Do photos with heavy post-processing ever stand a chance at being used for stock photos? Whenever I see photos being used from places such as Getty or Corbis they are usually nice photos, but clean, without any evidence of heavy handed processing.
Whenever I've submitted to even basic microstock sites I've had a hard time getting anything approved that's had much PP applied - versus images that are nearly straight out of the camera.
So, the question I guess is: Images with heavy dodge & burn, HDR, etc...are suitable mostly for prints and galleries, and the moneymakers (big or small - Getty, Corbis, iStockPhoto, ShutterStock, etc...) are clean minimally processed images?
It's why I don't do stock. I shoot for prints, I process for mood, and they get rejected at stock agencies. I just can't summon the energy to do a whole book of unprocessed images for listing, basically :-)
I think that your changes of having a image approved are better with less processing. But I also have images approved and sold with heavy post-processing. As long as the image is good for advertising, web design, ... and the post-processing ins done well, you probably get the image approved. It all dependent on the agency and the reviewer.
It's why I don't do stock. I shoot for prints, I process for mood, and they get rejected at stock agencies. I just can't summon the energy to do a whole book of unprocessed images for listing, basically :-)
R.
Robert, I could see your photos being used locally in the tourist shops and such. Postcards, posters, framed prints, etc... Yes/no?
Most of the time a stock image is going to be further manipulated by a graphic artist as part of the preparation of the finished product/document. They want to have a minimally-processed image so that they have the flexibility to process it according to their own standards and uses; this especially applies to sharpening, which is so dependent on final size and production process. They want an image which can be post-processed to match their use and style, and to not be limited to the arbitrary single interpretation you'd give it.
I don't have particularly great credentials as a stock contributor*, but I try to adjust the color and tone range and do as little else as possible ... that's what's most of the sites describe in their instructions.
yeah, extremely post processed photos don't usually make great stock - however it also really depends on the site. iStock for example will quickly give a reject if the photo is edited too much, whereas shutterstock and dreamstime are considerably more liberal in what sort of editing they will allow.
