In my opinion, in no way do these flower pics relate to Valentine. Cut one, put a ribbon on it, light it properly, and shoot in studio or equivalent. Then maybe I'll buy the valentine keyword.

As we can set higher prices with cutcaster, I hope to see more images that are not on the micro sites.  Having the exact same images as all the other sites might be one reason why no new site has made an impact in the past 2 years.

They do offer a higher commission rate with exclusives too, so will be sending them at least a few. Exclusive is selectable per image, like at DT.

For a preview of the new uploader, see this blog post

http://niagarashooter.blogspot.com/2008/05/preview-of-cutcaster-uploader.html

I found this on IS:

Zoological Locations such as Seaword, San Diego Zoo, Busch Gardens, etc - Logos, images from theme parks, shows, attractions, products, animals, productions, characters or wordmarks are all protected and cannot be photographed for commercial use.

For clarity this policy applies to ALL zoological locations.

But I think they're being overly restrictive.  You can find images of San Diego Zoo animals on Getty.

The difference is that on Getty they may be RM and not RF. They could be used for editorial. For instance, if they had a sudden death of the flamingo population at the zoo, that photo could definitely be used in a news item. Otherwise, to restrict the use of the photo would be in violation of first amendment rights in the USA.

But the poster is right about commercial purposes. Even the local zoo here instituted such a policy, and it is a small zoo.

Helix,

It's nice to hear an opinion from an intelligent voice rather than the snivelling rah-rah from one of the cowering masses. Yeah it get's old for me very quickly.

Next, can you try and get rid of those "First download of May" and "last download of April" threads? A giant waste of time, and I too have mostly stopped with corporate forums. Just a quick look in a couple of times a week now on SS.

I actually came across micro back about 2004 as a photo buyer doing design work for several firms. I used to do the bulk of the buying through iStock.

A shooter for many years, involved in traditional stock during the dinosaur days of submitting trannies. Use micro now mainly to sell illustrations.

I come to the conclusion that I'm either being ripped off by the microstock sites or their is more money available for purchasing photos with the higher end buyers.

Only you yourself can decide what your whotos are worth and where they should go. Microstock is merely a different business model that fills a need for lower budget users.  It is a volume game for the photographer. A hot photo may be downloaded 800 times and earn you $800 in this volume game over time. The same photo, if offered as Licensed and Rights managed, can earn you $1500 or more for one sale.

Please note that it is not proper business practice to ffer micro as Licensed on rights managed sites. It is unfortunate that some of the Rights Managed sites do not spell this out implicitly - they are so afraid to use the "M" word (microstock). I do believe Photoshelter has taken steps to clarify their kanguage since of of their contributors had photos listed as RM that were already selling on a half dozen RF micro sites.

Licensed is there for a reason, so that usage of an image can be tracked. Once it is out in the market as RF, it is up for grabs. That is why this "exclusive buyout" that Dreamstime offers is quite the joke, although it does happen. A buyer would be stupid to do an exclusive buy on an image that has already been DL'd 250 times.

If you are interested in earnings potential for an image, the price calculator at Alamy.com is open to use without logging in. Do a search on a subject you shoot. Pick any image as long as it is "L" not RF. Then use their price calculator on it. Choose different criteria when doing this, for instance, choose one use as "Front Cover" and another price as Inside Page. It will help give you an understanding of how RM pricing works. BTW, on Alamy,  the quality of the image you select won't matter. So don't worry if the image you select is trashy (unfortunately there is a lot of garbage on Alamy Alamy does not edit content, only technical quality)

I do micro mainly for my illustrations - but most of my photos go RM. I have 150+ RM on Photoshelter but just in a holding pattern there to see where things go with it.

The guy who sold the 2 for $5K on PSC is a seasoned pro already having a track record with major magazines.  Just wanted to discourage any rush of upload mania there because there will be disappointment in watching every day for sales. It does not happen that way in the RM world. It is not unusal for an image to be considered by a buyer for weeks, and if it does not fit in the final product, there is a chance of the image being returned.

Some of the above cited is why FeaturePics will ultimately fail - they don't knw how to market properly for RM, and many of the contributors there that are offering images for $10 or $14 as RM (what a joke), haven't a clue as to what it is all about. Offering RM, a bulk of their (FeatPics) income should be generated from it. But they have no idea as to how to manage RM models and do not actively market such content. One of the reasons I quit FP.

As for the higher end buyers - they are out there. And only on rare occasions do they go micro.

Hnestly I have tried some of the magic solutions you have listed just for fun, and for me they are an attempt at canned solutions that just don't work in all cases. I even hate the stupid extract tool in Photoshop, because it guises itself as an "easy solution" when t really is not. It's a reall pain in the butt for me, a lot of window dressing. I tried it twice and have not used it since.

I have been doing masking and composites since Photoshop 5. You don't need the fancy stuff and instant wizards for composites, you just need a thorough knowledge of your tools and how to apply them. Without learning how to use Photoshop properly, then yes, the money is wasted.

In the long run, you will waste more money on the supposed instant or easy solutions, becasue in the hands of inexperience, none of them will be satisfactory, and you are likely to hop from one to the next.

I am not one for going exclusive, but don't berate anyone who does. At least the OP has done some proper research in his consideration. That's a very good thing, instead of just looking at the superficial benefits of the cream on top as so many do.

60 seconds per photo would be great 

I need to learn how to make isolations yet 

Getting it right or close to it, in camera is key. Think about what you shoot.

Shooting raw virtually eliminates artifacting problems, getting white balance right is done in usually one click. I have just about eliminated any need for third party noise reduction software too. My photoshop time in microstock images is minimal these days.

Maybe he's bitter because he couldn't pass the 7/10 Shutterstock application.

Looks like FeaturePics on steroids. And you know where that site is headed.

I spend about 60 seconds, if that, processing a photo from a raw file. One click for white balance, then adjust exposure, take down noise right in raw processor. Even isolations with pen tool rarely take longer than 5 minutes. If you're tied to photoshop for hours on end, you're doing something wrong. I upload only the best, and forget the 17 different views of a pitcher of milk.