I agree wholeheartedly with your 'lock-up' view.  This is why IS are giving so much extra to their exclusives - more uploads, greater marketing, exclusive deals. higher commission etc..

The trend can only continue.

Hi roman.

My initial application to SS was rejected for 'too many similar images' so perhaps that is the problem.

BTW I zoomed in on one of your 'baby boy' shots and I could see clear evidence of too much noise reduction; so much, in fact, that the image looks blurred (to my eye anyway).

I am new to this game, but I never use noise reduction, ever.  If I find an image with noise at source I reject it.  It is possible to shoot with correct exposure and eliminate noise, and that is what I try to do. FWIW I have had no rejections from IS or StockXpert on quality issues.

Hope this helps.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Amanda (Hidesy).  She was kind enough to share her thoughts and experiences about microstock over a couple of coffees.  It was that meeting that made me decide to give microstock a serious try.

She is, of course, a very successful, talented and energetic girl.  An example to us all.

One of the most important bits of advice she gave was to 'always upload the maximum possible size'.  She said 'I would be surprised at how many downloads would be at large sizes, if those sizes were available'.  This is one reason why she upgraded to a Canon 16mp.

If a file is available in very large size, that tells the designer that the shot was taken by a serious player.  Files only available in small sizes can be offputting, possibly amateur.

I thought about her comments from an economic point of view.  Then I joined iStockphoto and started uploading two weeks ago.  Already got my first two downloads.

Interestingly, of those first two, one was at web size, but the other was downloaded at the largest available size I'd uploaded.  Commission on the first one was 23c, but 88c on the second one.

Clearly if a person has a target of say 100,000 downloads over two years, an average commission of 23c provides pocket money, but an average at 88c gives a liveable income (just).

There were some things Hidesy would not tell, such as her average commission, which is understandable.  But something told me that her commssion average is at least that 88c and possibly well above the $1 area.  250,000 downloads at an average somewhere above $1 is good money.

My D200 gets to 'large' on iStock, but not to XL.  I am considering upgrading to a D2X to get to XL, but also to let designers know I am shooting with quality equipment.  It seems the investment cost in a D2X will be recouped easily.  However, I am hanging on because I believe Nikon will announce a 16mp model soon.

On 100,000 downloads I can aim for commission of $23,000 or alternatively $88,000 (or higher).  That equation will only be fulfilled by having the best equipment and submitting everything at great qulaity and max size.  But the economics of it say 'do it'.

Having said all of this, I am a newbie with only 15 pics uploaded so far.  DOH!

I used a Canon 350D for a couple of years then changed to a Nikon D200 last July.  Snapped away quite happily and thought nothing more until my snaps got rejected by the microstocks (SS and IS).  Not quite sure why they wer rejected, by the rejection made me concentrate hard on getting the best results possible from my D200.

Many people elsewhere complain about noise from the D200.  Many people on these threads have commented on noise, using Neat Image etc in an effort to get through the inspectors.

One of the things I have discovered with my D200 is that correct exposure eliminates all the noise.  And I mean exactly correct, not approximate.

I spent many days experimenting.  And I started doing something I had never done before - using the histogram.  I discovered that 'correct' exposure could be obtained only when the white highlights were edging on the histogram upper limit (edging, not touching).  Automatic exposure never achieved that.  As a result, all of the fifty odd pictures I have taken in the last week have been manual exposure only.

Using manual exposure with the histogram as a guide prodices simply excellent results on my D200, using RAW.

Here is a picture of a prawn I took last weekend using exactly this technique.  All I have done is convert to 100% quality jpeg in ACR.  No other changes have been made in ACR.  Then, I have applied a very small amount of additional contrast and saturation simply to compensate for the softness of the filter in the camera.  Lastly, a miniscule amount of USM (and I mean miniscule).

No other processing.  No noise reduction needed.  There is simply no noise.

Here's the file:

http://www.pbase.com/hatman/image/74432460/original

Anyway, it works for me and my D200.  Perhaps others can try this approach with their cameras.

Xenia - I looked at your portfolio on LO.  Many very marketable and commercial images there.  Are you selling through the other agencies?  What are your experiences at, say, SS and IS with those images?

Very quick review and acceptance process.  I am impressed.

But can they make the sales......?

Well Steve, based on your posts here and the clear intentions of StockXpert to develop positively I have made my first submissions and already have 20 shots on-line.

The upload procedure was painless and the acceptance/review time very speedy.

The shots have been viewed a total of 30 times already (after one day).  Let's see if StockXpert can make the sales.

Good luck with your new job.

Just submitted my first ten this morning.  Let's see what happens......

Had my first 15 uploaded for a week now but still in pending state.  I am aware that exclusives get priority, but a week is a long time.  Anyone else here uploading to iStock?  If so, are you experiencing the same wait?

Well I spent all weekend shooting an 'eggs' series.  Nineteen results from 127 shots.

I uploaded to BigStock, Dreamstime and iStock.  I also uploaded to Fotolia.  But then I had a doubt.  Something is nagging me about Fotolia; something to do with so few views, so few downloads for their top selling images, and yet huge headlines about over two million photos online etc.

I suspect that over one million of their photos are 'free'.  This would explain why there are so few views (I have not elected to have any of mine on the free area).  And it would also explain why the top selling images seem to have less than one tenth success compared to Dreamstime, and less than one twentieth compared to iStock.  And yet they claim to be the biggest, the best etc etc.

Do I want to be associated with an agency I do not trust?  No.

So I deleted my uploads and will not upload to them again.  I am happier now I have taken that decision.  Gut feel counts for a lot, and my gut says there is something wrong about FT.

I know I am new, and I know many here have had success at FT.  But there you are....

I would appreciate an update from all users of StockXpert.  Are StockXpert making the sales.  Are views high?  Do you get the impression they are keen, investing in the business and intend to 'go places'?

Or has it petered out like some of the other new sites?

Any info appreciated.

I don't know about flash, but for all other situations when I feel the lighting might confuse my Nikon's internal meter, I use a rare, highly technical and unique item....

..... the back of my left hand.

Works every time, probably because it equates to 18% grey.

No winter here in Queensland, Australia..........

30� every day, with clear blue skies.........

It's paradise.....

I have only lived here four months; emigrated from England.  Am I going back?  Never!