I can confirm that. I had a design company in Bangkok until 2 years ago. Getting my designers not to steal images was no easy task, and they couldn't understand how I could make money from stock photo when everything was free anyway.

What's important to remember, is that most art and design in this part of the world has until recently been based on old traditions. The concept of paying someone for the right to use creative work simply doesn't have a long history here.

It may or may not change in the future. Impossible to say. Still, Asia is a huge market, with well over half of the world's population. Some of them do pay for images after all.

I'm seeing a more long-term development here, but I agree that it's not a disaster. Others seem to be filling the space.

To me, this looks like a positive development at SS. The "rocket-start" of new images isn't there as it used to be, but sales are much more evenly spread between new and old photos, which is positive. Total sales seem to be similar to what they were, at least for me.

I was lucky a couple of years ago, and registered epixx.net. Haven't updated in two years though. Too much to do   

For non-photograpic purposes, I just registered toosmall.net, but nothing there yet. In 2015 maybe 

Olympus E-510 two-lens kit (14-42 plus 40-150) and the 35mm macro is within your budget. The Olympus kit-lenses are extremely sharp, corner to corner, as is obviously the macro,  and the camera has built-in IS as well as live-view. A very nice kit. Be aware that the Olympus has a crop-factor of 2.0x (Nikon is 1.5x and Canon 1.6x)

Another alternative is the Nikon D40X two-lens kit (18-55 plus 50-200 VR). There should still be enough money for a good macro-lens. Be aware though, that the only macro-lens that will autofocus with the D40X, is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. It's an incredible lens, and works fine with a TC as well, but it brings you slightly over budget. In my view, AF isn't important with a macro, since critical focus is better obtained manually anyway. The 50-200 VR has also gotten rave reviews.

A third alternative is the Nikon D80 with the 18-55mm, but to stay within budget, you would have to choose between a tele-zoom (the 50-200 VR) or a macro. The nice thing about the D80, is that it has a better viewfinder than the above (and better than the Canons), and better manual control than the D40X.

After lots of failed attempts I have managed to get just 4 images uploaded but I can't find them to finish them off.  Does anybody know where to look or do they go into no-mans land until they get reveiwed and then we finish them off.
Thanks

Looks like they are going into no-mans land, and it's very annoying. I tried to upload the same four photos four or five times on Friday, but when the login timed out, my uploads disappeared as well. I guess they still have a few bugs to sort out   

I just checked my subscription sales on DT and have had the following breakout:

Medium (6%)
Large (17%)
Maximum (78%)

My numbers are similar, in addition to a lot of vectors, that normally generate $4 per download.

With the information that has appeared during this discussion, I will opt out of subscriptions for all of my images on Snapvillage, instead of only the best ones, which was the original plan. It becomes increasingly clear, that subscriptions, so far looked upon as a double-edged sword, is more of a single-edged variety. Unfortunately, we are the ones being cut into pieces.

Quote from: epixx on September 28, 2007, 23:20

Still, I would rather gamble in that lottery than having a good photo selling once or twice as micro. 25c won't buy you much anyway.

A GOOD  photo would sell 100's or 1000's of times as micro not once or twice.

Not if the photo is only relevant to a small group of customers. Still, it may be worth a lot to that limited group.

Microstock is very, very mainstream. The only way to get volume, is to sell what many people need.

Two examples: Cute, smiling, caucasian girl with mobile phone sells by the thousands. Child-worker from a 3rd world country will not, regardless of the quality of the photo. But again, if someone really needs that child-worker photo, it doesn't really matter if the price is $1 or $200.

Would you consider many images of one area of a particular country or place
specializing or still shallow? Example I have been going to a remote area of
Mexico and have tried to capture as much of the culture as possible yet not all images are the same.
Jorge

That sounds like images for Alamy. The market for those images is very limited, but if you find the customer, he's more than willing to pay $200 for it.

General trend?  Those with lots of downloads get more downloads.

This is what worries me. I get a feeling that if I haven't had success at LO so far, I can as well forget them. Somebody here mentioned downward spiral. That's my feeling right now too.

I'm happy for those who sell well at LO, but when I sell ten times as much at agencies like Scanstock, Crestock and Canstock, none of them front-runners in this business, it makes me wonder.

I'm also skeptical to the fact that elements like comments and sideshow have a saying in the performance (or rather, non-performance) of my portfolio. If I were a customer, and I am at a couple of other agencies, the only thing that matters for me, except price, is the quality of the images and if they are suitable for my needs. I couldn't care less if some random individual commented favorably on an image, if he's not me, and he isn't.

The basic concept of LO has always looked good, and it shouldn't be too hard to sell it. Please see to that it's done properly.

PS. Sorry for the rant. It's early Saturday morning here, and I haven't had my tea yet 

I don't believe in this. Increase the customers base, from where? From other subscription based agencies probably, but also from customers who currently buy images at the full price at StockXpert as well as other places.

The conclusion is the same anyway: since most of us are represented at all the major agencies, any price decrease will affect us negatively, wherever the customers are coming from. Since the earnings per sale at StockXpert are relatively good, 0.25 per sale here means a major decrease.

Most of us have been praising SS for the income they have generated for us, but that is due to their high volume and the fact that they accept most images as long as they have no technical flaws. If those agencies that have had a stricter quality profile are going to pose as "also-rans" in the subscription business, the whole system gets diluted into what the nay-sayers warned about: microstock is good for the agencies and the buyers, and bad for the photographers.

At DT, the subscription sales have so far been low enough to be insignificant, at least for me, so I'm staying. But at Crestock, they represent the bulk of my sales, and since they can't seem to generate much volume, my profit is minimal. They, like StockXpert, are also a high quality agency, and the low price contradicts the whole purpose of their concept.

I'm still on the fence with regards to subscriptions, but I'm seriously considering pulling my portfolio from agencies offering subscriptions unless they:

A. Accept more or less all of my submissions, so that volume can compensate for the lower sales price.

B. Are able to generate sales volumes similar to those at SS. I have 20 times as many downloads at SS as I have at StockXpert, just to give you an idea.

Two downloads with a combined value of $0.60 for me, with a portfolio of 480. I must be doing something wrong. It's the absolute rock bottom agency for me. Even with the very easy upload procedure, I wonder if it's worth it.

epixx,

Do you know what kind of editorial image they use? Recent events, famous people?

Regards,
Adelaide

Mostly typical stock, at least in my experience, but images where faces, logos etc. may be visible. Very similar situation to SS. Featurepics accepts editorial as well. I'm preparing to do some coordinated uploads to all three sites. I know that editorial at SS sells well.