What I don't understand is why RM and Midstock agencies aren't trying to be sure their images are at least technically sound.  Cover all the bases.  The standards have gotten * high in microstock; so why don't they also increase in the market that charges 10x the price?  Pay more and get less?  Oh yeah, that can be found in any market.  When you pay more for something, you're not necessarily getting more.

Many big RM agency collection images high-res have always looked noisy, OOF, or just outright laughable technically every time I've zoomed in.  Maybe it's time the technical bar was raised, across the board.  The smartphone and iphoneography stuff is now bringing the technical standards back down, perhaps.  A camera that's always in your pocket is better than no camera... but does that make the image worth hundreds of dollars, even if it was captured on a piece of crap?  I guess so.  Art is always subjective.  Feed me 3 bottles of sriracha sauce with a few beers and and bunch of old taco meat and let me vomit it on a canvas, and then I can sell it to the highest bidder as .:abstract art:.

I can only comment at my going rate of $150 an hour, due to my cost of living.

Ditto.  This is my current portrait rate in the Northeast.  I'll sometimes discount that hourly rate if the people will sign MR's allowing for stock image sales.  I'm also learning that editing time eats up most of this, as for every hour of shooting you can easily spend 2-4 additional hours editing, depending on the shoot.  From now on I'll only be promising a limited number of images to the client, per hour commissioned.  My last 2 hour shoot ended up costing me way too much in edit time, because I'm too generous with the quantity of files delivered.  No more TFCD shoots for me.  I just can't afford to do that anymore, with the way things are ever-decling.

To earn $150/hr for the weekly time I spend shooting/editing/uploading to microstock; yeah right.  Not even close.  Maybe if I were to work just a tiny portion of the week  

Where I live in the northeast, $30k a year will have you just barely above the poverty level.  That's if you don't have a car payment, and just a rent or mortgage.  Moving somewhere with a lower cost of living would give many of us a dramatic raise in income.  Easier said than done.

I have the IS version, as I grabbed a copy pretty cheap barely used around $750.  Recently just discovered on a Senior Portrait session that it doubles as a great portrait lens.  Creamy bokeh deliciousness.  The IS works well.  Want to get two nice primes instead of just one?  Go with the 85mm f1.8 and the non-IS 100mm version.



Sorry, I had no idea this was an old bumped thread LOL - I hope you're enjoying the lens kjorgen!

You've got mail 

Most birders are starving artists... they don't do it for the money, but rather the recognition in Audubon magazine or the warm fuzzy feeling of nailing the focus with their super-telephoto setups.  It's not easy, and I give them a lot of credit for the passion they have for their craft.  I give even more birders credit who can actually find ways of making a living solely on that niche.  Covering their gear cost is probably doable.  They basically are like hunters who use lenses instead of rifles.  No thanks.  Not my cup 'o tea

The story always changes when a company becomes a publicly traded one, or is headed in that direction.  There are a lot of other people Jon Oringer has to try and keep happy now, besides the suppliers.  I really don't envy him, his job, or the amount of stuff that must be floating around in his mind on a daily basis.  It must be incredibly stressful.  If you started the company and wanted to share your bonus with "the help" that would be a really noble thing, and I commend you on that.  That isn't how the world always works, unfortunately. 

When you get a strange rash, cut, sunburn etc, and your first thought is, "This will sell like hotcakes on Shutterstock." 

When you are so sick of keywording that you just keep editing and piling up images into a folder on your hard drive instead...  like doing all of your laundry, but never folding it or putting it away.

When your grocery shopping list coincides with your shoot list. 

I just analyzed a collection of all images that I had uploaded in 2014... took the total amount of income, divided it by the number of images, and then by the #of months (16 since jan 2014) and the results were a tiny bit better than my Q1 images R.P.I. 

That's probably not an accurate way of gauging it, but it's something.  For instance, some images were uploaded in January, while others were uploaded near the end of the year.  Some were live in the collection much longer.

Paralysis of analysis.  On a positive note, I've uploaded more images in Q1 2015 than all of 2014.  Time for me to go edit some more and feed the beast before I end up losing my afternoon to youtube or social media.

chill !!! they will show up as soon as they are buried

This. 

LOL!  #murphyslaw

Sometimes when I plant seeds in my garden... if they don't sprout within a week, I dig them up and burn them... said no one ever. 

Laurin's right.  Outresolving the glass isn't necessarily a great thing.  Neither is when these point-and-shoots shoot 20-30 megapixel files on them with tiny sensors.  Pixel density according to the physical size of the sensor has a lot to do with it too, not just megapixel resolution.  Still, I've never shot hassies or high end stuff, so I'm not personally spoiled to that kind of quality.  I don't even want to - I'm still blown away with what simple Canon and Nikon glass can do. 

In terms of AF... Until you start shooting sports/action or birding nonstop, an older full frame body with decent autofocus will serve you right.  I've shot skateboarding on my 20D, 40D, and 5D2 and with as much as people complain about the autofocus on the 5D2, I must have gotten a later model... servo mode nails the focus just about 90% of the time, even shooting wide open no matter if I'm using the 24-70, 17-40, or 70-200.  The 20D and 40D missed a lot more than the 5D2.  That helps a lot, so now all I need to really be concerned with is the amount of light available, and my shutter speeds to capture the motion (unless I'm trying to intentionally pan or capture the movement).  I'm sure the 5D3/7D af system is much better, but I can't see spending more when I'm happy with the tools I have.

I'm also a pretty frugal guy, though.  For example, I just bought a (1 of 400 made) collector's edition sports car with low miles, just 7 years off the lot, for the price of a new Honda or Hyundai econo-box.  Is it an amazing car?  Heck yea, but no way in heck it's worth $70,000 to me.  I hope the first guy felt that he got his money's worth out of it.  I enjoy nice things (who doesn't?) I just refuse to pay top dollar for them.  Let those who enjoy to have the "latest and greatest" break the stuff in, then I can scoop it up a few years later at a fraction of the cost. 

I'm not opted into DPC... not sure if that matters.  Even before that was even a thing, sales died hard.  But, I used to earn 5-10x what I earn now at Fotolia.  Sad.  Nothing has changed; I still upload regularly and my image quality has increased tenfold.  I'm a gold ranked contributor.  I wish I knew what put my sales in "time out".  Ebbs and flows.  On one agency sales will tank, and on another sales will increase to make up for the loss of the other place.  All the more reason to never go exclusive and put all of your eggs into one basket.