I love how people just ignore newbies. 

Anyway...  iStock is one of my better agencies, but results may very. The only way to find out which ones will work for you is to try them out. The poll on the right is how other submitters rate the sites.

Quote from: cthoman on April 22, 2010, 12:42

I love how people just ignore newbies.  

Nah, I just was thinking about "iphotostock". Is this a site like "Timesdream"?

And "StutterShock"

LE: Oh, and yea - hi. Congrats

Never heard of 'iphotostock'.

If the percentages offered in microstock bother you, then you might want to sell under a different business model, like traditional RF or RM.  Trust me, the commission %s aren't going up in micro, they are trending down.  

Consider selling at Alamy, where you get 60% per sale and many of the sales are several hundred $ each.

HI sauron...

I agree that 20% is not enough....My accountant laughed at me when i said I only get 20% from a distributor ....
I don't like exclusivity , unless is RM.
In some places if.you become exclusive, you can't even sell rejected images or give images away from your site for free...

It seems only a few agencies offer more than 20%...However I'm thinking of starting to do some art for RM.

And my apologizes for getting istockphoto wrong in the first post.

It was a great occasion to tease you. 
Did you get accepted yet there?
If you want to do microstock seriously, you should. You can't say you've driven a car until you drove a BMW.

Do we know what the % return from shutterstock is? I don't. I vaguely recall that a long time ago they said it was about 50%. In cash terms each sale gives a low return but the same may not be true using percentages.

Microstock is all about the total return, anyway, it's not about the percentage kept by the agency.

All the ten images I uploaded for review were reject for "Poor lighting/composition". 

All the ten images I uploaded for review were reject for "Poor lighting/composition". 

It might help of you would put links to the images on a free image site here. It's easier to comment.

"You can't say you've driven a car until you drove a BMW."

You've driven *.

I've got a 911 Turbo and I've never driven a BMW.

I'll have a go at commenting as I have myself confused getting a tricky shot with something that is saleable. When I first glanced at the image, I thought it was a funny shaped tree with nothing interesting at all. Then I saw the owl, but it's color and contrast almost makes it invisible. Finally, the branches on the right make it very cluttered. So, while it was good to capture the owl like that, I'm not sure anyone glancing at lots of images would see the owl, and then I'm not sure how anyone would use it.

Steve

Thank you steheap and magnum. Could you tell me how to improve my composition and lighting?

Many thanks
Sauron

Here's another one I submitted:

http://bit.ly/asyR5k

All the ten images I uploaded for review were reject for "Poor lighting/composition". 

that's 123speak for 'we're to lazy to actually look at your images, so we're just using an ambiguous phrase to make it lok like we doing something'

as others have said - dont bother w 123 until you have extra time after submitting to the other sites

i just had 3 batches, totally over 250 images rejected by them after a long wait. the actual images ran full gamut from early dawn on the ganger, to saturated market shots to blue sky ski days

if anyone's interested in seeing what 123 rejected - just look at my latest additions to my ss, dt and big portfolios

steve

Thank you, everyone.

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 22, 2010, 23:44

Did you get accepted yet there?
If you want to do microstock seriously, you should. You can't say you've driven a car until you drove a BMW.

Well, I sent my three photos for review about a week ago. Since I did not hear from them yet, and I didn't want to contribute to them anyway; I've written to them to terminate my account. I currently am going to upload only on 123RF for a while. 

From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us. 

Thank you for the critique of my pictures. Much appreciated. 

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time.   And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much.   )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2010, 09:03

I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time.   And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much.   )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).

I went through your profile on iStock.

First, let me congratulate you on your fantastic pictures. There were a real pleasure to look at. I noticed that most of your wildlife shots weren't really being downloaded. Why not put them on a traditional stock agency, instead of making pennies here?

As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti.

You'll need to read what I wrote above. I have wildlife photos also on Alamy. The four pics I've sold there have not been wildlife.
It's almost impossible to get into the big agencies: most of them need a huge initial upload, and a commitment to upload a fairly high number of other images monthly or quarterly. And, as I said, just look at the existing opposition at any of the other sites.
I've posted my story here before, so to avoid repetition, I'll SM you.

Honestly, 20% of $1000 is better than 100% of 0.

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

Ah, wildlife.  Nature.  Well, no wonder. 

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I'm a masochist.

Quote from: sauron on April 24, 2010, 07:42

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

Ah, wildlife.  Nature.  Well, no wonder. 

Quote

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I'm a masochist.

hahah.

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2010, 04:56

From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us. 

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?
As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti.

Are you lost child of "our" member who has multiple nicks? eg "OldHipie, Macrosaur, etc .....
Ask them (him) for advice.
It will be the perfect event how two lost souls are meet in one fish bowl.....
 

Welcome! I am new as well