I went the other way.

I was with Alamy (and still am) but started selling RF through the micros too.

I still have more images with Alamy than any other agency and yet I earn more per month from IS and SS than I do with Alamy.

And it's a bit of a mistake to think that you only get 20c per image with the micros. If you push yourself and get some really good images up with them they'll sell again and again and again. So one good image can earn you 100s. (Just look at the How much has your best selling image made you? thread running at the same time as this one.)

Are you working on a JPG file and then saving it again as a JPG file?

If so, that will degrade the image each time you save it.

JPG is a 'lossy' compression format so, each time you save an image as a JPG file you lose a bit of information, no matter what program you use. It's a bit like photocopying a photocopy of a photocopy. Each time the image will get worse.

Best to work on images as RAW or TIF files and only save them as JPG as the very final step. And, if you need to make any further changes, go back to the original TIF file again.

I did a search on 'genesis' 'bible' 'beginning' not because I'm religious or anything (I'm not) but because my best-seller on iStock (with a flame) is a close-up shot of the first page of a Victorian bible.

The first image was an iStock one and was quite relevant. Not mine though    and one that has sold less than mine 

After that, nothing but crap for several pages, including an astonishing number of verticals lying on their sides. The photographer hadn't even bothered to rotate the image.

I never did find mine. Got bored with the rubbish and gave up.

I can't see any serious image buyer using this.

 

No, there's no other benefits except that you can now apply for exclusivity ...

... if you consider that a 'benefit', given iStock's abysmal upload limits.

Dont know how the micro sites will tell it has been upsized ...

Good question. Anyone know the answer?

Alamy are tough on dust spots on the sensor, or stray hairs, but they require upsizing which must also add something extraneous to the image. Da**ed if I can see what it is.

... On the bottom it asks "*Please include a copy of picture identification to verify identity.  P.O. Boxes will not be accepted.  Complete as many fields as possible."

I've never done this photo-id part before.  Is it necessary?  ...

I've no idea what that means. It's confusing. Does it mean:

   a) A picture of the model to verify who was photographed.

   b) A picture of the photographer, to verify who took the picture.

   c) A picture of the picture to verify which one the model release refers to.

I simply ignored it, edited it out of my 'generic' model release, and have had no problems at all.

This was probably put in by some lawyer, earning him/herself a few more bucks.   

As for P.O. boxes, I've no idea what to do about that. Doesn't your house have an address of some sort, or other identification (even if it isn't used for mail deliery).

I use a generic release for the agencies I submit to and they've all accepted it.

Actually it's the iStock text (which seemed to be the most comprehensive), cut and pasted into Word to get rid of their logo and then edited to get rid of any other textual reference to them.

It would be way too much of a hassle to have a different form for each agency for one picture. Imagine it ... the model signing 5 ... 6 ... 7 ... different release forms after a shoot and then getting each one witnessed.

Amazing image! You shouldn't have to wait long for that flame. Congratulations.

Wey-hey! Something's changed with the Alamy search engine.   

It's always been a mystery to me how it came up with images from a search. I've a simple image of a green poison bottle, isolated on white, which I've been playing about with, trying to suss out the ranking order, and work out ways of moving myself up closer to the top. Nothing seemed to work.

Last week, entering the 3 keywords 'green', 'poison' and 'bottle' put me way down towards the bottom of the two pages of images that came up, after a whole slew of images of firemen putting out a car fire (what's that got to do with green poison bottles?)

Now, suddenly, exactly the same search puts me on the second row of the first page, and the firemen have been relegated to the bottom.

Yay!   

There's a thread right now in SS about a guy who found his image on the cover of a magazine and he's thrilled - yet he got probably $20 tops (if he got an Extened license for it) but most likely got $0.25.

Yes. I read that guy's post. I must admit, I think I'd probably feel a bit sick if that happened with one of my images. Front cover of a big-circulation US magazine for maximum $20 (and probably only 25c)!

But think of these points:

1.  He'd still only get $20 (or 25c) for that. Why? Well, the magazine was legally able to buy the use of it for that purpose at that price. So why would they pay more by buying the picture outright? In other words, it doesn't make any difference.

2.  Even after that usage he can still sell the image again and again. That's something that people overlook in this game. I get people saying. "What! You sell a picture for 25c! Are you crazy?" But what they don't understand is that a good picture will sell again and again and again at that price. And may even pick up several $20 extended use payments, too. You only need 5 of those to match up to what you may sell the image outright for.

You could end up selling a the rights to a picture that would earn you far more in the long run, especially as you can have it with a number of agencies.

As you've already observed, you never can tell which pictures are going to be the biggies. I've had extended sales on the most weird pictures, some which I even hesitated about uploading (one was of a jumbled pile of wood ends that I took on the spur of the moment.)

And there's a guy over on Alamy who's just sold a picture of some ropes and climbing shackles (carabiners, I think they're called) that he took on the spur of the moment too ... and he sold it for $6'800 to a bank for their advertising, but he still keeps the copyright.

I know this is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, and is no use to you now, Lizard. But, if anyone else ever drops their camera in salt water the best thing you can do as first aid is rinse it off with loads and loads of clean fresh water as soon as possible afterwards.

Okay ... so it sounds drastic, but it's the salt which is the major damaging agent. You've got to get rid of it, fast. And your camera is already soaked.

I,ve had all my vector images rejected with no reason other then: We�re sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock
They are my bestsellers on other sites ! Nothing wrong with them, I find that strange..

It's not really strange at all when you consider that assessment of an image is a highly subjective process. Unlike in some disciplines where there is a right and a wrong, no such thing exists in photography (provided the exposure, focus and other technical details are correct). What works for one person does not work for another.

I love coffee. My wife hates it. Who's right? Who's wrong?

So it seems that, with that rejection statement, IS was simply saying your photos didn't work for them. There's no arguing against that. You just have to shrug your shoulders and get on with it.

I think they inspect files at 200 % instead of 100% with photos, i really can't see anything wrong at 100 %
All of my photos are optimal at 100 %

(Beats head against wall.) But they weren't saying anything was wrong, were they?

You have to learn to live with subjective rejections if you want to be in this business. They don't mean a thing.