Question for those who sell images.

[mh68]

I`m nowhere near the stage to even think about selling any of mine just yet, but something I`ve been wondering about for a while is how those of you who sell images, judge whether theyre sufficient quality?
The visual attractiveness of an image aside, do you judge on the full size image, what it looks like when downsized or another way?
Thought I would ask, as it may prove to be helpful to others who are thinking of selling shots...

Mark H

[eeyore]

it depends largely on what you are selling them for but in general terms i'd judge on the full sized image. they need to be technically perfect, clean of dust etc , largely not interpolated and without too much post processing

another point is to bear in mind that the most attractive image isnt always the best seller - for example if you are selling to magazines then you are often better off with more dead space in an image than would otherwise be desirable as this gives space for editors to drop in text.

One thing i'd definitely advice would be to join the Bureau of freelance photographers - when you join you get their handbook which covers this stuff in more detail and lists every publication which is know to buy images , plus lots of contacts for stock agencies etc etc - membership isnt cheap but its definitely worthwhile for anyone who is serious about sales.

[mh68]

Cheers Pete, some good info there. There was discussion of images with plenty of space in them for publication purposes on another thread on here the other day.
How would you judge the likes of noise and sharpness on a full res shot? Obviously noise disappears to some extent when you downsize an image, and even slightly blurry shots can look sharp at smaller sizes but what about full size?

Mark H

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by mh68

How would you judge the likes of noise and sharpness on a full res shot? Obviously noise disappears to some extent when you downsize an image, and even slightly blurry shots can look sharp at smaller sizes but what about full size?

Mark H

sharpness wise i generally judge by looking at the image at 100% in photoshop - if the important features arent sharp it aint good enough - e.g with a mammal shot it is generally critical that the eyes and face are sharp (though there are always exceptions) - while its fine to up sharpness at the raw conversion stage i would stay away from unsharp mask etc in post process as a lot of clients dont like it

noise - again i look at the image at 100% paying particular attention to fur detail , edges for haloing , and areas of darkness - some noise can be zapped using noise ninja, neat image or whatever but too much of this will break down detail so its best not to over do it - how much noise is acceptable varies with the client - newspapers generally arent too bothered as their print process is quite ropey and disguises a lot of noise (also hard news or sport pages are more concerned with impact and scarecity than IQ) , where as glossy print media and post cards, calendar etc makers are very fussy.

when you do start selling expect a lot of rejections - particularly from soft news, features , and post card images etc , I reckon i get about 25 rejections to every sale and the ratio was higher when i started - thats is on direct approach - working through agencies you get more salesbecause they vett the images first - however you make less per sale as the aghency takes a cut.

another tip for print media is to think about supplying words as well as pics because if you can supply article and illustrations it makes a lot less work for the editors and production team which is always a good way to get in their good books

[mh68]

More good info, thanks Pete. I always have difficulty judging how sharp a shot is at full size though. Since moving from the fz50 bridge cam to the Fuji DSLR , all the Fuji shots look sharp in comparison ...much much less noise too.Although as I said, it`ll be a while before I even contemplate selling anything, I`d like to try and at least get the image quality side up to scratch - the overall visual aspects of a shot are another thing,and something I need to work on.
I suppose what I should have asked was for someone to post example 100% crops of what they would consider sharp enough for a sale, and an example of what they would consider an acceptable noise level....if anyone would be prepared to post some examples it would be extremely useful, not just to me but anyone else considering selling shots.

Mark H

[zan]

I would get onto as many photography sites as you can that offer a critique-gallery and see what kind of standard is there already. You should also get advice on sharpness\colour etc. on your own pictures (although maybe not at full size).

It also depends who you'll be selling to. If you sell prints through your own website\craft fairs\local shops it's a good idea to get prints of every photo in every size that you are selling and judge based on that.

Zan

[mh68]

Thats what I was getting at Zan, everyone posts downsized images, where even a shot thats blurred at full res can look acceptable at say, 800x600. Most of the full size images or crops I`ve seen posted anywhere have been commented on from the respondent`s own taste, regarding noise or whatever, not from a commercial perspective. I can`t recall ever seeing examples of the type of standard commercial shots should attain, which is what got me wondering and prompted me to post.

Mark H

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by zan

It also depends who you'll be selling to. If you sell prints through your own website\craft fairs\local shops it's a good idea to get prints of every photo in every size that you are selling and judge based on that.

Zan

I wouldnt necessarily go that route as it can be expensive - and also if you are selling a lot of prints its better to take orders than to have lots of prints done on spec

if the image is sharp on the screen it ought to be sharp on the page - assuming you have a decent printer or printing service.

another point - if you are serious about comerce you ought to get a spyder to colour balance your monitor (and get a profile to match if you are doing your own printing) Clients will mostly have proffesionally coulour balanced monitors and its a good idea if the shot that looks good on yours also looks good on theirs (if yours isnt balanced that shot that looks nicely saturated on your screen could be vastly over or under saturated on the clients which wont get you many sales)

decent spyders start at arround £60 quid - but can run to several hundred depending on what you want. THere are loads of makes but gretag macbeth , and pantone are two good ones to start you off

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by mh68

Thats what I was getting at Zan, everyone posts downsized images, where even a shot thats blurred at full res can look acceptable at say, 800x600. Most of the full size images or crops I`ve seen posted anywhere have been commented on from the respondent`s own taste, regarding noise or whatever, not from a commercial perspective. I can`t recall ever seeing examples of the type of standard commercial shots should attain, which is what got me wondering and prompted me to post.

Mark H

If I get a moment i'll do some 100% crops out of ones ive sold - though its hard to say how the wab resize process will effect the general sharpness etc

Failingf that I can email you a couple of them - or if you email me a few of yours i'd be happy to give you an honest second opinion.

[mh68]

Just emailing me one example crop would be great Pete, cheers

Re calibration, thats something I need to sort out, even for printing shots for my own use....sometimes printed results are different from what the computer shows which leads me to think my monitor and printer arent matched closely enough.

Mark H

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by mh68

Just emailing me one example crop would be great Pete, cheers

Re calibration, thats something I need to sort out, even for printing shots for my own use....sometimes printed results are different from what the computer shows which leads me to think my monitor and printer arent matched closely enough.

Mark H

I'll email you on both topics later - i'm at work at the mo and dont have my image library to hand

[mh68]

No worries Pete, appreciate your help.

Mark H

[matt_xyz]

in general Mark it is very difficult to sell wildlife images. With the advent of DSLRs the number of competent photographers taking images of, for instance, dragonflies, birds, butterflies has increased considerably. Stock images now fetch far less income than they did previously, partly because of this. The advent of micro stock sites is another factor (sites selling images for pennies).

I've yet to sell a wildlife image but I have had some accepted by stock agencies, so I'm meeting the technical requirements, but now I have to beat the competition from the vast number of similar images.

In terms of sharpness, most stock agencies ask for images not to have been sharpened at all. This means images obviously have to be 'naturally' sharp when viewed at 100%. Most stock agencies also require very large images e.g. the stock agency I have images at requires images to be 48mb TIFF files, generally requiring images to be 5000 pixels in the longest dimension. This obviously requires interpolation for the vast majority of cameras.

There are of course other ways to sell images than through stock agencies, e.g. direct to magazines, but most bird or wildlife magazines do buy their images through such agencies (you can tell by looking at the credits next to the images).

Matt

[mh68]

Thanks Matt. I doubt that I`d bother even trying to sell many wildlife images, when as you say, there are so many good ones out there already.While digital has got a lot of people into photography,and allows much faster learning and improved results, I can sympathise with those trying to earn a living from it with so much competition.
Another reason for me asking about this, as well as being generally curious how someone judges commercial quality of an image, is that it would be reassuring to know that the equipment was capable of getting saleable results, if ever there was an occasion where a rare or unusual event or subject was photographed which, if the quality was there, could result in a very saleable shot.We never know what we might come across when out and about in the field.
I didnt realise you`d started submitting images to an agency Matt, I hope a few sell for you, your shots have proved very inspirational for me, and i`m sure many others too

Mark H

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by mh68

Thanks Matt. I doubt that I`d bother even trying to sell many wildlife images, when as you say, there are so many good ones out there already.While digital has got a lot of people into photography,and allows much faster learning and improved results, I can sympathise with those trying to earn a living from it with so much competition.
Another reason for me asking about this, as well as being generally curious how someone judges commercial quality of an image, is that it would be reassuring to know that the equipment was capable of getting saleable results, if ever there was an occasion where a rare or unusual event or subject was photographed which, if the quality was there, could result in a very saleable shot.We never know what we might come across when out and about in the field.
I didnt realise you`d started submitting images to an agency Matt, I hope a few sell for you, your shots have proved very inspirational for me, and i`m sure many others too

Mark H

your DSLR and lens equipment are capable of saleable images Mark, although you may struggle slightly getting your file sizes large enough for some stock agencies. But if you happen to capture a rare or unusual event then the image may be saleable in other ways than stock agencies.

Thanks for your comments re. my images. I should point out that the images that I have had accepted at an agency were not taken with my FZ30 and DCR150. Unfortunately they don't quite hack it when viewed at 100%, not helped by the fact I always shot in JPEG with that camera with some in-camera sharpening.

When out photographing I think it's always nice to have in the back of our minds the idea that if we happen to get a killer shot it might be marketable (even if most of the time we are deluding ourselves ).

Matt

[mh68]

The only people i`ve heard of ,selling shots with the FZ cameras, are either privately selling prints of modest sizes, or in the case of one chap, images to a local newspaper, where as Pete says, image quality requirements arent so high.Shame really, as they do give nice results at modest image sizes.
It was actually my shot of the Stoat and Rabbit I posted on the mammal of the day thread yesterday that got me thinking. I wasnt close enough, nor quick enough to capture any good images of the event I saw anyway, but it got me wondering if I HAD captured the action perfectly, whether the quality would be there with my lens/camera combo to make the images viable to sell. I know the body is adequate for the job, but still unsure of the lens in this respect.

Mark H

[Gaina]

Hi Mark

I sell mine through istock photo and I have to say I'm really happy with the service they give. They give you very clear guidelines about the quality and size you need to upload.

You should be able to get the site through google but if not, drop me a PM and I'll give you the address, as I'm not sure if I'm allowed to put it here.

[mh68]

Originally Posted by Gaina

Hi Mark

I sell mine through istock photo and I have to say I'm really happy with the service they give. They give you very clear guidelines about the quality and size you need to upload.

You should be able to get the site through google but if not, drop me a PM and I'll give you the address, as I'm not sure if I'm allowed to put it here.

Thanks Gaina,
Are the quality and size guidelines available to view without having to sign up? I`m not in a position where i want to sign up to anywhere at present, I just wanted an idea of the quality to aim for.
Good luck selling the images, although by your post it sounds as though you`ve sold a few already?

Mark H

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by mh68

Thanks Gaina,
Are the quality and size guidelines available to view without having to sign up? I`m not in a position where i want to sign up to anywhere at present, I just wanted an idea of the quality to aim for.
Good luck selling the images, although by your post it sounds as though you`ve sold a few already?

Mark H

I think that's a micro stock site, so I think you get very little for each image - £5 or £10 if you're lucky but often even less.

Matt

[Gaina]

Originally Posted by mh68

Thanks Gaina,
Are the quality and size guidelines available to view without having to sign up? I`m not in a position where i want to sign up to anywhere at present, I just wanted an idea of the quality to aim for.
Good luck selling the images, although by your post it sounds as though you`ve sold a few already?

Mark H

Yes, you can indeed Introduction: Royalty Free Stock Photography Community | iStockphoto.com

I have sold 2 or three of mine (all macro images). I just had a look at the wildlife section and they have quite a large section so I'm sure there's a home for your images there .

...actually I just went into my account area to find I have no images . I mustn't have paid enough attention to their emails, which probably told me they were having a clean up when they re-vamped the site. Typical me

[mh68]

Thanks Gaina.I`ll check that out

Mark H

[matt_xyz]

there's a big difference between traditional stock agencies and the much newer micro stock sites such as istockphoto. My comments above were aimed at the former. Micro sites tend to be far less demanding in terms of file sizes etc but also pay far less (£1 to £10 is typical, I believe). There's a place for each though, I guess.

Matt