If I sell, if would preferably (only) be to sites/persons that want to use these in their own products, magazines, webpages etc. i.e. promoting their own good with MY pictures. So I assume (Rights Managed) RM is the correct licencing.

I.e. a few large sales instead of many small amounts ..

My pictures at FP is here http://www.featurepics.com/Authors/Images2922.aspx

Or if you have any other suggestions I appreciate comments.

__________________
My website http://www.nor-foto.no
http://www.featurepics.com/Authors/Images2922.aspx
http://www.fotolia.co.uk/partner/101036

Hi

I can't tell you what is better between micro and macro stock but I think that byers avoid RM licenses. Now is very easy to find good RF image for small amount of money.

One more advice. I don't know about your camera but this images is not good for camera sensor. Sun can very easy make damage on your sensor.

__________________

Latest photo news, digital cameras, photo blog software reviews

Looks like the bike contest photos are editorial and not stock, since there are company brand logos visible and I assume you don't have a model release of the bikers.

I'm thinking more and more about selling exclusively in RM because it's more fair for the photographer and also more rewarding.

I'm building up my portfolio with Alamy and already had sales with them. Each sale was the equivalent of 1,000 Downloads with Micros!

There is another good place to sell pictures:
http://www.photographersdirect.com/

See what they have to say about Micros; I agree with most of it:
http://www.photographersdirect.com/s...cropayment.asp

What do you guys think?
-Christophe

That's actually not true, Macrostock agents such as Alamy actually sell many more RM pictures than RF, and their sales increase every year. Alamy had a record year 2006.

Most of Fortune 500 companies still buy pictures for $200 to $15,000 a piece depending on the use, thanks god for the photographers!

-Christophe

There's a difference between RM and RF...just because RF is cheaper doesn't mean it's better. RM gives you exclusive use of an image, normally for a period of one year. IIRC unlimited production runs too

BTW Photographers Direct doesn't allow you to register with them if you sell through microstcok photo sites also. I'm writing an email to them seeing what I can do to work around that (take photos off micro sites maybe, then switch to them?) Dunno.

Let us know what they say! They should have a more flexible policy, i.e. a photo on sale with Micro can't be on sale with them.

I did some more looking into macro stock sites....

-Getty Images-makes you pay to put photos up, and you have to get approved first

-Corbis-I couldn't find any infomation on photographer/contributor application

-JupiterImages-12MP camera required, with RAW file output...that's harsh!

-Alamy-48MB minimum uncompressed file size (you can upsize though)...they recommend digital cameras that can output files that are 17MB...even the 8MP RAW images from my 350D can only get up to about 9MB....I really don't have any idea how you can get that large of a file size without some SERIOUS upsizing, or a high MP camera....really odd.

-Photographers Direct-Their requirements on file size are not major, they don't require full size uploads immediate, minimum of 6MP. They do their business alot differently though, they don't sell photos nessesarily, they help you get in contact with a buyer, from what I read at least. .....Anyway, this place might be the best bet, but they don't seem to be as high up as the other sites.

I'm an Alamy contributor so I can clarify that. The size requirement is equivalent to a 16.8MP image (5100x3400).

48MB uncompressed is actually the size of a 5100x3400 saved image uncompressed in TIFF. That's also the number that you can see in the lower right corner in PS.

All my pictures with Alamy (200) are from Canon 10D or 20D upsized in PS.

-Christophe