Honestly, I thought I was the only one. I'm broken.

Are we forgetting the tax implications here?
If you're the one who is receiving the commissions. And it get to be significant once you are a successful . Your country's IRS will be taxing all this as your personal income, not as a partnership or a limited company. 

I would think as long as you show a proper payment procedure to the other photographers then it becomes a tax deduction against the income. Not too different to what agencies do now. Again it is a lot of accounting work.

Unfortunately still way off the mark. At least as bad as Nov and Dec.

There is actually a horizontal slot in the vertical stabilizer where the rudder moves in. You can just see the smaller jets horizontal stabilizer through this slot.

I am surprised that simply being used on a gay magazine or website can be construed as "sensitive use" according to istock's legal department.  Does that mean that someone being portrayed as hispanic, or jewish, or republican, or whatever if they aren't is also sensitive use if the model objects? 

Trouble is its usually the lawyers and courts who end up deciding, not reasonable people.

Now that Yuri is shooting with a Hassey, are they not square format anyway?

I imagine once the image is up on the screen and is zoomed in, the area you are working on is the proportions of the screen, which is most of the time

As you evolve and your agencies change your workflow will likely change as well. I have one area where the original RAWs reside and another where the finished TIFs reside. I keep the TIFs at native resolution then either export or upsize or downsize depending where the image is going. As for editing and all that its fairly straight forward. I still believe there are nearly as many workflows as there are photographers.

Quote

It's impossible to answer this since it is so image dependent. Some will swear RM is the only way, others RF only, or some combination. I suggest you play with it.

I disagree. For some people they choose one licensing model over the other for all their images, others for certain types of images however, others still use the licensing models very interchangeably. Regardless of the type of images most people who have at least few hundred images in both licensing models can conclude which one is making them more money.  I'm not asking for the particulars, no need to analyze the imagery in one model over the other,  just simple answers will suffice. I seem to make more money from my RM than my RF on Getty, for example.

There are still some photographers who are philosophically apposed to any sort of RF license model. Most of us have long since accepted stock photography as being some combination of RF and RM. Some are better suited to shoot RF style images. They can produce many great generic images that fit the RF license model. Then there are others who are perfectionist aficionados who love honing single images or small groups of  really unique images and they do better in the RM field. Then there are those who toss images at both licenses and sit back and watch what happens. If there was no money in RM photographers would have themselves, long since, abandoned it.

Your style of images may well do better in one model rather than the other and you will likely argue that that model is the best. But only for you.

I've been having problems lately with disappearing metadata. Is anyone else having this problem?

Peter

It's been an interesting year. My first foray into the micro side of stock. I signed on to 11 sites and have since dropped 3 of them for lack of performance. I hope to get a portfolio of around 5000 by the end of 2009. It's so hard to judge success properly because of the flagging economy.

I use a Spyder II or something like that. It works well on my ACD.

Do they only send out 1099's if you had an income over $600 with them in 2008, or is the dollar amount of income irrelevant with them?

They are based in Canada I believe therefor there is no such thing as a 1099.