..I really like Vetta. I already have some files, sleeping on my hd, that could go there. I'm ready to invest money to make more creative shoots - these kind of photos that I'll never sell for pathetic subscription price.

If the possibility of IS making changes that could affect you is your main concern, you should do a little analysis on your IS portfolio.

I've seen some portfolios where a large proportion of sales seem to be dependent on just a few very popular images - if that's the case for you, be aware that all it takes is a slight change in the best match, or even just somebody else uploading something similar, to cause one or more of them to suddenly die on you.

While specialising does have its advantages, a larger and broader portfolio can often weather the ebbs and flows of iStock changes without the same sudden shocks...  just something to bear in mind.

Your thinking makes a lot of sense to me.  In your shoes I might consider exclusivity too.

But if you are wondering if istock will change look at the recent past.  They are always changing something. 

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is definitely not the policy at istock.  Neither is K.I.S.S. 

Quote from: Perseus on July 27, 2009, 17:49

In response to both above comments,
to be fair to Istock, such incidents are not just the premise of Istock. Lately, if you're with Dreamstime, you know  the same thing happened recently with newly approved images.
Only that when it's Istock, there is usually more noise (no pun intended) made on this forum 

Sorry Perseus, but there is no comparing the stability of DT to the instability of IS.  Unfortunate that you are experiencing a sales drop of new images at DT, but overall sales there are still a lot more predictable than on IS. 

And stability is about sales, but also about more than sales.  Site outages and slowdowns, buggy infrastructure, "great new programs" that turn out to have unintended bad consequences for many people, etc. seem to have become normal operations for IS. 

If your portfolio is small you don't have anything to lose.  Try exclusivity at istock and see for yourself if you like it. 

Hi Rene,

 Have you thought about outsourcing your post production. There are companies that will do that for you so you can shoot more. More clicks more dollars.

Best,
Jonathan

Perseus asks "Why is there still some people going exclusive?"

Well, the answer is, they've considered the options and decided it suits them, at least at that time.  It's not purely a monetary calculation;  from what I've read posted by others, I would think you can normally expect to make more income by staying independent, at the cost of some extra time and effort, but maybe you'd prefer to put that effort into taking more pictures or just other aspects of your life or work.  And remember that once you're exclusive, the upload limits are much higher and your iStock portfolio (and hopefully your income) can grow much more rapidly.

Certainly that's why I'm exclusive, and I would assume it's one of the reasons why some 43% of iStock contributors who are eligible have decided to be so as well.  It's down to the individual and their circumstances, and each must make their own decision.

It's not final - if you're already an established independent it could be a costly mistake as the time and cost of re-establishing multiple portfolios might be considerable, but if you're still at the early stages you can give it a try and if you find it doesn't suit you can always drop it later.

You need someone who is exclusive to give their side of the story?  Well, that's mine, but I'm only one of 4,312 (as of yesterday) and each has their own experience.  No one forces them to be exclusive.

One more question, though... and this is for the exclusives to answer.

If you are exclusive to Istock, can you still sell your own prints at the local gallery.
ie. as mentioned in the other thread. Entirely different portfolio that the ones you submit to Istock.

How restricted are you as an Exclusive?