Flowers, puppies and babies

I have to keep reminding myself that art photography is not the same as stock photography. The two do overlap sometimes, but often a photo that sells well here, would get torn apart as a work of art.

I'll never forget the one major rule in my photography classes in college. NEVER photograph flowers, puppies or babies, unless you want the professor to, um, "rip you a new one" if you know what I mean.

The rule was in place to basically keep amature photographers from making the mistake almost everyone makes in the beginning: taking boring pictures of things because they are cute or pretty.

Now I'm finding that the no flowers rule is standing up pretty well here at DT, with the exception of really unique or extraordinary flower photos.

However, cute pet photos such as this one of my new puppy, Oz are often accepted and can even sell really well here.

Also babies, children and people in general are a good choice for stock photography, the cuter the better!

So I have to admit, even though I'm loving taking photos of my new dog, the voice of my photog prof. is telling me, "NO!"

Still, with a nod to my artistic roots, I think you're going to see more "puppy shots" from me in the future. He's too cute not to share.

Anyone else

Photo credits: Caroline Klapper.

Your article must be written in English

September 27, 2007


I know what you mean, art photography is rare for sale here. They need just stock. By the way I like your puppy, and I want to take some, but I guess I'll wait for now.:(

Related image searches
Stock related image searches