You'll almost certainly be accepted - iStock standards are generally higher, and Alamy has a more realistic take on natural light.
However, only a few people report great sales figures, and most of them are huge uploaders.
I believe things may be better on the RF/commercial side, but I can't speak to that.
Good luck.

Best of luck Christina! It's good to be inspired again

Hope the transition goes smoothly for you. I have some RM shots on Alamy (from my exclusive days at IS) but it's the RF stuff that is selling - intermittent compared to micros but the with higher priced sales, just one can be the same as one of the lower-tier's monthly total

There is no problem having editorial use only with an RF license, but Alamy doesn't permit that at the moment. For them, editorial means it has to be RM; for Shutterstock, you can have editorial RF, but it needs to be "newsworthy". DT does editorial RF but I never did try that, so I can't say how their rules work in practice (I'm told they say newsworthy but it doesn't actually have to be).

 If you shoot with model and property releases, you can choose either RM or RF licensing at Alamy. RM just means that you get only certain rights for use in a defined place, over a certain period of time in a certain geographic market. You can't use the image again without buying another license for the new use.

I think I'm a bit confused about licensing types. Festival shots would need to be editorial, and is there such a thing as editorial RM? The checklist for uploads said no logos for RF, but on istock editorial is RF of course and can include logos. 

OK, checking the license types on Alamy seems there is no such license as RF Editorial. All Editorial is RM. Hmm. Seems strange given that all editorial on lstock is RF. Guess it's just one of the many things I'll have to get used to.

iS only sell RF. There is no value in selling RM at micro prices, at least the prices that iS started out with, and even the prices as they were when editorial started. Of course, iS prices are going up and Alamy RM prices are coming down and they'll soon meet.

RM and RF are two types of licence and has no inherent relationship with editorial. iS themselves don't seem to fully understand this. I got a rejection for a castellated building, which isn't a castle (historically it was built as a prison goveror's house a long time ago), telling me that European castles are "not suitable for RF", but I could submit it to the editorial collection. And if you read the replacement for the techical wiki, they seem to have three entities, RM, RF and Editorial, which is bizarre.

Anyway, you are correct, anything with bits or even fuzzy blobs of people without releases can only be RM. If you clone out the fuzzy blobs, you have to say that your image was digitally altered - I have no idea how many potential editorial buyers you would lose. Also anything that would need an MR and only be RM.

If you genuinely have a niche, it might first be worth checking if there is a relevant  niche RM library you could submit to, the one that already has pre-qualified buyers with an interest in that niche.

Alamy is non-exclusive, but you have the responsibility for tracking sales elsewhere (even of sisters/similars) in case of the very unusual event someone wants to pay for some degree of exclusivity.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 22, 2013, 18:56

And if you read the replacement for the techical wiki, they seem to have three entities, RM, RF and Editorial, which is bizarre.

The wiki is for Getty and Istock.

Indeed, but the wording is ambiguous.