, Pete.

Nevertheless, there are commonalities of aesthetic feeling that apply all over the world - in every culture, in every society, in every religion, and in every ethnic group. These principles have been discussed and stated over and over again and in detail in the shutterstock forum, among others.

The aesthetic laws of symmetry, the golden ratio, the child's scheme, and many others apply everywhere on the globe. It is beneficial to know them and you don't have to have studied to use them.

Nevertheless, you are right with your thesis: every bestseller would be criticized mercilessly. But a bestseller is not necessarily an objectively good picture. Because many factors influence the sales success. I also don't believe that an algorithm follows the laws of aesthetics. My bestsellers are - from a purely photographic point of view - just about acceptable. Nothing more.

Quote from: Wilm on November 25, 2021, 16:12

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

Quote from: marthamarks on November 25, 2021, 23:02

Quote from: Wilm on November 25, 2021, 16:12

the child's scheme,

That's a brand-new term/concept to this old timer. Can you explain a bit about it?

Thanks!

Hello Martha,

you probably know this, but I translated it badly. I don't know exactly how it is correct in English.

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics.

It is not easy for me to describe it accurately in English.

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Nature designed babies this way to activate our protective instinct.

In addition to human babies, this also applies, for example, to puppies, kittens, chicks, etc.

In product design, the VW Beetle could be mentioned as a design example. Or the teddy bear. In graphic design, the Mario Brothers from Nintendo or anime characters are an example.

Thank you for that, Wilm! I get it now.

And yes, you're right. There seems to be a universal human reaction to the cute, helpless little baby, puppy, kitten, etc. Maybe it's an evolutionary thing that helped to keep the big and powerful from destroying their own young.

The term Americans use is "the cuteness factor." Our Brit, Canadian, and Aussie friends may have another term for it, but that's ours.

And actually, you did very well in describing it!!!

Why people still upload video or stills to SSTK?? for 10 cents a pic and $1.50 a video? delusional in that ya'll think you're gonna make hundreds of thousands of sales and bank?.

SSTK has become like the music streaming industry, unless you're getting millions of streams you are getting paid a fraction of a penny per stream/download.

Just google up music streaming royalty calculator.

SSTK is if you need a loss to report on your taxes.

Thank you very much, Martha! 

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine.

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 11:44

Thank you very much, Martha! 

You're very welcome! I just wish I could speak or write your language (whatever it is) as well as you write (and probably speak) mine.

Don't you speak a little German Martha? Looks like Dutch     (You wrote that you as a little girl lived in Heidelberg)

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 11:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog�  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Well, that's a different perspective, so some are still making living off SSTK?, that's good to hear, I left them a few months ago, sales went from $800/month to around $12/month if that.

That is an extreme decrease! 

Quote from: marthamarks on November 27, 2021, 01:51

Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2021, 11:44

Maybe cuteness. Or schema of childlike characteristics. ...

Basically, it's about the fact that babies - whether human or animal - are perceived as cute by everyone. Big googly eyes, round soft shapes, small nose, overall very small face relative to the size of the head, so childlike proportions.

Wilm, I got curious and dug around a bit on the internet. Turned up this blog�  from Shutterstock, of all places!

SS refers to it as "the cute factor," as opposed to "cuteness" (which is what sounds best to me). But either way, it's exactly as you described it above.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/the-cute-factor-why-were-obsessed-with-pictures-of-babies-and-animals

Thanks, Martha, I didn't know about this blog post.

Is what Thijs writes true? Did you live in Heidelberg when you were a child? I was born there and lived there until I was 23 years old.
At that time Heidelberg was the European headquarters of the US land forces. Were your parents or your father in the US Army?

Yes, that's exactly right. My father was with the US Army. We lived at 107 Roemerstrasse (that's my own English phoenetic spelling) in Heidelberg from 1951 to 1954. During that time, we traveled all over Western Europe, from the boot of Italy to the fjords in Norway. It was a great time to be an American in Europe, because people were grateful and couldn't do enough for us. It was also quite a marvelous introduction to the world!

I'll add that I started school (first and second grade) in the American school there. Our teachers were Americans, but they had local assistants who taught us to sing in German a wealth of Christmas carols and folk songs, how to count, the German alphabet, colors, clothing, body parts, and other basic things. I can still sing many of the things I learned, but they would probably sound all wrong to you, because for me it's just rote memory from a loooooooooong time ago.