I'm an Alamy contributor. I receive few dollars/year from them. The market is completely changed. Just 12 years ago, with same kind of job I was under assignment once a month, I have bought a big house, I had a wonderful studio and a darkroom, spending most part of the year travelling where the history borned. Today I have a lot of economic problem, the assignment are few and too short and I have to shot for microstock too. I spent seven years as professor of reportage at the Rome state University, and I would like to explain in few words what are the differences between Alamy and microstock imagery. It's very easy: it's a matter of language. While customers of microstocker needs easy concepts (an apple, a kiss, a writer, a dog), customers of the photographic agencies needs complex phrases (an apple certified as biological in India, a kiss among two neurotics in Dallas, Tom Clancy and not just a writer, the dog of the Queen of Portugal or soldier branding a specific weapons while fight against a tank). The introduction of microstock in the market has simplified the communication language of many media too, introducing the concept of fiction in the journalism, and using Istock images of a generic apple in article that talk about "poisoned cultivation of fruits in Marocco". The existance of Alamy is important for a political and social point of view, but we cannot expect to see good revenue if we use the same language to shot photographs for microstock and for Alamy

www.franzgustincich.it

The problem of reviewers in shutterstock is quite big. personally I found that at least 50% of my rejection are not related with the statement. I.E. I have a picture that is really out of focus, published in my SS portfolio, and my best seller both in Istock and Fotolia, was rejected three times in SS.

Lighting mistake is an abused phrase: sometime is used for object shot in softbox with 100% white background.

A picture of an optical bank with a laser diffraction cannot have "artifacts" and I explain that to reviewer, but without results. The subject of the picture that I sold almost weekly in other five agencies is the diffraction that seems artifacts.

Every of my photograph published on ads, magazine, giant posters etc... was rejected by SS and SS accept what all the others will reject.

That's OK, is part of the game, I'm not complaining, but I really think that the reviewers are acting without unity and with different protocols.

Quote from: Red On on September 26, 2014, 11:50

Anyone can tell me how much is the price if I have received $58.93? I have not reached $500 total revenue.
Thanks

You should get a straight percent of the sale price - you have to trust them on this. The percent depends on how much you have made - under $500 = 20% so theoretically the buyer paid $294.65  It does make one wish buyers would move to the 50% and up sites.

The percentages are 20, 25, 28, 30

Thanks a lot, now it's clear.

Quote from: OM on July 06, 2014, 18:54

Quote from: Mantis on June 13, 2014, 20:59

Quote from: marthamarks on June 13, 2014, 20:13

Here's an image on Stocksy that really blows my mind.

http://www.stocksy.com/224056

Can anybody explain the appeal of an image like that?

I'm not going to comment on this image, but to answer your question, no, I cannot.

At least the background is sort of sharp.

As opposed to some of this portfolio on SS:

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-198979p1.html

I have to say that I like that port a lot but I've never managed to get any 'defocussed' stuff past the SS reviewers.....and I have tried. 

it's like the anecdote, a violinist asked a stranger, ..."how do i get to Carnegie Hall ?"(Albert Hall if u're telling this in king's cross or there across the pond)... to which the stranger who happens to be a maestro replied, ..." practice, my son, with lots and lots of practice!" 

plus of course, a re-submit to SS to tell Scott,
defocussing is a technique, dude  !!!
I deliberately shot it this way !

To be a stock photographer you have to reqch a minimim skill in graphic, pagination, advertising and so on. The image that you propose (http://www.stocksy.com/224056) is perfect if you have to write on the face and on the body.