I usually upsize my 5D files with Canon DPP RAW software. In the batch window I set the longer side of the image 5020 pixels, and export that to 16 bit tiff (which is in the last stage converted to 8bit jpg in Photoshop).

Wow I could not believe my eyes when I got a sale at Imagevortex.
A small web image sold $24.50 if which I get 70% (= $17.15)
I uploaded this image in 2005 and it has had a whopping of 2513 visits.

I'm still blown away by this

It's easy, just click "My Alamy" on the front page, log in and you can access all info.

You can find views on "Alamy Measures (beta)"

I never tried that, but if this is an issue for you, why are you in IS?

I'm on IS selling images, not using it as a personal portfolio. It's my choice to be anonymous, byt the system seem to "leak".

As for why images show despite your name isn't there, it probably is, maybe where you can not see (metadata, EXIF data)

Yes, but I have tried to search the pages troughly, checking image metadatas and everything... I just can't find out where my name is hiding.

There is an option to hide your real name and it was created for exactly the reason Perry is upset about. Go to your control panel on iStock. Click Contributor and you'll see a drop down labeled "display copyright owner". Choose member name rather than real name.

That's exactly what I have done a long time ago (a couple of years ago when they introduces that feature), but still my images keep popping up, even all newer images.

you mentioned difficult to catch shot.

but something like say "birds" is very common in micro.
but what if it's a lucky shot, like capturing the bird taking off in flight, like really closeup with fine details,etc...
right down to the splash of the water...

would this still be RF? or would it be too restrictive or specific,
and would be wasted in RF.

It all depends. If it was a great image of a rare bird taking off in flight it would definitely be RM.

I think that's a bit too theoretical. If you want a natural looking portrait you should use a lens that allows you to stay at a natural viewing distance from the model. When you look at a persons face you stand 1-2 meters away (1 meter=intimate, 2 meters="normal"), and when you want to see the whole person you stand 3+ meters away. Then you just have to pick the lens that allows the correct cropping. Usually that's around 85-100mm on a full frame camera. Focal length doesn't change the perspective or looks of people, distance does.

You can get 50MB file in 16 Bit at 300 PPI by upsizing to 3650 (Long side) X 2427 (Aprx short side).

Have you really got such small images trough Alamy QC? (Those are only 25MB 8bit)

The image should be 96MB 16bit (-> 48MB 8bit)
I upsize my 5D files in DPP using the batch function and I type the long side to be 5020px.
I think DPP does a good job when upsizing.

(is there a way to delete a message on this forum?)

I try to divide my images as following:

Microstock RF:

-no people shots. If I was a model for someone I'd like to know that the images cannot be used forever over and over.
-images with not-so-perfect lightning
-generic, "universal" subjects
-images that are easy to produce very fast, low production value

RM (almost my all macrostock images are RM):

-people shots
-technically good shots with good lighting
-special subjects (they won't sell as microstock anyway)
-"lucky shots" special moments that are hard to capture
-images that are hard to produce, high production value
-editorial photography
-"creative" and "artsy" shots (that would propably be rejected by microstock inspectors anyway

What comes to imagery from Niagara falls...
Word "Niagara" returns 4569 images. On iStock there are 466 matches for "Niagara".
It seems like a well covered subject on both sites - that makes it a tough competition.
I'd say you have to have very good images, maybe from some special angle and/or the best light - otherwise the images could only be a waste of time. I'd still post the best images to macro and the b-grade ones to microstock.

I'm a microstock photographer, but I'm also a macrostock photographer.

To addition, I'm also a graphic designer. I would never use microstock images to anything important, ie. big clients with big budgets, on brochure covers or such.
Using a microstock image that has sold 1000 times could hurt the brand, I'd even be very cautious for any RF images.

Besides it's about the mathematics: If an ad space in a magazine costs - let's say $10,000 - paying $1,000 for an image isn't really that much. It's lot better combination than $10,000 ad space and a $5 image.

But there are lots of low budget projects and a need for generic images and elements where microstock does come in handy.