It does not have much to do with numbers.
But more with who you are.
Can you improve your shooting qualities 10 times next year, and can you improve the postprocessing 10 times.'
not to mention and most important, can you narrow in on the concept 10 times more efficiently.
Can you?
Can you grow that much. Not many can, because in this world there is supercompetition, you are being crowdsourced and you have to be better than the crowd both in guality and quantity.
Can you?

Price..?
 its easy enough. Take 300 dollars.
and take a quick bargain.
And why?
Exclusivity is not really real.
You wont ever earn much on that image.
300 is a price they can easily swallow and time is not in your favour.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07

You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...

Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.

Quote from: Mantis on April 01, 2014, 07:07

. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful.  Have you returned from fantasyland yet?

What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID

Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.

I have (answer to the above  bold text)

We had a thread a month ago or so that concluded that the nikons had a much wider dynamic range than canon.
That alone is a reason.

Well Ron, the answer to your question is burried in your own port and stares you right in the face.
Which 90% of your pictures would you delete if you had to?
Really had to.
??

The guys who earn a lot on a few photos are the guys who deleted.

The point in adding numbers to the image base is not so that the customers can have a better choice.

It is to dominate the net, the search engines and the whole flow of information and clicks.
Wise enough seen from the agencys view. Dangerous for us contributors, since our pictures get washed out..

I dont care where they are located and if they have massage chairs and bonuses, and  I dont care if they pay 25 or 38 cents per download.
But I care if they sell many, the whole point of microstock is quantity.
Sell Many!

So I suggest Shutterstock provide us with link to a landing place for picture hungry Facebookers, so we can distribute the link and help sell many more cheap photos.

The camera settings were ISO 100 F9 1/200.  shot in RAW.

Key light was a shoot through umbrella from camera right (left on white background shots). Fill was brollybox from camera left for desk. For the whiteboard shots I used a light reflecting off a big white backdrop sheet on left.

I did shoot with a gray card, but took the color temperature down a little (I find Asian marketing prefers whiter skin tones).

I will check if one of the other agencies has bigger previews.

This is one they accepted. I don't see how the quality is any different to the rejected files.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=182919977

You might want to experiment with a third light, a sharp small one, that can produce small shadows and support the two flat lights.

Its difficult to see if there is noise or how focus is in the resolution you provide.
The light?
Yes they seem washed out, overexposed on parts on the hair, lack of colour depths on the face. The light is very flat.

Quote from: JPSDK on March 20, 2014, 11:25

jesus, you guys are so spoiled.
25.000 is just so cheap.

Some of it is relative. They pay you more in some areas, but it cost more to live there so you really don't earn any more.

Dont get me talking about costs of living.

jesus, you guys are so spoiled.
25.000 is just so cheap.

they are not worth the time.

LOL. Take a search. Women do really strange things with cucumbers.
And they do it often.