I'd keyword for 10$ an hour, for sure.

Is sharing real monthly $$$ income considerd rude ?

my question also.

Exactly^^

Better images will attract more sales and bring in more money for their creator.  

Microstock has always been dog-eat-dog capitalism.  Fairness doesn't really seem to figure into it.  If you have any doubts check out recent trends in contributor royalty percentages...

I'm not defending it, BTW.  But that's the reality of the situation.  We have the choice to either play or not.

It might be the general case, but I can't say it's true, at least for me.

My best sellers are images that are very niche-oriented, there were almost no retouching on them, some of them were even upsized (oh the horror!) and they sell well since I have found something other people didn't find or don't have access to. Some of the work I've been doing for hours have virtually no sales since there are a gazillion images similar, so the quality or the effort put into a photo doesn't really matter in my case. So, I'd say it's a myth.

Also, I have nothing against the "Better images will attract more sales and bring in more money for their creator." market, bit I'm finding it "unfair" that the high-end photomanipulations sell for as much money as the raw shots. I'd say: "Better PHOTOGRAPHS will attract more sales and bring in more money for their creator", and that's a statement I would have no problem with.

Stock photos as raw materials is a part of the microstock market, but not all of it. 

Because of the low prices, it's not just professional designers buying images.  It's bloggers, housewives, teachers, students, etc.  Pretty much anyone can afford microstock prices, and a lot of these end users don't have the skill or interest to do photo manipulation.  They are looking for a finished product.  That's why some of the high concept manipulated images sell so well.

I'll take any sales I get.  I don't worry if they are from designers, students, bloggers, whatever

Don't you think that the people who have put much more effort in their work should earn more than those that just cleaned up the image, reduced the noise and boosted the colors (most of microstock images)?

Also, don't you think that, by selling those high-quality products at the same price as the raw photographs, "they're" doing more damage to the market than the lowering of the commision, since one would much rather buy the finished product, than make it by himself?

Seems to me that if there's a market for it, maniuplated photos - along with 3D renders - make fine stock. Why would anyone want to make an arbitrary line over which designers or photographers should not step?

Those designers who want to do their own compositing will buy the plain jane raw materials. Those who are in a hurry or who can't do their own Photoshop work will buy the more finished pieces. More business for contributors seems good to me.

There's also a notion of "being original" that has spread over the microstock communities and sites. For one: if the photographer supplies raw material, then there is no room for originality.

The creative work "should" be done by people who are payed to be creative: designers.

To me: this is a much bigger issue that lowering the commission from, let's say, 20% to 15%. Photomanipulation work and "being creative" requires much more effort on the photographer's part, and they sell it with the same price as the raw material. Is this "fair"?

Anyway, just to clear one thing up: I'm not writing this out of envy or something because I don't know how to use photoshop. I was first a designer for six years, and then started doing photography, so one could say I'm skilled in that respect. It's just that it doesn't seem fair since some photographers seem to be working a double job for the same price. But then again: it's their choice.

I've been in this microstock thing for almost two months. I'm a member of shutterstock for a month. All the agencies i'm a member of (stockxpert, 123rf, iStock, BigStock, dreamstime) have earned 6$ total in two months. At shutterstock, I've earned 55$ in a moth. So, my question is - what's the point? Or better - what's the problem?

I'm thinking of going exclusive with iStock since I barely sell anything on other sites and iStock at least gives the highest revenue - for a photo sold there, I've gotten 1.68$. On other sites, I get about 0.3-0.5$ a photo sold. Doesn't make sense. Seems just like waisting time uploading to these sites.

Does it get any better and do you have some tips about this, since you're longer in the "game"? I'm kind of getting desperate.

Btw, depending on the site, my portfolio is around 75 photos (except for istock).

Thanks

Ako te slike sto ti Fotolia vraca prodajes u drugim agencijama onda je to problem Fotolie ali ako se ne prodaju onda su oni upravu sto ti vracaju. Nemoj da te odbijanje brine, to se desava svakodnevno i na to ces se nauciti SAMO GURAJ NAPRIJED

Moj savjet je:
Probaj Shutterstock (ako vec nisi) i Istock, Fotolia
To su tri koje mi donose 80% zarade
U sustini ako ne zelis biti exclusive, (a i prije nego se odlucis za exclusive) trebao probati vise agencija da vidis koja  ce da radi za tebe ali nemoj odlucivati nabrzinu nego upload (stavljaj) slike i vidi poslije godinu dana (mozda?!?) koja ti agencija najbolje odgovara.

Moras malo i research da vidis koje slike se prodaju i u kojoj agenciji. To je najtezi dio posla ali poslije nekoliko godina znas otprilike koja ce se prodavati ali i dalje neznas zasto se prodaje.

Good luck,
Kone

Mislim da je prerano za pričati u kom je "problem", neke od fotki koje mi prolaze drugdje, bivaju odbijene na fotoliji, čak i neke koje se prodaju. Mislim da mi treba malo veći uzorak.

Inače, na shutterstocku i iStocku jesam, iStock mi ide na živce jer treba 100 godina za upload i kategorizaciju te tagiranje (iako koristim deep meta) i jer mi neke fotke već tjedan dana nisu reviewali. Užasno su spori. Shutterstock mi je najdraža agencija za sad jer se jedino tamo prodajem u ne-zanemarivim količinama, tj. nije slučajnost. Ali čitao sam dosta kako oni favoriziraju nove autore, pa nakon mjesec-dva prodaje jako-jako padnu. Jel to stvarno slučaj?

Pozdrav!

Evo jednog početnika u microstocku iz Zagreba.

Kako vam ide?