I basically hate stock photo agencies. More precisely, I hate their acceptance policies. Most of the reviewers seem to have no idea what kinds of pictures designers actually need -- and I'm saying that as a designer.
I've gotten into many an argument with reviewers about this. The reviewers seem to worship 18th-century, pre-photography composition rules that make a lot of sense if you're hanging a picture on the wall because it's pretty, but not so much if you're using it on a commercial Web site to hawk some product or service.
Last week, I decided to apply to 123rf as a photographer, mainly because it's one of the few houses that tends to have pictures that are useful to me as a designer. My application was accepted, and I submitted 15 pictures: 14 that I though were good (that is, they were likely to be commercially useful in addition to being technically acceptable), and one that was technically excellent, but poorly-composed and not likely to be commercially useful, and which I thought deserved to be rejected. I was curious about where they drew their line.
Today I found out that the 14 good pictures were accepted, and the poorly-composed one was not. Sweet! I finally found a company that thinks like I do, it seems.
Whether the pictures will sell, of course, is another story. But for me, the stock photography is a sideline, anyway -- sort of like a hobby that pays for itself, when you get right down to it. I'm not a good enough photographer to make a living at it, but I'm a good enough photographer for it to pay for my equipment and such.
My portfolio's not public yet (that could take a day or two), but here's a re-sized version of one picture that they accepted. I offered no explanation as to why I thought it could be commercially viable, but the site I had in mind when I took the picture was for a basement waterproofing and moisture control company. I figured it could also be useful for selling dehumidifiers and the like, and could possibly have some conceptual usefulness.
I was pleasantly surprised when they accepted it.
-Rich
I've gotten into many an argument with reviewers about this. The reviewers seem to worship 18th-century, pre-photography composition rules that make a lot of sense if you're hanging a picture on the wall because it's pretty, but not so much if you're using it on a commercial Web site to hawk some product or service.
Last week, I decided to apply to 123rf as a photographer, mainly because it's one of the few houses that tends to have pictures that are useful to me as a designer. My application was accepted, and I submitted 15 pictures: 14 that I though were good (that is, they were likely to be commercially useful in addition to being technically acceptable), and one that was technically excellent, but poorly-composed and not likely to be commercially useful, and which I thought deserved to be rejected. I was curious about where they drew their line.
Today I found out that the 14 good pictures were accepted, and the poorly-composed one was not. Sweet! I finally found a company that thinks like I do, it seems.
Whether the pictures will sell, of course, is another story. But for me, the stock photography is a sideline, anyway -- sort of like a hobby that pays for itself, when you get right down to it. I'm not a good enough photographer to make a living at it, but I'm a good enough photographer for it to pay for my equipment and such.
My portfolio's not public yet (that could take a day or two), but here's a re-sized version of one picture that they accepted. I offered no explanation as to why I thought it could be commercially viable, but the site I had in mind when I took the picture was for a basement waterproofing and moisture control company. I figured it could also be useful for selling dehumidifiers and the like, and could possibly have some conceptual usefulness.
I was pleasantly surprised when they accepted it.
-Rich
