Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

redcloud · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 95

Hi everyone, I'm new here, and new to stock photography. I thought I could make some extra money on the side doing this.

I've just finished my schooling, and I did Photography through the final years, so I know all my techniques and rules, but the only problem is, I don't have a good digital camera. I've got a film camera (which I had to make do with through the course) and just the plain old snapshot digital camera, I think it's 4 Mpx.

I've got the software as well by the way, Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Illustrator CS2. And I'd like to think I'm quite skilled at using Photoshop.

Do you have to have the expensive cameras and monitors and all that to produce the images for stock photography? Do I have a chance against you professionals and long time stock photographers?

And advice or help would be greatly appreciated. Go easy on me :)

prisuktuvas · Joined: 17 Oct 2007 Posts: 172 Location: Lithuania

I am also new to stock, and I have only 3.2 mpx camera, so I cannot use pictures taken with it on SS. But I use photoshop CS2 to create some backgrounds, textures etc. You can see my portfolio. Now I am planning to buy a Canon G9. I think it would be good for stock work :)

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:33 am

The equipment used by those that have been accepted here at Shutterstock varies quite a bit from simple Point and Shoot cameras to cameras that can cost over $30,000.00 and lenses that cost a couple of thousand dollars.

So, equipment is important but it is not the most important factor. You can put a $30,000 camera in the hands of someone who has little photographic knowledge and they wouldn't be able to take a good image if their life depended on it. Or, you can put a Point and Shoot it the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing and get an amazing image.

You can do more with the more advanced advanced cameras so it depends on just what you want to do with the camera. Also remember that when it comes to camera's and lenses think lens first and the camera second. No sense putting a piece of garbage lens on a good camera because it is the lens that dictates the quality of the image.

From what I have read here in the forums the G9 would be a good choice for you to start with.

The photoshop version you have is more than enough for editing stock images.

kenny123 · Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:04 pm

I agree with Dave: " The equipment behind the eye is more important than the equipment in front of the eye." Regards, Ken

redcloud · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 95

Well, throughout my photography course, I certainly learned that what's between the lens and the person isn't near as important.

Hopefully I can take some descent shots with the 'point and shoot' camera, and then touch them up really nice with photoshop.

eppicphotos · Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:04 pm

I think though you'd be better off getting a basic DSLR with a kit lens instead of a point and shoot like a G9, which are both about the same price. You'll find the image produced by an entry level DSLR much cleaner and better quality than anything from a Point and shoot.

pharm · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9423 Location: Never quite sure

joeygil · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 481

Reality check.

Microstock reviewers are notorious pixel peepers. The image you take with a P&S may be artistically perfect, and technically great printed large, but when some reviewers find a little bit of noise at 100%, that image may very well be rejected. While SS might not be as bad as other places, the non-exclusive nature of microstock suggests you may want to submit images to other agencies too.

As such, I recommend an SLR, as they are much less noisy than P&S, due to the larger sensor (higher signal to noise ratio).

Consensus is you can't really go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Other systems seem a limited by the lens selection.

redcloud · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 95

In the case of noise then, is a film camera any use? Do they count fine film grain as noise when up at 100%?

supertramp · Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:41 pm

redcloud · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 95

Yeah, it's a matter of having money to start with I guess. I can't buy a better camera if I can't afford it.

I might have to make do with what I have for a little while before I can buy a decent camera.

joeygil · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 481

You could try running Noise Ninja on film scans and try uploading those. Or if you happen to have any medium format stuff that you can get scanned, the grain should be less of an issue.

You can also consider buying a used Rebel Digital (300D) for $200-300 or so, or an equivalent camera. Check KEH.com for used cameras.

redcloud · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 95

I've recently finished school you see, and there are some great images I took through my final year that I wanted to use to help start me off.

They were in film yes, on reversal film (slide film), and 100ISO, so it is really fine grain. My photography teacher had a very good film scanner also, which helped. But I don't plan on using film any more as it is costly and time consuming to get developed etc.

The fine grain in these images are only visible at 100% and is really fine. Is it likely they will be rejected?

joeygil · Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Posts: 481

Post an example with a 100% crop, and see what folks around here think.

redcloud · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 95

100% crop, how do you do that? It's probably something really simple and obvious, making me sound stupid. :)