They should.

I have not tried Gimp for that purpose.
You may check the uncompressed size in IrfanView: Image Information-> Current Memory Size.

I always upsample to 49-50 MB, and never had a rejection there.

AFAIK Alamy recommends using Genuine Fractals or Photoshop for upsampling.
You can download the trial version of Photoshop, it will work one month.

As a contributor you are not a customer, you are a supplier.
It is a good idea to post the picture in SS's forum for contributors and ask fellow members for advice.

And yes, everybody gets rejections from SS.
Their reviewers might be nitpicking at times, but usually they have a point (contrary e.g. to Fotolia). I recommend posting the rejected pictures and see what others will say.

I use it for my portfolio. My domain name takes you right to it.

http://www.dannysmythe.com

Wow, they look very yummy, especially the raspberries and the banana split

Thanks for info, Tom!
Can you tell if you submit same photos into midstock as on micros or you have separate collection? As it wouldn't be fair to sell same images with so different pricing.

Because I have a small digital portfolio, some of my images overlap in both price segments. I joined midstock sites very recently, so I am testing what is accepted where.

But you are right, and that's why I will upload premium content to sites that pay decent rates. Micro sites will receive from me only generic shots that may bring repetitive downloads or images rejected by midstock and macro sites.
Delivering landscapes or cityscapes to micro sites (apart from IS & SS) is IMHO a waste of time.

Currently I am working on an exclusive collection for Imagepoint, but that is a macro agency, they require exclusive images, but pay really well (above 100EUR).

Hi Tom, thanks for suggestion! I didn't tried them yet, only registered with stocks from big6 except SS.
Do you have steady income from there or it's rather occasional?

I don't have a steady income from them, but I joined in March and have only 19 images there. On midstock sites sales are not so frequent as on the micros, but each sale brings you much more money.
I am going to stay with SS and IS, but concentrate on the midstocks and macros.

One sale on Mostphotos will earn you more than 70 micro-sales on SS. And of course there are also other midstock sites.

Some of the members of this forum report sales on MP, so I think uploading there will bring profits, the site definitely does have customers.

On MP you won't have to care about noise from your camera, just submit there images that the buyers might want, and they will decide. Once you upload your images, they are instantly available to buyers. I think this site is worth trying.

I found FT very picky and unpredictable, but it has probably to do with the fact that I do only outdoor photography. Within two weeks they rejected like 90% of what I sent them, and e.g on DT I have 80% acceptance rate. FT even rejected images taken by SS and IS.

But, what is most annoying that their rejection emails list multiple rejection reasons, like out-of-focus, noise, lighting (I don't know if they have the same template in all languages, I got mine in German). Come on, my images my not be brilliant, but it is impossible that they have so many issues, if they had been accepted by IS or SS.
I found it quite disrespectful.

I don't mind SS or IS rejections because I can learn something from them and improve my skills, but FT rejections sometimes can be really pathetic - in some cases it hasn't anything to do with the image itself, but with their thinking that they cannot sell it.

So, I quit uploading to FT, deleted some images that I have uploaded to higher-priced agencies, and I don't regret it. Anyway, I don't think FT is strong in selling outdoor photos, so no big loss. I keep my account there only because maybe I will change my subjects or they will change their profile in the future.

For the time being though, I will keep uploading to IS and SS (because they are consistent in reviewing and have many more sales), but will focus on higher-priced sites.

AFAIK they only raised subscription prices, commission rates will be raised later after they calculate everything.

PM doesn't require photographer or image exclusivity, they just pay more if THE SAME IMAGE hasn't been uploaded to a cheaper site. Seems quite fair too me.

anyone try ftp uploading today?


I also think it is ridiculous to have that 30% commision for images in other microstock sites

And since PM offers a license for UNLIMITED uses, whereas most other sites limit the use to 10,000 or so in print - they would be fored to buy the extended license on regular microstock sites making the cost MORE on other sites than on PM... hmmmmm

IS pays 20% if you only cooperate with other agencies, 40% percent if you work only for them.
The lowest PM royalty for contributor is 1,47 EUR for a screen thumb, which is practically useless. 600x400 on PM brings for the contributor 2,97 EUR.
Istock: last week I had a sale for 0,24 USD.

Yet I do not see anyone complaining that Istock is ripping them off. PM actually pays much more than IS, both in percentage terms and in amount terms, but everybody seems to be complaining about PM.

I don't understand how difficult it is for people to divide images between agencies, and upload premium content only to the sites that charge premium prices, and the rest to the sites that charge peanuts.
By uploading premium content to sites charging peanuts, photographers are selling them rope with which they will be in the end hanged. Sooner or later the microstock market will get oversaturated and the revenue per image will drastically decrease.

Quote from: Tom on March 29, 2008, 00:20

If a customer buys an image from PM for 49 EUR, and later finds out that he could have bought it for less than 1 USD, will he ever come back to PM?

I still don't see the logic of punishing the contributor with just 30% instead of 50%. The buyer doesn't know that, and PM still wants to sell it. That means the buyer will get the same bad feeling. It would be much more logical of PM to ask for exclusivity.

I think they just want to discourage people from uploading the same content to microstocks. They probably don't feel self-confident enough to ask for exclusivity (Imagepoint does).

What they do might not be the smartest thing, because the buyers can easily find out about their commision rates, and then they will know that the same content may be found cheaper and may start looking for other agencies.
It annoys quite many contributors, so PM will have to decide if this is the right business strategy.

Quote from: Tom on March 28, 2008, 19:14

Some contributors don't like this regulation, but I can understand that they want to protect their market.

Correct, I dislike that arrangement because it's stupid. Exclusivity is something else, but apart from that, they have no business where and for how much I sell. If they like to punish contributors that don't behave like serfs like iStock does, that's fine. No uploads then. Nice market protection 

If a customer buys an image from PM for 49 EUR, and later finds out that he could have bought it for less than 1 USD, will he ever come back to PM?
I would like to see a growth of midstock sites, there is no reason that buyers should get any image they want, in superior quality for less than a buck, for the photographers it is a road to nowhere.

But the problem with PM is that they take into account the price for an A4 print, and apart from that size PM is actually often cheaper than their competition.

BTW, there is also a Swiss site called Imagepoint.biz, their approach is that generally they want exclusive images, but it is possible to make a deal with them that the image is also offered elsewhere, but for at least the same price. Compared to Imagepoint, PM is actually a low-cost agency. I heard that Imagepoint can sell quite well for very good prices, because they offer unique content.