Even with an \"artistic\" image ... there\'s likely marketability there ... but my broader point is that STOCK photography is all about MARKETING (imo). This comes in the form of the end user ... AND ... in the form you who/how you are marketing your images.
Killer images that miss the marketing aspect wind up being worthless ... from what I\'ve heard & read, those that have more of a \"laser\" marketing (than just general stuff) have much more success. As with many photograhic business endeavors ... it\'s 90% business, 10% photography (or something like that).
For many folks, the business side is their achilles heel, not their photography per se. They don\'t have a good grasp on the needs of the industry they are trying to service, and what they need to do to provide meet/fulfill/exceed those needs. It\'s more than just taking \"good\" pictures.
+1 @ themes ... i.e. do your homework to assess the needs of the industry, or develop a niche/expertise/style.
One area of stock that caught me by surprise a bit was \"agriculture\". Not something that you\'d typically associate with \"pretty pictures\" ... but it is a sub-industry that I never really gave much credence to. That is but one example. Do some research, decide on a direction ... then attack with the gusto of a viking and the tenacity of a pit bull.
I had a pretty good book a few years back on stock photography ... can\'t remember it\'s title now, but I\'m sure there are plenty around.
I\'d start with Photographer\'s Market ... check out stock agencies, contact a few to get some insight and work toward their needs / standards. If you stuff isn\'t meeting the needs/standards (no matter how good) ... it\'s ammo for the reject pile.
HTH ... GL
Dec 19, 2011 at 05:30 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #10179882 « Developing myself into a stock photographer »
