Hi Leonardo,
My own thoughts on stock are confused.
1) To be very successful with stock you need a very large collection of images.
2) Most stock images are, to my eyes, quite bland. Buyers rarely want "fine art" type images, they prefer unadulerated standard images that can be easily used in a book etc. without looking out of place.
I know of a very successful Alamy stock photographer who lives off her stock sales. She's happy to go out and "shoot stock". Personally I can't motivate myself for this style of photography - I need to be more involved in the creating the image.
3) There are of course some fantastic stock images out there that have clearly been "created" - Getty's full of them, but when I see them I find it hard to believe that the photographer's put in so much time, money and effort to create an image that may or may not sell. I'd like to really know where these images come from.
Perhaps they're unused images from a commissioned shoot?
4) This is sort of the approach I take. My example my personal "
Artisans" project consists of a selection of images that have received my own style of post production, which include playing with the colours. I'll probably use many of the "brut" images of documentary shots and sell them as stock. In this respect the investment is essentially free (other than keywordking, uploading, etc).
5) The whole microstock/real stock wars wear me down. It ruins the experience for me.
Tim