The only thing I care about is that Alamy sells, more than micros (for me) on a monthly average and upsizing only takes a few seconds per image with a Photoshop action (you can even automate the whole process).  If it is a leftover of the older days I don�t care, for me they sell very well.

Some things mentioned here about RM/RF sales ratio and series do not apply - at least for me.

So far I'm selling far more RF at Alamy than RM maybe 10/1 ratio. So to say that RM is the way to go at Alamy is nonsense. It only depends on your portfolio - not the agency.

If you look at their Quarterly Statement, for the last ten Q's the tendency of RM/RF ratio has been a slight increase of RM over RF from 3:1 to 4:1.  I agree it depends on the buyer and the portfolio, but it is pretty obvious that most Alamy buyers are getting RM images.

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/statements/default.asp

You can�t change RF to RM directly.  If it has not sold you can delete it, reupload it and assign it a different licence, but it takes tooo much time.

Also, it is not necessary to assign the restrictions to achieve an editorial use only (but with few images you can do it).  I always use the "For Editorial Use Only" on the description, has worked for me.  The problem with restrictions is that they are cumbersome to set, especially with hundreds of images.

For me the biggest are SS+FT+DT, followed by IS (my portfolio there is small, I hate the uploading process), then BigStock and dead last 123RF (I really don't like them).  I dropped StockXpert when the "Photos" thing went up and don�t regret it at all, but they used to be my #4 or #5.

Last month I had three sales of images without zooms... since the roll-over introduction zooms have become somewhat less a predictor of sales (it used to be around 20z/dl).  It is very very unpredictable!

About your portfolio, it seems ok, but there are lots of similars, so you have a lot of images of a few themes.  Also you have lots of RF images.  Always keep in mind that RM sells more often at Alamy, so it can be (theoretically) against you, if we take percentages into account.

En Panam� se les dice "bolas" o "bolitas" navide�as...  Decir "esferas" har�a que me miraran con extra�eza...

If you had $2000 and change lying around you could get the new 24.6mp full frame Sony A850 and a couple of cheap but excellent quality used Minolta lenses. Its by far the best buy if you're considering full frame. I shoot with the 12.2mp A700 and can submit XL images.  Also a great camera for the money.

The problem is that 24.6mp on a full frame with cheap lenses don't mix well.  It happened to me with the 5D, the older cheap Canon lenses that I had showed all their faults on the corners...

what's the difference between young, talented, aspiring photography graduates and an amateur? 

If you need to ask then you are an amateur 

Having a diploma (or at least some studies) takes a lot out of the trial and error amateurs run into, gives you (at least) basic if not advanced notions of sthetics and all the other things that we, amateurs, find out in the long run, but sometimes after lots of mistakes.  Also they understand from the begining the concepts of photography that make amateurs that want to submit photos flood many forums with basic questions. So, I guess that there is a difference.

Just this week I got an iso1600 image accepted... Ran Dfine at 60% opacity and downsized from 13 mp to around 6, minimum smart sharpening and it looked even better than iso 100.  So, do really consider some downsizing in certain cases.

If you're selling the EXACT same images on microstock sites for 1/10 of the price, that would be the reason there are less sales on the mid-stock sites..

Remember that not everybody wants to buy a subscription, no matter how small the package.  The idea of getting the image you need without having to worry about having to fulfill a subscription may be appealing to many people. Indeed, the3dStudio is using that approach and are selling more.

They addressed my post on their blog (which is the same here) and they explained that they are going to be between self-editing and editing (they say that pics that are not that good are selling, but they will weed-out the worst and become stricter when they reach some point).

I think that it is a valid point for a start-up (well, in their case, not so start-up) to be lenient with their initial submitters and become stricter down the road.  What I like is that they actually listen... And sell!

As a whole prices have remained stable, with slight increases at IS and maybe a couple of other sites, but with subs becoming more common those increases become diluted.  The problem is that if one site increases prices too much there will always be another undercutting it.  The net result is stagnation of returns for photographers.  IS can get away (to some degree) with price increases for various reasons, but don't expect it to be like that everywhere .

The micros destruction of the pro business is more complicated that arguing that "old farts" fell for a "darwinian" thing... The problem with micros is, as I've said before, that prices are too (way too) low.  In fact, they started rock bottom.  It should have been different, they should have started as mid-stock, it would have been wiser.  Now, increasing prices some pennies at a time don�t give you any margin of anything but to feed the beast, as we are all are.  

Two years ago a 20 images upload to SS brought a lot of sales on the next few days, today it doesn�t.  Things have changed for the worst.  Almost everybody that has been doing it for a while says that earnings are the same despite having bigger portfolios.  

Another big change was in the mentality of the photographer:  we are happily willing to take a 20% comission on some sites ("for the thrill of seeing our work used") and that devaluates our work as a whole, amateurs and pros.  Do you think that buyers have any respect for stock photographers today?

I agree that we all should adapt to the new changes that have come our way in the last 5-8 years, but we have to acknowledge that micros started a "bad revolution" in which we photographers, pros and amateurs, lost a lot.  We, amateurs, don�t realize it.  The pros do.