On a similar note, is there any macro agency you can join like Alamy?

Thanks, Zeus!

Thank you for the replies.

But, what I actually meant to ask was- what sort of license gets you more money? Is it worth going Rights Protected? My work is mostly editorial.

What sort of images would be suitable for RM (Licensed) and RM (Rights Protected)?

Thanks!

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2010, 15:03

I thought I'd already pointed out that I make more in a week at iStock than I have in a year on Alamy.
And for wildlife, just check out everyone else's port on any of the macro sites and realise that's what you're competing against. It's a vastly oversubscribed subject area. (I'm really only interested in wildlife, I just shoot other things to push me to try different things and to see what sells. Besides, I can't be out in the field all the time.   And even if I could, the weather and light here usually aren't up to much.   )
Honestly, whatever wildlife pics you've got, do searches for similars in all the macros and micros and see what you're up against. Some of the macros, are only interested in 'coffee table book'-style photos. You might get lucky with rarer species doing unusual things, but they still have to be in at least 'good' light, unobscured composition and technical excellence - buyers aren't interested in your story of how you had to crawl for five hours through an alligator infested swamp through the night to glimpse your subject through a bush at dawn. Of course, if you find the Loch Ness Monster, it won't matter if you photograph it with a Box Brownie.
You'll also find that most photos which are published of 'less usual animals doing less usual/interesting things are taken by the authors of the article they accompany. (That could be a niche worth exploring).

I went through your profile on iStock.

First, let me congratulate you on your fantastic pictures. They were a real pleasure to look at. I noticed that most of your wildlife shots weren't really being downloaded. Why not put them on a traditional stock agency like Alamy; even if you get just one sale an year, you'll make more than the pennies you get here.

As I stay in India, I guess I'll have to settle for finding the yeti.

Thanks a bunch, RacePhoto. 

Thank you for the critique of my pictures. Much appreciated. 

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2010, 10:56
From what I've heard, it's taking two week or so for new reviews to be made, maybe longer right now because of some site problems and several of the inspectors being at a junket in Cannes.
You certainly need more patience in the microstock game.
I'd be really interested in why you applied there when you "didn't want to contribute to them anyway".
As for the percentage business, when I started off, I submitted RF to iStock (20% non-exclusive) and a small UK specialist agency (RM; 40% to photog.) With the RM agency in over 3 years I've had one sale, netting me less than I currently get in iStock in each week of this year except this week. I've got about 600 pics in Alamy (60% to photog) and in a year I've made 4 sales, the total of which is less than I've earned on iStock every week this year except this week. (To be fair, I've got less than 200 files in the UK agency, and haven't uploaded anything for about 2 1/2 years, since they were moving their main focus from 'UK' to specifically Welsh. And I've just gone over the 2000 files on iStock, so it's slightly apples and oranges).
However, as Sean would say, if you don't contribute to iStock, that's less opposition for the rest of us. 

Maybe I should have clarified a bit more on "didn't want to contribute to them anyway." Being new to stock photography, I didn't know much about it when I applied for an account. After some research, I found out what my work -mainly interested in wildlife- was better off with RM in a traditional stock agency like Alamy.

And for those of who contribute quality work to microstock, I have a question- why do it? You get an unfair payment for the time you spent in getting the shot. Those of you who say you do it for fun, not money- why not contribute your good works to macrostock, and not so good to micro?

I just noticed that Alamy requires 48MB uncompressed minimum. Does this mean that I just upsize my JPGs, and submit it? Or would I be best if I RAW, and processed it, and upsized it? Can you clue me in about this who upside business?

Thanks 

Thank you steheap and magnum. Could you tell me how to improve my composition and lighting?

Many thanks
Sauron

Here's another one I submitted:

http://bit.ly/asyR5k

This is one:
http://bit.ly/9vh5Gv

All the ten images I uploaded for review were reject for "Poor lighting/composition". 

Thank you, everyone.

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 23, 2010, 05:44
Did you get accepted yet there?
If you want to do microstock seriously, you should. You can't say you've driven a car until you drove a BMW.

Well, I sent my three photos for review about a week ago. Since I did not hear from them yet, and I didn't want to contribute to them anyway; I've written to them to terminate my account. I currently am going to upload only on 123RF for a while. 

Thank you everyone. 

And my apologizes for getting istockphoto wrong in the first post.

Hello, everyone.

I'm just getting into microstock, just got an account at iphotostock. However I feel the compensation of just 20% is unfair. I'm not interested in being exclusive. Can anyone tell me about another site which offers better money for your work, and other things which a new microstocker might need to know?

Thank you for all replies and advice.

Regards
Sauron

P.S.: Could anyone also tell me which popular microstock site offers the highest percentage to the sellers.

I lurk no longer.