I've been doing some research into stock photography and found this list. It gave me a giggle because I thought about how some of these types of photos do around here as well. I think the list might work for any environment, photo sites, photo clubs, etc.

Images that (stock company) does not need:

Your dog or cat
He's adorable. Send a picture to your mom.

Flowers
We now possess the definitive online collection of files called "flower".

Flags
We can now proudly say we have every country covered.

Photos of your feet, socks, etc.
Try looking up with your camera instead.

Your immediate environment
Get up, move around a little. Keyboards, mice, cables, compact discs, floppy discs and monitors are covered.

Light Blurs
Great for fun and experimenting...

Brick walls
The Wall came down in 1989. Get over it.

Close-ups of fire
It's for your own safety.

Close-ups of eyes
They scare small children.

Symbols (!$%@)
You see it in every e-mail.

Sunsets & clouds
Very pretty, but...

Forest Snap Shots
We love nature, but...

Airplane Wings (& out the window shots)
In the end, they seem to all look the same.

Your Shadow
Try another route of dodging the model release.

Overly simple 3-D & Bryce renderings & Photoshop backgrounds
Challenge yourself a little.

Photoshop Backgrounds
Fun to experiment, but they're not quite stock.

Overly simple text
Let people pick out their own fonts.

Read 749 times

Reply 

From photocrit/Eain (3,247) on January 12, 2010 11:19:11 AM CST I know this list. It is a good mental exercise to treat it as a personal ten commandments. Eain Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 11:21:16 AM CST And ironically a press release from Fotolia just landed in my Editor's in box. "The three best selling images on Fotolia.com accounted for nearly 10,000 downloads this past year. Images from the top three sellers range from $1 - $20 per download, depending on the size required." Check 'em out. #1 http://www.fotolia.com/id/10056459 #2 http://www.fotolia.com/id/8653783 #3 http://www.fotolia.com/id/6202659 Like I said, it's interesting which photos (images) are not wanted or in this case, wanted. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,937) on January 12, 2010 11:39:13 AM CST Ah, microstock. You can get the best selling image for only 14 cents! Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 11:51:54 AM CST In reality it will cost you more than that because you need to have a subscription to qualify for that rate. I gather you don't approve of microstock? What do you think of what is in demand and what isn't? Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,937) on January 12, 2010 1:02:53 PM CST I think it's good for people to see the list. Presented humorously, too. It's awfully hard to make it as a photographer shooting new eco porn, eh? The market is really saturated with some kinds of pictures as you've listed. Looking at the top sellers gives some sense of what is meaningful in the market. It's usually people, supports themes that are meaningful to the companies that sell products, and the images have to make sense their customers. It's too simple to say that I "don't approve" of microstock. Some folks get down on people who contribute to microstock sites since they are "killing photography". That's a logical - if too sensational - conclusion from a narrow perspective, but I'm not willing to state anything quite so strongly or to condemn people for participating. I just recognize also that the value of commercial photography in some markets is very different than it used to be, and that these price pressures do have an impact on working photographers. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 1:35:12 PM CST Shoot, you mean those photos I took of the guy mopping up a oil spill in the nude won't sell? ;-) I think I have a unique perspective on the whole stock thing as I am a photographer who is also a designer who often purchases stock photos. I have to say that I have never been able to get a photo I need for 14 cents lol. I should be so lucky. The images I need seem to always be the expensive ones. One thing I have always wondered about the microstock agencies is how much of their sales come from small websized images compared to high res print images. I'm speculating most of it comes from the low res stuff. People looking for cheap images for their websites. What do you think? Stock photography is becoming more appealing to me, but I would do it differently than going the microstock route mostly because I want control of my work. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,937) on January 12, 2010 5:39:39 PM CST Actually, the oil spill nude mopper might very well sell, though probably not as stock. I think increasingly companies are moving away from print media in general (witness the death of so many magazines), so it stands to reason that commercial uses of photography are also pushing online instead of in print. Tangentially, it's interesting to think about the difference in cost of low-res vs. print/high-res not just in the production of the piece where it's used, but also in terms of photographic production. There are some compromises that can be made in small size - 700-pixel online presentation can hide some sins - but good photography may not cost that much less to produce for online use than for print use. Almost every camera made today produces pictures that could be used double-truck in a magazine (Outside has printed a shot from a G10 double-truck in their "Exposure" section). That's not to say there aren't differences in production, but it changes the value equation somewhat. Interesting to think about and discuss, but before I've rambled on really way too muchly long... Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 5:42:44 PM CST Thanks Marshall, always a pleasure to ramble with you :-) Reply

From tvernuccio/Sheila (37,104) on January 12, 2010 12:33:53 PM CST Do they have a wish list of images they would like to acquire? Hot air balloons, barns, and bowling balls aren't on the list so maybe those are hot items? :) Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 1:27:24 PM CST They do, and check out one in particular that applies to you Sheila!! Images that (stock company) do need: Corporate shots Everyone looks a little more handsome when a suit's involved. Groups & Teams One person is great, two, three, four… just gets better and better. Concept Stock Leave it to others to shoot the obvious. Sports Cycling, ping pong, soccer, skateboarding, kung-fu, bocci ball, the list goes on. Rare Artifacts The more rare, the better. Illustrations Vector and not rasterized. Holiday & Seasonal Themes Christmas, Valentines, Easter: don’t wait until the last minute. Fashion Leave the jeans behind, unless they're couture... Analogue and Grunge Intriguing textures, effects, & treatments – not for the amateur of style. Food and Beverages Preferably with someone holding the edible item. Reply

From tvernuccio/Sheila (37,104) on January 12, 2010 1:35:15 PM CST cool! Thanks for sharing the list, Sheena. :) I didn't realize they would need food and beverage photos. Hmmmmm....now that's a good incentive to improve my food pics. :) Reply

From captaindon/Don (11,677) on January 12, 2010 1:13:11 PM CST I could care less what "sells". I shoot pictures for the joy of photography and to satisfy my own personal tastes and, of course, to have family and friends captured to pass on through the years. I doubt that most of the professionals here worry about what sells either. I would guess that you shoot whatever the customer wants or a particular specialty such as a wedding or party. What sells has more to do with marketing than photography. Shoot whatever you want, it will be in demand some day, lol. Have a nice day. Don Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 1:24:33 PM CST And I couldn't care less that you could care less about what sells ;-) That really wasn't the intent of my post. Obviously what sells in photography or anywhere is driven by the marketplace. Most photographers, and that includes pros and amateurs alike all enjoy shooting subject matter that appeals to them, that's a no brainer. But for photographers (on photoSIG and elsewhere) who wonder why their photos garner little interest outside their family and friends this is an interesting list that comes from a pretty objective source. You're being Captain Obvious today Don ;-) Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,937) on January 12, 2010 5:41:10 PM CST I'd argue that if you're not shooting work that makes you happy, you won't be happy shooting. But I'd also argue that professionals who pay no attention to what sells probably sell less. Reply

From hankbenson/Hank (52,126) on January 12, 2010 1:25:48 PM CST About flower shots, I don't doubt that every archive has a ton of them but I'm guessing the reason for that is high retail demand. I assume they'll still "pick" great flower shots, but the competition must be a killer. Honestly dunno, just wondering aloud. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 1:36:02 PM CST I think they have a ton of them because it is relatively easy to get a great close up shot of a flower, flowers are plentiful and accessible to most everyone, and they do not require a model release :-) Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 12, 2010 2:34:52 PM CST I have seen the list ... it's probably on one or more of the big agency's sites ... definitely iStockphoto. Microstock is probably one of the hardest ways to make a living. In my small circle of friends once a month we'll sit down and think about something we have not seen covered. And then we'll try to find a way to show how it matters to people, then if it's important enough it will probably, though not always, sell. It may sell in a year it may sell it in a month, but if it grabs the viewer, it will attract a client. The real difficult thing about stock is that you have to continually be shooting and uploading images to at least 5 agency's -- I'm talking at least 30 images a day and 5 agency's -- that's a lot of work and highly speculative ... and the images all need to be just killer images ... Lately some of the ideas our group has had include: Very old people... People looking natural that don't look like microstock models ... lol! Military officials from all over the world .. non-U.S. third world countries especially. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 2:45:45 PM CST Thanks for the info Robert. I don't understand this part though. "The real difficult thing about stock is that you have to continually be shooting and uploading images to at least 5 agency's -- I'm talking at least 30 images a day and 5 agency's -- that's a lot of work and highly speculative ... and the images all need to be just killer images ..." How come you have to do so many so frequently? Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 12, 2010 3:09:44 PM CST In order to make the kind of volume necessary to keep the lights on you need to keep a high rate of turnover and fresh images in all different genres and even if you are submitting regularly the keeper rate is pretty low maybe 29 out of 30 (killer images) that are evaluated by the editors get rejected -- at first (for months) you may have all your images rejected. Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 3:53:58 PM CST Lights on? You've lost me. Reply

From marshall/Marshall (11,937) on January 12, 2010 5:33:31 PM CST I think he means keeping the lights on as in paying the bills... Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 5:39:22 PM CST Ahh. Well for me I have this small studio sitting here empty a few days every week. I'm thinking in my down time (scarce as it is) I might try out some ideas I have. Won't cost me anything but time. However I'm thinking of selling my photos direct to the clients. Reply

From baba/David (38,576) on January 12, 2010 5:28:15 PM CST #1 and #3 don't surprise me, but #2 does. How many family photos must have been taken and submitted to stock agencies over the years? Reply

From jaroslaw/Jarek (9,256) on January 12, 2010 6:27:42 PM CST I'm not surprised at all that there is such a great demand for images like # 2. The image of young attractive 'hip' family with 2 kids of different gender, and parents looking like upward progressive professionals, looks so appealing on bank, insurance , and investment companies brochures. I see plenty of these 'wholesome' images in print, web, tv or even billboards. I'm also guessing that white families are more appealing to these advertisers (unlike bigger industrial companies which want to show racial diversity), but with Obama's family shown all over the place, I bet the demand for photos of successful African American families is raising. Reply

From wampum/Curt (4,769) on January 12, 2010 7:26:35 PM CST Surprised me, too, David. Not the main image but one of the small ones off to the left. I was going to make an ironic comment about nobody wanting my images of docks going out into the water, women on railroad tracks, etc., and then, lo and behold, there was a dock going out into the water as an example of what I might want as a customer interested in families. 'Course the dock did have a family on it. Maybe if I do a little cut and paste..... :-) Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 12, 2010 8:50:29 PM CST This is just one stock agency, but here is their Hall of Fame, best selling of all time. You can also sort by year and month. Ran across this too "Andres Rodriguez is officially the best-selling microstock photographer in the world, with an ever-expanding and impressively varied portfolio across a range of different stock sites. " http://www.andresr.com/ Edited to add: hmm looking at the date this might be old info. About the family photo, frankly we rarely see such well done candid family shots on photoSIG. Lots of posed formal ones, but not too many like that one. Reply

From sheenawilkie/Administrator (0) on January 12, 2010 8:50:49 PM CST Oops wrong outfit! Reply

From rmullns/Robert (3,078) on January 12, 2010 9:31:35 PM CST You might be thinking about Yuri Arcurs?? Reply

From sheena/SheenaWilkie (13,039) on January 12, 2010 9:33:49 PM CST Ah yes, Andres Rodriguez was in 2007. Yuri is 2009. Thanks! Reply

From wdeon/Wayne (8,931) on January 13, 2010 4:35:27 AM CST I just watched a video about Yuri's studio yesterday. It is huge, having a kitchen, medical room, science lab, and so on. Reply

Return to forum