For sure subscriptions are very bad for photographers.
In case where customer buy subscription for one year than die in car crash we get nothing    
We should be to pay according to the size of portfolio (50%) AND number of  sold photographs (50%).

There is one important difference between SS and DT/StockXpert: at SS, I can upload minimum sized photos without hurting my sales significantly, since it's all subscription anyway. At StockXpert or DT, that would lower the sales potential as well as the income from regular sales.

Another thing is the principle: the photos that I uploaded to SS, I uploaded there knowing that it was a subscription site. When I uploaded to DT and StockXpert, at least before subs, it was in the belief that this would all be regular microstock sales, generating normal microstock profits.

The agencies change their contracts as they find suitable, while the photographers are just sitting on the bench, watching as their cut of the cake is reduced. Sorry to say, but I don't see that as an ethical way of doing business.

Very good point Epixx.

If you shoot in studio light doesn't change. Take a picture of gray card once, than you can "pick" this gray in your raw converter (like CaptureNx for Nikon) to set right white balance.
http://www.lastolite.com/ezybalance.php#

Nothing about subscriptions. No more subsription ? Hurrah 

IS - 34% (with footage help, I sell 10x more video at IS than at SS !)
SS - 21%
FT - 18%
123 - 9.5%
DT - 9% (don't like this site anymore, I upload only min resolution files
      I hate $0.25-0.30 earnings for max resolution level 2-3 images)
StockXpert - 4% (opt out subscriptions)
BigStock - 3%
SV - 1%

less then 0
FP, LO, Crestock, Albumo

With exceptional image requirements, CanStockPhoto seems to do a remake of the Crestock strategy. You can, alas, not find enough people that want to sell their top work for 25 dollarcents. At least I won't anymore.

Ditto

I will wait and see what this other site is and if there are any sales there.  The upload is easy to canstock and I will upload more if sales improve.

Easy upload ? Maybe, but what for? It's still waste of time.

Quote from: stokfoto on February 12, 2008, 07:23

I am actually thinking about the same but is it possible to become an exclusive videographer but remain as  non-exclusive photographer?

YES. You get also different icon next to your name.

Me too.
I started footage only two months ago. I'm at IS and SS. Istock sell much better (4x). I think to go exclusive when getting bronze.

678
________________
3774

IS   36% (BME)
SS   31%
FT   9%
DT   9% (Down by half)
StockXpert   6%
BigStock   5%
123RF   3%
Unluckies 1% (LO, crestock, FP...)
 

I must be dumb but where do you find this information without clicking through every single image that sold this month to see how many times it sold.

You don't have to. On "My earnings" page in the column "last download"  you can see sale's date and the price. Every earning egal or less then $0.30 is subscription sale.

My regular sales decrease and I have more and more subscriptions sales at DT. What about yours ?

The worst part about this thread is that NOW, as a result of Rene's "well meaning" post, some very good photos (that have substantial sales) are now going to be stricken from the StockXpert database.

I am sorry for that.  It was not my matter. And I have absolutely nothing against iofoto. I am only against this �anti nudity� policy at StockXpert - I find it ridiculous. I do not like the way (completely random) how StockXpert approve the photographs.

When the buyer downloads our images we get $.30.  If the buyer had purchased the images individually (with credits) we receive about $.50 - $3.00

$ 0.30 or less ! With third-party partnerships you can get $ 0.25 or even $0.21  . Better to opt out Alliances partnerships.