Hi Sean,
Agreed and most of my portfolio are not flowers or trees.
But I have two shots one of an orchid at the Flower Market in Hong Kong and another of a Lotus Flower in Hangzhou and both photos have made more than $100 each on micro and keep selling every day.
Why? I don't know.
Best,
Bill Perry
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Yarvin" <brian@...> wrote:
>
> > I guess I'm just reinforcing that average pictures of trees and rocks will not
> > pay much of the bills going forward.
>
> Sean:
>
> And I guess that I'm just reminding people that trees and rocks were never part of the core
> business of stock photography, ever. Indeed, people who try to market their nature photos as
> stock are making a double mistake; they're sending their images to a market that doesn't
> need them and they're not putting them in front of the people who can make their careers.
>
> Brian Yarvin
Well, if "stock" was originally "extra content I had shot either during work, or on the side", it could have meant that, but it has evolved a bit. I'm not even sure why people waste their time submitting flowers and trees (and other pedestrian subjects) to IS, or any other micro (or macro, even). It just isn't worth it.
Sean L.
0 comments:
Post a Comment