Does anyone else use a bridge camera for stock photos?
By MikeyCa1
@MikeyCa1 (45)
December 30, 2007 4:08pm CST
I've recently joined a number of stock photo sites and am finding differing responses to my photos. What one site considers acceptable, another site will dismiss out of hand. Some sites are happy with Photoshop work and others say it is too grainy or too 'blurry'. I know that having a bridge camera means that I'm not able to work in raw images and I've had to give up on about three sites because of that. But I'd like to generate hobby money, perhaps towards buying a better camera in the not too distant future. Does anyone else have experience of a similar situation and any guidance?
Thanks,
1 response
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
31 Dec 07
I am not sure what you mean by a "bridge camera".
1 person likes this
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
1 Jan 08
Gotcha, I still shoot film, But I am considering a digital and I will probably start with exactly what you describe.
If you look on sites like istockphoto.com or fotolia.com you can see what cameras they are using. I bet you will find that a lot of them are using these cameras.
1 person likes this
@MikeyCa1 (45)
•
1 Jan 08
I've been knocked back by istockphoto, shutterstock and alamy because my pics weren't big enough - they don't say it outright but they're looking for RAW shots. Alamy even requested that any submissions were 48Mb plus! I tend to work with 2.5 to 4Mb from my bridge camera. I've been looking round and I've got a couple to accept my work but no sign of payment yet - I'll let you know how I get on.
