Stay away from microstock. They pay as low as $0.25 per dowload claming selling "in bulk". Dond undersell yourself!.
GettyImages, Corbis, Alamy are super, but require huge files and are very difficult to get in..
I participate at shutterpoint. Sales are not huge, but if your image quality (delail, color, marketability) are good - you will sell. I sold 23 images there during 3 years of participation with medium price $50 for image(download). I'm advances hobbiest..
Shooting RAW allows you to more easily fix things like white balance in post. and to some extent you can recover blown highlights and generally make more aggressive changes to a file. from the raw converter you can save out as a jpeg or usually you can also do a TIF or PNG (but the file size will be quite large)..
There are many raw converters and each one has it's own algorithms for things like color (for better or for worse). I use iphoto, aperture, lightroom and adobe camera raw (which is part of Photoshop). a lot of folks are using lightroom now..
What I've heard about microstock is that you need to have a lot of photos posted to do well (it's a volume deal). I imagine you can do better if you can break into rights-managed vs. royalty free but the stock world is changing quickly. you see articles these days saying that microstock has basically killed stock as a good revenue generator (but I don't have personal experience to go with that)..
If you shoot people then I believe you need to have a release in order to upload to, say, istockphoto..
What is your opinion creating your independant site for promoting your own pics?.
_______________________________Have a look at http://photo4u.awardspace.com..
I make some small cash right now from microstock - enough to buy a new lens every now and again. I have less than a hundred pictures on any given site, but upload more when I can. I am on a few different sites and take pictures of many varied subjects. Different sites pay different amounts and have differing needs..
It obviously doesn't sit well with everyone in the photographic community, but it works for me and many others..
Good LuckBigDog Ken Griffith.
Sunny Westchester, NY..
I recommend using RAW+JPG setting of your camera..
Sometimes when shot is basic you will use just JPG. However if contrast, light are tough; RAW is better because converters often are better in post processing then camera engine..
White balance is easy to tweak in converter. If contrasts are strong raw converters pull detail out from shade very good as well..
RAW converter produce not only jpgs but TIFs as well. Serious stock agencies (Corbis, GettyImages, Alamy) are not accepting JPGs, but TIF..
There are many RAW converters avalable for use. First should be provided by your camera manufacturer on CD. You may also google "RAW Converter" and try multiple available from web till you will find perfect match for your needs..
I always shoot in RAW because it gives me better control over the overall image. After processing I save a DNG file, as well as a JPEG, which I use for sales..
Regarding stock agencies, I use Dreamstime, because they sell pretty good. You might want to read this info: http://hakimata.com/index-stock.html.
Paul HakimataWeb: http://www.hakimata.comStock portfolio: http://www.dreamstime.com/resp288114.
Photography: The Art of Converting a 'split second' into 'eternity'..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..