i just wanted to see if i could sell on micros the images i'm ashamed to sell on macros.


p.s.
@magnum :

fine, but for how long will they sell as long as they add 1000s of pics every day in their database and now they even allow free photo section for promotion, subscription, flat-fees, and who knows what more tomorrow  ?

the only ones making money with micros are the owner of the micro companies.

micros' QC is a good indicator of the whole rip-off :

if their concept is selling junk for few cents there's no reason to raise the quality bar.
micros were created for third rate images, that's their place and that's the place they should stick.

by opposite raising the bar forces photographer to submit good pictures and therefore making micros in direct competition with macrostocks.

the problem here is not the micros but the photogs willing to sell their picture for peanuts.

they were sharp enough to be sold on macros and that's all that matters in the real world.

micropayments : it's the same logic of micropayments and black hat sites as well... but it's still scratching the bottom of the barrel.

for editorial images, i don't know anybody making the same with micros.

ridicolous.

as long as your images are worth 0.25 $ each, what else did you guys expected ?

they steal exactly because they know no one in his mind would sue them for a quarter
dollar damage.

on the other side, if you were covered by macro agencies like Getty or Corbis
we're talking of pictures easily sold for 500$ each.

last year Getty sued hundreds of guys using un-licenced Getty images and always won,
we're talking of fines around 5000$ per image.

with micros you're simply screwed, you've no chance whatsover that iStock starts
suing somebody for micro images worth less than a dollar.

i only sell RM exactly because my pictures are worth at least 20-30$ each, i would never waste time keywording and upoading to get few cents in return and being forced to licence my images as RF (!!).

i understand for many amateurs micros are way better than giving away their pictures for free on Flickr but if we talk about business it's a bad bad bad idea.

on the other side, i wouldn't be so sure that micros are "ruining" the market :
i shoot editorial travel photography and my sales are on the rise.

micros are probably eroding market from still-life, cut-out, vectors, patterns, and other low forms
of photography but i've still to see travel pics credited to iStock o Fotolia on the major travel magazines.


as a rule of thumb, micros will erode the market for pictures that are easy to take but don't expect much more : buyers used to buy from macros will laugh at the choice of images they would find on iStock & friends.

i'm afraid the very ones who need a reality checks are the microtards excited to give away their photos for 0.25$ each.

there's obviously a huge market for cheap images but at the very least the price should be a minimum of 5-10$ per picture.

it's just insane to crank up 1000s of pics on micros and then complain you lost money and time.

on top of this, the requirement to pass istock and others QC is just ridicolous, they even rejected some pictures i sold more than once on macros !

now, i can understand micros are not the right place for editorial images but my pictures were razor sharp and technically more than OK, yet they said "lack of focus" and yadda yadda.