You are earning the 1000 dollars because your files are a lot cheaper than the exclusive files. when you go exclusive you will have a higher royalty rate, but not necessarily the same number of downloads. Maybe the push in best match can balance that, but it is something to consider.

i am sure you will earn more than now, but I would be careful to assume that it will immediatly be double.

But maybe people who just went exclusive can share how their download rate changed.

Now the question: what else more (from higher prices, vetta, getty, more visibility, other things I don't know...) should I aspect to earn?

This highly depends on how much of your is going to be moved to Signature+ and Vetta, and as a consequence will be mirrored to Getty. There are contributors who have a huge percentage (20 or more) of their images going into the top collections and they might receive huge amounts through the Getty transfer as well.

I am more on the cheap end of imagery, and while being an iStock exclusive very few (<1%) of my images made it into Vetta and even a few hundred images mirrored at Getty did never make a significant amount of money for me. I felt that my imagery is overpriced at iStock, so customers would rather choose a cheaper image from a non-exclusive contributor. When I made that assessment, I decided to leave exclusivity. Maybe the decision would have been different or harder with today's non-exclusive prices at iStock as the gap has widened. Then again, the partner program is making a huge part of my iStock income these days and you don't get to be part of that anymore as an exclusive.

I do understand the people who are staying exclusive because they are making a lot of money from the high-end imagery there. It would be much harder to compensate for at other places.

Hi all,
I would like to clarify a doubt. I don't want to ask you if I should or not became an exclusive at Istock. I know that nobdy have the right answer to his question and I also know that, this days, this aswer would probably be no more than yes.
I want to make a practical example and have anwers based on your experience. So I am refearing to people how became exclusive or leaved his exclusivity.
Let say that I am a Gold level, with a portfolio of high quality 3d renders and elaborated pictures, and that I earn, from Istock, 1000$/month. So I am at a 18% royalty level. Going exclusive I will jump up from 18% to 35% royalty. This means that, only by that, my income will swich from 1000$ to 1944$. And so far it is ok.
Now the question: what else more (from higher prices, vetta, getty, more visibility, other things I don't know...) should I aspect to earn?
I don't want pricise amounts, but only rough estimations. I think this is not a difficult question to answer for how have an experience about that.
So, let's go with your experience...and thank you for that.

"High Quality 3d renders" are easily duplicated by people around the world, who sell non-exclusive, so you will be competing against the same content at cheaper prices.

Regarding prices what I can say is that when Istock gave us the possibility to put some of out images in the Photo+, I decided to put all the best sellers I can in that collection. As a result, I have seen no sale reduction but only an higher income. The same thing appends with some exclusive images on Fotolia were I've set the price at 3x. That is the reason for what I am quite confident about higher prices.

I thought all indie images are now at one flat Main price?

"High Quality 3d renders" are easily duplicated by people around the world, who sell non-exclusive, so you will be competing against the same content at cheaper prices.

Sorry, Sean, with all the respect, I don't want to sound suberb, but when I say "high quality 3d renders" I'm saying "high quality 3d renders" and in the microstock market less than 1% of the 3d renders can be called "high quality". At list for my standard. So they are not easily duplicated. I am in the top 200 at Fotolia and of that 200, i think that not more than 20 are 3d artists. So for sure, this kind of competition is not a problem for me. My problem, insted, is that everywere as a non-exclusive, quality can't compensate the fact that many images don't have the time to be seen that they goes under tons of others in the search engine. And they are lost forever. So if you upload hundreds pictures every month this may not be a problem, but if you spend hours or days on a single image you start to think that this images should, at least, be seen. If it have hundreds of views and don't sell ok, but I use to have, for many of my images, 1 sell every 4 views, so my priority is that much people possibly views them.

I don't understand how a 3d render (high or low quality) can be easily duplicated.
You must have the model, the material/textures� so?
What do you mean? Can you explain better?

You don't need a certain ethnicity of model or location to shoot an image.  All you need is a computer and software.  So, some teen in India can sit all day creating 3d work on his laptop.

This Russian guy was well known for duplicating the concepts that others did, pretty quickly.  www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=614972

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 11, 2013, 09:21

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on October 11, 2013, 08:42

I don't understand how a 3d render (high or low quality) can be easily duplicated.
You must have the model, the material/textures� so?
What do you mean? Can you explain better?

You don't need a certain ethnicity of model or location to shoot an image.  All you need is a computer and software.  So, some teen in India can sit all day creating 3d work on his laptop.

This Russian guy was well known for duplicating the concepts that others did, pretty quickly.  www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=614972

lol

Have you an idea of what is high quality 3d modeling, texturing and rendering?�
Certainly nothing to do with the example that you gave

I think that Vinne speaks about works of this level:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb3viz/7333048902/#in/photostream/

http :// vimeo. com/7809605

Do you think that it is so simple to duplicate?

I'm sure someone could do a photograph like that, but the chair and birds would likely be rejected for copyright. 

lol

Have you an idea of what is high quality 3d modeling, texturing and rendering?�
Certainly nothing to do with the example that you gave

I think that Vinne speaks about works of this level:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb3viz/7333048902/#in/photostream/

http :// vimeo. com/7809605

Do you think that it is so simple to duplicate?

Yep.   Once you've built up a library of models and textures to use, global lighting like that is pretty simple in programs like 3dsMax.  Like I said, people around the world have nothing better to do then sit around trying to make cool renders like that. Alex was just an example of a portfolio of quickly duplicated ideas.

...I know that nobdy have the right answer to this question...

Oh, I'm pretty sure most folks around here do know the right answer to that question.

As I said, there is not a matter of "same image at a lower price". I do not create tons of 3d objects on a white background. For sure this kind of things only can sell at low prices. My question only is: how much unicity, originality, quality, can make the difference in been an Istock exclusive seller? As a non-exclusive, most of the times, quantity mean more than quality (as can be seen in Sean example...)

If you search "smiling girl" on Istock, you will find 1,25 million results. So the question is, why do you continue to waste you time shooting this kind of subject?
People look for what fits better in they project, someone cares about the price, someone not. Somebody spends 300$ for a signle photo, somebody 3000$. For somebody 30$ is to much. I mean, you only have to care about how is your target.

Look, I don't care what you decide to do.  I'm just pointing out that you're competing with the entire world when you're creating content entirely within software, and the rest of that world is probably going to be lower priced then you if you turn exclusive.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 11, 2013, 10:30

Look, I don't care what you decide to do.  I'm just pointing out that you're competing with the entire world when you're creating content entirely within software, and the rest of that world is probably going to be lower priced then you if you turn exclusive.

No doubt about this point. The fact is that you are refearing to illustration in a way that lets presume the with photography it is different. If my four years child comes into your studio when you are shooting, and you give him your camera, you can be sure he can click the button. Furthermore there are at least 10 photographers for every illustrator. So, sorry, but I can't see the point...

<sigh>

You asked a question and one of the most successful commercial photographer/illustrators has gone out of his way, several times now, to give you sound, reasoned advice. Yet, far from thanking him, you persist in telling him that he is wrong?