I love to see my photos in action. The photo I call "Naughty Little Boy" appears on the cover of a new book released by Ulysses Press this month. Okay, the subject matter might be a little troublesome (he's not allowed to see it until he's 21) but I'm pretty stoked to have a photo of my son on a book cover about serial killers. Lord, what kind of mother am I? I think my son was 4 when I took this shot.  It's a borderline photo because it is not brightly lit in true microstock fashion, but I like the intensity the uneven lighting creates.  This one was rejected by both Istock and Shutterstock, but it does get attention elsewhere, so their loss. Due to the subject matter, Ulysses contacted me directly to ask permission to use this photo.  (Agencies have a non-defamation clause in the purchaser agreements).  Who knows, perhaps I have more book covers out there with less controversial themes.  That's one thing about selling Royalty Free stock photos.  You just never know where your photos will turn up.

Here's what the thumb looks like on BigStockPhoto, where Ulysses purchased it.

        

If you own a television, I'm quite sure that you've watched at least one program describing how fat North Americans are becoming.  The stories are interlaced with shots of incredibly large people strolling down a city sidewalk, sitting on a park bench, and spilling over their outgrown pants.  The film is shot artistically.  From the neck down.  From behind.  A closeup of fingers digging into a bag of chips or resting a can of coke on their tummy ledge. 

The way that the footage is presented ala below the neck we feel we are witnessing a faceless part of an overwhelming epidemic. Yet, every time I see one of these programs the thought that rushes to my mind is: Couldn't get a model release, could ya? I lump this type of photo into a category that I call "grab shots".  Fast shots without premeditation and without permission.  People who are presumably unrecognizable because we cannot clearly identify their facial features.

Photo credit:  Don Bayley/Rapid Eye  Istockphoto

Microstock agencies have evolved to require a model release for virtually any photo with a person in it, regardless of whether you can recognize them or not.   It makes sense.  How would you feel if you recognized yourself from the neck down on such a television program?

StockXpert takes it to the extreme and demands a release for a shot from the back, for parts of a person, and in many cases, a property release must accompany interior photos that are merely the background of another subject.
                    

Editorial content has become an option on most agencies, and as long as a photo has not been manipulated, cloned or altered (other than levels, noise reduction, contrast) it qualifies for this category.  Recognizable faces are often accepted in this category without a model's permission - but the end user is restricted to use the photograph in news worthy stories and definitely not for commercial intent.

Does your portfolio have shots of people from the back?  Is their wardrobe/tattoo/hairstyle recognizable?  It's not harming anyone is it?

In the Province of Quebec, Canada, Article 6 of the Quebec Civil Code recognizes that the use of a person's name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public is an invasion of privacy.   Ms Aubrey, a 17 year old girl who was photographed without her permission sitting on the steps of a building in Montreal, Quebec and the photograph was featured in an art magazine.  The magazine was purchased by a friend of Ms Aubrey, the information was shared, and Ms Aubrey was subject to teasing by her classmates. 

Ms Aubrey brought an action against the photographer and the magazine (originating in Quebec Aubrey vs Editions Vice-Versa Inc., [1998]) and the Court found that the unauthorized publication of Ms Aubrey's photograph was an infringement of her anonymity.  Both the photographer and publisher were ordered to pay $2000 in damages, as well as court costs.

The Court cited an extract from a thesis by J. Ravanan; (translated)

"The camera lens captures a human moment at its most intense, and the snapshot 'defiles' that moment... A person surprised in his or her private life by a roving photographer is stripped of his or her transcendency and human dignity, since he or she is reduced to the status of a 'spectacle' for others...  This 'indecency of the image' deprives those photographed of their most secret substance."

Do you have any grab shots with people in your portfolio?

This past week I sent out a microstock photo of a foot kicking a soccer ball.  It happened to be a human's foot, and I do have a model release for the human attached to it, so I attached the release as well.  Dreamstime replied "Please remove release and resubmit".  This may have something to do with the fact that buyers on DT can search "people only".   The requirements are somewhat blurred between agencies, but I would rather play it safe than sorry.

        

Nice to see the number 1000 beside my recorded sales on Istock this morning! And the 1000'th sale belongs to..... School Lessons. As of today, this photo has sold 422 times on Istock.  That's pretty incredible stuff with one image making almost half of my sales.  It has slowed down considerably of late, but I think it will be a safe bet that it might be my first "red" flame sometime this year.  Other photos that have sat dormant have enjoyed sales recently.  It seems that to make sales you just have to get the first one sometimes and then image popularity grows from there.  Unfortunately, with exclusives jumping the review cue in front of non-exclusives place in line we all have an immediate disadvantage and some of our best stuff is just never seen. Now, if I could just improve my acceptance ratio with Istock and make a few more popular shots like this, I would be a very happy micro stocker!

        

Oh, I've been busy.  That's a good thing, it's GREAT in fact, but it isn't doing much for my microstock  career.  I even have about 100 model shots in the can that need to be sorted through and would produce at least 20 uploads (I'm not a fan of too many similars) - but my microstock hobby tends to get pushed to the bottom of my to-do list when I have paying clients. Not uploading to Shutterstock in particular has been absolutely devastating.  My sales have dropped by at least 50% because I haven't fed the beast.  May sales have actually been quite disappointing everywhere so far, except for steady Dreamstime and Istock, and a few $5 sales at StockXpert.  I wish I knew how much of the decline is due to my inactivity.

(My niece Carley who also models for me from time to time.  She's the happy lady in the wheatfield on my current header.)

So what have I been doing?  Apart from working from home and shuttling kids back and forth from school, and preschool, and lunch and soccer and friends....  At the end of April I shot a dance school and worked like a mad woman for days processing photos,  making magazine covers, uploading jobs, preparing receipts, sorting and packaging orders - all so I could have it completed a week early to leave for a my niece's graduation in Saskatchewan (an 8 hour drive away).  I was also there to take photos, of course!  Some graduates, a family, some headshots and a lady with her beloved little doggie.

Now I've been a crazy woman creating thank you cards for the graduates.  The new designs took a lot longer than I had estimated.  (Maybe because so many of them were created after midnight when I wasn't so fresh!)  I wanted each graduate 3 different samples to pick from, and the town that they live in has only 1000 people so I didn't want any of the cards to look too similar in any way.  They will only use 9 out of the 30 that I made, but the upside is now I have about 30 fresh templates for next time! Now that the graduation shoot is in a bit of a holding pattern until the orders come in, I start shooting a soccer league.  I shot 2 teams last week... just 51 more to go over the next three weeks.  I can't foresee feeding the Shutterstock beast in the immediate future.

Did I mention it's nice to be busy.

I'll leave you with some of my favourite thank you cards (just to prove that I haven't been slacking!)

        

If you long to use the keywords "isolated on white" but don't know how to begin: I came upon this great tutorial from Atlanta based Zack Arias that will help you master shooting on white seamless.   This tutorial is one of the most in-depth articles on the topic that you will find on the web.

Part 1 - Gear

Part 2 - Setting Lights

Part 2b - Full Length With One Light

Part 3 - From White to Black

Updated:
Part 4 - Simple Changes in Post Production

Arias promises more parts in this series within the next 10 days so be sure to check back for the final chapters.

        

Karin Lau, who you may also know as stock photographer Karimala made an interesting post on the talkmicro forum about a new way to find your images in use.  Go to Amazon.com and key your name in their search engine.  They have a unique search inside feature, and if your name has been indexed it will appear in their search results.

Too curious not to try.... on Amazon.com Lorraine Swanson returns 10 hits, 6 of which I can immediately disqualify. 

I can access the index page of this little book on wasps which indicates that Lorraine Swanson appears on page 17 within the chapter "Wasps Build Nests".   Well - I just happen to have a stock photo of a nest!

Would it be premature of me to presume that my nest might appear on page 17, or would the subject and the appearance of my name merely be coincidence?  I guess I could fork out the $15.95 and order a copy.  From what I can tell from the web, it looks like one of the early readers that my son brings home from his first grade reading program every day.

This search method only seems to work on amazon.com.  Not Amazon.ca.  Not Chapters.ca.  I have not made a purchase on the U.S. site, so they won't allow me to browse inside.

I have a cover coming out in May.  They asked permission to use the photo last fall, and I've seen the artwork.  I thought I would hold off blogging about it until the book is actually released - I have mixed feelings about the licensing so you can bet I'll blog soon when it hits the market!

        

Keywording is one of the evil necessities when it comes to shooting stock and my least favourite part of the job.  Bad keywords = no sales.  I found an interesting post by Rob Taggart over at his A Photo Editor blog; a look at keywords from a buyers point of view.

Stock Photo Keyword Zen 

Happy keywording!

        

So long Albumo, it's been.... forgettable.  I've left you, and you didn't even notice that I'm gone.   But then again, you didn't notice that I was there, either, did you?  

Albumo was a site that entered the market with a lot of momentum.  They paid artists to upload their work.  I'm not in the mood to look up the specifics, but I think it was upload 200 photos and receive 20 bucks or something along that line.  They had additional incentives for their 1000 club.  People were reaching payouts just by uploading.  They also had a nice referral plan to help spread the word. 

Encouraged by the star players they had attracted, I decided to give Albumo a whirl and ftp'd 100 odd photos.  I only managed to push about 30 or 40 through before I was distracted by something else... and well, forgot about them entirely until about 3 weeks later when I noticed friends on MSG discussing how things were going.  I logged onto my account to check for sales and not only did I not have sales, I didn't have a single view either.

3 weeks live and NOT A SINGLE VIEW!

And that is where I left things. 

Soon there were grumblings about poor commissions.  No marketing.  No sales.  No interest.  Artists who had received the bonus incentives were bound to keep their photos on the site for 400 days.  Those who did not receive a bonus were free to send a note to admin to delete their portfolio, and from what I have gleaned from other discussions, Albumo was deleting portfolios a'la contributor request as late as February, but more recently such requests have been ignored.  We are left to the "one per day" method of deleting our portfolios. 

Days before we lost LuckyOliver, I gave up on Albumo.  I've been visiting them once a day and picking a different little darling to kill.  If I go through a 24 hour period and have missed my opportunity to kill a photo, I feel somewhat the same as the day that I discovered the fish hadn't been fed (exact number of foodless days unknown, but regardless, the body was lifeless).  Note - I could delete the photos in the bullpen all at once.

How can these new microstock and midstock agencies get a foothold in today's market?   How many times will we log onto a site to see a variation of the following:

We are sorry to report that NaturalLifeStock is closing its doors today. April 1, 2008 was our one-year anniversary, and at the end of this period we have simply not had the returns we expected. The market is saturated with large and small stock agencies, and the competition is overwhelming.

We have found that image buyers are deluged with requests to "come see my stock site" and have little interest in startup stock companies. If we had millions to spend for marketing we might be able to make a dent, but as a Mom & Pop stock site our chances for success are very slim. Even the big guys, like Getty Images®, are having a rough time in this economy.  Text in italics from their website.

I've joined the new sites Zymmetrical and Mostphotos, but I await to see how they perform over the next year.  After the loss of LuckyOliver I am less than enthusiastic about the unproven sites.  Zymmetrical has recently become quiet and the guys haven't been flogging their site in the forums like they once did.  Hopefully they are too busy perfecting their site so they can soon transition out of beta and start marketing.

I have to let some of these lame ducks go so I can devote more time to the sites that actually pay me every month. 

So long Albumo.  Perhaps we'll meet again, once you get your groove back.


I'll leave you with a quote from user "ALBUMO" posted on MSG on March 5, 2008.

Still around... so, I guess it's a good news!  Anyways, I think many of you expect sky rocketing sales; well, let me disappoint you -- ain't gonna happen over night, BUT... we're working on it, and YES we are spending tons of money on promoting your art.  We will spend even more, but I can reassure you, you won't see numbers like at iStock or Shutter over couple of months.  Give us a little bit more time, and then judge us. 

The Good News -- Albumo is around for Good, and we are not planning on selling the company (not b/c we didn't get any sweet deal proposals, but simply b/c we believe in what we do).

Thanks for your hard work, we appreciate every bit of it!

Cheers, Co-founder, Maxim Basaraba

        

I'm afraid the day has come, and remarkably, it didn't happen with their site going offline and vanishing into cyberspace.   The story wasn't broke by the press or a disgruntled employee.  It was blogged, by the Chief Instigator himself.  This evening Bryan Zymjewski announced that Lucky Oliver will be shut down forever on May 15th.   You can read the entire announcment in his Blog Post.

"We spent the last year looking for the funds to grow LuckyOliver because, without the addition of significant capital, the return on investment for LuckyOliver and its contributors would not be satisfactory. After reviewing the options, the investment team decided that it was in the best interest of all stakeholders to shut the company down."

And I just received my first cash out of about Fifty Bucks.  (Whew!).  Bryan did state that those who reached the payout threshold ($25) could request their payments.  I guess I'm making a donation of my April earnings of $2.70.  I'm actually quite surprised they are so ethical and are not attempting to string us along for a few more days at the expense of uncollected earnings.  We don't normally get one month's notice with these agencies!

It's a pity.  I really loved the site, but I wonder if the things I loved about it are the things that pushed serious buyers away.  Lucky Oliver was trendy and fresh and hip.  But could a circus themed agency attract major buyers who are accustomed to the seriousness of Istock and Dreamstime?  To paying in credits and not tokens?

It was a love/hate affair for many of us.  The loyals fiercely defended LuckyOliver like crazed sports fans cheering their team through good seasons and bad.  For the most part, I was one of them, and I will be forever delighted that they chose this photo of my little Jazz Man the winner of one of their early contests.  It never earned any sales though. I guess that said a lot.    The naysayers loudly warned that they would pull their photos if sales didn't pick up.  Most of them did.  But a lot of the Ubersensational shooters stayed there.  Iofoto, Photoshow, Andresr, Yuri Arcurs to name a few. Oh, there will be a lot of "I told you so!"s when the news spreads in the morning.

LuckyOliver was special though.  They strove to keep it personal.  Rejections were helpful, and not just a push of a button.  Groupies hung out in the forum and in a motherly fashion steered conversations to a positive place.  Bryan was everywhere....  

...everywhere, that is - until recently.   He was notably absent.  No new blogs.  No updates.  When Logoboom asked in their forum (6 days ago) where Bryan has gone, he surfaced to respond:

"Hey gang- I've been spending a bit more time with the kiddies and refocusing. I needed to take some time away from the front lines to energize- two years of working through weekends has made me a little stale. Things are still happening, I just haven't been as vocal."

So where does this leave the industry?  I don't get the impression that there will be much of a void left by LuckyOliver's demise.  Can any new microstock agencies really make it in this market?  Will the other young entrants like Albumo, Snapvillage and Zymmetrical fold to the likes of Istock, Shutterstock and the other big players?

Perhaps there will be a last minute investor to save the carnival,  who knows, but it's still likely a good idea to spend your tokens before May 15th.

If you have a moment to leave a comment, please let me know what you plan to do with your LuckyOliver portfolio?  Will you keep it live, or will you immediately delete?

        

I acheived a couple milestones this week. 

- I broke $1000 in sales on Shutterstock yesterday, took 12.5 months, but I did it!

- I blogged twice in one day.  (Today)

- I received my third flame on Istock - Two Bull Elk.  (School Lessons has 92 to go until 500 sales!)

        

If I felt any nagging guilt about neglecting this blog (and oh, yes I have!), it has vanished after reading the following article in the New York Times by Matt Richtel.  It seems that blogging can be very, very bad for your waistline, your blood pressure and your health, and if you take it too seriously, it can even lead to your demise!

In Web World of 24 Hour Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop 

I hardly need to fear death by blogging myself.   My larger addiction is to RSS feeds.  The list is growing, and it takes more and more guilty time out of my day to scroll through them all.  Stock and photography in general is rarely discussed in newspapers and everyday reading materials, and I have no real peers to discuss the subject with, so I depend more and more on my RSS feeds to stay in touch with trends, equipment and techniques. 

Now, to bring this post back to the subject of stock photography, I will depart with a link that was in my RSS feeds this morning by Debra Wagner on Blackstar Rising.  At the moment, I am a Royalty-Free only contributor, but Debra gives 11 compelling reasons for buyers to go Rights Managed.

11 Reasons for Buyers to Choose Rights-Managed Photography Over Royalty-Free

        

Located on the sunny West coast of Canada, Vancouver's Zymmetrical is an exchange platform for artists and buyers at the forefront of creative design.

At the time of this writing, the site is in Beta.  They may be defined as more of a mid-stock agency than microstock as prices tend to begin at about $3.00 up to $100 depending on quality and size. 

I've handpicked this screenshot of their landing page because, aw, shucks, it is my first featured photo on a site's splash page (that I know of).

My virtual friend and fellow stock photographer, Flemish Dreams, posted a secret tip on one of my favourite forums recently:  Zymmetrical Appears to Deliver:  I know I should keep this secret, but I got 2 sales of 7$ and 11$+ at Zymmetrical with just a tiny portfolio. Somehow, these guys seem to deliver, quiet as they are amongst the big loud guns of SnapVillage, Albumo and even MostPhotos that will rock the world... next year.  I had already created an account (to reserve my user name) an Flemish's post intrigued me enough to look into them.

Zymmetrical is Canadian, from my home and native land, as the anthem goes.  It's my patriotic duty to become a contributor of this home grown agency, encouraged by the fact that Kieth Tuomi (Founder and CEO) readily makes himself available to answer questions (and - OMG, he actual listens to user suggestions and requests!)

I've only submitted 10 photos so far.  An interesting way they set their agency apart from others, is that the reviewer of each photo personally determes the selling price.  Wee baby Ezra from the screenshot above was set at a full-size price of $49.   To make Zymmetrical even more attractive to contributors, they offer a very generous 70% royalty: meaning if they find one buyer for this photo, I'll earn $34.30.  That sure beats the $3.57 it's earned on Istock in the past 3 weeks with their paltry 20% commission (3 various sales).

Zymmetrical also sells fonts, graphics and videos.   I'm surprized that more microstock agencies don't sell fonts. 

They also have an affiliate program of 10% which endures for 12 months from your first visit.  Please feel free to use my referral link if you like .    I'll definitely be sending more photos over, however, their uploader has been down for a couple days... (remember "beta").


The following information was pulled from the fact sheet on Zymmetrical's website:

Founded:  November 2006
Employees:  3
Target Market:  Designers, photographers, art directors, small business, hobbyists, students, etc.

Officers:
Keith Tuomi - Founder and CEO
Paul Melcher - CKO
Tatjana Farber - CFO

Zymmetrical is a global social marketplace in which photographers, designers, and video producers come together to form a marketplace free from traditional royalties and rights management. The web site allows photographers and designers of all levels to share and monetize their passion or profession while allowing graphic artists, web designers, arts directors, marketing professionals, and consumers to obtain high quality, legal digital stock art for as low as $3. Zymmetrical is the only major art agency that occupies the middle ground between the macrostock ($200 and up files) and microstock ($1 and lower files, low Artist payouts) market areas. Artists can adjust their own prices at any time, from $3 - $100, creating a truly flexible and democratic marketplace. 

        

You won't find many light painted photos in microstock, (honestly, microstock doesn't have much of an artistic side, does it!) but it is certainly a creative and beautiful method of lighting.  I first heard of this technique last fall and the photos I saw were so ethereal I was inspired.   I rushed out and purchased a small Maglight that quickly found a home in my bag of gear.... months passed.   But, for the first time in ages there were flowers in my house this week, and I remembered those beautiful light painted flowers that seemed to possess their own light....

A light painted image is created in total darkness, with a moving light source and long shutter speeds, sometimes as long as several minutes.  This technique creates a dramatic, dreamy lighting, far different than strobes and natural sources.  It is a great technique for product photography.  When I see earthly looking objects, wooden bowls of fruit, etc. this method of lighting often creates a mood that I can only describe as antique.   

Those experienced with this method say that it takes hours of practice to master light painting.  I do have to agree that my limited experience of taking a couple dozen exposures and checking my LCD are not much for practice (but I'll still share my experience with you ).

You will need a totally dark room, a tripod, a light source and your subject.  My light source was a small maglight and I set up my tripod in the corner of a dark room with very little space to maneuver around.  My subject was a 4 day old bouquet of flowers.  My working space was obstructed and I was forced to work from primarily the right side.   The setup was about 3 feet in front of a chartreuse silk curtain. 

I won't share all of my blunders with you, and nothing that I'll present is magnificent.  The photos are cropped square - not the most interesting composition, but I'll keep it consistent throughout.

My first shots were of the entire bouquet.  Ugly results that you don't want to see, overexposed spots, noise, lack of focus.   From reviewing my LCD I decided to concentrate on a single stem at a time.

This first photograph below is a disaster.  It was shot head on with most of the light coming straight from the flashlight.  At some point I bumped the vase or the table, creating motion blur.   Full lighting from the front has left it flower flat and lifeless.  Most shots of this white flower had hotspots (overexposed areas).

The room was dark, the exposure set for 30 seconds, and I ran the flashlight back and forth across the details of the front of the flower.

White Balance:  Tungsten
Shutter Speed:  1/30th at f22
Focal length:  38mm
Flashlight - no snoot



The following shot still isn't perfect, but a big improvement.  I added a snoot made from cardboard wrapped around the head of the flashlight.  Technically, it should have been black material, but I could only muster up something with a greenish colour.  It didn't seem to bleed into the photos though. 

I managed not to overexpose any parts on this next shot, but some areas are still pretty dark.  Snooted light was run underneath, and through the sides of the petals.  The side-lighting gave some nice details to the petals, and the centre of the flower, details that may have been lost with a direct light.  The blue smear on the bottom is from the flashlight entering the frame.  It would be easy enough to clean up in Photoshop, but obviously, care should be taken to stay out of the frame.

Tungsten White Balance
30 second exposure  f22
Snooted flashlight




The yellow flower was a more pleasing subject.  The left side could have used more light.  Did I mention my shooting area was obstructed?  The light on the stem was intentional, but it could have used a little more (or a lot less).

Tungsten White Balance
30 second exposure  f22
Snooted flashlight




The next shot I thought turned out quite well.   Spots on the top front area are slightly overexposed, but I used a slightly larger fstop as well.  (Most of the shots of this green flower were overexposed to some degree.)  Side lighting worked really nicely with the strange petals.  I paid a bit of attention to the stem of this flower also, but they had been cut for some time and the petals were already dry and brittle - not so pretty!

Tungsten White Balance
30 second exposure  f16
Snooted flashlight



The next flower translated the best.  I found a more digital noise with this darker colour though.  I tried a couple shots with f16, but that tended to overexpose too many spots.  Again, that flashlight snuck into the bottom of the frame on this one.

Tungsten White Balance
30 second exposure  f22
Snooted flashlight



The red coloured flower turned out to be my favourite.   Here is an uncropped look.  The vase was quite translucent and barely reflected any light.   More light on the stem and an opaque vase would have improved the shot.



Yes, whoever it was that said it takes hours of practice was correct, but still, I am quite pleased with my first attempt light painting.  Now that I have a better idea what to prepare for, I will take time to dress my set, have an unobstructed shooting space, and supplies on hand:  tape, pre-cut cardboard for snoots of various sizes, fresh batteries in the flashlight, scissors to trip stems, a spray bottle to spritz the flowers.   Most importantly, even if I don't master this technique, I'll still have the benefit of writing off a beautiful bouquet of fresh flowers!

        

As much as they frustrate me over at Istock, I do love the way they sell photos.  I have only 10% of my portfolio on there, yet their volume of sales make them my #2 earner.   This week I received my second flame for individual photo sales over 100, and much to my surprise, it wasn't the elk photo (which sold daily until abruptly stopping in December at 90 dls), - but a rather unremarkable photograph of my brother Garth waist deep in a durum wheat field.  (Uploaded August, 2007 - 793 views/104 downloads.)

Admittedly, I don't have a large portfolio on Istock, but when you take a quick look at the following screenshot of my best sellers, it is obvious that my agriculture themed photos have a certain momentum.  This is also true on other sites; they are slow but steady sellers that may have a slightly longer shelf life than a fashion or business shot.

         

I do live on the Canadian prairies and I come from a farming family.  In the summer I'm surrounded by thousands of miles of crops.  Canola, sunflower, wheat, flax, you name it.  Yet, it's a bit like that old cliche - can't see the forest for the trees;  I am so surrounded by agriculture that I barely think about photographing it.  

While some photographers swear by becoming specialists in one subject or another, I believe that you will have greater success being a bit of a generalist, while still photographing what you love and know.  By that I mean - definitely shoot your pure stock images isolated on white, pretty models in headsets, and business men shaking hands - but also take a good look at your world.  Shoot what you know.   Is it music, books, medicine, ballet, little league?  If it is something you are passionate about, this will show in your work.  Do you work in a library, a coal mine, fishing boat or a construction site?  Take advantage of your unique situation by taking honest photos from the inside.  Your little niche may not be the most popular subject, but your work will surely be noticed if it is an underexposed category.

I took several agricultural photos last summer while driving around with my brother.  I took almost as many notes as photographs.  Having a technical description of anything you photograph automatically increases the possibility of it's success.  I'm quite sure reviewers open up my photos and say "Oh, great, another closeup of a head of wheat".. but when they read the description "Spring Wheat - Hard Kernelled Red Spring Wheat Variety" it is no longer just another closeup of a head of wheat.

Sometimes "what you know" can be tough though.  This is Canada after all, and we know winter - so I promised myself I would shoot lots of it this year (winter that is!).  Although I've managed a few photo days here and there, I haven't exactly lived up to my own expectations.  Last week it was -51C with the wind-chill.   I didn't leave the house unless I had to, let alone put on the fingerless gloves and parka.   Sure, I know winter, but I'm not very passionate about it, so I doubt I'll be adding many new winter shots this year.

There may be another benefit to shooting what you know.  You may soon develop a reputation as an insider on the particular subject and magazine editors or corporations will come directly to you to photograph their next project.

You are the expert of what you know, and perhaps you can use that expertise to produce a collection of steady earners that will compliment your stock portfolio.

        

Although I started on Dreamstime and Fotolia in 2006, 2007 really started when I joined other sites and began contributing to Shutterstock and Istock between February and late March 2007.  This is a perfect time to look back at my topsellers.  I wasn't too surprized that photos taken inside a high school were the best performers overall, but I was surprised that different photos sold better on different sites.

Dreamstime:  47 downloads  (Approaching level IV status)


Shutterstock:  295 downloads


Istock:  378 downloads



I joined StockXpert late in the year.  They unforunately don't like the map in my classroom series, so this is my bestseller there:

StockXpert:  13 downloads (and today had an extended license sale).



This nature photo has enjoyed about 400 individual sales across the various sites (including approximately 20 sales in 2006) and over Christmas I found it a Walmart shelf on a fleece blanket.



It will be interesting to see if the classroom photos can maintain momentum through a second year.  I do predict though, that my nature and agricultural photographs will enjoy a longer, slower paced life.


I am very pleased with my results from 2007.  Hopefully I can contribute on a more regular basis in 2008.

        

Stock shooters, much like other folks;  grumble a lot when we don't like something.  We make threats.  Sometimes we follow through, most often we do nothing. 

Our relationships with the agencies selling our photographs is somewhat like a marriage (albeit, often a polygamist one).   - Our agency husbands don't give us enough grocery money or attention and they make us return our beautiful new shoes.  Translation:  miserable commissions, technical tragedies, submission rejections. - They give away stuff that we brought into the marriage.  Translation:  they start subscription plans for purchasers and give our hard work away for (almost) free.  - Sometimes we get angry and withhold sex from our spouse.  Translation:  we refuse to upload any new photos. - Sometimes, we put in only as much as we get out.  Translation:  we send the subscription agencies downsized files, we upload first to preferred agencies and send referrals to Featurpics.  - Very rarely do we ask for a divorce.... Translation:  we rarely pull all our files and close our account.

-  Sometimes we stray.  Translation:  If a promising new agency comes along, is easy to upload to, has a fair commission structure, an opt-out option for subs - we'll join without hesitation.

- To be fair to the institution of marriage - I must point out that you can only marry the most popular boy at school if you promise to be faithful and first give all your other boyfriends the boot.  Translation:  you can be exclusive at Istock, but you can't sell your photos anywhere else.  Not even the photos that Istock rejects. 

-  Those of us who can't commit can still apply to be Istock's mistress.  We will work just as hard as Istock's wife, but we remain his dirty little secret... he will throw us scraps, but we will never be seen on his arm.  Translation:  Istock gives preferential treatment to exclusives, shorter waiting cues, higher search engine placement, higher commissions, better promotion - but we put up with this because Istock's tremendous volume of sales trumps terrible commissions.

- Sometimes we just leave for a better man.  Translation:  (this one is open for interpretation) We've outgrown the microstock model and are moving on to sell macrostock.   

Yes we grumble about our marriages with these microstock agencies.  It's hard to grumble to my actual physical husband because, well, he has no idea what I'm talking about.  My friends equally have no clue.  So, we try to grumble on the agency forums, but our agency husbands are quick step on any criticisms and they close our threads, ban us from the forums or in the worst case, close our accounts and slam the door.

So we have to go to other places to discuss agency specific issues.  Microstockgroup (MSG) is one of my favorite peer-to-peer spots to learn about this industry.  They are approaching 1000 registered members, and some of the major players post comments to the forum.  The past couple days there is a whiff of uprising in the air.  This thread on MSG was started by Yuri Arcurs, one of the uber-sensational-microstock contributors.  Dozens (and counting) agree to opt-out from selling subscriptions when we have a choice.  It's doubtful that anyone would leave a substantial producer like Shutterstock, but we've agreed that it may be a good idea to limit our contributions to 4 or 5 mp in size.  My hat is off to Yuri for starting the post.  I'm sure quite sure his "celebrity status" strengthened the voices of many others who fear punishment or banning from agencies by voicing their concerns.

The moral of the story is, we'll stay married to our husbands, but if they make us suffer - we alone can decide if we will allow it.  I've opted out of subscriptions wherever I can.  Although I haven't uploaded my portfolio yet, I joined Featurepics yesterday, a young agency that pays the fairest commissions in the business, although it's not well discovered by designers... yet, but we microstock brides and grooms are working to change that!

      

Photo Credit: Angry Couple by Jason Stitt, purchased on Lucky Oliver

        

You wear your seatbelt while you drive your car and your helmet when you ride your bike, but what are you doing to protect yourself while navigating the microstock arena? 

Recently an established microstock photographer announced on the Talkmicro forum that his Fotolia and StockXpert accounts had been hijacked and emptied.  He knew very quickly that something was amiss and contacted both agencies.  StockXpert stopped the transfer of funds to a MoneyBookers account, while Fotolia had found his credits converted to purchase photos.  It's unclear what led up to the hijack.  The photographer works in IT and is confident that his spy sweeping and antivirus was secure.

Your choice of passwords is one of the most important steps in protecting your on-line presence.   A strong password has a combination of upper and lowercase letters and numbers.  Sure, the easiest password in the universe is “password”, but change it to “PASSword” and it is suddenly a little trickier.  Change it to 1PASS2word3 and it is quite strong.  I don’t happen to have a vault for a memory, so I find it necessary to keep a cheat-sheet of all my many passwords.   Another microstock contributor mentioned that he uses a unique agency code trailed by a similar combination of letters and numbers on each different site.

If you are a PayPal user, it is doubly important to have a unique password, and you may even go so far as to have an e-mail address that is devoted just to PayPal.

Many microstock contributors sell photos under a different user name between the different agencies.  There are several reasons to do the this, but when it comes to account security, it can be one additional step of protection.  You are not anonymous as a contributor – but you will be a little more difficult to locate on the various sites with a different user name.

You must also decide if it is worth the risk to check your accounts while you are traveling.  Public computers found in libraries and hotel lobbies are notorious for keystroke stealing infections.  If you do feel that you are on a secure computer, remember to log out of your account before exiting the browser.  Your account may remain “open” for anyone to enter until you log back on from another computer.

A final consideration may be when and how you transfer your money.  On October 29 I ran a poll on microstockgroup.com  to see how often other microstockers collected their earnings.

Out of 54 polled:

• 19 collected their earnings as soon as they became available
• 15 collected their earnings at the end of each month
• 12 collected their earnings at regular weekly or bi-weekly intervals
• 8 collected infrequently, and only when they needed it

The contributor who was hacked at Fotolia and StockXpert suggested that others consider cashing out their earnings more frequently.  That way, if their account ever falls victim to a theft, the loss will be smaller than at the end of the month when accumulated earnings are much higher.  In the past I always treated my earnings as a payroll, but going forward, I will begin collecting earnings as they come available.

        

A quick follow-up to my last post on "500".  Today I reached 600 individual sales at both Dreamstime and Istock.  Even though my portfolio there hasn't grown, I expect to see numbers at Istock rocket past Dreamstime from this point forward.   Hopefully next month I can post about flames - three photos are very close to reaching 100 individual sales.