I'm also doing a startup in the stock photo industry. As a tech guy that's new to this industry, I've learnt a lot of things. So far, its been hard attracting

I'm also doing a startup in the stock photo industry. As a tech guy that's new to this industry, I've learnt a lot of things. So far, its been hard attracting pro photographers to the Microstock movement. Some have made the jump, iStockPhoto trying to get those guys in, but for most photographers, the microstock rates mean that the production values for photos can't be too high. Some guys are going the other way, i.e. Microstockers who've gotten bigger, e.g. Yuri Arcurs employs 20 people and wants to sell "premium" photos now. The types of images that sell on iStockPhoto are different than what sells on say gettyimages.com; they cater to a different segment of the market, albeit with some overlap. iStockPhoto allows individuals that want photos for business needs to get them on the cheap. Prior to iStockPhoto, if you bought a stock photo, you were a professional or were willing to pay pro-prices. Another difference is for instance that some istockphoto images have been photoshop-processed... e.g. a black and white filter has been added, or other effects applied. Pro photos tend to be minimally edited and leave it up to a designer to stylize. So, as opposed to a microstock agency, if you're building an aggregator of professionally shot images, what makes you different from say: http://blendimages.com http://blendimages.com, http://imagesource.com http://imagesource.com, http://moodboard.com http://moodboard.com? They think its a matter of dumping cash on marketing to do direct sales. I think otherwise. If you want to get in touch, send me an email.