Good news. My editorial sales elsewhere are increasing.

There's editorial and there's editorial. If it's unique, I upload it elsewhere, and if I don't think it can be sold in volume, likewise. One of the differences between before and now is that, before, there was no internet. Now, there are thousands of websites using editorial photos for all kinds of things. Few of those will buy from Getty or AP.

How many golf websites do you think there are? If you get that "not so scoop" shot of Tiger Woods, the chances of getting it accepted with Getty are more than slim, but you may get a few sales with micro, and not all of them will be subs. The principle is more or less the same as for any microstock photo.

They are hysterical about the caption format, and very strict about the current event thing. So, I made a template for the text and ran out and shot some events. Not really that hard.

Still, even if it's editorial, one has to keep in mind that some editor somewhere is actually going to buy and publish this. I always ask myself that question before I spend time shooting an event. Alternatively, I can always upload RM at Alamy.

Read his answer again. Don't click Photographers, click Account.

After they changed pricing etc., my sales have gone down drastically. Not a good sign for the future. In addition, all my RM photos there, which are not available as RF anywhere, have been removed   

I received in the mail this morning:

All Purchases Half Price in November!
Hi Lorraine,
As a special pre-Christmas discount to all our customers we are happy to offer 50% off on ALL purchases until December 1st.


Whether you are a new or returning Crestock user: here is your chance to get any image, subscription or credit package with an incredible 50% off.

The discount will be automatically applied during checkout - no promotion codes or activation links required.

That looks like they are panicking. Not enough sales to make a profit, so let's try cutting our profits in half. Sorry to say (or am I?), but I think they're dead. Hope they won't close down until they've paid me.

Sounds like a good idea. Nothing wrong with the image quality from the E-410/510, and as Holgs mentioned, the kit lenses are second to none.

Manual focus of old OM lenses with the relatively small viewfinder can be a bit tricky sometimes, but for studio shots using live view, it's very easy. Most of the OM lenses need to be stopped down to f/4.0 or even f/5.6 to perform well on a 4/3 camera, but then, some of them are very sharp indeed. Most of the macro lenses perform extremely well, and anything from 50mm and up are pretty sharp. My favourites are 50mm f/2.0 macro (rare and expensive, and the f/3.5 version perform well also), 100mm f/2.8 (the tiniest 200mm equivalent you can imagine, tack sharp from f/5.6) and any of the 200mm lenses (f/4.0 or f/5.0).

I would absolutely prefer the E-510 due to in-body IS (which works with the OM lenses if the camera firmware has been upgraded, and longer battery life.

They are number 7 for me ytd, after passing StockXpert this month, but so far behind SS, IS, DT, FT, BS and 123. If I continue to sell Fotosearch full price at the current rate, they will pass 123 before the end of the year, and possibly also BS.

Just got a payout in two or three days. Sales have picked up as well. Maybe there's hope anyway   

I don't get this. For some, it's apparently business as usual, but for some, like me, it's completely dead. Even those photos that used to have very steady sales at StockXpert have grinded to a complete halt. It's a week or more between each sale for me now.

I agree, way too early to make a judgment.  My first payout was OK and I don't regret uploading to SV.  The worst case scenario is that I make more money and I can live with that.

I don't regret submitting to SV either, and I do indeed submit to a number of low performers, but I do so because it's easy. It's "Money for Nothing" so to say. When an agency creates obstacles to the contributors and there are lots of rejects, the least we should expect is some kind of plan, something that makes them unique and make them stand out from the rest. As it looks now, the only unique feature of Veer is that they have a smaller selection of the same old photos as all the other agencies.

In theory, that makes it easier for the buyers to find what they are looking for, but if that particular photo has been rejected, it's all in vain anyway. After the buyers have realised that, they will soon learn that it's more useful to search among the larger collections of the agencies with larger portfolios, or even a smaller agency who has a higher acceptance rate but fewer contributors. I sometimes buy from Scanstockphoto for that reason, because I can find images there that have apparently been rejected elsewhere.

"Cream of the crop" as a competitive edge doesn't work in microstock (with a possible exception for iStock), since the contributors are basically the same everywhere, and it has been proven again and again. This business is not about selling Rolls Royce (which would have been rejected for copyright infringement anyway    ), but Toyota. And if if you sell Toyotas, the only way to stand out is to have a lot of different models. Toyota has that, and so has iStock. Veer doesn't, and it doesn't look as if they are going to.

It's like they are saying "Yes, we have Corolla, but we've decided that you only need the 1600 GL. You have to go elsewhere to order one of the 17 other models."

I had to seen in a total of three batches before I got in the door.  Out of the 31 images they have so far selected, I was shocked to see which ones they liked and didn't like.  Travel buildings, beaches, etc have not been accepted very often out of my images.

I've noticed that  their selection of travel photos is very poor. I sell a lot of travel photos. Oh well, maybe I should just upload some run-of-the-mill studio shots, and see what they  say...