What about their partner sites?  They get a cut from the sale, too....I'd assume.  So if someone with the same credit package buys direct from DT then you get, say, .25 cents.  If someone buys from a partner site they get some of the commission and you get less.  Not 100% sure if this is the reason but it is plausible.

Mantis: Yes, you are right. I would not downsize all my images to 4 or 5 mp either. In fact I do not downsize at all, but I was thinking to do it with some agencies in the future. Some agencies drive me crazy with their rejections. What was accepted without any problem a year ago is now rejected for reasons I can't understand. Better images, better Photoshop skills, better keywording, better camera, better lenses, diversify portfolio�.nothing seem to matter.
Sometimes I feel like the donkey running after the  carrot hanging before his nose, not able to ever reach it� 

In the past I asked a question about image sizes and downloads at Shutterstock, but it seems that no one knows for sure if uploading smaller sizes has a negative effect on your downloads. And no one knows if it has a negative effect on OD and Enhanced downloads. For me it is a strange thing that all images at Shutterstock from 5 to 20 mp are available at the same price�
To me it seems that we downsize only for the reviewers. Most buyers don't need the maximum available size and why shouldn't  buyers downsize an image themselves for their own need? The quality of the images is high enough these days. Otherwise they will not be accepted at all.
But when 18 mp images are accepted at 12 sites and then rejected at Bigstock for: �the image is blurry when viewed at full size�, there is no other solution left then downsizing.

Perhaps,  when running another year after the carrot and learning a lot more, I will see things different. Who knows�.

I hear ya Colette.  I've learned that Shutterstock, for example, does not like deep toned images.  I have a very nice shot off s cocktail glass on black with handcuffs next to it.  Sells ok on most sites but SS won't accept it for poor lighting.  They have their own quirks that's for sure, but then again so does Istock and DT and Ft.....the list goes on.  DT once had a blog on the importance of submitting vertical and horizontal images of the same subject to give designers the choice.  Their claim was that you will sell more images that way.  However, they reject all the time for ONE horizontal and ONE vertical claiming too similar.  What a bunch of BS.  When I was designing brochures we shot to the layout of the page.  That was a while ago but today if I looked for an image I would want both versions in case I need either horizontal or vertical.  Sometimes we just shrug our shoulders and go with the flow.

There is so much that goes into a "fair" commission beyond the percentage.

So an agency with $1 prices for all sizes, an anything goes license and 60% going to the photographer might look more "fair" than one with different prices for different sizes, a tighter basic license with extended licenses for more money and a 40% royalty for the photographer. But it probably would not make anything like as much money for the photographer.

And then there's Shutterstock which is so regularly the #1 or #2 earner and we have no idea what the percentage they pay to photographers is.

Then I'd want to look at agencies that might take a slightly higher cut, but spent it on aggressive promotion of the business which is more fair to photographers in the long run than those who just suck cash out of the business to pay back their investors or corporate parents.

I like the idea of a fair trade label for stock agencies, but I think it has to encompass much more than just the percentage.

Exactly right. 

hmmm, so withholding images from an agency pp has for the first time been officially confirmed as a legit way to put enough pressure on an agency to get them to raise commissions! So it is also official that the 25cents was not what they could reasonably afford to pay to keep the program sustainable as they always claim with all the rates, but was the lowest price they thought they could get away with paying us.  So we can also be certain that the new price structure was just pulled out of thin air as well. Well I must humbly apologize to those folks who held strong and opted out as I thought it would make no difference so I opted in way back, I wonder if holding out longer will increase it more?

Ha..good summary.  We all know how difficult it's been to "PULL" ports from the partner program once they're in.  So maybe the strategy is to lure in more contributors with a whopping 28 cents (for nons) and a tad more for exclusives.  Then as soon as they have what they're looking for, VIOLA!  A commission cut:) 

Quote from: Mantis on February 17, 2011, 19:15

To me these are nothing special, especially when I see the awesome work of some of the food microstockers.  Nothing against her work just that there is much better work out there.  Something like this is more what I consider very good.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-56135239/stock-photo-ingredients-for-homemade-pizza.html

You have to be kidding __ either that or you don't understand anything about food photography. The example you've posted is completely unnatural and looks like the contrived photo-set-up it obviously is.

Aran's style is very much in keeping with what's hot in food photography today. If she wanted too she'd easily be giving Kelly Kline a run for her money in microstock.

Nice spot Elena, thanks for posting.

Well, like I said, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful.  But I have been around a long time doing commercial set photography since the early 1980's.  And as a buyer those images don't reach out and say "eat me"...if you get my point. Anyway, that's why forums are a nice tool....varying opinions make them worthwhile so we don't have anything but Kum Bah Ya posts.

Boy am I glad I had myself banned when I did.

While it seems Lobo's tone has softened these last weeks, the more I read of Dawn and Kelvin (in particular) in their new role as moderators, the less I feel I know them. Their voices/tone has really changed from before the badges.

This is for * SURE, especially Kelvin.  Before he was pretty down to earth and now he sounds like LOBO jr.

Maybe some of your images are on their old partner program sites and weren't removed from there?

123 has by far the worst model release system.  You have to upload, then leave your upload page, go into model release folder and pick every model release that's appropriate then navigate back to your upload page at which time your images are already in the pending queue. Aside from crummy sales there, this is one thing that site could use a face lift on.

I have to throw in my .02 on the latest Microstock controversy here.  It's no secret that a lot of people have felt burned by FT on changes made in the past but in my opinion most, if not all the changes made had been done so with the sole intent of increasing business which ultimately had a benefit to us all.

So many people have asked me on many different occasions why I am exclusive to Fotolia.  I received a call from a guy just the other day trying to recruit me to upload to his company.  I told him I was exclusive and he said "Oh, I thought you were a Fotolia guy...not I-Stock."  That made me chuckle and realize how few people are exclusive to FT like myself.  Reading about the I-Stock Changes got me to thinking about why that is so I thought this seemed like as good a time as any to explain my choice.

Right now, as an Exclusive Emerald (equivalent to I-Stock Diamond right?) Photographer I earn a 54% commission on my sales.  54%!  Not only is the commission high, but I set my prices at $5 for XS and $40 for XL so I'm getting a higher commission on a higher dollar amount.  Every time I sell an XL file I get $21.60 added to my account.

As an Emerald Photographer I also have an Infinite Collection account to sell photos at even higher prices ($20 for XS, $200 for XL) with increased visibility and a 50% commission.

As far as I know, even non-exclusive commission rates have always been dramatically higher than those of I-Stock.  I always found it shocking that so many people were so defensive of IS and their 20% commissions...now? 

FT has an option for Image Exclusivity which lets contributors raise prices on individual photos.  Of course you get the higher commission if you are an exclusive photographer but you can still get the benefit of higher prices on exclusive images even if not.  This doesn't benefit me as I'm totally exclusive anyway but I thought I would mention it regardless.

I can upload as many images as I want as often as I want regardless of being exclusive or not.  I heard there is some sort of bulk upload option for new photographers as well but I'm not too sure about that.  When I dipped my toes in the I-stock water a few years ago I was puzzled and frustrated by the limits.  I would never get caught up...ever!  Not that I am now but being chronically behind is solely based on my procrastination through FT not on silly limitations they put on me.

FT pays commissions on promotional and free credits as though they were purchased.  I heard that I-Stock does not do this?  From what I understand they send out a lot of these promo credits to recruit buyers.

FT is the number one micro-stock site in Europe and is picking up speed around the world!  I have always believed that FT has had my best interest in mind as their successes equate to my success.  I would both love and hate it if all the top micro-stockers were at FT.  Love it because the quality of imagery would be so high that the lions share of the buyers would have to be there too.  Hate it because the competition would be so fierce I would really have to step up my game.  I'm willing to do it if you want to give it a shot come on over!

For what it's worth guys, I'm sorry that you are getting dumped on so rough at IS.  Especially those of you that are exclusive.  If any of you have any questions about FT I'm happy to answer them.  I'm not always a shameless cheerleader, I'll give straight answers to the best of my ability and if I don't know the answer I will try to find it for you.

Good luck all,

Mat Hayward 

Unfortunately, your message above is wrought with reciprocal messages.  Just about everything you mention above turned out to be the opposite for FT after they followed suit with Istock. 

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on February 16, 2011, 01:50

And also to remind them to pay in time. I asked for a payment on Feb, 2nd and I am still waiting. In addition to their delay in reporting sales, this is annoying.

One of the good things of microstock in general - compared to real world clients - is that they used to pay without having to remind them over and over. But this is not happening anymore lately.

And your are going to wait a little longer... Why? Because of this little gem hidden on page 12 of this thread:

Quote from: jcpjr on December 17, 2010, 20:28

Got this late this afternoon:

"... Starting in 2011, payment requests will be processed once a month, on the last Friday of each month.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and wish you all a peaceful time during this festive season.

 Thank you.

The StockXpert Team."

But it ain't money -or its timely delivery - that's making us happy, is it?  

This plain pisses me off.  I have Dec and Jan still pending.  "It's my money and I want it NOW!" to coin a TV commercial.

I had the same problem on Friday and ended up having to use the Http upload.  Which was kind of a pain with 30 images, but better than nothing. 

Same here.  Sometimes FTP works, like last weekend.  Uploaded 26 images no problem.  Before that, I had to use the 10 max upload.  It's hit and miss with BigStock's FTP system.

That does not happen anymore at SS.  The BOOST you used to get was changed a couple of years ago.  It's now much harder to make money there, way more images to compete with and a glut of them I might add.  The good ol' days are over.  It's quality, usefulness and volume.

No, it is not. Excessive white/blank space will only increase artificially your image size, and thus become more expensive to customers w/o actually having any usable contents. Please crop your images in a reasonable way prior to your submissions. Hope this helps.

Well, I am using a Nikon D700 10 mp full frame camera.  I will crop it until it meets the min requirements, go from there.

Thanks