Seems to tell me that the industry cannot support higher commissions.  You either give the money to the contributors or use it for marketing.  Sacrificing marketing for happier contributors just may not be economically feasible. 

fred

There are plenty of agencies paying higher commissions that have been doing so for the last thirty years.

It's just frankly most "photographers" would never make those agencies, because they only take one a handful of new shooters a year.  And when I say handful I mean less than ten.

Although the agency I've decided to go with for my general stock pays 60%, and the agency I'm having a portfolio interview with next month for my kayaking work pays a little over 70%.

They are out there, but they are specialist.  And you must know both your trade and your market.

I have a personal website that I sell prints from for when I do photoshoots (models, weddings animals etc).

It also has my stock library on, where I sell licensed and royalty free images.

The hosting company takes care of taking the money and sending out the prints / digital files.

It's all about promotion though, I send flyers out regularly for my website.

Anyone know anything about this? I'm a British citizen living in Europe and have never been anywhere near the States. I don't see why they want personal details from me. What business is it of theirs?

I guess the same business of theirs that makes them ask 42+ bits of information on your entry visa.  You even have to tell the US government your credit card details.

I know of an awful lot of people that are now deciding to holiday elsewhere in the world because of the US being totally ridiculous on the amount of information it "needs" to know on people in case they are terrorists.

We've been dealing with terrorist atrocities over here since before I was born.  And we don't need those bits of info when you come here.

For example, in the past they accepted several animal photos that I know were horribly overexposed, and people were buying them for whatever reason (shortage of such pics, maybe).

You shouldn't have uploaded these shots in the first place.  If YOU thought they were bad, then they didn't even pass YOUR quality control.

Please name the microstock sites that accept editorial images.   Example: Barack Obama

Little quick lesson...

If you have a shot of a celebrity, it might sell a couple of times in it's lifetime before sinking to the bottom of the pile.  You could put it on Shutterstock, sell it ten times, and then it's gone because it's not relevant anymore.  Celebrity pictures generally aren't classics that keep selling.  They are relevant for news coverage of *that* event.  You've made $2.50.

If you put it with a traditional agency who do editorial, you could sell it several times for several hundred dollars before it again, goes down to the bottom of the pile.

Photographers who sell "news worthy" editorial shots on the micros are doing themselves a disservice.  Go with an editorial agency and get the most bang for your buck.  Make it worthwhile shooting this type of event.

BTW, did you know that OK magazine now pay less than 20% of what they used to several years ago for celeb pics?  You get �20 now if your images is published.  Obviously that's not for the feature spread, they're paid many, many thousands of pounds (got friends who have shot for them).

I'm all about targeting the right market with the right shots (otherwise I wouldn't have a portfolio on iStock).  But celeb shots etc should be part of your premium brand, not part of your budget brand.  IMHO.

Does anyone in the UK use the image file for stock purposes?

I made one sale there when I had six images as part of a larger collection with someone else.  Good sale too, �60.

I am trialing them now for handling my event printing (they handle the website, take the money and send the prints out) but although thought I'd load my stock library on there at about �50 a go for each RF picture.  You can do RF or RM, set your own prices etc.

The good thing is, I now have a stock library of all my images on my site, where people can search, buy, and I don't have to give 80% to a big company.  I suppose the key will be building up the size of my library, and of course regularly sending out flyers and updates to relevent companies and buyers.

Of course the other good thing, is I'm starting to cover much more music stuff.  Gigs, festivals etc.  Now I've got somewhere I can place images taken at gigs etc, ISO3200, which wouldn't be accepted at any traditional agency, and just send the link off to magazine picture buyers.  I get to trial run it at the end of the month, I'm covering a new festival in Wales!

So basically, I get to be my own inspector, market my own images to the people that *I* want to see them, also have them as part of a larger image library, and collect all the earnings for myself.

Sweet!

I'll let you all know how it goes...

I just received my my exclusive business cards from iStock and have to say that they are some of the highest quality out there. It's a nice change from the last batch that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.  It's one of the the actual perks that exclusives get, the others being faster review times and an increased percentage of the sale.

I don't really see business cards from iStock as a perk when you could get 250 of your own printed online for under a fiver...

... I put a great big long, long black lens on it
.

Well clearly I'm a better photographer than you, because I just bought my first huge WHITE lens!

EDIT: Never mind.

I'm brand new to this. I scaled up a 6mp image to 5025wide and got a 170 megabyte image in the GIMP. That should be a 48 megabyte image if I am understanding this thread correctly.

So, what am I missing here?

It is a late sunset image, so naturally it is 'grainy' at that scale.

I only have a Kodak Z612 IS at present, which is 6 megapixels. Is that good for -anywhere-? If so, is it then the best route to sell through microstock sites until I can get a 'real' camera? And only sell the images from the DSLR through traditional sites like Alamy? Or would I be permanently banned from traditional stock sites due to having sold micro in the past?

I am baffled by the contracts, such as Alamy's. I don't understand clearly what I am binding myself to.

If you are serious about photography, get yourself a half serious camera.

A point and shoot will not do for agencies like Alamy.  You might get some accepted at the micro sites if you downsize considerable.

Sunset pictures are not automatically grainy.  They are grainy because of your settings or your camera.

Seren, what do you do with full body shots on the lastolite?  I have their stupid expensive vinyl floorcloth (waste of 150 bucks) and it looks just awful in the pix.  It's always grey or if I try to light it the lower limbs are overexposed.   What works for you?  I'd love to do it all in-camera, but the floor always adds too much time in post. 

Maybe I should shoot no full body shots.

Um, as above.  I bought �14 ($25) worth of white vinyl for the floor from a fabric shop.  It doesn't velcro but I don't really care...

And I throw an extra light on the feet, just as you would if you were using paper.

I use white vinyl for my backdrop for small things or for the floor...  Or my lastolite hilite for the background!