I started up supplying both ss and big.
Then they merged and said they could build a bridge.
Well they havent, and now I have the oppertunity to upload to both.
The double amount of time spent. From my side. As usual.

BUT since the agency did not find it worthwhile to merge ports, I considered that for me as a private vendor it wouldnt be either.
So I left it.

sounds like a healthy prospering company.

Congratulations Shutterstock, and you have not annoyed 1000snds of contributors in the process.

Thats nothing new.

If your new pictures took off when they were new or if they were burried, has been more or less random in the last couple of years.
Then keywords and concepts become more important.

That is all true. Modern gear is much better and the demands are much higher.
And yet not.
As I said, I often use a 18-200 nikor, and thats a lousy lens, considering CA, sharpness and fringing.
But there is such a thing as the smudge tool and topaz.
So faults can be compensated.

The only investments Im sure has paid back in micro are... the cheap set of strobes I bought years ago, the 18-200, the stacking program and my knowledge of biology.

the studio strobes, the macro lenses and the teles have not paid back.

I did not say "The cheaper the better". I advocate investments that can pay back. Investments that can do the job, not overdo it.
I also suggested such an investment might not be in hardware, but maybe rather in software or light.

However I will argue, that is its not the gear, but the eye that makes you earn money on microstock.
The eye and brain, that is. It is all about concepts and trends.

The gear is just a tool.
And yes, there is no doubt that a nikon d 800 is far better than the old d 200, but I have learned to compensate via software and technique.
+ you cannot have it all: You cannot pay both a new boat, a new car, a new house and fishing gear, guns and furniture. Whatever. If you do not take pleasure in collecting gear, it is important to be selective. And Im too old to find it interesting to chase new hardware and things.

Which is why, back then when I was a spare time farmer, I had pigs. They earn their money back, horses and dogs dont.

However, the filesize argument for RM is correct.
But for micro, the newest first and fancy full frame crap, does not hold water.

My guess is that one of the places in the world where most investments are lost and never put to use in in the grey zone of cheap end "commercial" photography. People use their meagre earnings as an excuse to make high end investments. No farmer would ever buy a combine harvester to harvest parsley in a pot in the window.

35 pounds?
Ja, thats why I bought the 18-200 mm.
Also didnt you know that it was forbidden for photographers to go to China before they can do HDR?

The trees do not grow into the sky.

You are funny, Sue.

Right. Their practice simply doesnt hold water.

Point is....
That Istock has a great sales potential, or used to have.

IF you could produce pictures of high quality and high commercial relevance.

If you empty your harddisk of kittens and children in swings, you wont have many sales.
Only the best sells at iStock.
But it sells much.

Shutterstock is different. Everything sells on shutter, but only a few times, then the quality/ stockworthyness rule sets in.

It is possible to have steady sales on shutter with a port of kittens and children in swings, if you keep uploading in an increasing pace.
That is not possible on Istock, unless you are exclusive.

Its getting nerdish and I cannot follow you anymore.
Too many things taken for granted.
However it is clear that the French eat frogs. Dont they?

he he

DT is dead.
FOT and SS average
Is is up.