Lately I have been extremely busy and have little time to submit pictures.  As I slowly started submitting a few, I noticed something very interesting.

What I noticed is that IStockPhoto sales have slowed considerably in recent months.  In the past, IStockPhoto vied with Shutterstock as my top site and a few times took the lead.  However, that has changed now.

Today, IStockPhoto is fourth for me in terms of sales.  Only StockXPert brings less.  Another problem is that submissions take a long time on IStockPhoto due to their archaic upload system and their own keyword vocabulary.  As a result, it takes me longer to submit to IStockPhoto than to the other sites combined.  It is even more annoying that after submitting the photo my shot is rejected for a keyword that is pertinent.  For instance I had a picture of Jerusalem rejected for using the keyword “Israel”.

Another interesting thing occurred when I was searching for some photos for a friend a few weeks ago.  I was rather stunned that, despite their claim to having an advanced keyword system, I was unable to find the pictures I was looking for.  I had much better success on Dreamstime and Shutterstock.

Therefore, I have ceased submitting regularly to IStockPhoto.  It simply isn’t worth my time.  I will not close my account there though and I will submit pictures that sell well on other sites.

However, the future of IStockPhoto right now does not look bright.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is a panorama of the Jerusalem city walls at night.  The taking of the shot has an interesting story itself.  I took this with my Sigma 80-400 4-5.6 OS at 400mm and 5.6.  When I first submitted the shot, it was rejected due to softness.  I was quite surprised at this because I used a tripod, mirror lock, and a remote shutter release.  The tripod itself was on sturdy concrete.  How could it be soft?

To my surprise, when I examined the shot at 100%, it was soft.  The simple fact was, the Sigma was too soft at 400mm and 5.6.  As a result of further investigation, I sold this lens because I could no longer depend on it.  Eventually I will buy a new telephoto, but right now I rarely need one and I’m waiting for Canon to improve on their 100-400mm lens.

The next step I did was shrinking the size of the picture down.  This often works when the shot is a bit out of focus.  Shutterstock accepted the picture and it is a good seller.  IStockPhoto rejected the shot – and it is an interesting point why.

They rejected it for two reasons.

First, they had an issue with the lettering on the buses, which could be copyrighted.  Here is the bus with the best viewable lettering at more than 100%.

Even though I think this is a bit too obsessive, it is easy to remove in Photoshop.  The other issue IStockPhoto had with the picture was the keywords.  According to the reviewer, archeology, Jewish, and tourism are not relevant keywords!  I have noticed in general that my Israel pictures are vetted more closely for keywords than for photos of other places I have been.  In a recent shot of an Ibex near the Dead Sea, the shot was rejected due to the keywords “Dead Sea”.  I changed the title to indicate that the picture was taken a few hundred meters from the Dead Sea itself and the shot was accepted.  I likely will do something similar for this shot – after I Photoshop the buses.

This shot was rejected from both sites, but for different reasons.  Shutterstock rejected the shot due to limited commercial use.  IStockPhoto rejected it for poor lighting.  I’m not sure I agree with the “poor lighting” rejection, but the limited commercial use rejection is plausible.  Many microstock sites will not accept most flower pictures.  Although I rather like this shot, I agree that it is not much more impressive than the millions of other flower shots out there.

This shot, of Petra at night, was accepted by Shutterstock and accepted on IStockPhoto.  On Shutterstock, it is a very good seller and one of my coworkers recently saw it in an advertisement.  The problem I had when taking this shot was it was extremely dark there.  The candles simply weren’t that bright and the monument is huge.  I used by Canon 16-35 2.8L II lens to take the shot but I still needed to take it at f/2.8 with an exposure of 30 seconds at ISO 800.  Because I took the shot at ISO 800, it had noise.  I used Noise Ninja to remove the noise and Shutterstock accepted the picture.  IStockPhoto rejected it due to the use of noise reduction.  I tried reducing the amount of noise reduction, while still removing the noise, but it was to no avail.  IStockPhoto simply didn’t take it.  Still, this is their loss – as the photo is a very good seller on Shutterstock.

This one is actually a trick question.  I have not submitted it to IStockPhoto yet, but Shutterstock rejected it because I had too many similar photos.  Ironically, IMHO this photo is a bit better than the other similar ones that Shutterstock accepted!  The similar ones have sold rather well and I intend to submit this one soon – once the rejected image is deleted from their database.  This isn’t a bad tactic to use, because if all of the shots were accepted at once they would all slow down at the same time in terms of sales.  Spacing these shots out over several months will enable me to get the maximum sales from them.

This shot was rejected due to the poor lighting.  In this case I agree with the reviewer, but thought it was still worth the shot.  Even if it were accepted, there are so many shots of flamingos out there that it would have been unlikely to sell well.  In general, bird shots do not sell very well on the microstock sites – similarly for insects.

This photo was rejected on Shutterstock but was accepted on IStockPhoto.  Shutterstock rejected it due to limited commercial use, but in my experience bee shots are decent sellers.  Compared to other insect shots they sell quite well.  The key thing to remember is that you are at the mercy of the reviewers.  Don’t take offense when you get a rejection you don’t agree with.  Just move on to your next shot and take solace that you don’t have to do their job.  Also remember that you took this shot for yourself, and no reviewer can take that from you.

First I must remind everyone that I am posting these shots here to help you get started in microstock photography.  Please do not steal my ideas – in particular this one.  If I find that these ideas are being used in other photos, I will not continue series like these.

It should be obvious what the problem with the shot is.  The lighting is horrible.  I eventually do plan to retake this picture with better lighting, but I decided to submit this version anyways.  IStockPhoto rejected it due to the lighting – but added a nice comment that the reviewer loved the shot and that I should retake it.  Shutterstock accepted it and it has sold decently well there – even an enhanced license.

This just shows that thinking outside of the box can often have good results.  Try to find ideas and shot that others have not taken, and you will often see good results.

This is the end of the my series on microstock photography.  I hope that at least some of this info has proven helpful and that you are able to earn yourself a bit extra with the microstock sites.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This image was rejected for poor lighting.  It is a complete isolation that took me some time to accomplish.  I took this picture explicitly for stock.  The result… I wasted my time.  This is an example of why you should only take the pictures you like, rather than take pictures just for stock.  If you take only the pictures you want to take, only the extra time spent adding keywords will be wasted if the image is not accepted or does not sell.

Interestingly, some time after this shot was rejected I post processed it a bit more and it was accepted.

This picture was rejected, but I can honestly not tell you why.  There are a number of possible reasons – focus, use as stock, etc.  However, I don’t really care.  I took this image as an experiment for depth of field.  It is a close up of the ball point of a pen with a very shallow depth of field.  The shot will not win any awards, but it was an experiment.  I submitted the shot figuring that it was worth a shot.  Since I took this shot for myself, I was not upset that the image was rejected.

This, and another more edited version of the shot, are my best selling pictures for microstock.  I submitted this original shot some time ago, then performed a better edit and submitted that one.  Both shots were accepted by Shutterstock, while the more edited version was rejected by IStockPhoto but the version above was accepted.  Together, this is the best selling shot for Dubai.  I have made over $1000 in income from microstock just for this shot – so with the right shots you can definitely make money there.  Eventually, I expect the money from this shot to pay for one of the nights we stayed there!

This shot was the result of 200 attempts to get a falling drop.  I took it entirely for myself but thought the end shot may sell.  Interestingly, this shot was rejected on Shutterstock but accepted on IStockPhoto.  I’m guessing that the reason is the shot is more artistic.  Sometimes IStockPhoto reviewers will be more flexible about focus and other things if they really like the shot.  In this case, the drop itself is a bit out of focus.  The flash is also a bit too strong on the drop.  Because of this, the shot was rejected on Shutterstock.  On IStockPhoto several copies were sold but it’s not a great seller.

For those who are wondering what this is, it is a closeup of velcro.  The main reason I took this shot was I was curious what it would look like close up.  I got a kick out of the resulting image and thought others may want the photo.  Of course, the reviewers thought otherwise and this was an easy rejection for them.  Still, I don’t mind because I satisfied the main aim of this picture – which was to satisfy my curiosity.

This has long been one of my favorite frost pictures.  Typically when I show this picture off, I don’t hear much of a response.  I have posted this on the web and shown it in presentations and never have I heard “nice shot!”.  After some time, my suspicions are that this is not a great shot in the minds of most others.  This is an example of a shot that I believed was much better than judged by others.  Clearly the reviewer was in the “others” camp as this image was rejected for not being stock worthy.

Although I still like the shot, I do recognize that it would not sell well.  There are just too many different pictures of flowers out there and my other images of frost that were accepted did not sell well.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Remember, the questions to consider for each image are

1. Was it accepted?
2. If accepted, was it accepted on all sites?
3. Did it sell?

This photo was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  The main reason it was rejected is the Key Arena logo in the lower right corner.  This is very often a problem in city scenes.  Shutterstock, though, had no issue with the photo and accepted it.  It sells quite well and when I recently checked it, it was #10 out of 473 shot for the Seattle skyline.  My only ask is that you do not flood the market more than it is already flooded with Seattle skyline pictures.

This shot was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  In truth, the focus of the shot is debatable.  Given the texture of the dandelion seeds it is very difficult to tell whether they are properly in focus.  IStockPhoto, when in doubt, generally rules the photos as out of focus.  Shutterstock is usually a bit more lenient.  This image has not been downloaded very often, but did receive an extended license.  Note that this image has a number of emotional keywords – such as “freedom” – defined from the free flowing seeds.  Always make sure to include the best set of keywords possible.

This picture was accepted on both sites and is my best selling insect picture.  I think it sells well because it is of a desirable insect (ladybug) and it has a number of “emotional” keywords – such as predator, prey, life, death, etc.  Interestingly, this shot sells much better on IStockPhoto than on Shutterstock.  In general, the top shots usually do sell better on IStockPhoto because they earn more per download.  You usually make more money on Shutterstock though because the lesser images also sell.  This particularly image was used on the BBC web site.

This is also a good lesson for remembering the “other” English.  Ladybugs are called “ladybirds” in England and I always include both words when keywording.  Some microstock sites will do this logic for you, but this is not guaranteed so I make no bets on it.

This shot was rejected.  As you can see in the image below the end of the beak is out of focus.  While the rest of the photo is in focus, the drop constitutes a key part of the photo.  In general, not all parts of your photo must be in focus.  However, if that part is an important part of the photo, it must be in focus or your image will be rejected.

Even if this picture were accepted, I doubt it would sell well.  There are just too many pictures of swans out there.

This particular shot was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  The IStockPhoto rejection was for too much post processing.  I rather like the processing here, but obviously the reviewer disagreed.  I do wish that I had toned down the building in the center a bit.  Still, the IStockPhoto reviewer was likely right as this shot has sold only moderately on Shutterstock.  Skylines in general are good sellers but please don’t flood the market with Seattle shots!

This shot was accepted on both sites and is a decent seller.  In general isolation shots do very well in stock because they allow the graphic designer a good deal of freedom.  In this particular shot, it is not a true isolation as you can see the shadows underneath the legs.  For this purpose, though, most graphic designers will accept that and still use it.  For less complicated objects, you will usually earn more by doing a complete isolation.  There are a number of techniques for isolation on the Internet.  I find that different techniques work with different shots.  For me, shooting the image slightly overexposed and then playing with levels has worked quite well.

One thing to keep in mind with isolation shots though is you must get the isolation right.  When I first started these types of shots I would often receive rejections due to bad editing.  In my case I found that practice makes perfect (OK, not perfect but you get what I mean).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Often the best selling pictures are those others haven’t thought of.  Try to be a bit inventive and try some new things.  Some of my best selling images were ones where I thought “let’s try this”.

However, my best selling images by far are those I took on vacation.  Sometimes I have even paid for a good portion of the vacation itself.  Especially if you go somewhere exotic, always remember to bring your camera with you and think about stock when taking photos.  Very often I see a shot that I wouldn’t have thought to take otherwise – but I feel it may be worth a try as stock.  Sometimes the sales of the shot shock me.  Just remember when shooting outdoors to try to take shots during the late afternoon or early morning.  Often this means I have to get up quite early on vacation, but I always find the pictures are worth it – whether or not I sell them as stock.

I always keep stock photography in mind when taking a shot, even if I am not intending to sell the shot.  Who knows?  Very often I find that – when thinking about stock – I improve the shot and my photography overall.  I watch carefully what is in the frame and make sure the shot is sharp – even when taking shots of my kids.  Therefore, when I do stumble on a picture that does well as stock – there is often very little I need to do to it.

In terms of where to start, I recommend that you start with Fotolia first.  This is not the site where you will make the most money.  However, it is the easiest one to join and you receive very quick feedback on your photos.  Once you have a selection of photos that were accepted there, join Shutterstock – where you’ll begin to make a better profit.  Once you are comfortable with microstock photography, join IStockPhoto.

If your photo is rejected, don’t take offense.  I also don’t recommend resubmitting the picture, unless you have strong reasons why it should have been accepted and you feel that the picture will sell well.  Your time is valuable, and if a picture isn’t accepted I wouldn’t bother spending any more time on it.  This takes a bit of time getting used to as many of us don’t like to see rejections, but instead of lingering on the ones that didn’t pass, spend time taking and improving the next batch.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Without proper keywording, buyers will never find your picture.  No matter how beautiful it is, buyers will never see it.  Therefore, you need to make as full use of the keywording space as possible.  Most sites allow you to use up to fifty keywords and I suggest that you reach this limit for many of your photos.  This does not mean you should keyword spam.  Many sites automatically catch keywords such as “teen” and “sex” and ban you if you are found keyword spamming.  Your keywords must also be relevant to the specific picture.  Choosing a large number of relevant keywords people would actually use is as much of an art as a science.

First, do not even think of adding keywords on the individual stock sites.  All microstock sites have the facility where you can add keywords when you submit the picture.  Do not do this.  Instead, add keywords before you upload the picture in Photoshop, Lightroom, or in whatever software package you prefer.  When you submit your picture, you often just have to click a single button to transfer these keywords over – with a notable exception being IStockPhoto.

The title and description of your photo are also important but not as much as keywords.  Often the title and/or the description will influence whether your photo is considered relevant for the designer’s uses.  However at that point they can see your photo and often decide based on the merits of the actual photograph.  To my knowledge none of the microstock sites use the description or the title when returning search results.  If you intend to submit to Dreamstime, make sure your description is at least five words long and that the title and description are different (if you can’t think of any easy way, add the words “the” or “a”).

So how to you choose these keywords?  The first thing I do is look up competing images on Shutterstock.  Click on the most popular images and look at their keywords.  Incidentally, Shutterstock also makes it very easy to copy the keywords for an image.  Very often I do this, but then go through all of the keywords to make sure they are relevant and useful.  Do not just blindly copy keywords.  Usually I am able to think of some better keywords and I disagree with some of the keywords from the other image.

Another tactic is to look up synonyms for your keywords.  I used to have a software package I wrote that automatically looked up synonyms on an Internet dictionary site.  I was then able to choose which synonyms match.  I believe there are software packages available that do essentially the same thing.  This is a good way to build up keywords.

Always be specific in your keywords.  If you have a picture of a sunset or gorgeous vista – always include the place where the photo was taken both in the title and the keywords.  If you have an interesting flower, include the scientific name, common name, and hybrid if none.  For animals and insects, always include the scientific name and any common names – which are often nonsingular.  For instance pill bugs are called roly polies elsewhere.  Also keep in mind regional differences.  While most microstock sites will translate to/from British English, if the word is uncommon it is a good idea for you to do yourself.  For instance, lady bugs are called lady birds there.

Keywording and IStockPhoto

In short, keywording at IStockPhoto is a pain.  They have their own controlled vocabulary to which you must match your keywords.  This means that, if you submit there, you must take a slightly different approach to keywords.  Generally I keyword as normal for all of the other microstock sites, then change the keywords for IStockPhoto on their site – making changes to the original keywords as necessary.  Since this is the only site that will reject for keywords, there are some gotchas you need to worry about.

Say you have a picture taken in the Middle East.  For most microstock sites, you will want to include “Middle” and “Peace” in your keywords.  You may also enter “Middle East”.  Any some microstock sites, images with the keyword “Middle East” will only be returned when the search terms include “Middle East” surrounded by quotes.  If you use the keywords “Middle” and “Peace” the quotes are not necessary.  The vast majority of search results do not contain quotes.  However, when you submit your photo to IStockPhoto you will not be able to use the keywords “Middle” and “East”.  As these two keywords are not relevant to the photo (taken individually) your photo will be rejected.  The correct action for IStockPhoto is to use the full word – “Middle East”.  This will map to their controlled vocabulary and your image will be accepted if all other aspects of it are OK.  Therefore, on IStockPhoto’s keyword list you will want to cross of “Middle” and “East” and add “Middle East”.

Other tips

Do reuse keywords from other images that are similar.  I do this quite often and it speeds up the process significantly.  However, if I have time I try to think of some new and different keywords.  After all, if searchers cannot find the original image they will not find one with identical keywords.

Always put all nouns in the singular.  Most sites are smart enough to return search results from the plural.  However not all microstock sites will convert plural keywords to their singular forms.

Do not put copyrighted keywords in an image.  Many microstock sites will reject images that contain copyrighted keywords.  Instead, break up the keyword (instead of “Indiana Jones” use “Indiana” and “Jones” – but not on IStockPhoto) if possible or choose a synonym.

When shooting travel shots, look up the history and details about the place where the photo was taken.  Is there an architectural term or historical term for what you are looking at.  I find Wikipedia to be a great source for keywords.  Also consider what emotions the shot conveys.  Do words such as “hard work”, “happiness”, or “sadness” have meaning in your photo?  If so it is a good idea to add them.

I hope these tips will help improve your keywords.  Keywording is definitely a skill you should spend some time improving and is the key to better selling images (or images that sell at all).

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

IStockPhoto is most well known for their per download pricing.  Clients pay more for larger sized images.  The photographer receives a cut from these costs – though that cut is much less than it is on other sites.  Still, each download should earn you several dollars on IStockPhoto.  They also recently started a subscription plan similar to Shutterstock.  Downloads with their subscription plan earn significantly less but are not yet as common.  Finally, IStockPhoto offers enhanced license sales that each earn you a bit less than the equivalent sale on Shutterstock.

The overall review process and sales are much more difficult on this site than on Shutterstock.  Only the best pictures will sell and average pictures will generally earn nothing.  Most likely because of this, the reviewers are much tougher.

Until recently, I found IStockPhoto reviewers remarkably consistent.  This is no longer the case and I strongly suspect their new keywording system is the culprit for my reduced sales.  Six months ago IStockPhoto rivaled Shutterstock in sales – even overtaking them once in awhile.  This is no longer the case and my IStockPhoto sales are about 25% of my total – compared to 50% for Shutterstock.

Submission process

Submitting pictures at IStockPhoto is a pain.  You must first check several checkboxes, then select categories (of which there are many) and finally correlate your keywords to theirs.  After approximately two weeks they will review your pictures.  IStockPhoto severely limits the number of pictures you can submit per week.  Currently I am limited to fifteen – though due to the pain involved in submitting I very often do not submit during a week.

IStockPhoto reviewers do give you more information about why the photo failed though and do give you the opportunity to resubmit if the image is deemed fixable.  It is also the only site where rejections due to keywords are common.  This is because they have their own controlled keywords that you must map your keywords to.  This can be a lengthy process and slows down submitting considerably.  You are then at the mercy of the reviewer whether your keywords are considered relevant.  For example, I often include the keyword “garden” with pictures of my insects because most of these pictures were taken in my garden.  Sometimes (about 25% of the time) my pictures are rejected at IStockPhoto due to this keyword though recently I have started removing it on their site.  Another example was a picture of the city walls in Jerusalem – which was rejected for the keywords “Jewish” and “Archeology”.

IStockPhotos is also the most tempermental when it comes to noise reduction.  While most sites will accept photos run through Noise Ninja, IStockPhoto will generally reject them.  Many shots that were accepted without issue and sell well on other sites were never accepted on IStockPhoto because they did not like the noise reduction.

Acceptance process

To be accepted at IStockPhoto you must submit several pictures that all pass the review process.  If any pictures fail, you can submit new ones.  There is no waiting period so the result is that acceptance at IStockPhoto is quite a bit easier than at Shutterstock.

Exclusivity

IStockPhoto offers a program of exclusivity.  This has a number of benefits including placing your images earlier in the search process, higher commissions, faster reviews, and higher upload limits.  They also have a number of events planned for their exclusive submitters.  In my opinion, this program is one of the biggest flaws of IStockPhoto and a primary reason they are losing the battle against Shutterstock.  Shutterstock very early on decided to treat all photographers the same (though not very well )  Still, all submitters at Shutterstock are paid with the same scale.

I cannot more strongly recommend to not participate in their exclusive program.  There are many things wrong with it but the main thing is they own you.  If they decide to not accept one of your shots, you cannot sell it elsewhere.  You are severely limited in ways that you can sell your pictures.  You cannot submit a single picture to another agency.

Why would you do this when they are not even the top paying site!  Instead, you can earn far more money by submitting to several sites and maintain your independence and legal right to sell your pictures however you please.

Advantages of IStockPhoto

IStockPhoto offers the best reviewer feedback.  Except with the ridiculous reviews of keywords, I generally find that the reviewers are correct when they reject the image for other reasons.  Their feedback has helped me improve as a photographer.  Also, if an image can be fixed they allow you to do so and resubmit it.

My very top pictures also sell better on IStockPhoto than on Shutterstock.  This is simple mathematics – earning several dollars per download will always exceed twenty five to thirty eight cents per download.  However, Shutterstock wins out in that pictures that sell no copies on IStockPhoto sell several on Shutterstock.

IStockPhoto is still perhaps the most well known and respected microstock agency, though that is changing in today’s market.  They are also more lenient towards artistic photos – while at other sites they will be quickly rejected.

Disadvantages of IStockPhoto

The submission process at IStockPhoto is painful and it takes a long time to get a large portfolio there due to the upload limits.  The fact that they reject often for keywords makes this even more difficult.  Also, many of the pictures you submit there will never sell.

Despite the disadvantages, it is worth giving IStockPhoto some of your time as the income there is decent.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The following are breakdowns of how each site did.

StockXPert (5.76%) – Overall it seems like it was a wise idea to join this site.  Sales are still the lowest of all the sites where I submit, but the percentage has grown from 1-2% of total to something a bit more meaningful.  This is also the easiest site to submit to, as I do not need to categorize my pictures.

Fotolia (7.52%) – I have noticed Fotolia becoming more erratic with their reviews.  Pictures that are rejected at both Shutterstock and IStockPhoto – whose rejections once I look at the shot I agree with – were accepted by Fotolia.  On the other hand, a good number of shots that are accepted by both are rejected for reasons I do not agree with – though it’s not worth the bother to resubmit.  Only a few sales late in the month prevented Fotolia from moving to last place, though their days solidly in third place appear to be over.

Dreamstime (10.34%) – It is not overly difficult to submit here – though a bit more difficult than Shutterstock – but I am pleased with the numbers.  I suspect that Dreamstime will solidly occupy the #3 slot for some time.  Their review system is a bit weird – and I’m not talking about the actual reviews.  Currently I just submit my shots there and look at the sales – I don’t really have an idea how many shots they accept/reject.

Shutterstock (37.85%) – For just the second time Shutterstock comes in second to IStockPhoto, though the race was very close.  Perhaps IStockPhoto’s new subscription element is hurting them, as I have noticed a dropoff in sales.  Still, as I mentioned above I saw the same results this year as I did next year, so I won’t really know if anything is up until next month.  Supposedly this month there will be a raise, so I expect May’s results to be higher.

IStockPhoto (38.53%) – In a narrow race IStockPhoto edges out Shutterstock.  This month they began a subscription plan, but I have yet to really see a difference in the pattern of sales.  Perhaps next month I will start to see more subscription downloads.  It does seem that IStockPhoto was less affected by the slowdown than Shutterstock, reflected in IStockPhoto being tops in sales for the month.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The following are some details I noticed about each site this month.

StockXPert (2.95%) – I now have most of my portfolio submitted to this site.  They are they most paranoid site in terms of potential rights issues and as a result most of my best selling shots were not accepted.  As this is the easiest site to submit too, I will likely continue to submit here even though my sales are low.  Still, this site has improved somewhat from the last two months.

Dreamstime (6.41%) – This was a rather standard month on Dreamstime, which had respectable but not outstanding sales.  It is certainly worth the effort to submit here, though I don’t pay attention to which shots are accepted/rejected.

Fotolia (7.37%) – Fotolia started out the month quite strong and at the beginning of the month was close to Shutterstock in sales.  However, after the middle of the month sales slowed considerably and it came close to being overcome by Dreamstime.  Of the Microstock sites, I still think this is the least professional site among them.  Right now obviously new buyers are coming in at a faster rate than sellers (displayed by the fact that my sales increased without submitting).  However I suspect some day that will end and Fotolia will be one of the first ones to go.

IStockPhoto (40.82%) – For most of the month IStockPhoto was in the distant lead over Shutterstock.  However, as with most months, sales at IStockPhoto remained erratic while sales at Shutterstock were steady.  The reviews at this site are still the most helpful and I like the fact that resubmission is encouraged.  However I still disagree with those who go exclusive with IStockPhoto – as you can make a lot more by diversifying.

Shutterstock (42.45%) – There has only been one month so far where Shutterstock was not top in sales and this was not the month.  In some ways I was glad that I did not have time to submit much this month as they were plagued by a rogue reviewer that rejected the majority of shots as “No commercial value”.  A number of the most popular photographers there were hit with this and were more than a little upset.  I’ll see soon whether this has been fixed, as I plan to submit a number of the pictures I have posted here recently – and I find that a flip of a coin is more helpful in determining whether they will be accepted on Shutterstock (not so on IStockPhoto, where they are accepted as long as there are no technical issues).

In terms of new sites, I applied to Lucky Oliver and was rejected.  I don’t really care much though, as after reading about others’ experiences this is more of a circus than a web site to sell pictures.  Ironically the major flaw of this site is favoring photographers too much over buyers.  They seem nice, but I don’t want to waste my time if the sales aren’t worth it.

I was accepted at several new sites – 123RF and a few others.  Perhaps this month I will take the time to finally get my portfolio up there.  I also tried out a new tool called ProStockMaster – but I found it unusable.  If I had the time I would write my own tool, but for now I will manually submit my shots – which once you have a system isn’t too much work.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Shutterstock (44.8%) – Last month, IStockPhoto took the lead for the first time.  I was curious if this trend would continue but this month but the answer was a resounding “no”.  IStockPhoto did regain a lot of ground at the end of the month, but Shutterstock easily came out ahead and came close to getting half of my total sales.  What is even more interesting is I did not submit any new shots until the very end of the month, which suggests that my sales increase was due to new buyers and not necessarily new shots.  In even better news, the forums on Shutterstock mention there may be a raise in May – so it seems likely that my earnings will continue to increase here.  The simple reality is, though they are not pleasant to deal with, this site does bring in the most money.

IStockPhoto (37.16%) IStockPhoto had a month similar to last month, but this month came behind Shutterstock in sales.  Based on these sales I suspect going exclusive with them in the future would be a very poor choice.  I must admit though it is a pain submitting images here, as they now check that the keywords match the image exactly and their opinions often differ from mine.  Still, their reviews were quite fair this month and several good images – including two for which I just sold large prints – were accepted by IStockPhoto but rejected by Shutterstock for not being of commercial value.

Fotolia (8.73%) This month was slightly better than my previous month.  Reviews here seem to be getting very unpredictable.  On one hand, images are reviewed very quickly – usually within 24 hours of submitting.  On the other hand, image rejection sometimes seems to be random.  A recent batch of shots there was massacred, though Shutterstock and IStockPhoto accepted most of them.  After working with other sites, Fotolia seems to be poorly managed.  They have gone through a number of bumps, including a disastrous upgrade early last year, and my sales have never fully recovered.  Still, it is currently third in my earnings and worthwhile to submit shots to.

Dreamstime (7.12%) This was a rather quiet month for Dreamstime.  I submitted a large batch of photos at the end of the month but they have yet to be reviewed.  Sales are not very common here, but the commissions tend to be larger than sites like Fotolia.  Then again, my portfolio on this site is much younger and smaller than Fotolia’s.

StockXPert (2.20%) A slight gain from last month has me not ready to ditch this site yet.  I currently do not have my best selling Dubai pictures on here, so I will add them and see what happens.  I suspect that eventually sales here will be similar to Fotolia and Dreamstime.  This is also the easiest site for which to submit images.

In March I hope to take more shots.  I already have a number of insect and spider shots awaiting, though admittedly they tend not to do very well.  All sites, except Fotolia, generally accept them.  Usually for each shot I get a handful of downloads over time.  Very often when one image gets downloaded, all of my other shots of the same insect also get downloaded.  So for instance I’ll either get no woodlouse downloads (most days), or every woodlouse image will be downloaded.  On IStockPhoto, sales are much slower, though some of my better ones like the ladybug eating an aphid have received a number of downloads.

I’m also thinking of submitting to other agencies.  LuckyOliver is mentioned often, though I have seen vastly different reports of sales.  I will probably do some investigation to see if there are other sites worth submitting to.  All in all I was very pleased with my sales this month and that will definitely have an impact on future equipment purchases.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.