All figures are gross. As ideal as it would be to make comparisons on net income, there are too many unknown factors and differences in calculation methods to make it work.

There’s till debate about how microstock will be affected by the economic situation given it’s a cheaper alternative. Sales appear to be rising rapidly so far, but personally, I don’t expect the net effect will be positive after another six months.

Alamy are hurting from the closures and downturn in the UK editorial market, so I expect earnings for Alamy-only photographers are down as well. However, for editorial photographers, I don’t expect microstock is a viable alternative yet.

Yes, there is a consensus and it depends what you shoot. For commercial stock photos, microstock will generate around $1 RPI per month, while Alamy contributors reported in their forums reaching figures closer to $1 per year. However, I understand that if you shoot editorial or difficult-to-access niche topics, Alamy will earn you a higher return than microstock.

I’ve had photos available on Alamy myself in the past, but have since taken them down. It takes commitment to win favor with AlamyRank, so while my photos have a higher earning potential in microstock, that’s where I’m concentrating my effort.

Photographers using the “traditional agencies” I referred to report RPIs much higher than microstock.

Disagree. Familiar with Alamy? Its not traditional, but its not micro — so far.
All one has to do is pass quality control.
Don’t know if you would make more or less than $1K/mo. there.
All depends on combo of one’s quanity, quality, variety, keywording.
Are there many doing both micro AND nonmicro?
A significant body of data on that would be interesting, no?
Is there consensus as to which brings in more profit after expenses + work time?

What’s not “fair” for you is fine with me. Microstock supports the cost of my shoots just fine, but I understand why it wouldn’t do so for you – you maintain a studio, lots of equipment and employ other people. Not all buyers can justify the cost of traditional stock and would otherwise shoot themselves, go without, or steal an image. My “talent and creativity” have a certain market value, but that’s not up to me to decide – I let the market set the value.

I don’t have a problem with a “corporation using my images in multi million dollar ad campaigns for a couple of bucks”. Photos are now in ample supply so they’re paying market rates.

I know what my work is worth. I’m not at a standard where traditional stock agencies would be interested in selling my photos. Again, stock photos are in ample supply, so my photos are selling at market rates.

Microstock, the term, is a contraction of ‘micropayment stock photography’, and the micropayment portion explains why the credit card transaction costs are dealt with.

You’re emotional about this topic (“fair”, “worthless”, “screwing”, SHOUTING, “For Gods sakes”) so you’re not seeing the reality. It’s not complicated. Stock photos are now easy to produce, so the supply goes way up, which brings down the price. Living from stock photography with a high cost operation is now many times more difficult than it was in the past and fewer people will be able to do so successfully. If you can understand accept this reality you’ll relieve some of that anger. I wish you luck.

-Lee