Hmmm, time to slash my image collection

[Mark Baigent]

I have been away from stock photography for ages and I have just dropped in to review my images, I got a bit of a shock. I have so many crap images so time to delete a load of them.
Maybe losing the rubbish will give the better images a better chance?

[Bryan]

You never know what will sell.  I don't think it a good idea to have too many similars and have done a bit of pruning recently,  but I am often amazed at what does sell.

[John Mitchell]

 

26 minutes ago, Bryan said:

You never know what will sell.  I don't think it a good idea to have too many similars and have done a bit of pruning recently,  but I am often amazed at what does sell.

 

Yup, one person's rubbish can be another one's treasure.

 

That said, one of my new year's resolutions  (such as they are) is to search out other baskets for a lot of my eggs that have been languishing here for too long. The recent commission brouhaha has been something of a wake-up call.

[Chuck Nacke]

Yup, one person's rubbish can be another one's treasure.

John,

"Rubbish is Rubbish." 

 

Mark,

 

I have my main Pseudo, my name and a second Pseudo for

Images that I believe will be licensed, but are not my first choice,

but never rubbish.

 

Best,

 

CN

 

[Bill Brooks]

Everyone should be culling and improving their collection. Better to show nothing, rather than show something that is below our standards.

Learn what sells. Set your standards up to, or hopefully beyond, the best images available when searching your Alamy competition by keyword.

[Starsphinx]

10 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

Everyone should be culling and improving their collection. Better to show nothing, rather than show something that is below our standards.

Learn what sells. Set your standards up to, or hopefully beyond, the best images available when searching your Alamy competition by keyword.

The point I see made time and time again is that "what sells" is rarely what people expect and learning it seems to be exceedingly difficult if possible at all.  Photographers on here of a standard out of sight of me say they have had sales from images they wrote off - images they thought about culling, ones they very nearly did not upload at all.

When you have images sell that are the last ones you expect - the ones you are less happy with, it becomes difficult to cull because you do not know if you are culling the very thing someone else is going to want.

[Joseph Clemson]

I would not keep images which are essentially identical to others in my collection because that just knocks down my CTR. However, I've sold too many pictures which I had little expectation of selling to think that wholesale culling of my portfolio might be a good idea. On the other hand I have some wonderful photos which have scarcely attracted a second glance, let alone a sale . Let the buyer decide but don't overwhelm him/her with choice.

[Mark Baigent]

19 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

 

 

Mark,

 

I have my main Pseudo, my name and a second Pseudo for

Images that I believe will be licensed, but are not my first choice,

but never rubbish.

 

 

 

Now that makes sense, that is what I will do, ta muchly

[John Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Mark Baigent said:

Now that makes sense, that is what I will do, ta muchly

 

I'd definitely get rid of the similars as well.

[spacecadet]

14 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I'd definitely get rid of the similars as well.

OP isn't the worst offender but I'd probably have about 15% off that first page for a start. 3 or 4 of that first helo lot could go.

There also seem to be a few accidental duplicates.

[Bill Brooks]

On 12/28/2018 at 05:01, spacecadet said:

OP isn't the worst offender but I'd probably have about 15% off that first page for a start. 3 or 4 of that first helo lot could go.

There also seem to be a few accidental duplicates.

 

I agree with spacecadet. I also agree with the OP that the portfolio just needs trimming. I do not see rubbish, just not enough discards before submission.

[John Mitchell]

7 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

I agree with spacecadet. I also agree with the OP that the portfolio just needs trimming. I do not see rubbish, just not enough discards before submission.

 

A number of years ago when I was living downtown, I put a pair of shoes that I didn't like in the back alley with all the other "rubbish". A few days later, I saw a guy in the same apartment building wearing my shoes. They seemed to fit him fine and he looked quite happy with them. 

[Mark Baigent]

Thank all, then all I have to do is re-keyword and caption what is left, sigh

 

[Steve F]

I agree that it's best to have quality photos up in our collections and not so many duplicates. But... You never know what is going to sell. I culled about 50 images last year for being boring and extremely unlikely to sell, and d**n me, if one of them didn't go and sell on Alamy! I no longer even had a copy of the photo at that point. And my highest selling photo in terms of price is one of the ones that I debated whether it was even worth uploading....

[vpics]

I once got the advice from an agency owner who basically said "if you're shooting stock and the image has a grey sky, delete it".  Mainly because, there will be stock photos on sale with blue sky backgrounds that simply look better. And he also said "if the weather's bad (e.g. grey skies), spend time editing your images instead of taking new ones". 

[spacecadet]

12 hours ago, vpics said:

I once got the advice from an agency owner who basically said "if you're shooting stock and the image has a grey sky, delete it".  Mainly because, there will be stock photos on sale with blue sky backgrounds that simply look better. And he also said "if the weather's bad (e.g. grey skies), spend time editing your images instead of taking new ones". 

I have a few sales with grey skies, usually in shortage subjects, but failing a blue sky, a decent cloudscape will do. But I don't bother with bland skies anymore unless it's a pretty unique image. Of course, if it's like that the day you're there, you're stuck with it, or take the emphasis off the sky.

[Allan Bell]

14 hours ago, vpics said:

I once got the advice from an agency owner who basically said "if you're shooting stock and the image has a grey sky, delete it".  Mainly because, there will be stock photos on sale with blue sky backgrounds that simply look better. And he also said "if the weather's bad (e.g. grey skies), spend time editing your images instead of taking new ones". 

 

I have had a lot of sales with grey skies, and there is an abundance of the same subject on Alamy with better skies. Whatever the sky is like I shoot what I see. Admittedly the better skies will generally sell more readily but do not limit your photography to pretty skies or you may be missing out on sales.

 

There are times when I know I will not be back that way again so if it is a grey sky so be it. Just try to look for a different angle. Go up and shoot down if possible or if there is something interesting in the foreground crouch down but do not point the lens up thus cropping out a lot of the sky while shooting.

 

Allan

 

 

[Bill Brooks]

I only shoot when there is some direction to the light. A soft grey sky is OK as long as there is some direction to the light, and I can take an image that excludes or down plays the sky.

 

The problem is that we are taking a 3D view that we see, and recording it as 2D. All subjects will flatten themselves out when going from 3D to 2D. A good well lit image looks 3D even when it is recorded as 2D. If there is a direction to the light, then subjects will look rounded. There will be a highlight side and a shadow side, even if the effect is restrained. This is a 3D clue within our 2D image.

 

The worst light is from a heavy overcast sky producing directionless light. Under those conditions I find something else to do other than photography. Get out the photoshop and combine old images. If I am on the road I will move on and change hotels. If I do not want to move on, I will do my laundry, take time for a good meal, scout locations, wait for night shots with artificial light, etc.

 

I do not shoot news which is another thing altogether.

[Marianne]

Overcast skies are great for portraits but they really make it difficult to get what you want when you are traveling and won't be back that way again.  My favorite skies for travel images are just after it rains when the sky turns blue again and is full of well defined and interesting clouds, although a clear blue sky is great for copy space. 

 

Waiting for the perfect light is a discipline we all learn, but if it is gray and blah while you are on the road, you really have to get creative if you are not in a position to change your location. Shooting indoors, visiting a museum, or, as you say, going for a good meal (and photographing it) are all options, as is scouting locations for a future trip back when conditions are more favorable. 

 

I've pared down my portfolio but have also been surprised by which photos sell - sometimes those I questioned uploading - but more often just good practical images that may not be the most striking but tell a story nonetheless. However, my best sellers are primarily the landscape and travel photos that I also like best . They tend to sell well both as stock and as prints. Waiting around for the perfect light rather than just snapping away. I was traveling earlier this month in the cold gray midwest and south, so I decided to work on collecting material for blog posts on gluten free restaurants and waiting to shoot outdoors when the streetlights came on. If only it had snowed rather than rained - oh well! An excuse to go back. 

 

 

 

 

[spacecadet]

8 hours ago, David Pimborough said:

Rather than delete "crap" or old  images I just change them to royalty free and dump them on microstock sites (if they never had a sale here)

 

They often sell

 

I also go and review keywords on old stuff to see if they can be improved

Not an option for most of us as they're unreleased, surely?