As a business analyst, I am not sure return per image is a great measure. For a start, if we continue to build our portfolio it gives a false impression.

If we were to do this, i believe we would have to add some more maths to the equation, such as eliminating non performing images etc. from the equation. I actually do believe the measure for things is the basic growth in income over the period.

This also needs to be seasonally adjusted.

They are all getting tougher. I believe we have reached a saturation point for our standard micro shots.

BUT. This must be a good thing I think. I think we are on the verge of discovering new types of images that the buyers are looking for. We just need to work out what they are.

Hey I love to make sales. But the latest search term that achieved me a sale on this image was "house". Nothing like it in the keywords.

DT lets you see the search term for the sales you make.

I just sold a pic of a white van when someone searched "Romania". How on earth they come to find my image is beyond my little mind.

They are getting tough with rejections. Most my stuff now gets rejected as well, and it sells well other spots.

Maybe they have enough images on line and now want something specific.

Really puzzled with the answers. Miz is suggesting exactly the same as I suggested, except it is HIS site.

And Snurder seems to contradict himself. I am suggesting THEY pick what they want. AND they could choose the portfolio site they preferred, IS, SS, DT etc etc..

I also had the weird idea that reviewers WORKED for an employer, so they are doing what they are told by that employer. I don't think any of them would have the freedom to pick and choose as they like, there would be a criteria to fill for the owner, not their own likes and dislikes.

I am suggesting it would be a benefit for the site owner as well. They could cut through the crap of reviewing by doing a bulk approval in one hit.

Good on ya Brian for answering us here. You are up a notch with me now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

good for a laugh

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/southlandtimes/4580801a26586.html

I have seen this on a Pro forum. The equation is to (square the sensor dimensions then add) square root the total. Then double the result.

(eg)

Canon 30D sensor�s dimensions are 22.7 X 15

22.7 squared = 515.29
15   squared = 225

515.29 + 225= 740.29

The square root of 740.29= 27.2
Double 27.2 = 54.4

So according to this the most accurate I need is the lens at 54mm. Anything less will make the model fatter, anything more will make the model thinner.

For those of you without a calculator, type in your figure you want the square root of in excel as such =sqrt(740.29) then hit ENTER. (Where 740.29 is your total of the squared sensor dimensions)

Before you do that you need to come up with a better way of showing how much someone has earned. The only way I can find is to go through all the statements and add them up.

congratulations dude