darren said:
I agree with you there. I'm stuck in the house and just trying to shoot something. My parents are really into birding and just from growing up I have a decent knowledge of birds. I'm trying to get some shots similar to some of the one I have seen in my parent's magazines. I think I am coming close, but I don't have enough experience to tell.
I know there are some serious birders on this site, and one question I have is would these images get published or are they considered "boring" because they are yard birds?
I agree with Boreal Chickadee's comments on Jeff Nadler. His work and website are excellent, and he could no doubt offer some advice.
A backyard locale should not be a issue for marketable bird photographs. Many bird images that I have seen it books, magazines, and identification guidebooks look like they could be from a backyard. Photographs clearly from a wild location might have an edge, but it is often impossible to discern. Birds in action are always preferable, but portraits are in wide usage also.
Stock Photography
Many published images come from stock photography companies. The industry has recently gone through the conversion from slides to digital for most of their images. The impact is both good and bad for the photographer. No longer do the stock houses require the photographer's original slides. That allows stock photographers to submit the same image to multiple stock houses. That has greatly increased the competition amongst photographers. In addition the stock companies no longer have to send out slides to their potential buyers (who buy the right to publish the image, the photographer generally still owns the image). Those buyers can now review images on the stock house's website and make their selections. Buyers can see the best images more readily. The whole industry has been streamlined. The competition among stock houses has been fierce. As a result many stock agencies have gone out of business or have merged. All of this has reduced the marketplace from the photographer's perspective.
Stock houses have never been interested in photographers who have just a few marketable images to offer. They only deal with photographers who can deliver hundreds, and preferably thousands of marketable new images each year. It is not worth their time to establish an account for a photographer who cannot deliver that number of images. Most images that they accept will probably never sell to a client, and neither the photographer nor the stock house make any money until an image sells. That is why they demand so many images from their photographers. They also need a wide selection to offer to their clients.
My advice is the same for anybody who considers stock photography: Don't give up your day job. Few photographers make a living from stock exclusively.
There is a good wildlife stock house,
Animals Animals in Chatham NY, not far from the junction of the NYS Thruway and the Taconic Parkway, and not far from the Massachusetts state line. They have also expanded into environmental earth scenes (a merger IIRC). They are a very reputable and respected company. I know several photographers who shoot stock for them.
On their website, if you click on the "Gallery", and then "Newly Uploaded Images" you will see several bird photographs that may have been photographed in a backyard. Your photographs are as good IMHO. If you were to shoot for stock, you might consider adding additional branches to add some variety to your photos. An investment in flowering trees might add further variety.
Click "About Us" for their submission guidelines. Initial submission requirements are 200 slide or digital images with captions (see the gallery for examples, Latin names required). Their terms are quite standard. They may also be willing to answer general questions about marketable bird photographs prior to a submission.
