I wouldn't recommend doing much underwater photography for microstock sites unless you have a very strong interest.  Costs for good underwater gear are just too high and returns too low unless you're a real pro (and maybe for them as well).

I've used several cameras with underwater housings, from P&S to DSLR.  They all work fine, but to get acceptable sharpness for stock you will need a strobe light or two unless you are somewhere with very clear water, and underwater strobes cost a fortune.  Plus a shock-resistant case to transport all of your gear, etc., and with the tough competition from some excellent underwater specialist photographers out there it will be difficult or impossible to earn back your investment.

That said, there are plenty of underwater housings for almost every camera out there including the 5D - see here (http://wetpixel.com/i.php/full/canon-5d-mark-ii-housing-shootout/) for some comparisons.  Plenty of others are available.  You will probably spend 2-3 times the cost of the camera for decent underwater gear.  If you live somewhere where you can go diving a lot or otherwise will use it for a lot of pool shots you might be able to get your investment back, otherwise just do it for fun and if you get a few decent stock shots it's all for the better.  For example, I just searched on iStock for coral reef fish and got over 7500 images.  If you sort by downloads there are lots with blue and gold flames.  However, almost all of those are 5 years old or older.  If you look at the the best shots from the past six months they usually have no DLS yet, although I did find one with 3.  That's going to be a very long time to pay off your equipment, if ever.  So I wouldn't bother unless you're a serious scuba diver and have money to burn.

I recently tried and failed (twice) to get a photo of a rail yard and freight train approved by SS.  On the second attempt I spent 30 minutes removing every visible sign, logo, or scrap of lettering, corner to corner.  No dice.  I think someone actually considered the numbers on the engines to be "trademarked".  Or maybe the colors. I gave up.

I think the numbers on the engine allow it to be identified unambiguously and that's why it's not allowed.  I'd remove the engine numbers and try again.  Good luck!  (hopefully it isn't the colors...)

I've had one there and I think it was for $26 so not bad.

Oposite here: sales this month are 150% of the sales for september. Acceptance of new files seems fair to me.

+1
BME there for me so far this month, 10% better than last BME with 13 days still to go.  Monthly average sales this year are twice last year and four times the year before that - better growth than any other agency.  Of course I was starting from a very low point and even this month they are still only about 33% of what I'm making on SS.  Currently #3 this month and might beat iS for #2 if sales keep up (I've probably just jinxed it).

However SS are also a substantial agency for OD's EL's and SOD's in their own regard. So far this month I've made more money at SS from non-sub sales than I have in total from DT & FT combined __ and that includes sub sales within DT and FT's total.

I've also made more money this month at SS from single-image sales, etc than I have in total at IS. Yes really.

I just checked my numbers and I am seeing the same - I've made more just on ODs at SS so far this month than total earnings at DT and FT combined, and I already have a BME at FT.  It's also more than at iS, although not more than iS + DT + FT.  The past two months I was averaging an OD about every 20 sales at SS - way fewer than usual - but so far this month it is one out of every 7 so I hope it continues.

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on October 17, 2012, 17:12

Actually I think this is already evident at the poll on the right where SS is at 93% compared to whenever the benchmark was for 100% - I assume it will go over 100% if everyone's collective earnings increase.  If I'm correct then it probably will be at 80% in another year or two.  This is one of those times where I hope I'm wrong.

No. You don't understand how Leaf has reconstructed the poll to more accurately reflect relative earnings between agencies. Read up on the recent threads about it.

SS is doing just fine. I'm on target for a truly massive BME there this month and no, I haven't done much uploading lately or indeed for a couple of years. IMHO buyers are simply exiting places like IS (where my sales this month are in the toilet) in favour of SS.

Your maths isn't wrong regarding the amount of new uploads but, in my experience, the actual effect on existing portfolios isn't necessarily directly proportional. There is a huge amount of utter rubbish and/or similars being accepted which are inevitably heading for oblivion in the sort order. Try a few searches on 'Newest' to see what's coming through.

That's always possible but I don't think so.  According to this thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/) he is using a benchmark of $500 for SS which will stay the same so that the percent for SS will vary over time.  Therefore, if earnings drop it will decrease and could go to 80% or lower.  Where I may have erred was in assuming it started at 100.  If it was 93% or so when he switched over then it hasn't changed, and I don't remember where it was when he made the switch.  Thanks for pointing that out.

As far as much new material being junk with no traction, that could help to explain why earnings at SS seem to be growing over the drops at other sites.  I certainly hope you're right.  I don't think it will change the final outcome but it would flatten the trajectory of any drop.  Fingers crossed.

There may be growth in image demand and for agencies but contributors are likely to see falling growth from here on out.  SS currently has almost 22 million images online and there were 90,573 new images added this week.  Times 52 weeks that works out to more than 4.7 million images per year.  At that rate SS will have more 31 million images in two years and more than 41 million - almost double the current database - in 4.  Therefore, each contributor's share is likely to decrease by half within 4 years even if they keep uploading unless there is a huge increase in demand.  SS being everyone's favorite agency now will lead to greatly reduced payouts in the future as our images become more and more diluted.  For agencies this is great and should last for many years.  The unsustainable part is for contributors to maintain or grow their income - probably impossible given the huge numbers of submissions.  The math is not in our favor.

I've seen growth this year as well - probably because with my small portfolio I can still make a huge percentage increase - but I expect it to become increasingly difficult every year.

You might as well get used to the idea of FT income falling anyway. They are losing the game, quite comprehensively, to SS and not without reason. Their search engine is painfully unsophisticated and that is compounded by their relaxed attitude to keyword spamming. They are also making the same mistake as IS in trying to push high-priced 'collections' down customers' throats except that FT's pretentious 'Infinity' offerings are generally of a lower standard than the 'uninifity collection'. Ridiculous.

As opposed to ShutterStock?  Keyword spamming on SS is horrific and certainly no better than on FT.  The only site doing anything about that is iS and their DA approach doesn't work effectively.  This is a huge problem on all the sites not just FT.  I agree with the rest of what you're saying, although for me as a small timer FT is doing better lately.

I think they will declare it in the year you take payout so that strategy should work.

Quote from: JoEr on October 04, 2012, 03:29

Copyrights can be sold, can't they? So even if you find a book from 1820 the rights could have been sold at some point and now be owned by someone else? Can't believe that any site allowed these in the first place when there's so much uncertainty regarding the copyright.

After ''life + 70'' or life + whatever ( different countries) the artwork copyright expired and ca not be restored. In case of companies they can release the artwork ( if they bought the copyrights from the creator) in Public domain even in the lifetime of the original creator.

 let me give you a very popular example :


We all know Santa Claus ... the fat old man dressed in red and white long beard was created in early 1930 by COCA COLA Company for a advertising campaign. The stock sites are full of various designs incorporating the red dressed old man with white beard. Who hold the copyrights for that description of Santa???

I believe it's the same with the PD illustrations from old books

PS. i believe more than 97% of the sold PD vintage illustrations were used as Editorial or in editorial limits. The illustrations are by nature editorials designs.

I think that description originated with the poem Twas the Night Before Christmas by Moore, who published it in 1823.  He died in 1863 so the copyright most likely has expired.  The later ones just put drawings to the previous description - not sure who owns the copyright.

My highest there was for $25 and I've had several between $10-$20 - rare but nice.  Good for you to start out with a nice one.

For $$$ it is:
Bigstock:  August 2012
Canstock:  March 2010
Deposit:  May 2012
DT:  May 2012 (June and July very close but August 2012 was the worst in years)
FT: August 2012
iS:  October 2009 (and that was with no ELs!)
SS:  February 2012
123:  January 2012
Alamy:  February 2012

Top 3 BMEs over all sites combined: #1: February 2012; #2: July 2012; #3: May 2012.

BMEs for DLS are slightly different:
Bigstock:  August 2012  (same as for $$$)
Canstock:  August 2012
Deposit:  April 2012
DT:  September 2011
FT: August 2012  (same as for $$$)
iS:  October 2009   (same as for $$$)
SS:  September 2012
123:  May 2012

Monthly averages for all sites are up compared to previous years due to portfolio growth - still very small.