MicrostockGroup

Wouldn't do it but that's just my opinion, btw what kind of money is offered for a raw file?

If it's a credit purchase it's the difference between 10 credits for the maximum size and 20 credits for the raw (this varies - it depends on the level of the image). If it's a simple, everyday shot that isn't all that special such as an apple why not upload the raw? If someone wants to pay more for it let them have it. If they buy it with a subscription what's the difference if they buy a jpg or a raw? It's microstock, not fine art. Yeah, some think of a raw file as a digital negative but do you really need to protect your shots of subjects that are available anywhere?

Ignore the request

I used to get a lot of additional format for requests for vectors (not any more as I uploaded vectors for most popular files). very often it went as a sub or just never sold (I'd guess the customer bought another file after sending the request), now I cant be bothered dont see a need to sell raw files at micro pricing, macro yes, not micro, they already get a 24mp of very high quality jpg and I dont need someone not bothering to clone out legal issues and me getting sued.

since raw files is useful.. have any macro agencies sell raw files as right managed license?

i uploaded additional format for vector, it got downloaded as credits and sometimes subs..

only few images are with additional raw files, but when i saw raw files are with subs..i think it is too cheap.

You don't think so...
I know so, because it has happened to me.
Price: subscription
Earnings: $0.35
Resolution: additional

You certainly used to be able to download RAW as part of a subscription package. However, I don't know if this is still the case.

No it's not even a good point, it's a poor example. You can't sell an image with "legal issues" whether it's an edited JPG or a RAW, in the first place.

The end user is responsible for the end use.