You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.

Why some great landscape photos just don't sell

Showing posts 1 - 20 of 26
Page:
1
 2 >
 of 2
Danielbabusca
Hi everyone,

I'm using DT for a couple of months already, with a subscription membership. I am particularly looking for landscape photography, but with at least some minimum documentation in description. What I found out, is that people neglect some extremely important details: what's in the photo!

Mountain Lake Reflection - one example of a bad title and description - No sales

Mt. Musala in Bulgaria - excellent title - generates sales

I know this landscape niche is not that popular as others, but I'm looking to buy thousands of photos this year, and I am not the only one willing to do so. A lack of directions and details will only put me and others off buying those photos. Great subjects, great details and compositions, but overseen descriptions.

I though my critique will help nature lovers to sell their photos better.

All the best!
Daniel

APO EX DG Macro II Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Canon EF 50 mm...
Edited: 04/02/2012, 05:08:19 AM
Igordabari
Thanks for this post. I have only few landscapes but I will think on re-descripting them.

By the way - if you like to buy some landscape you may always write to contributor asking to explain what is the place.
7d + lenses: Canon EF-S 15-85mm/3.5-5.6 IS USM & EF 100mm/2.8 USM Mac...
Posted: 04/02/2012, 05:24:57 AM
Danielbabusca

Originally posted by Igordabari:
Quoted Message: By the way - if you like to buy some landscape you may always write to contributor asking to explain what is the place.


True! This is what I did so far, but I'm sure photographers will see my point and try to edit more accurate description in the future. It's for the sake of their pocket, and my pool of resources.
APO EX DG Macro II Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Canon EF 50 mm...
Posted: 04/02/2012, 05:41:44 AM
Afagundes
Hii Daniel, besides allways trying to generate an acurate description, I usually geotag my images, have you tried using the map for finding your images?

It seems like it makes sense to use it if you are looking for pictures of a specific place.

Cheers and thanks for the input.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 04/02/2012, 06:13:21 AM
Danielbabusca
Hi there,

The map is a good idea, I rarely used it though (some desperate scenarios :)) ). Many photographers do not geotag their photos, they leave poor keywording and very little description. Uploading some excellent photos on DT won't just make them money... a little bit of extra work should be required.

Maybe DT editors should require by default more details on photos, especially geography related. Everyone is a winner here! They sell, we buy, DT takes the profit.
APO EX DG Macro II Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Canon EF 50 mm...
Posted: 04/02/2012, 06:34:33 AM
Peanutroaster
I think some don't want to reveal their secret locations to other photographers or believe a generic description will sell better.

If they understood the final use of the image perhaps they'd provide more detail.
lens. Alien bees studio lights....
Posted: 04/02/2012, 06:40:46 AM
Danielbabusca
I like the secret location explanation, although it would be silly of them to not share beautiful places on earth. If someone wants generic landscape, he can go to download some sort of free wallpapers.

Interesting enough, some photographers replied to me that they are beginners and didn't realize the importance of a proper description. I think DT should do something in respect of this matter, as well, as some are new to stock photo and just don't know where the potential is. A bit of extra directive information for newbies won't harm anyone.
APO EX DG Macro II Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Canon EF 50 mm...
Edited: 04/02/2012, 06:50:07 AM
Afagundes
That´s why your post is of tremendous value for us, thanks,

Not only landscapes, but any particular historical building, church, whatever, it sells better if you take your time and give them all the details, yes, and geotag it.
f/4L Canon EF 70-300mm IS/USM f/4-5.6 Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM/Macro ...
Posted: 04/02/2012, 07:04:12 AM
Risto40
oh.. I should start modifying titles and descriptions and see if I finally sell some landscape pictures :)
Canon.
Posted: 04/02/2012, 08:13:11 AM
Kenneystudios
I like the geotagging idea, but it takes way too much time. I have a ton of images that could be geotagged but they are not because I got fedup with doing it.
DSC-W350...
Posted: 04/02/2012, 09:08:23 AM
Cristalloid
interesting aspects, in the future I will consider them :)

if you need some further explanation to my portfolio please do not hesitate to contact me :)
for the fun)...
Edited: 04/02/2012, 09:13:54 AM
Lejoch
Thanks for your post, I think you are right.
Nikon 3100
Edited: 04/02/2012, 11:25:15 AM
Peanutroaster
I know my own mental process evaluates the image and weights its perceived value (as I understand it) as a generic idea (like "old door") vs. its value as a landmark (front door on St. X church Hanover NH).

Perhaps we need to cover all bases and include both type of description.
lens. Alien bees studio lights....
Posted: 04/02/2012, 11:40:16 AM
Lejoch
Currently I still have few photos in my portfolio , but I went to see my sales. The shots which can be considered "landscape" (city landscape) were taken in Portugal last summer. They all have a small description, or is indicated the name of the town or village. However, they have all been searched with the word "Portugal". So, in this case, were details useful?
Nikon 3100
Posted: 04/02/2012, 12:35:42 PM
Lostarts
Thanks for the input. I'll review all my appropriate images as per your suggestions.
Canon bodies and lenses.
Posted: 04/03/2012, 21:21:53 PM
Landd09
Very good advice. I'll work on that!
Best regards !!!
Posted: 04/04/2012, 03:55:40 AM
Cleaper
Great advice - thank you! I will check all the titles of my landscape images :)
f2.8-4.0 & various other lenses. Fuji x100 as my walkaround camera. ...
Posted: 04/04/2012, 05:03:38 AM
Asakalaskas
Thanksf for the tip, I hadn't really thought about that much. I'll be reviewing mine as well.
Canon 5D Mark II; 16-35 f/2.8; 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8
Posted: 04/06/2012, 15:16:21 PM
Juliusc
Thanks for your post. That's right, I didn't realize the importance of a proper description.

for the sake of my pocket, I'll begin reviewing tittles and descriptions of my landscapes this WE ;=)
Posted: 04/06/2012, 15:48:51 PM
Androniques
Hi Daniel,
I can understand your frustration, and I do usually give the place info in the *description* of my landscapes. However it seems that you are talking more about titles than descriptions, which often cannot include all the info. I mean both the "conceptual"/"visual" title and the place. Moreover, some authors do not consider it a good practice to have long titles.

I also think that partly the problem might root in the rather obscure presentation of the description on the image page - it has small font and is buried among other things all around. Basically it is too far from the main title which is shown above the image in CAPITALS. I may be wrong, better you tell us.
photos), Canon PS-A610 (rarely, very good at macro with ada...
Edited: 04/06/2012, 17:03:54 PM
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 26 Page:
1
 2 >
 of 2