Microstock is a funny business. The main agency through which I sell my images is ShutterStock. I use a few others too, but my earnings since I started (in November 2009) have been consistently highest at SS. The payment I receive for each image is tiny (hence the term 'micro'), but as I get several hundred downloads a month, I manage to make a decent amount of money. Certainly not enough to live on, but enough for Mr. Taxman to be interested in, so I've chosen to register as self-employed.
Microstock is a source of some controversy amongst professional photographers. Some people make a good living from it, others see the business as detrmiental to the 'traditional' photography market, as it has made images available to all on a royalty free basis, for very low costs. I can see both sides of the argument. Either way though, there is no doubt that it has helped me to improve the technical side of my photography.
Images for Microstock have to be to a high tecnical standard - in focus, correct white balance, well composed and containing no 'noise' (grain). For submitters who are interested in only fine art photography, this must be a source of frustration. Creative blur, for instance, is often frowned upon. With hundreds of thousands of submissions per week, the agencies can afford to be choosy, and many people have reported that rejections are becoming more common.
The types of images that sell best are those that are bright, colourful and artificially 'perfect'. With this in mind, I looked around my garden to see if I could find any potential subjects. The first thing to catch my eye was a bright pink golf ball! I managed to find a tee to go with it. I cleaned them up as best as I could, and set up my tripod and macro lens. I placed a sheet of white paper behind the ball and took some shots.
As I was planning on removing the background in Photoshop later (called 'isolating'), I didn't need to worry about using a shallow depth of field. I therefore chose quite a small aperture in order to maximise the detail captured on the ball and tee. I tried shots with and without the flash - those with the flash looked 'punchier' and more suitable for Microstock, but contained some small burnt out areas.
On the computer, I selected the image that I considered to be most sharply focused. I then opened it in Photoshop, where I lightened it considerable using Levels and Curves adjustments. Because this was for Stock, I then increased the vibrance and saturation a little more, and applied a light Unsharp Mask. Then I removed the background. There are many ways to do this, but I find it easiest to zoom in to 200%, then use the polygonal lasso tool to remove areas bit by bit.
After isolating the object, I looked at the image one last time, viewing it at actual size. This is what the reviewers do, and to get it past them, any flaws such as rough edges need to be spotted and removed. Here is my final image, from my Shutterstock gallery:
I also made two further Stock images from the same shot (hey, I only get a few cents per download, I have to maximise my return!):
For the blue one, I just played with the 'hue' slider and did some work with the clone stamp to get rid of an odd-coloured shadow under the ball. For the white version, I converted the image to grayscale and lightened it. It would have worked very well as the 'high key' image for the 'Different Lighting' project actually, as the histogram is very strongly weighted to the right!
I expected the coloured versions to sell best, as they are quite unsual. However, the white version outsells them both, and has actually done quite well so far. This surprised me, as it is competing against hundreds of other similar images - however, I suppose there are many more uses for an image of a white ball than there are for the blue and pink versions.
So there! Was all that work worth it for a few dollars? Probably not, but I found it enjoyable, and it has helped me to improve my technique with my Tamron 90mm macro lens.
No comments:
Post a Comment