Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.

No its not. Its Patrick Demachelier.

Hi HQIMages,

 Sometimes to get something a bit higher in quality and concept you need to pay more. If you check some top RM agencies I think you will find images that have very strong talent and big budgets. This is where the cream can be found. There are some Micro images that meet the standards of some lower end Macro RM shots but there is no control over who or how many times it has been used.
 If you go with Macro RM you can see the history of the sales and be sure it doesn't and won't conflict with your clients needs, you can even pay to make sure no one uses it for a certain period of time. You must also educate the client that the image is what stops the buyer to read the copy. You place the right image in an add it will more than cover the cost in return sales from the cost of the image usage.

Best,
Jonathan

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2010, 04:56

From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us.  

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

Quote from: hqimages on April 23, 2010, 01:24

I recently came across a graphic designer in my town that gets all of his images via google images, does he get a fund from clients for images, no, does he pay for his, no. Unfortunately this is what we have to compete with, so microstock is a great way to go for certain clients.

I believe you should have put "graphic designer" in quotes.  Obviously a real professional would not be stealing images and using them without a proper license.  You can feel good that neither you or you clients are going to have their a$$ sued off, which certainly this other "designer" will. 

Google images, for anyone who doesn't know it, is not a free image source!  It only indexes and links images that are already used somewhere else by someone who licensed them.  They are NOT a source for stock imagery.

Looks like the yogurt company might be at fault. It's clearly marked RM with no release at a couple different agencies.

http://www.reflexstock.com/image/4407485/Greece-Arachoua-portrait-man-dressed-traditionally.html

Or who knows. It may have been incorrectly marked and was changed at some point.