|
Forum: Photo Critique
07-10-2012, 08:56 PM
|
| |
Wish I knew...
Stock agencies seem to want at least a couple hundred pictures in a portfolio/application, before they'll consider dealing with you. Some will deal more personally with you, but many now have online sites which are not encouraging. You can upload a few pictures, if they like them you can upload more, & if someone somewhere happens to find it & download it, from amongst their 2 million other images, you get paid a small amount. I have not had a great experience with the 'personal' type of agency (poor communication; long story). A good friend who sells to "penny stock agencies" says he might get about $60 a year.
I've had better luck framing things & making photo cards & selling them at a local market & my own small shop. You might consider that route. Less time-consuming & more rewarding.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
07-08-2012, 08:53 PM
|
| |
I like both too. I think which you used would depend on the purpose & what idea you are going for. If you want a portrait-style photo of a frog, #2 suits that sort of thing -- closeup on his face & forelegs. If you want to make the point that he's a tree frog, #1 is a better choice because you show him hanging on the branch. Frog in habitat, vs. close-up features of frog.
I don't think the out-of-focus leg is distracting in this case... I think the viewer's eye will go to the frog's head & 'hands' anyway.
|
