Author Topic: How are your RM files doing? (Read 20219 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #25 on:** September 20, 2012, 09:06 »

Thanks a lot Velocicarpo, Ed, and Claridge for providing the great detailed info on the difference between micro and macro. That is really extremely helpful!

So in building an RM port, and still maintaining a micro port, it sounds like interesting, unique concepts and one-of shots would be more appropriate for RM and your garden variety 50 shots of a model on white would go to micro.

This is a really helpful conversation, hopefully not just for me but for anyone thinking of submitting RM.

RT · « **Reply #26 on:** September 21, 2012, 10:14 »

Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** September 21, 2012, 12:27 »

Quote from: RT on September 21, 2012, 10:14

Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.

Wow. Pretty shocking. I keep hearing that Getty is the place to be to make big money, but then I read posts like this, and some of the ones from Istock exclusives who are experiencing similar, and I wonder if it's worth the bother.

fotografer · « **Reply #28 on:** September 21, 2012, 12:37 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 21, 2012, 12:27

Quote from: RT on September 21, 2012, 10:14
Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.

Wow. Pretty shocking. I keep hearing that Getty is the place to be to make big money, but then I read posts like this, and some of the ones from Istock exclusives who are experiencing similar, and I wonder if it's worth the bother.

Alamy RF is better than that!!

Poncke · « **Reply #29 on:** September 21, 2012, 13:05 »

I just heard someone licensed a photo on Getty for 1500 dollar.

Milinz · « **Reply #30 on:** October 04, 2012, 04:21 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 18, 2012, 12:32

Quote from: lisafx on September 18, 2012, 12:05
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 18, 2012, 02:56

Absoloutely. I have only been involved in micro for a couple of years so I cant really give an opinion on that but after ten years of shooting Rm and Rf material I do know that its much, much more demanding then micro. The editing process is a lot harder and especially with agencies such as Getty and Corbis. Its also very time consuming and its very seldom one can see any earnings in the first year.

I don't sell RM, so I hadn't heard this. I was under the impression that micro was much pickier about photo editing - noise, focus, contrast, etc. Many RM pros were surprised to find they could not match the technical standards set by Istock, for example.

Or are you talking about tighter editing of your collection - meaning only uploading one or two images from a shoot rather than the whole series?

I am curious in what ways RM is much more demanding than micro.

Personally as an Rm photographer I would not join an agency like Alamy, too much into travel and landscapes and so on but thats me others might have differant experiences. Creative buyers consult the Rm industry for one purpose only and ready to pay extra money, rights and ofcourse something above the average or else they would ofcourse buy micro or even Rf.
A typical submission to say the Getty original collection is around fifty pictures and the reject percentage is around 80%, so its a very time consuming affair and takes years to build up. Editing for Rm is a lot harder then Rf.

As I said this is my own experience for what its worth. You do have a few Getty Rm photographers here, I recognize their names and style and maybe its worth asking for their opinions and then comparing them to mine.

This guy seems to be just like you. christain58 on alamy and bitter to
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13889&p=3

"Well for starters, no way are you going to make a living here alone, this is not the sort of place for that ( with respects). I know a heck of a lot of people making a living in micro and Im not talking about the, MSG bunch, thats all mouth and no money ( yeah I also used to be there but it gave a bad rep ). I also know lots of people, including myself making a solid living in the Getty RM house collection."

you hate us so much that you have 3 accounts on MSG.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #31 on:** October 04, 2012, 04:51 »

RM sales are fine but you dont need many sales to make a good month and thats a big differance from micro. I would suggest more people start looking at agencies like Age, Media Bakery, Masterfile, etc. They do RM and RF.

Obviously Getty is the ultimate for RMs, they have an incredible selling power much thanks to the Stone-ImageBank collections but Getty is also a very time consuming and slow affair.
There are in fact tons of other Rm outlets.

grp_photo · « **Reply #32 on:** October 04, 2012, 05:58 »

I'm doing well with Getty but besides other things it's important in which collection your images end up, Photographer's Choice, Vetta and Photodisc are IMHO not very high ranked, but which may change so you should have your photos as in many different collections as possible, I guess Stone+ is always a sure bet but pretty hard to get anything in this collection.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #33 on:** October 04, 2012, 07:08 »

Quote from: grp_photo on October 04, 2012, 05:58

I'm doing well with Getty but besides other things it's important in which collection your images end up, Photographer's Choice, Vetta and Photodisc are IMHO not very high ranked, but which may change so you should have your photos as in many different collections as possible, I guess Stone+ is always a sure bet but pretty hard to get anything in this collection.

Yes Stones/Image-bank collection is the ultimate but today thats a closed door. Fortunately I got in many years back. Today it might have been a differant story.
Photographers-choice is not what many believe some sort of leftovers from people who cant get into the main collection. Fair enough, you pay to get in there, so what? PC, house many good photographers and plenty of great imagery and most important, they sell. In fact any collection within Getty will give exposure! advertising, PR, etc which one normally has to pay for.

I think we have to separate the Rm outlets from micro. Inside the Getty Rm its totally differant people on a totally differant level then say within their micro outlets.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 04, 2012, 07:13 »

welcome back and back and back lagereek

BTW its different

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #35 on:** October 04, 2012, 08:45 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 04, 2012, 07:13

welcome back and back and back lagereek

BTW its different

Ah yes. He is yet another pezzanovante with an infamnia.

Milinz · « **Reply #36 on:** October 04, 2012, 10:05 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09

Quote from: Ed on September 18, 2012, 19:53
Quote from: velocicarpo on September 18, 2012, 14:59
Lisa, whats typical for the Micro world is all this technical quality thing of low Noise, even lightning etc. Macro comes from a world of film and has other values. The term Quality refers MUCH more to composition and originality in Macro than to Noise. At least this is my experience. Another thing is that many know "Macro" only from Alamy, and we all now that their approval standards are quite low.

"Editing" refers to "Selection of images". This is the hardest part of the Macro world.

1. Micro: produce a generic and possibly well known shot at best possible technical quality (noise, light, etc.) and then hope for sales. One shooting is prepared for 2 days and gives 60 uploads, 40 of them accepted.
2. Macro: Do original work. Know what you are doing. Be _really_ creative. Use 8 Shots of a entire shooting which was prepared for a entire week and get 2 accepted. 1 of them has Noise

Agree with this 100%

I recently did a shoot with over $1,000 in overhead including models, makeup, and wardrobe (not to mention overhead associated with studio rental, my equipment, my time, etc.). I walked away with 84 images...all of which I would not hesitate sending to the top tier micros spread out over a few months (as many people here do).

Alamy - 100% acceptance
Traditional agency a => all images rejected for "too much noise" (these would have made the micros no problem - there is no noise)
Traditional agency b => all images rejected (agency does not give reasons)
Traditional agency c => 18 of 83 images accepted - images not accepted were rejected for "not being marketable"

You get the point.

I agree with this exept that Alamy tends to accept just about anything nowdays and for selling Rm, its not exactly your ideal agency. I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Not just about anything they do take anything. Good focused picture they take it. You don't work with alamy but you know you won't sell rm there, you never tried. You bad mouth alamy and msg. That's the real Lagereek we know.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #37 on:** October 04, 2012, 11:17 »

RT! wow thats a BIG sale, isnt it. must be one off. I have also had a few small sales but on average the RMs seem to be around 400-600 bucks.
Im afraid its a sign of the times really. Ten years back the prices were twice as much, customers were used to these prices and didnt even complain.

best.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #38 on:** October 04, 2012, 12:14 »

Quote from: Ed on September 17, 2012, 11:24

Quote from: Sion on September 17, 2012, 11:10
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"? Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"? RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine. Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09

I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Poncke · « **Reply #39 on:** October 04, 2012, 12:31 »

Lagereek also ends his post with Best.

Chris is on Alamy saying he quit MSG because he was getting a bad rep.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #40 on:** October 04, 2012, 12:41 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2012, 12:14

Quote from: Ed on September 17, 2012, 11:24
Quote from: Sion on September 17, 2012, 11:10
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"? Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"? RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine. Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #41 on:** October 04, 2012, 15:20 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 12:41

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2012, 12:14
Quote from: Ed on September 17, 2012, 11:24
Quote from: Sion on September 17, 2012, 11:10
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"? Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"? RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine. Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.

It depends where the RF is and what the RM photos are taken of and where they are marketed. You have pointed that out many times yourself.

If you put MicroStock RF up on Alamy, it's going to die a slow death, compared to what sells better on Alamy, scenic and travel for example. (RF and RM) The same good sellers on Alamy probably won't be accepted on Micro. It isn't RF vs RM, it's what and where. Someone who wants to over simplify and say, that agency X makes the difference is going to be wrong. It's what you sell on that agency and matching it to the buyers needs and desires.

Put some of your ball bearings and oil and gas rigs up on Alamy and see what happens. Don't just say "it's not going to work, so I won't do it..." And keep repeating how it's a poor place for images or making money. Sounds like the same people who shout, "you can't make money selling images for 25c a download." But odd, there are a good bunch of people here who do!

Example:

Alamy

Portfolio size of 1400 images. On Alamy my portfolio is split RM 74% – RF 26%.

56% of revenue came from RM sales
44% of revenue came from RF sales

Average return per sale for RM images was $44
Average return per sale for RF images was $115

Source: http://fstop57.com/rm-rf-earnings-alamy-agefotostock/

The next fallacy you try to sell here and on Alamy and everywhere else is that Only the Brits selling scenic and travel, can make money. Also wrong:

"Alamy is better for me, given my very specific circumbstances. I shoot law enforcement, prisons, forensics etc. On average I get between $125 and $200 per license through Alamy. Don't know how many downloads I'd need on any micro (since I don't have any images with any micro agency) to get - say $150 - but I doubt that my images are suitable for mass-downloads. While a textbook publisher is normally perfectly happy to pay $150 to $250 for the average license for one of my images of - say - cops busting down a door to serve a high-risk drug related search warrant, how many downloads would an image like that get on the micro agencies? Or how many downloads would I need on a micro to match the $2,400 for a recent license (one-time usage as I pretty much only to RM) of a cop using a shotgun to breach a door? I don't know."

http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13522

Old Data 2007 but even if it has shifted, there's some point to be made for, income and sales on Alamy and RM makes poor money. (as you claim)

"Alamy does not release revenue, except to provide average price-per-image licensed figures. Thirty-four percent of revenue came from RF sales at an average price-per-image of $155, and 66 percent from RM at an average price of $222. About 90 percent of their sales were for editorial use with an average price of $130."

Source: http://rising.blackstar.com/fast-growing-alamy-adds-nearly-one-million-images-in-q1.html

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09

I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 12:41

Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.

I believe you've been told wrong, in all cases?

Ed · « **Reply #42 on:** October 04, 2012, 18:45 »

OK - here's some numbers...

I have 2167 images on Alamy - 90% RM. Last month 4 images were reported for $189.70 net to me (they were actually licensed in July and August but reported in Sept.) - all sales RM
I have 176 images at another traditional agency - all RM. I had one image reported used at $38.65 net to me (actually used in August)
I have 667 images at another traditional agency - 90% RM. They report quarterly, but 8 images were licensed in September which should show up on my Q4 sales report when money is collected - all 8 are RM images
I have 215 images at another traditional agency 95% RM. No sales reported for September
I have 441 images at another traditional agency 95% RM. No sales reported for September

I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros.

Ed · « **Reply #43 on:** October 04, 2012, 18:51 »

P.S. - I have taken a day job with an oil and gas company. Lagereek's images are all over the place....in training modules, in internal documentation, etc. This company is Canadian based and licenses many images from iStock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** October 04, 2012, 19:26 »

"I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros."

Sorry but $200 for 2,000 images in a month is no success story, IMO. That's almost not worth the time.

Ed · « **Reply #45 on:** October 04, 2012, 19:28 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 04, 2012, 19:26

"I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros."

Sorry but $200 for 2,000 images in a month is no success story, IMO. That's almost not worth the time.

...and it's still more than what I was making at the micros.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #46 on:** October 05, 2012, 00:59 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2012, 15:20

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 12:41
Quote from: RacePhoto on October 04, 2012, 12:14
Quote from: Ed on September 17, 2012, 11:24
Quote from: Sion on September 17, 2012, 11:10
RM is a green field with still untapped potentials for microstockers. Some microstock sites are making an inroad into it. It is less competitive than RF files which are reaching saturation.

How are you fairing in RM?

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"? Which micros are licensing images on an RM basis?

Can you explain "untapped potential"? RM has been around much longer than the RF and the Subscription RF model.

My RM portfolio is doing just fine. Quite frankly, it is just as, if not more, competitive that RF at the micros.

I hate to drag this back to the OP and on topic, but, I agree. Still I wonder...

Which microstock sites are "making an inroad"?

As for people who don't like Alamy but never sent their work there, please continue that policy. Less competition in any area with any agency and talking people out of joining is always appreciated.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.

It depends where the RF is and what the RM photos are taken of and where they are marketed. You have pointed that out many times yourself.

If you put MicroStock RF up on Alamy, it's going to die a slow death, compared to what sells better on Alamy, scenic and travel for example. (RF and RM) The same good sellers on Alamy probably won't be accepted on Micro. It isn't RF vs RM, it's what and where. Someone who wants to over simplify and say, that agency X makes the difference is going to be wrong. It's what you sell on that agency and matching it to the buyers needs and desires.

Put some of your ball bearings and oil and gas rigs up on Alamy and see what happens. Don't just say "it's not going to work, so I won't do it..." And keep repeating how it's a poor place for images or making money. Sounds like the same people who shout, "you can't make money selling images for 25c a download." But odd, there are a good bunch of people here who do!

Example:

Alamy

Portfolio size of 1400 images. On Alamy my portfolio is split RM 74% – RF 26%.

56% of revenue came from RM sales
44% of revenue came from RF sales

Average return per sale for RM images was $44
Average return per sale for RF images was $115

Source: http://fstop57.com/rm-rf-earnings-alamy-agefotostock/

The next fallacy you try to sell here and on Alamy and everywhere else is that Only the Brits selling scenic and travel, can make money. Also wrong:

"Alamy is better for me, given my very specific circumbstances. I shoot law enforcement, prisons, forensics etc. On average I get between $125 and $200 per license through Alamy. Don't know how many downloads I'd need on any micro (since I don't have any images with any micro agency) to get - say $150 - but I doubt that my images are suitable for mass-downloads. While a textbook publisher is normally perfectly happy to pay $150 to $250 for the average license for one of my images of - say - cops busting down a door to serve a high-risk drug related search warrant, how many downloads would an image like that get on the micro agencies? Or how many downloads would I need on a micro to match the $2,400 for a recent license (one-time usage as I pretty much only to RM) of a cop using a shotgun to breach a door? I don't know."

http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13522

Old Data 2007 but even if it has shifted, there's some point to be made for, income and sales on Alamy and RM makes poor money. (as you claim)

"Alamy does not release revenue, except to provide average price-per-image licensed figures. Thirty-four percent of revenue came from RF sales at an average price-per-image of $155, and 66 percent from RM at an average price of $222. About 90 percent of their sales were for editorial use with an average price of $130."

Source: http://rising.blackstar.com/fast-growing-alamy-adds-nearly-one-million-images-in-q1.html

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on September 19, 2012, 01:09
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 12:41
Hi Race! I dont think anybody said they dont like Alamy, its an old British friendly agency and long before micro but its a pigeonholed agency, specializing in travel, scenics, British landscapes, etc.
Now after what I have been told which may I add might ofcourse be wrong, is that RF outsell RM by miles.

I believe you've been told wrong, in all cases?

Well given the fact that I dont have as much experience as you have in the macro area, yes as you say I might be wrong on all accounts and I have then been misled and told wrong in all cases.
Maybe, perhaps you would be kind enough to give us a guideline as to what will sell at Alamy and all other RM and RF agencies?
Sorry about my errored post about Alamy.

have a good day sir.

sharpshot · « **Reply #47 on:** October 05, 2012, 02:01 »

Quote from: Ed on October 04, 2012, 19:28

Quote from: sjlocke on October 04, 2012, 19:26
"I don't think I have anything to complain about - $228.35 for one month is much more than what I was making at the micros."

Sorry but $200 for 2,000 images in a month is no success story, IMO. That's almost not worth the time.

...and it's still more than what I was making at the micros.

I presume you had much less than 2,000 images on the micros? Either that or they just aren't suitable for microstock and they appeal more to RM buyers?

$200 for 2,000 images that wouldn't be accepted by the micros is OK. I made £0 with 1,500 RM images on alamy last month

borg · « **Reply #48 on:** October 05, 2012, 07:13 »

What we only need to know are average RPI-s of RM and RF portfolios...
Only difference between those two measures might worth something...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #49 on:** October 07, 2012, 22:48 »

Quote from: borg on October 05, 2012, 07:13

What we only need to know are average RPI-s of RM and RF portfolios...
Only difference between those two measures might worth something...

I think RPI is a faulty way to look at income and sales. Not bad for Micro because in the past there was some correlation, but I'm not sure it applies anymore. Same old question, RPI for What?

Like sliced tomatoes, people shaking hands or ladies with headsets or the perfect sandwich? See what I mean, RPI doesn't take into account, what the subject is and if it's good Micro or not suitable. (I'm a not suitable)

RPI for RM can be the same thing. Keep in mind, Alamy takes everything and anything, as long as it's a good quality production, shot and well exposed. I've often said, you can shoot a brown rock, on a brown sandy beach and it's going to get approved, if it's got good definition. So RPI still comes down to "what?" not how many and that makes RPI irrelevant for comparing the two as well as only amusing for Micro.

Someone with a killer collection of 200 shots, on Micro sites, will have a blazing RPI. Someone with 300 shots that are "CrapStock" (like me) will have a much lower number. Is RPI per site, per collection or per all sites? Well ever site doesn't accept or sell the same shots, so how does that work? Example, one of my top ten on SS was refused by IS. In fact about half of my top ten on SS were refused by IS. No problem, it's just getting it out there that counts.

Final RF / RM and what's what. Getting things accepted isn't a direct relationship to making a sale (license for those who want to quibble about terminology) I have about 80 images on SS and BS that will probably never get one license. They are accepted. They will count for my RPI. But they are fat flops. Should I remove them and boost my RPI? LOL

RM is not RF, but it's only a license, it doesn't determine content. I can license one shot of a sliced vegetable RF on micro and a different sliced vegetable RM somewhere else. There's no difference in making the shot or the vegetables, no matter how you slice it. (groan)

The things that sell on Micro are not always identical to what sells on Alamy. Some shots can work for both, most will not.

For people to ask or compare the two agencies, based on RPI or RF vs RM, when none of it is the same, doesn't really make sense to me.

How about RPD? How does 33 cents on SS compare to $80 on Alamy?

Now about that claim that Micro is making inroads into RM, which was way back about message two. Can someone point me in the right direction? Where, who, with what?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How are your RM files doing? (Read 20219 times)

lisafx

RT

lisafx

fotografer

Poncke

Milinz

ClaridgeJ

grp_photo

ClaridgeJ

luissantos84

ClaridgeJ

Milinz

ClaridgeJ

RacePhoto

Poncke

ClaridgeJ

RacePhoto

Ed

Ed

Sean Locke Photography

Ed

ClaridgeJ

sharpshot

borg

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors