Deep Meta is great - it's really a good way to deal with Istock.  I still stink at getting images accepted there but it's not the lack of FTP at this point - it's the lack of approvals. lol

I think in a lot of ways, MostPhotos is 95% of the answer, but there's one thing missing.  It's hard to explain but I'll try it ... MostPhotos needs a filter of some sort.  It's great to accept *everyone* and it's great to accept *everything* but not at the same time.  You need a filter - either you accept EVERYONE but have strict submission guidelines so that the database isn't watered down with crap (as MostPhotos is) or you filter the user side and only let in *GOOD* photographers - demonstrated by a number of really good images (10, 100, 250?) and accept *Everything* they give you to see what sells.

See, this is my thought - if you accept everything from everyone, you get a diluted database that over time gets worse & worse instead of better and better.  If you accept EVERYTHING from GOOD contributors though, you get something more like Alamy - a diverse, fun database that doesn't have to have *no* shadows (shadows are GOOD people) and *no* noise (noise can have a purpose!).  By letting your GOOD contributors decide what to submit, you gain a database that's unique - you have what good photographers would like to sell.

On the other side is what most sites do - have reviews, etc. when it's proven time & time again that images get rejected on one site that sell on another.  LET THE IMAGES THROUGH and they'll sell on both sites!  Simple math = more sales for the agencies & us.

full time photographer here

Microstock is fine & well - but other than that, I think we all have photographic skills.  The people who are full time at this are graphic artists, designers, photographers, illustrators - there is no shortage of work for talented portrait photographers or graphic designers who have 5 years experience.  we're all self employed, we're all marketable, and heck if things go bad, I go back to shooting weddings full time.

you need lower options too.

89 images, 9.69 = .09? lol  wow  isuck again

i would link to a site where you get a commision for sending the buyer there.  I know that dreamstime can do this as well as crestock.. probably fotolia as well.

I'll check that out on Dreamstime.  I won't be using Crestock for it. lol  Another option I suppose would be to turn the site into a Fotolia Reseller API and just sell FT images and my images linked through - at a raised cost - selling then my images + other images.... Not sure I can figure the API out though or even if that one's available yet.

Buyer comission is definitely a good point - thanks for the help all - if anyone else has insight, I'm definitely listening.

I still am banking on mostphotos. I like that site. very Democratic. It's everything i would do if I owned a site. Fingers crossed.

Daily dilution = bad.

SS - 69% BME
FT - 9% BME
DT - 8%
BigStock - 4% BME
123RF - 4% BME
IS - 2%
Misc - 4% BME (StockXpert, FM, FP)

Emotional immaturity strikes 1 out of 10 of us.

Funniest!Line!EVER!!!!!  *tears*

.

i must be signed up wrong somehow.  I can't read anything they ever send me ... lol

One problem with my FP gallery was some of my images were $20, some were $12, some were $10 and some were $8 and I wanted them all to be one price (lower).  FeaturePics only lets you arrange pricing by % changes - so a 50% change still left me with 10, 6, 5, 4.

Here�s the trick:

Go in & set your pricing to 10%.  This should reduce everything pretty well.  Do that same thing one more time - recalculate with 10% AGAIN.

The minimum on FP is $1 so ALL of your images will now be $1  (20-2-.20=1)  If your images were over $100 to begin with, you may have to do this 3x instead of 2x.

Now that they�re all $1, adjust UP however high you want (400% = $4).

Done!  Sweet, fast trick!