We've been looking at the Compete/Alexa numbers with respect to iStock.  If you do the same for Stockxpert and Photos.com, you will find that Stockxpert gets much more traffic than Photos.com. 

In July, StockXpert had 93,000 unique visitors while Photos.com had only 58,000.  By comparison, Dreamstime alone had 344,000.

Based on these numbers, the maximum amount of sales we could expect from Photos.com initially would be 1/3 that of our regular StockXpert sales.  In addition, not every Photos.com subscriber is going to be a Plus subscriber, so that cuts into it significantly more.  I'm going to guess 1 out of every 10 sales will come from Photos.com.  If they can grow the traffic there, then it could become a significant increase for us.

Dan, but Photos.com, is not so much a site were a lot of photographers hang arround, contrary to stockxpert or dreamstime. As I understood the old content from photos.com was entirely owned by jupiterimages. So photographers probably very seldom access this site. If there are more addicted photographers like me who check their sales daily at stockxpert I think that probably generates a lot of traffic. Good to hear, there are already a few sales.

Got my first as well. Euro 0,5 for small size.

Nothing to apologize

It seems most of the beach images of the first page are very strong sellers, probably that plays into it as well. For other images it then might be hard to push them out of the first page. But who knows, definately there are other factors as well.

Agree, if you go for the money you should go with all the big agencies.
If you want to go exclusive with one I would choose iStock not DT.

I think I have somewhere read (I do not know where) resale of itemes with our photos on it through ebay or cafepress is prohibited under the EULA of Photos.com. Is this covered by the prohibition of selling Physical Goods (for resale through on-demand services)? Can you clarify Steve?

Congrats Sharply, very deserved!!

Lightroom is much more than that. Lightroom gives you a lot of speed, if you want to edit large amounts of photos. For basic adjustments, whitebalance, exposure,saturation, vignetting, adjusting levelsand so on it is perfect. You can adjust many files at ones in Raw. It is also very nice and fast way to add meta data. Of course you can also add Metadata to several files at ones.

Another thing is the nondestructive editing. You can always reset to the original file. Lightroom has made editing for me much easier and faster. It is my most used software. If I need more than basic adjustments I go to photoshop.
I highly recommend it. Definately try out the trial version.

Jsnover.

1. I know that we do get $28 at SS. Then make it $28 and it will be 28%. I still think the Xl and XXL sales can make up for it.

2. The pricing is actually $49 - $299. Of course they can buy it cheaper elsewhere, if they find it. But why do so many people still buy royalty-free at traditional agencies?

3. $0.3 commission is not that good, I agree and I wish it would be higher, but at least they have taken the step to limit it to roughly 4,3 MP.

The photos.com model has advantages for some customers, but not for everyone. Look at the high prices for the XL and XXL sizes. I am also   pretty certain most bigger customers would prefer to stick to one agency.

I am actually looking forward how it will turn out. If it however seems to turn out negatively....

I am not an optic expert, but here is one http://www.pictureline.com/newsletter/2004/july/purplefringe.html
There are also some tips to avoid it.
As mentioned in the article it happens most often in areas of high contrast. But actually I never had a lens on my camera a longer time where I not experienced it even with my L-lens.  Only on a 135L I do not remember it to have it seen. But I had this fantastic lens just one day.
As in the article mentioned it seems the wider the lens the more it happens.
The Tokina is just very extreme with purple fringe.

I have the tokina 12-24 and also shot with the Canon EFS 10-22 and made a comparison.
Purple fringe can be really bad on the Tokina. As far as I remember at the 20 mm end the canon was better and at the 12 mm end the tokina was better regarding sharpness, or maybe it was the other way arround. However for me they seemed to be almost similar in image quality.
But I was also a bit disappointed. The Tokina got very good reviews to be pretty sharp. But actually it was not that sharp. I also have a 24-70 L lens which is at the 24 end much sharper than the Tokina at 24.
The Tokina has by the way the highest rating on fredmiranda between the sigma 12-24 and Canon 10-22.
I have not seen a very sharp wide angle lens yet.
But as already mentioned the 14mm 2.8L II lens should be according to reviews fantastic. The older version though has not such a good rating.

Personally I think that most of them are really great images and I think Artist of the week is well deserved.