Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Why does nature photography do so poorly?

zuropak · Joined: 05 Aug 2006 Posts: 37

Just wondering why high quality wildlife and nature photography does not do as well at microstock agencies? I have been with ShutterStock, and a few other agencies, since last July. My best month here was last month at just over $200, but that is only due to four enhanced license sales. This month is setting up to be my worst yet. My bird photography is amongst the best in the world at this style, yet doesn't seem to have found much of a market with microstock. I know the standard marketing process for wildlife photography is through managed rights, but I was hoping that it may take off in the microstock world. Is it just that many of the publishers, editors, etc. that look for this style of photography just don't look at microstock? I would have thought once they found a source for images at the microstock prices, they would sell like hotcakes, including the enhanced license sales.

I am at a point where I have to decide if it is worthwhile leaving my images with microstock agencies. I have a few rights managed agancies interested in my images, but they will not represent them/me if the same images are also available for royalty free download. Which means I would have to cancel all of my microstock accounts. I was hoping that ShutterStock was going to take off in this area, but it appears not likely to happen.

Anyone have any insight in this area? I do have about 3000 images with Corbis Productions, but they are all old images scanned from slide film, and they will not accept any new DSLR images as they say they are overloaded with wildlife and nature images.

Thanks
Tim

freefly · Joined: 03 May 2005 Posts: 234 Location: Spain/UK

Absolutely stunning gallery you have Tim. Maybe if those Hummingbirds were shaking hands over a PC or leaping in a field or on the beach with a bright, blue, fluffy, cloudy sky they might do a bit better ; )

Seriously though, have you tried self promotion? May be worth building a website around your images and using Google Adwords to promote them.

Or even writing to nature/ornathology mags/books/websites etc promoting your images here at SS or via your website?

I would get out there and do some groundwork myself with those beautiful pics.

All the best and good luck,

Nick

Photoshow · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Bottom line is because this is stock not art. Landscape and Wildlife images are the hands down sales leaders world wide in art print.

As stock though the very nature of the imagery limits its usefulness in advertising. Stock is a concept industry and nature shots are for the most part limited in concept. Add to that the fact that nature and landscape are also some of the most heavily populated categories and you start to see the big picture.

My advice would be to continue to take advantage of stock as best you can but to look to seriously exploit the Art Print market both online and in the brick and mortar world.

You may also want to pick up the current copy of the Photographers Marketplace and try some direct submissions to magazines and publishers listed in it that specialize in the same sorts of imagery you are creating. There is a large market there but it is a specialized market.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:17 pm

It's my belief Tim that it all comes down to supply and demand. You can have the best product in the world but if few people use it the profit is not there. There is less of a need for nature work when compared to lets say business images.

I don't know what the monetary comparison would be between what you could make with RM and stock. That is something you will have to determine before making your decision.

You do have a great gallery.

ackab · Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 567

My thoughts on the topic are:

- you have a lot of competition. Although your images are outstanding there are tons of similar images around

- Not sure if this can be a factor but most pictures in your portfolio seem to be cropped 'too tight' for stock. They are more finished products to be used as such than the 'raw material' the designers are looking for. What about experimenting with leaving more 'free space' in the pictures so that they can be used as backgrounds for layouts, or to add some text to them. As they are they seem perfect for nature books/zoology, but they could be too much 'descriptive' and not enough 'conceptual' for stock. What about trying to capture some action instead of (perfect) still pictures.

Best-Ackab

curtpickens · Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 1142

You do shoot great Nature images. But thats where you stopped. In MicroStock you must have some type of diversity. Even photogs who shoot only people have those people doing different functions. When shooting nature its pretty much a still life photo to a degree, unless of course you get them fighting or in very unusual circumstances.
Nature photography has it's place to be sure, and will sell here and there. But the marketplace is so very saturated with it that you had better shoot very very exceptional shots.
Try your hand at some people, objects, architecture, business themes etc... You will soon see that it takes all kinds of photos to have consistant downloads.

Good luck. And have fun.

hiepdng · Joined: 03 Oct 2005 Posts: 474 Location: USA

Tim, I rarely see anyone having a big nature photography like yours. They all looks pretty.

I think most of images here are for web design and magazines. If you look at the popular images, you will have some idea about this.

I am sure your images are good for fine art printing. I have been on some photography forums, and some successful photographers said that they don't do stock images because you can not earn almost anything. Instead, they often display their images at local galleries and talk PERSON TO PERSON, and they said this the best to promote your images sale business. Remember that images of the best seller are not totally better than the other. They are successful because they know how to do business.

rinder99 · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:03 pm

zuropak · Joined: 05 Aug 2006 Posts: 37

Thanks very much for all the comments and advise from everyone.

Firstly, nature (mostly birds) phorography is what I do. It is my passion and I have no interest whatsoever in doing the typical microstock photography thing. Nothing at all against those that are into that, but I would much rather do something else with my life than that. :)

Secondly, I have been at bird photography for over 26 years now, and have been published worldwide in many books, magazines, etc. I have a nice website and do market my images through that as well. However, as many have eluded to, there is a gluttony of decent nature photography avialable these days; especially since the introduction of the DSLR. Therefore it is a tough market and not nearly as lucrative as it once was. I was hoping that microstock might be the new way to market images in this style as well.

I will probably leave my images here for the remainder of 2007, after which I will likely cancel all of my microstock accounts and go back to the Rights Managed market with Corbis, Getty, ACP, etc. However, I still think it is a shame that more styles of photography cannot thrive in this market. Perhaps that will change in the future as things develop, but for now, it appears that only the corporate market is ready for it.

Cheers
Tim

prairierattler · Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 1489

You have really good stuff. Gotta be a market for it elsewhere that does better than the microstock sites. A lot of competition, yes, but you have superb images.

rinder99 · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:51 pm

That may be true tim, Im one of the old timers here and sold my first stock photo in 1968 to Arizona Highways. Now days a lot matters How you compose an image, not so much as what the image is in the nature category. 90% or more of all your images are positioned dead center, Shooting for that long you must know the rule of thirds, a compositional trick used for centuries in painting to help the viewer move about the image. That is espiecally true in stock, also learning to get that over saturated Rich Velvia'Kodachrome look is very important, All your work seems a tad flat in that regard. Buyers buy from thumbnails, if they search for "Finch" for example and 2 hundred come up they will always buy the one that pops and has copyspace. Just the way it is my friend. But, Good luck in whatever you do.Nice work.

Forgiss · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:25 pm

yep, nice work, but I wanted to say more or less the same as Rinder, nothing jumps out at me. I'll be the first to admit that my wildlife work is not my strong point (even though I seriously enjoy it, I just don't have the kit to be good enough)

However, Nature and landscape shots do sell here, definitely not as much as businesspeople but it does sell... My current top seller (uploaded middle Jan '07) has over 500 downloads

(sheesh... what does it take to get into the all time top50!?!?!?)

But as you yourself has conceded, it's getting tougher in this market (RF or RM) and you will have to change your shooting style to do something different than the rest... it's just that the market is looking for the "next big thing"

rinder99 · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:37 pm

drop dead gorgeous sean. maybe need some isolation? LOL. agree, whats up with that top 50 thing I got one that is my #1 seller for 2 years.Maybe If I gave it away? Hee Hee

britishstock · Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 328

sgame · Joined: 06 Apr 2006 Posts: 167

Your gallery is great. But animal photos are not the best seller for stock. Peoples and business photo and vectors are top seller.