From what I understand, DT, BS, and SS do allow editorial and FT, StockXpert, and iStock don't. Is this correct?

So don't put it on a Microstock site. That is the point of microstock, high volume and low prices.

Er, I know what microstock is. You are completely missing the point. At least 3 of the other major Microstock sites (DT, IS, FT) allow you to choose which images you want to offer an EL license on. My question was simply is there a way to do it selectively on SS as well.

Thanks. You didn't answer my question, but to answer yours; In some cases I have some images which would be good for a poster or postcards and I don't want someone to be able to make a heap of money from the image and pay just $20 for it.

I have read various MS forums and blogs and each one lists the top 6 MS sites in different order.

I would place the top 4 as iStock, Fotolia, Shutterstock, and Dreamstime. As for the next 2 slots I thought the first one should be StockXpert, but I have put up so many images with minimal results so I think StockXpert is not really in the running anymore. Since most of my sales are coming from the top 4 sites I am thinking of adding 2 more possible sites.

Yuri has been writing recently about Can Stock and I have heard some good things about Big Stock. But neither of these are listed in the top 6 on this forum. Instead you have StockXpert and 123RF in the top 6. As I said, I have not had good results from StockXpert and I have heard 123RF is not really worth the time.

I would appreciate some good feedback on what other 2 sites you would contribute to if you were already contributiing to the top 4.

Many thanks...

All of a sudden I am only allowed 25 uploads a day as opposed to 50 just a few weeks ago. I don't have a bad acceptance ratio and in fact I haven't even submitted anything to them in a couple, few weeks. Has something changed or am I missing something?

Cheers...

Thanks. That is good info.

On the search you are talking about you still have to enter a keyword or category. You can't simply search the latest photos. Understood though.

Thanks again.

Thanks Fred. Also, in the FAQ it actually says "After earning a total of $500, your rate increases to $.33 per download".

So it is not actually clear if this refers to lifetime earnings or $500 earned within one month!?!!?

I am a bit confused on the current payscale for contributors.

On the contributor's main login page it says this:

"...Once you reach $500 in earnings, your commission goes up to 30 cents per download."

And in the FAQ it says this:

"...After earning a total of $500, your rate increases to $.33 per download. Once you surpass a total lifetime earnings of $3,000, your rate will increase to $.36 per download, and after you reach $10,000 in lifetime earnings, your rate will increase to $.38 per download."

So there is conflicting information on the ST web site and I am wondering if the rate increases to $.33 or $.30 after $500 in earnings?

Thanks..

That makes sense, but only to a point. If they didn't have an actual need for such a large volume of pictures, then they probably wouldn't be paying the subscription charge in the first place. Also, there are new subscribers signing up all the time, so this also means new members could be buying up old photos as well.

Shutterstock is very good with new images (with new contributors) It is hard to increase your monthly earnings, while on other sites most images are selling over a longer time period.
Also you have to consider that Yuri has his price set at 4 Credits at Fotolia, because he has such a high ranking.  So he gets four times as much/dl as the average contributor gets. In addition he also receives a higher commission because of his ranking (I guess around 10% higher than the average contributor).

Then you have to consider that as a non-exclusive he is not able to keep up with uploading all his images to iStockphoto.

So for us average microstockers who do not exceed with our production the upload limit at iStockphoto, I believe iStockphoto should generate the most earnings according to Yuri's statistics.

Thanks for your input. That all makes good logical sense.

What I am wondering about is why you say new images on Shutterstock do better than old ones? I don't understand the logic behind that. In fact, it would seem that over time, as images sell more, they gain better position within the keyword search results based upon their popularity, and thus should lead to a greater number of sales over the long term.

I usually use Yuri Arcurs as a gauge on which of the sites is drawing in the highest incomes. According to this link, he makes much more on Fotolia than Shutterstock and his earnings on Fotolia have even surpassed his earnings on iStock for the second half of last year:

http://www.arcurs.com/microstock-agencies-an-overview-for-beginners

Anyway, it is good to hear that your experience between earnings on Shutterstock and Fotolia is similar to mine. Why though others are selling more on Fotolia than Shutterstock is a bit of a mystery to me.

Also, I noticed that Shutterstock has 6.5 million images online whereas Fotolia has only 5.5 million. So the argument that one site has more, and thus your images get seen less by photo buyers as a results, holds no water either it seems.

Do you think it has anything to do with key wording? I can't think of any other reason why Fotolia probably sells as many photos, if not more, than Shutterstock.

I am also new to MS and am also contributing to 5 of the big 6 so far. As a result, following are my observations so far on iStock:

I was lucky enough to get approved on iStock the first time and they reviewed and approved my 3 photos in less than 24 hours.

But this means nothing, it has also been a major slug for me with iStock getting photos approved since the start and I have had countless problems with model releases and various other technical issues. I have been uploading to iStock for just over a month now and still only have a total of 16 photos online, while I have close to 300 hundred already on Shutterstock. So it is obvious it is much harder to build up a portfolio on iStock and sales so far haven't amounted to much of anything either yet.

Out of the 5 sites I am submitting to, I give iStock the least priority since their upload limits are so low and their approval process so slow and stringent, but I do keep them in the mix as I believe eventually things could improve in terms of sales on iStock after I am able to build a bit of a bigger portfolio there. It will of course take more time to build up a sizeable portfolio on iStock and that is why I don't make them my biggest focus. For those who are just starting out with iStock and not using any of the other sites at the same time, I can understand the frustration of seeing things progress slowly.

What I do now though is I use my top sellers on other sites to submit to iStock since I feel they are tried and proven images. Since I can only upload 12 a week on iStock, I am hoping by being selective in terms of what I upload, and limiting the uploads to good selling pictures, that eventually my approval rate and sales on iStock will start to climb, even though I have a smaller portfolio on iStock than on other sites.

Time will tell I guess...

Thanks, that is good information.

Sometimes I transfer them and come back to them a day or two later. So probably I am waiting too long it seems based upon what you said. But one time they were actually reviewing pictures as I was adding the model releases. That was bad timing. It would simply make more sense though if there was a submit button to click before pictures actually get reviewed like they have on all the other sites.

So I guess all the ones that got rejected on the basis of no model release need to be uploaded again and resubmitted that way or is there another way to resubmit them with the model releases without uploading them again?

I am surprised to hear that you can submit without adding categories in at all though. Interesting.

Thanks again...