File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
does /p/ have any experience with micro-stock photo sites?

Also in a completely opposite end of the spectrum, does /p/ have any good watermarking tools?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera Modelu1010,S1010Camera SoftwareVersion 1.1Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.3Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution314 dpiVertical Resolution314 dpiImage Created2008:07:09 21:19:17Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating250Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length6.60 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3648Image Height2736RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
Micro-stock is mostly a rip-off for photographers. Lowers the going rate for work and you mostly get pennies for your time.

Watermarking can be done in PS.
>> Anonymous
How about for a college student, looking for some part time cash?
>> Anonymous
>>237530
This is most definitely true.

>>237531
If you shoot the right kind of photos and have the time and patience to upload and keyword them, you can make a little money at it. Many agencies claim you can make $500+ monthly, but that's a very small set of their photographers. Most people make a few bucks a month. It also comes down to how much you value your own work and whether or not you want to personally contribute to the death of professional stock photography in order to get your own $0.25 per image slice of the pie.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
I make about Ken Rockwell a month in stock photography so I would say yes
>> Anonymous
>>237573
and you don't know what slr means?