Unless you're shooting product for the product's company, stock photos generally do not have/allow logos in them.
You see you must be confusing Shutterstock and it's ilk for real stock agencies. Almost any stock photo agency will accept and sell images with visable logos.
Unless you're shooting product for the product's company, stock photos generally do not have/allow logos in them.
You see you must be confusing Shutterstock and it's ilk for real stock agencies. Almost any stock photo agency will accept and sell images with visable logos.
Ah, I guess some do. Getty and Comstock do not appear to, so I guess it depends.
There can't be a logo in something that is being sold as stock otherwise known as "royalty free" unless that company has released all legal rights to the stock photography company. . .which i've never seen happen.
There can't be a logo in something that is being sold as stock otherwise known as "royalty free" unless that company has released all legal rights to the stock photography company. . .which i've never seen happen.
I used a double border intentionally knowing good and well that it wouldn't sell that way but it did bring something to the photograph.
I won't vote down borders because I don't want to be completely hardcore on that front. Borders for me are no big crime and that's just my personal take on things.
I'm more wide open on this one than usual. I just need to recognize the subject cleary as being quintessentially representative.
I agree that logos are straight advertising and not stock. Stock needs to be more generic.
It seems to me that more than a few people have confused "stock" photography with "product" photography, but that's another issue altogether.
Robt.
And where could a line be drawn between the two?
I'm not drawing a line. But it's essentially the "specificity" issue. A photograph of a recognizable product (recognizable as to brand) is a product shot in the sense that I am talking about. It's not like it's a sin or anything...
It seems to me that more than a few people have confused "stock" photography with "product" photography, but that's another issue altogether.
Robt.
And where could a line be drawn between the two?
I'm not drawing a line. But it's essentially the "specificity" issue. A photograph of a recognizable product (recognizable as to brand) is a product shot in the sense that I am talking about. It's not like it's a sin or anything...
Robt.
It's all a part of stock photography. This is basically an open challenge. Almost anything you can photograph, from nudes to nematodes, is bought and sold daily by stock photography agencies to be used for anything from advertising or inclusion in encyclopedias to editorial pieces for newspapers. Bruce Coleman Agency is one of the largest and most well established stock photo agencies in the world and their area of concentration is natural science. There is another agency that handles nothing but images related to fire fighting, and yet another that daels only in all things kosher.
Yes, I understand all that. I'm not dinging pictures for this or anything. We used to have a LOT of images in stock back in the day. It's just that in my own, personal definition, a shot of a can of Pepsi is a "product" shot, for example, even if it ends up in a stock photo library. See the distinction? It's perfectly possible to have a stock photo library of product shots.
For me, a "stock" photo is more universal than that, inasmuch as you establish "stock" as a genre. But as I say, this isn't a horse I am flogging, never fear.
Yes, this is important; rechnical quality. And "good" stock images don't necessarily have to have the WOW factor; a lot of time, WOW isn't what the designer or client needs. This is where I fear for the challenge; the usual WOW images will, of course, win, and some VERY good, sellable stock images will finish below the middle of the pack.
Yes, this is important; rechnical quality. And "good" stock images don't necessarily have to have the WOW factor; a lot of time, WOW isn't what the designer or client needs. This is where I fear for the challenge; the usual WOW images will, of course, win, and some VERY good, sellable stock images will finish below the middle of the pack.
Robt.
Please let that be my image's problem. Please? Pretty please?
Middle-of-the-pack and worse is where I live anyway, and this challenge is no exception. It seems I won't likely break 5.5... And I know damned well my entry is a good stock photo.
I figured this challenge would bring a lot of stuff similar to say, Corbis images and such, but I went at this challenge with an outdoor shot. These types of shots are just as important in a photographer's stock. Textbooks, and Travel brochures are two quick and good examples of these types of shots, so..... I'm guessing everyone was expecting Corbis because I submitted one of my best and cleanest shots to date, and well, it ain't doin' too good. Not that I'm all upset, I'm framing this one, regardless.
Middle-of-the-pack and worse is where I live anyway, and this challenge is no exception. It seems I won't likely break 5.5... And I know damned well my entry is a good stock photo.
Middle-of-the-pack and worse is where I live anyway, and this challenge is no exception. It seems I won't likely break 5.5... And I know damned well my entry is a good stock photo.
Robt.
The easiest way to find out will be to offer it for sale at 20c a pop and see how many designers buy it :-)
My entry for this challenge was based on my experience so far on stock sites with a little bit of 'what would be a good image for dpc.' For example abstracts that would sell really well would get killed here on dpc...
And one last thing, dont forget that a lot of stock images are also being used for web design as well. So you not only have to think magazines, catalogs, billboards, newspapers but web background, buttons, banners, etc.
Yes, this is important; rechnical quality. And "good" stock images don't necessarily have to have the WOW factor; a lot of time, WOW isn't what the designer or client needs. This is where I fear for the challenge; the usual WOW images will, of course, win, and some VERY good, sellable stock images will finish below the middle of the pack.
Robt.
To put a further twist on it, a strong part of shooting for Stock is surely the ability to know (the taste of) your audience/clients, no?
ust about the only 'type' of photography I can think of excluding from this challenge is Sunsets. Whilst I have no doubt there are plenty of sunset shots at the agencies, you'd really have to have a proven record, or the best sunset ever, or an additional element that really pays off to even think of submitting it to a grown-up agancy.
Imagine going to corbis with thirty pretty sunsets ... (shivers)
Imagine going to corbis with thirty pretty sunsets ... (shivers)
e
I have maybe two or three I'd show them for composition, although none of my photos have enough resolution to be submitted to a "serious" stock agency anyway. Sunsets/clouds represent about 25% of my modest Shutterstock downloads.
