Canstock is very, VERY weak for me. I Uploaded about 400 images (my bestsellers included) a couple of months ago, and have made a whopping $3.15... I make 10 times more at bigstock with similiar portfolio, and about 100 times as much at iStock (I have a 1200 image portfolio there, but I also divided the number by 3 for comparison).

Why is there seemingly so much enthusiasm about joining Veer?

Veer has a very established and good brand and they already have customer base (that cannot be said of other startup micro agencies)
What I'm hoping is some sales that would bump my earnings a bit.

prices for macro images are rising.

That shows you don't have any clue. Troll-meter 92%.

(I write this without reading other posters comments)

image1: I see no commercial potential here. I have no idea how this image could be used. Hilights are blown out. The image isn't as sharp as it could/should

image2: It's an okay dog photo. But the stock sites are already filled with better ones.

image3: Blown out highlights. Logo in the airplane. the composition is a bit awkward, this image would be hard to use: it doesn't look appealing as it is, neither does it have any copy space.

May was a good solid month for me. I fact it was the second best month ever (after march '09)

-BME for Dreamstime
-StockXpert is almost back at its normal levels from february lows

Remarkable: I uploaded only a few images in may, still good earnings.
I wonder how much I would have made with more uploads...

Yes I hate my images too, or at least about 90% of them.

After I complete all the post, I fall in love with two or three of the best ones.  I

The worst part is that it's not the images I love that sells most...

Yes, microstock photography DOES lower the value of photos and photography, that is just a plain fact. Even if the micros opened some new markets there's less money spent in photography than before, and the sum is divided with more photographers -> less money for each photographers, and that is a fact.

Many pro photographers have stopped photographing stock because it isn't worth it any more.

Also if a commissioned shoot would cost $500 and a microstock image (even if it isn't the perfect image for the purpose) costs $5, the customer may choose the latter, especially now when money is tight. I have seen many of my clients choose microstock images instead of my commissioned work. That makes me a bit sad (and broke) but I can't complain because I'm also selling microstock.

But it's also sure that money can be made from microstock (for how long? The market is saturating at a rapid pace) Microstock is a phenomenon that an't be stopped by just some individual photographers. Either you are in the micro business or you aren't.

Bottom line: I don't like people that shoot stock "just for fun" without thinking about their overheads or their time spent (you don't do other work "free" either, do you?). If someone is making good images but would earn more by flipping burgers, I recommend them to start flippin'. That would make microstock business-wise much better.

There is one more thing favoring downsizing. When an image gets downsized, its quality gets better - the image gets sharper and has less noise -> easier to get past the stupid inspector/reviewer

I don't know anyone who can predict the future exchange rate with any accuracy. 

If someone knew how to predict exchange rates accurately he would be rich (and he wouldn't tell anybody how to do it

My solution has been to take my stock mone now and then, that makes the exchange rate "average".

The paypal percentage annoys me, I hope at least the european sites (fotolia?) would start using bank transfers.

I saw this on IS:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=7273686

looks like their portfolio is full of this kind of stuff.

If they let you do that, I'm going to the library for some old books and firing up the scanner. I seem to recall DT removing some Da Vinci stuff someone had posted though.

Go on, fire your scanner! (If your books are old enough)

The book was published in 1879. That makes it certainly Public Domain. And Public Domain means nobody (NOBODY!) owns any copyright to the artwork. If nobody holds the copyright to the print, it's as fair game as photographing - let's say - a piece of wood.

I think iStock lets you upload anything that has been published before 1884.

I have a couple of scans from old books in my portfolio. I just thought the prints looked nice and someone might need them, it would have been a shame to hide the illustrations in my closet. And it was too much work giving them away from free.

I enjoyed the "I Spy" too. Realistically those shots could very well be rejected at micros for composition 

Obviously the light from a normal projector wouldnt be powerful enough, but couldnt you use your camera flash as the light source?

The idea seemed simple enough, but I havent had any luck. I have been playing around with just sticking slides in front of my flash but no luck. Im thinking i probably need some magnifying glass somewhere to make this work, but I cant even get the image from the slide projected on my wall.

I have been thinking about something similiar. But instead of a magnifying glass I would try to find an old/broken slide projector or enlarger to use it's lenses. The biggest problem could be aiming and focusing the thing without any light, that's of course not so big problem with digital camera when you can see the results immediately and make the needed corrections.

Here is how a projector works

Here is my lack of composition: 

It's really not a good composition.