For artists who contribute both photos and vectors, what's the breakdown in terms of royalties for those two classes of media? I'm working at becoming a vector contributor on istock, and am wondering what to expect when I succeed.

I'm doing the same and would be interested to see the results as well. It seems to me that vectors sell VERY well.

It's unlikely that anyone else's numbers would relate to your numbers.  Too many factors.  Subject, skills, style, etc.

As Sean said your mileage may vary. I do both and depending on the agency I get different results. In $$ terms at SS out of my top 20 sellers four are photos, the remainder are illustrations, at IS out of my top 20 sellers 12 are photos, the remainder are illustrations. My top selling photo at IS has earned me twice as much as my best selling illustration at SS, they have both been available for sale for the same amount of time. My portfolio at SS is heavily weighted to illustrations, at IS it is more balanced.

You could continue to Analise it to death, but at the end of the day wether you produce illustration or photos it's quality, concept, execution etc that counts.

If it's all about $$ do what you are good at and shoot what's in demand, if it's about fun, do what you enjoy.

Any the wiser?

I sell my illustrations as rasters in most sites and some sell very well.  In fact my illustrations sold more than my financial photos, which are my most succesfull topic.

I only tried to apply to IS once, they rejected my illustrations for being too simple - and indeed they are - and I suppose they are even more restrictive now.  They don't take rasters either, so it's a pity. 

I've submitted a few vectors/photographs in the past & vectors allways sold more. However, complicated vectors usually take a lot more time to create then photographs 

I certainly get the impression that vector artists do well with relatively fewer files than photographers, but I'm wondering if that's a false impression. People who don't do well rarely announce it, and are usually not so visible.

Like everyone else said, your success really depends on the quality of your work. I think illustration has an advantage because there is less competition and it easier to develop a unique style that separates you from the crowd. That being said, it can take time to develop that unique style. Especially one that sells. Good luck!

Quote from: madelaide on September 26, 2009, 19:11

I only tried to apply to IS once, they rejected my illustrations for being too simple - and indeed they are - and I suppose they are even more restrictive now.  They don't take rasters either, so it's a pity.  

They definitely take raster illustrations.
Click Forum Home, and you'll see that the description of the Illustration forum is:
"Discussion of vector, raster and 3D illustration tools and techniques"
... though there don't seem to be any recent raster threads.
Also do a search with only photos ticked for illustration, and you get 44436 'illustration and painting' hits.

It's a bit unfortunate that iStock chose to call vectors 'illustrations', as now they have the confusing situation that if you choose 'illustration' at the top you get vectors, but if you search on illustrations you get rasters.

The reason that I think there is so much potential in vectors is the ability to create something that doesn't exist, rather than capturing an image of something in the real world...

When StockXpert used to have a monthly contest, vectors were regularly chosen as winners.

I'm mainly a vector contributor, vectors sell far more, BUT, there's far more skill required to produce a good vector in my opinion, most photographers attempting to be vector artists with only a working knowledge of Illustrator and no background or training as illustrators have a very steep uphill struggle.