Buy Images

Selected photographs by John Hallett can now be purchased through the following chosen stock agency:

What is microstock?

Micro = small cost, Stock = Ready to use

Microstock photography has opened up a whole new market for those publishing newsletters, websites, charity publications, small magazines, etc, who can now afford to purchase images to illustrate their work whereas before, full-priced stock agencies (as used by newspapers and big-scale magazines) were way out of their range. Any photographer can upload images to a microstock site and then sit back and wait. The microstock site does all the marketing, selling and other administrative duties and then pays the photographer when that image sells. Because of its target audience, the selling price of each image is small and the microstock site takes a lion’s share of the proceeds – but there is still money to be made for the photographer, particularly when their portfolio grows.

Why choose microstock?

This is an ongoing debate that has no conclusion. Many photographers think that because the rewards are so minimal (less that a pound sterling per image download in most cases) that microstock devalues the skill of an amateur photographer and exploits their lack of market awareness. The other side of the argument is that it allows any photographer the chance to make some money out of images that would otherwise only be seen by friends and family.

Obviously I side with the latter argument, but there is another reason that I think is important for any amateur photographer to try microstock – that it forces them to re-evaluate the basic quality levels of the images that they take on a daily basis.

We all take photographs that we are pleased with, that provoke gasps of astonishment from friends and family and that look fine when printed out a 6”x 8” card or viewed on a 19” monitor. But are they technically any good? Submitting to a microstock site may well result in a surprise.

The quality standards acceptable for most microstock sites are extremely high. Every photograph is inspected at 100% size (a ratio of 1:1) and can be failed for a multitude of reasons. Try it on an image of your own – use your image editor to show the image at its actual size (dependant on the image editor used this can be classed as 100%, ratio 1:1, view actual pixels, view full size, etc). You will probably be amazed at how much the image will be zoomed in by – and how any slight imperfection is magnified.

Below is a small list of reasons for rejection from a microstock site that most first-timers get caught out with – because they are simply not used to inspecting their images at 100% size:

Poor focus – The 100% view certainly shows up the slightest lack of focus either caused by the cameras autofocus choosing the wrong subject or poor depth of field. If the subject of the image is not in focus then it will be rejected, regardless of whether other parts are in perfect focus. To reduce the chance of rejection for this fault, check your focal point immediately after you take the shot by zooming the LCD image and re-take using manual focusing if necessary.
Over/Under exposure – Pretty obvious really – but we all tend to ignore those harsh shadows and blown-out highlights when we judge our own work – but microstock sites don’t. The exposure has to be spot-on throughout the whole image. And don’t bother submitting those intentionally moody, dark shots either. They may look good hanging on a wall but for microstock – NO.
Noise / Artifacting– That grainy effect that usually shows up in darker areas. To prevent it, use the lowest ISO level that you can and use a tripod. A similar effect is caused by excessive image compression which can be due to repeated saving of jpeg files (each time you save a jpeg it loses some detail). Shoot and manipulate in RAW and only save to jpeg right at the end.
Dust – The sensors on digital cameras are a magnet to dust and dirt particles and at 100% they all show up – particularly in areas of clear sky or white backgrounds. Remove each and every one using an image editor (and obviously check and clean your sensor regularly).
Chromatic aberration – Sounds like a medical complaint but is actually the phrase used for colour fringing on the edges. Can be due to the quality of the camera or lens but is more commonly due to over-adjustment of levels in an image editor during post-processing.
Composition / Lack of clear focus – Not to be confused with the classic photographic compositional rules (i.e. lead-in lines / rule of thirds) this rejection category is usually due to distracting backgrounds or foregrounds that take away from the main subject matter. Remember that most microstock images are actually used at quite a small size and so the subject has to be clearly defined within a ‘clean’ environment.

The main thing to remember is not to be disheartened by the inevitable rejections (In the early days you will be lucky to achieve better than a 50% acceptance rate). Use them as tool in your learning curve and you will end up a better photographer as a result. There will always be rejections that you cannot understand or do not agree with but it is not worth worrying about it – just move on. If nothing else the experience will reconfirm the need to get your photographs right in-camera rather than assuming that they can be corrected afterwards in an image editor. In most cases they can't - and often the image editing introduces more problems than you started with.

So go on - sign up to a stock agency, submit your work and see what happens. You have nothing to lose - except maybe a little pride.