I Don't want go off-topic here but I'll leave it for the record..
Dreamstime is the most *** stock agency ever, it doesn't even worth the upload so imagine giving them something exclusive..

their upload process is bloody annoying..
their inspectors are very amateurs..
they know sh*** about vector too..
this site will be in the bottom in no time

They're not that bad.  They do have serious issues with that "too similar" crap, but they are pretty fair in terms of image quality (not too many LCV).  I can't speak to who their inspectors are but am pretty sure they are taking direction from someone like SERB or his bosses.  I don;t know crap about vectors, either so I cannot comment.  Will the site be at the bottom in no time because they don't accept your images?  Keep uploading.  I know their (like all MS sites) acceptance criteria is a moving target but try to adapt and keep uploading.  Otherwise don't hurt your brain.

My, my, my, how one comes and goes. You are a character at the least.  Good luck in your photo adventures.

"face it: the # buyers is very limited indeed, while the # new pics that can be produced is unlimited"

The number of possible buyers is the same as the number of possible contributors.  And the number of uses buyers can come up could be just as unlimited.

Sorry, this is inaccurate.  MS attracts a bazillion contributors who want to get rich quick.  We compete for buyers.  If you look at the decline of buying activity at IS, for example, and the increase at DT and IS, it tells me, inferentially, that buyers are way limited.......at least in terms of comparing them to the number of contributors. It's caddywampus at best.

I stopped participating the morning I woke up to a site mail from Lobo warning me about a forum post.  It was an honest question about where IS was going and it got locked pretty fast. Just not worth the time and treatment.

14 of my last 20 are subs, with one credit at .23 cents, worse than a sub.  Plus I had a nice .11 cent dl at IS.  Things sure are looking up, boy.

^ I guess I assumed from Slovenian's prolific posting in excellent English that he/she would have heard the term before....

Maybe if they had Geico commercials there

I'm confused.  Isn't "turn and burn" a major part of the problem?

As to "our art", sorry guys but, figuratively speaking, micro is producing Widgets, with some very few exceptions.

 And technology is the enabler that has allowed this situation to occur.  Just as it has in almost all other industries.

I don't think there is a viable solution, except to wait until normal market forces sort it out. But I fear that is some way off yet.

I was responding to a brain storming question that the OP posed.  How to handle 100 mil files.  So for me, all things being equal, culling may be a possible approach.  All things not being equal, meaning there evolves a technology that can streamline keywording, capital investment is a reality that new technology, some of these other suggestions are awesome. When I said turn and burn, I meant it in the context that "if they culled at a high rate (2 years) we'd, as contributors, would have to turn and burn images to keep up.  Part timers who simply could not produce in the volume they'd need to would (or may) give up.  It would change how images are produced, who images are produced by and, consequently, weed out a lot of the "noise" in current submissions.  Just my opinion, of course.

Quote from: Mantis on July 15, 2011, 18:41

Quote from: cobalt on July 15, 2011, 18:25

I am only thinking of removing files from searches that don�t sell (after 3,4,5, years) Just like you suggested to purge old portfolios. These would be automatically transformed into nearly 100% "personal portfolios".

The artist can then return if he wants to and add new content.

Maybe even have the possibility to add an old file to the main collection if suddenly it starts to sell again.  

I think culling will be the way of the near future to push out the inevitable 100 mil threshold.  And I suspect that it will be done in more frequent periods, say non-selling in two years.  We're going to have to keep shooting, shooting, shooting to pipeline in new stuff to replace the culled images.  It will weed out the part timers and really only be aligned with those who can turn and burn.

You are both probably right about culling.  Guess I had better bone up on some other job skills, because being pushed in to producing like a factory doesn't appeal to me at all.  

^^ Me either, it becomes work then.

Will,

I give you huge cudos for coming into this forum and asking for help.  And taking the high road for the feedback you're getting.  It's called having think skin.  If you keep listening to these fine photographers' advice, create a plan (tiered plans each with a desired outcome and metric that helps you understand whether you met that outcome) you can make it.

1. Skills (shooting and key wording)
2. Initial Shooting Plan
3. Shoot
4. Post process
5. Upload to a couple of agencies
6. Assess any rejections (get critique)
7. Start building a port around your new competencies
8. Grow competencies = grow port
9. Make a few bucks

I think you have the attitude to make something work for you.

Good luck.

Quote from: Mantis on July 14, 2011, 19:10

Fairly simple.  Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever.  You limit the image usefulness in most cases by doing that.  Give them the full monty and let them be the manipulator.  Your images will be more marketable that way.

Ahk, good point. It's just that my main interest in photography is landscape, icons (buildings ie- Eiffel Tower) and animals. I find taking black and white and sepia shots more interesting. Also it seems that selling microstock photos mainly evolves around what the industry wants and less what you want to shoot, but that is fair enough.

This is a general rule.  Doesn't mean your shots won't sell.  Just that, "IN GENERAL" submitting pics in their native format of color is the most acceptable way to go.  Give it a try.  Part of stock is testing new ideas, concepts and styles.

After browsing through varies microstock sites I found that there are only a few amount of photos with effects such as Black and White, Sepia, Negative ect.

This leads me to two questions of curiosity, Why is this? and Do effects not sell as well as colour?

If anyone has an answer, please feel free to share

Fairly simple.  Designers can take your color image and make them B&W, Sepia, or whatever.  You limit the image usefulness in most cases by doing that.  Give them the full monty and let them be the manipulator.  Your images will be more marketable that way.

Hi All,

I am planing to start selling some of my photos soon. I was wondering if selling photos in the lower earning tier is worth it? and which lower earning microstock sites are best to upload and sell on?

Kind Regards
-WD

If you are going independent then you need to decide if all the upload work is worth your time for a few buck a month.  You need EXCELLENT images with large volume to make a nickle on these low tier sites.  Start out with the top 3-5 first then when you have nothing to do, upload to low tier sites.  Be careful which sites you upload to.  Deposit Photos, for example, doesn't rub right with some folks.  All up to you.