I would suggest istock because unless the pictures feature children or interiors, they'll all be accepted. Since they're old and you have nothing to lose, even 2 cents per picture would be better than zero.  And generally, there are at least a few pictures every month that make me a dollar or more. I put pretty much all my mobile phone pictures and old images that won't be accepted anywhere else on istock and they generally make me at least a 100-200 dollars a month.

I would suggest istock because unless the pictures feature children or interiors, they'll all be accepted. Since they're old and you have nothing to lose, even 2 cents per picture would be better than zero.  And generally, there are at least a few pictures every month that make me a dollar or more. I put pretty much all my mobile phone pictures and old images that won't be accepted anywhere else on istock and they generally make me at least a 100-200 dollars a month.

Thanks, I wondered about istock.

Hello everyone, I'm new to the forum. Which stock photo agency should I join for my old editorial photos thar are only 2 MB - 2.5 MB in size? (From years 2002 - 2005, camera was 5 Megapixels.) Shutterstock and Alamy reject nearly all, even after editing. Dreamstime accepts them, but looking for 1 more. I heard istock is too cheap, what do you think? Is there another that will accept them and sell at a decent price? Thanks

There's no such thing as a decent price anymore. Might be 1,2 cents at iStock, 10 cents at Shutterstock, or 33 cents at Adobe. But might as well be 10+ dollar if you get lucky. They sell at the same pricing conditions as new images taken in 2022.

As far as older editorials go: I had no issue getting many of them accepted at iStock (takes nearly everything unless they find it to be unlicensable), Shutterstock (unpredictable rejections, but that's also the case for new images), as Adobe (only takes Illustrative Editorial) and Dreamstime (100% acceptance rate). As long as your image has the minimum amount of megapixels and decent quality (which is obviously more difficult on less advanced camera's), you have a fair chance into getting it accepted, no matter how old it is. Only exception is Alamy, they tend to reject pictures from older camera's or certain smartphones by default no matter the quality.

Do they sell? Depends on the topic, but to my gut feeling indeed less in volume than newer editorials. I once sold quite some, and for a short period of time, images from a building taken in 2008 with a point and shoot. Turns out they renovated it and I guess customers were looking for before/after shots. Earlier today I sold an 2007 image from a traditional folklore festival. And every now and then I see an image in my reports of which I think: "oh yeah, right, I've been there. Djee, already 10 years ago?".

If you have the time to upload them, spread them over all the agencies where you have accounts on. Older editorials are sometimes needed for historical reasons, and some of them can even stand the test of time.

Quote from: Dave-VVM on September 02, 2022, 00:53

Hello everyone, I'm new to the forum. Which stock photo agency should I join for my old editorial photos thar are only 2 MB - 2.5 MB in size? (From years 2002 - 2005, camera was 5 Megapixels.) Shutterstock and Alamy reject nearly all, even after editing. Dreamstime accepts them, but looking for 1 more. I heard istock is too cheap, what do you think? Is there another that will accept them and sell at a decent price? Thanks

There's no such thing as a decent price anymore. Might be 1,2 cents at iStock, 10 cents at Shutterstock, or 33 cents at Adobe. But might as well be 10+ dollar if you get lucky. They sell at the same pricing conditions as new images taken in 2022.

As far as older editorials go: I had no issue getting many of them accepted at iStock (takes nearly everything unless they find it to be unlicensable), Shutterstock (unpredictable rejections, but that's also the case for new images), as Adobe (only takes Illustrative Editorial) and Dreamstime (100% acceptance rate). As long as your image has the minimum amount of megapixels and decent quality (which is obviously more difficult on less advanced camera's), you have a fair chance into getting it accepted, no matter how old it is. Only exception is Alamy, they tend to reject pictures from older camera's or certain smartphones by default no matter the quality.

Do they sell? Depends on the topic, but to my gut feeling indeed less in volume than newer editorials. I once sold quite some, and for a short period of time, images from a building taken in 2008 with a point and shoot. Turns out they renovated it and I guess customers were looking for before/after shots. Earlier today I sold an 2007 image from a traditional folklore festival. And every now and then I see an image in my reports of which I think: "oh yeah, right, I've been there. Djee, already 10 years ago?".

If you have the time to upload them, spread them over all the agencies where you have accounts on. Older editorials are sometimes needed for historical reasons, and some of them can even stand the test of time.

Thank you for the tips Roscoe.
I am guessing that you have been with istock for some years already?
They are making me (and others) applying to be a new editorial contributor, to apply separately, and submit a portfolio. I'm crossing my fingers.
Did they make you submit a separate editorial portfolio to become an editorial contributor when you joined istock?

Thanks