MicrostockGroup

I like it! It could give a rise to the RPD.

As far as I know IS does still offer prints, but its not immediately obvious how you'd go about ordering a print when you're on a photo page.

I've had a grand total of 2 prints made through IS in about 4 years - still  4 times better than the 1/15K if that's in fact the average.

I guess the success of the DT program will partly depend on whether they make it easy for people to sign up and just order one print.

The 3 that I sold on IS were all industrial, a couple of power stations and some metal lathe cuttings.  Maybe they ended up adnorning the foyers of businesses in related sectors.

I have a number of lanscape and nature images on DT; many of which would make great prints, but I have mixed feelings about DT's move as Id rather do the print end of things through my website and Mpix; where I know the print quality is very good.  
A buyer through subscription could buy a print and I end up getting .35 in royalties which rather sucks, or is that not the case?

I hadn't thought of that.  If Dreamstime is getting paid for the print then the contributor should get the relevant % of the total print price. 

In the announcement thread on DT Achilles writes:

"prices are kept minimal: production costs + RF pricing (maximum size, credits only, levels apply). Contributor royalties & agency share calculation is based on the same formula used for regular downloads."

So you should not be concerned about subs in that context.

Istock, the Canadian stock company, was only selling prints in the U.S. last I knew.  They must have a third party that does the print work for them in the U.S. If they sold in Canada they would have to collect retail sales tax and GST, maybe that is why they aren't offered here.

I would dig it if they would let us design prints to sell as prints an not stock photos (adding text, borders and other elements).

Good point.  I was recently visiting a relative in a huge new hospital and the walls had big posters of doctors treating happy patients all over the place.  None I recognized though, so no in-actions.

Why not? That's about 10x more than the average most other license sales make and those sales are often being used for expensive advertising campaigns. How much would you think was appropriate for a simple print?

I sell my landscapes at the market from $100 to $200 mounted. There is about $60 to $120 margin in that.

The stuff I sell for stock does not get the same attention to detail, does not take ages to get the right shot, and does not cost travel money.

Yes but ... supposedly you would be opening up a marketplace with thousands if not millions more potential customers. If your work is good enough or unique enough then the gains could be huge ... theoretically.

Of course in reality most landscapes only have local appeal and are best sold via the local market to realise best price ... again theoretically. Much more work to do so, much higher costs, admin, etc, etc.

I reckon, if I sold a framed print locally (UK seaside town with lots of tourists), through an established retailer at the going rate, then a $100 sale after costs, taxes, retailer's margin, etc might put about $5-10 in my back bin. Just not worth the hassle.

In general the stock sites don't approve things that people would want on their walls. How many times have we, as a group, complained about images being rejected for "not stock" or "over photoshoped / to artsy / to designed"? The stock sites want themes that apply to concepts or isolations that can be manipulated by designers to create what they want.

The other big part of this will come down to marketing. To my knowledge IS never marketed the concept of coming to them for prints. Designers, in general, are creating an advertisement - not looking for a finished art piece to hang on a wall. If they can market this to people who purchase wall art on a regular basis - like interior designers - then it may work out ok.