I could turn out dumb, simplistic vector images by the hundreds, every day.  No one would want them.

Correction: salable illustrations.

What do you mean "quite some sales at 0.19$"? They do exist but they are extremely rare and anyway are only for XS-sized images, not full-sized ones, so it is hardly a reasonable comparison. Obviously if you think your full-sized images are only worth 36c then I can understand why you are happy.

A grab in 4 recent sales at IS, 2 with only 1 download (the images are new).

Img - Saturday January 23, 2010, 09:52 PM XSmall Regular 0.19 (sub)
Img - Tuesday January 26, 2010, 11:52 AM XSmall Regular 0.29 (payg)
img - Sunday January 24, 2010, 08:10 PM XSmall Regular 0.30 (payg)
img - Sunday January 24, 2010, 06:08 PM XSmall Regular 0.26 (payg)

As to img, it was already downloaded several times on SS the past 2 weeks, and every time it made 0.36$, even if subscription only. None of the 3 non-sub (payg) sales above on IS were subscription. None even reached the minimum of 0.36$ at SS.

I just wanted to address your point that subscription per se is damaging our to our income. You objected that it is comparing apples to melons, since the sizes differ. But SS as the prime sub site played a clever game, only offering one size. The buyer is forced to buy a larger size. Most people (and me) just offer a reduced size there anyways.
To add  another thing to think about: level 3 and up images on DT yield double the minimum (0.35$):
01/26/2010 chinese factory This is a level 4 image subscription $0.70 large (Editorial)
and level > 1 images make by definition most of the revenue.

As to the size issue, me feels that "size" is over-emphasized at IS. You don't buy pixels by the number like you would buy beans at the market. The main thing you buy is a concept, even at XS, so the size should actually play for only part of the price.

This is no critique towards iStock, but just a thought (as you asked) about subscription. Not all subscriptions are created equal. It will also depend on the type of contributor you are. DT will reward more based on an image per image base, FT and IS reward according to contributor's general sales. There is no simple answer to your question.

Comparing SS to IS, I get quite some sales at 0.19$ at IS, and never a sale under 0.36$ at SS. I'm not concerned with what the buyer has to pay for the image, nor what an exclusive would get. All I care for is that 0.36$ is almost the double of 0.19$ and I'm not sure that "subscription" is that bad at all.

Do DT also pays  20 cent for each exclusive image that is approved for non-exclusive contributors?

No. This is only for exclusives.

Do people think China is a market that microstock agencies should be targeting ?

No. The Chinese in general don't buy but sell. If they buy, there has to be a clear profit in for them. Stock photos are a commodity. On 1.3bn Chinese, "anybody" can do it there, cheaper. There is also still a huge IP problem in China and a large cultural and language divergence with the West. The real emerging market is India: English-speaking and culturally closer much to the West.

Also... are you allowed to put your name in your keywords on DT?

Only if your name is Sexy Businesswoman. (not, but they don't check really - they rely on the keymentor program).

It's actually sort of comforting.  My sales are down pretty much across the board at the moment, and I guess misery loves company...

+1 - on all sites.
As to the OP: I never fill those in. Too much work, and I hardly make statistics.

(Mr. Amateur sure has an opinion)

No I just brought the idea here in another thread after I got an email from him. No opinion since we don't know yet what he will come up with.

I don't know if Peter is thinking of starting a new site or if it would be wise to.

He is. All will depend on the pricing model though. I hope he accepts DVDs.

I emailed them the past week after 40% rejections (unusual). They confirmed it's no glitch and they got much stricter. The reason is always "lighting". I think we will have to live with it. After my email they reverted one shot. They only accepted studio overwhites of models with a Canon 5DII - no urban/industrial and nothing of Nikon D200.
I just gave them 30 Editorials to see how they will react.
Earnings: with a much larger port now, I have 6.58$ this month, and I had 15.50$ January 2009. They are probably panicking...

True, but i like variation once in a while

Well the main reason is that overwhites (or overblacks) are much easier to clean up by dodging/burning than other colors. After you made a perfect overwhite this way, you can easily isolate the object on a new layer and fill the original layer with your desired color, even a gradient. The only thing you will have to watch out are the few feathering pixels at the edge.

Use tripod or monopod to keep focus after you half-pushed the button. Your problem is DOF (depth of field) and that's often the case with food, so go for minimum F16. I'm very bad at food shots myself, but I tried focus-bracketing a couple of times. There are great tutorial sites on the net for food photography. Google is your friend.

I tried uploading a picture to the new assignment, but yesterday it was approved as an ordinary file. Bit of a mess.

Thanks for mentioning. I'm sitting on an assignment shot too. I'll just wait.