Can it be done, yes. Will it be likely or easy? no.

I was making about 1$/image /month on IS. then they did a best match switcheroo and it took a lot more images to crawl up to making more (but much lower RPI), then they did another best match change and I was back to the same $ total but now with 10X the images I had before the first swap... This is sort of taking the high and low points of the graph, so not statistically very valid, but IS income can take a brutal hit w/o much notice.

Also SS RPI tends to drop off over time, although at least one submitter here that started recently has managed to maintain RPI for over a year while increasing their port.

I guess it mostly depends on how dependably you can submit high quality in demand images. (or video or vectors).

good luck.

Istock takes a brutal %age, but theoretically they do a lot of marketing etc. (and even this is unsustainable? don't get me started on that)... For this it seems like all they are is acting as a go-between for someone who found an image on flickr with the person who posted it. Maybe they take 80% of everything they touch, but I thought in the macro world they were more like 50%. I can certainly see why they'd be excited from going from paying a lower percentage and having to host images etc. to a model where others do most of the work and they just get most of the money.

oh dear...

well, lets hope they learned something from all their poorly implemented previous "improvements".

Hopefully images can sell on their merits and not on their exclusivity.

I'd be a bit more worried if all my eggs were in this about to be restructured basket.

Simple math, at 100$ a month from the buyers, how much do you think they will be able to pay out to the photographers? Unless there are a lot of buyers coming from somewhere (hopefully not the places that pay us more now), I don't see this working out well.

Also I don't send SS my full size images, that way they can't sell full size for the sub cost (well, they can get upsized ones, but so can anyone upsize any image they get at a small size).

Please come back when you are paying out .30 or more per download, I think you will get a lot more interest here then, unless of course everywhere else is up to .50 by then.

--=Tom

for 2010 credits the variation is:

maximum cost is 1.25/credit - max return 50% = .62 per credit

minimum cost is .77/credit, min return  30% = .23 per credit

(for independent)

older credits may be worth more or less.

for subs packages the return varies from .35 to 1.05 and the cheapest the buyers could get the images are about .20 per image. The most expensive for maxing out a subscription is around .43 per image. Obviously if all of the subs are not used DT makes a lot more.

edited to include subs

re: Veer, nobody knows what the sales will be like. Corbis' previous forays into microstock were not particularly well done in my estimation, but if you are going to upload to Veer, you should do it now while they are paying you. Hopefully when they relaunch or whatever they are planning to do the sales will start to roll in. Meanwhile, nobody knows.

As far as the auto payouts every year, I would have liked to see auto payouts over 50$ or something at the end of the year. I totally agree it makes no sense to do it for some tiny sum (like under 20$ or something). If I don't get close to payout every year, the site is pretty worthless though. I am certainly expecting to hit over 100$ before the end of the year, especially w/ the dash for cash (which seems to be putting your money where your mouth is).

Prove me right guys.

--= (a different) Tom

FTP still isn't working for me 6-16-2010

As far as the rejections at 123RF, it often seems rather arbitrary to me often (near 100% accepted or 100% rejected varying by batch), but it is nice to know we have an appeal now if a rejection just seems totally out of line.

--=Tom

at IS, 1 of my last 20 was from this year. 13 were  from 2008 or older, leaving 6 for 2009. (there might be some overlap due to how they report).  I am always pleasantly surprised when an image under a month old sells at IS, it is so rare for me. I think starting a week late hurts for their best match, but I could be wrong.  May and June were good months at IS in 2009 for me, in 2010 Mar was good. This month is looking pretty weak so far. My port is up nearly 50% in that time though.  

Interesting numbers of new contributors at IS. I suspect now it would be tough to start w/ a 4 mp p&s as I did. Then again there are a lot of dslrs out there too. Curiously enough, those early pictures that I am guessing would never get me in or get accepted now continue to sell and sell.

--=Tom

oops.

It says if you "want an image with no watermark, please sign in or register"...

It tells me "password rejected" Sat night.

Fotolia seems to be the master of doing things w/o telling anyone.

As an aside I inquired about joining with their operation level ground and after a long wait they returned that it was only available for people that aren't already there (which I wasn't). I told them so and never heard back from them. Each time they do something underhanded I am glad I am not with them, and whenever people mention how well they are doing there I say "doh". Mostly I am glad though.

--=Tom

unfortunately like IS, unless you can upload and process (or do it ahead of time) instantly, that means you don't really get 100 per week (if you are trying to squeeze the max into an 8 week period. It would be nice if they did tell you when your slots would open up again though.

The first week of this month was pretty bad across the board except SS (about normal), IS was way down for the first week but has picked up the pace for the second week for the most part, DT less so. BigStock pathetic... It seems that SS has switched a bit more to newer content? I could be wrong though.

hopefully things pick up.

--=Tom