Our Review: 

February 2014 - Pixmac have anounced their closure following merger with pond5 in 2013 - "pixmac.com will be closing soon"

For historical reference the final pixmac review is as follows:

Pixmac resell images from various microstock sites including Depositphotos and Yaymicro along with a 'premium' macrostock priced collection from imagesource, this in addition to their own collection from contributing (microstock) photographers.

Pixmac currently offers more than 11.5 million images to buyers, most of which are sourced from other microstock sites via reseller agreements. A press release in May 2011 stated that they also have 750,000 of their own images uploaded directly to the site. The site describes itself as a food court of stock images.


In the past Pixmac has received some quite significant criticism from photographers, when launched the site was full of shocking spelling errors (who am I to talk!), including those in the terms and conditions, e.g. "in no case shell be liable for any demages"; at the time this and the fact that photographers were confused when they saw their own fotolia images being resold without explanation lead to a general feeling that pixmac was 'yet another start-up microstock'. Pixmac have worked hard to rid themselves of that label with photographers, but it's important to realise that new buyers don't come with these preconceptions and will buy if they find an image they like and can obtain it conveniently. Pixmac were previously resellers of Fotolia and Dreamstime images, however these two agencies dropped pixmac from their reseller lists or did not renew contracts. Shortly after allegations (which Pixmac strongly denied) of irregularities in sales tracking were made.


My initial review of pixmac (nov 08) was not entirely favorable. I uploaded images only to test the waters, there was a general feeling in the microstock contributor community "why upload here if you are already on fotolia?".

I've seen continued poor sales from pixmac for 5 years. That's is not however my main criticism, many of the low end sites are like that. With me it's three strikes and you're out. At pixmac I have seem too many suspicious irregularities regarding payments, account balances, api and partner payments etc; from what others have said I'm not the only one, I Recommend you DO NOT upload your portfolio to pixmac.


This is a great place for image buyers. Not perhaps so good for selling images



More details on the pixmac website


Site Details
Real US$ Cost of 1 Standard Image: 
3.72 (compare prices)
Referral Scheme: 
Yes, Buyers only, 2 options, Revenue share option is 40% - 60% of pixmac's net earnings from buyers sales (note net earnings - it won't be 40% of what a buyer spends if the image is via fotolia etc) (compare rates)
Cost of a standard image (1600x1200) 2MP approx: 
3 Credits
Royalty Rate: 
30% revenue for first $200 of earnings then 40%, guarantee of $0.25 per image downloaded. Replaced previous offer of 50% of revenue 3rd Jan 2011. (compare)
Cost of 1 Credit (basic): 
$ 1.24
FTP Upload: 

Address: ftp://ftp.pixmac.com
User: same username and password as site login

Reseller: JSON XML (details: pixmac.com/api) (list all)
Site Statistics
Approx. size of photo collection (0 = no current estimate): 
750,000 Images (compare)
Alexa Traffic Rank: 
12373 (a measure of the site popularity, lower number is better)
Alexa 3 Month Change: 
5% (measurement of the increase of site popularity compared with three months ago, negative is a decrease)
fan page link (list all)
@pixmac (list all)
Overall Rating: 
Site Closed / Not Recommended

Vitezslav Valka's picture

Clarification of data:

Vitezslav Valka (not verified) on Mon, 2008-11-24 10:27
Hello, I would like to clarify some statements here. 1. Pixmac is a Czech company, but not owned by Denisa Haveldova. The owners are guys who have a lot of experience either in selling stock photos and making big website portals. 2. Pixmac is selling third party pictures, as stated in the blog: http://blog.pixmac.com/2008/11/24/why-do-i-have-my-photos-at-pixmac/ and in the Infocenter. 3. The site is under heavy development. We at Pixmac are working hard to make it the most usable microstock site. So, we are sorry for these spelling mistakes now present on the site...
Steve Gibson's picture

Re Clarification

Steve Gibson on Tue, 2008-11-25 23:33

Thanks for your comments, I guess that's what you get for believing wikipedia.

If pixmac is so 'under development' then why has the photographer submission area gone live? Why were there so many, shall we say "promotional comments" about pixmac made on forums and blogs a few months back?

I thought what I had written was a fair view of the site as it stands at present?

Microstockinsider.com Editor

Vitezslav Valka's picture

Trust me

Vitezslav Valka (not verified) on Fri, 2008-11-28 10:07
Hello Steve, thank you for the article. It's a fine revision of Pixmac. I just wanted to sort out some things to make it even better. Trust me :) I'm siting right next to Denisa Haveldova in the Pixmac office. I'm also the guy responsible for the UI and user experience. To proove it, visit the Pixmac Blog and you'll see my name there. Thank you, Vitezslav
Anonymous's picture

pixmac strategies and results

Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2009-08-17 14:38
Thank you for this review and the comments. I looked at the site carefully, but will not try to upload anything. Hopefully they can employ someone who knows well both English and the law. Personally I do not like that heavy focus on celebrities together with reselling Fotolia images. Reading the "sell you your photos" section gave me a feeling that they learned from other microstock agencies (iStockPhoto and Shutterstock for example)what sells well. Namely - isolated images on white background and people shots. So that way they hope to make big money because they will focus just on those two types of photography. Well... what is the priority then? I also checked several (quite a large number) of contributor portfolios and started laughing. Some of them with prescribed by Pixmac (isolated objects, people shots) and fine quality images all around 1000 or more in number and for 1.5 year on Pixmac revceived no sales or some pitiful 4 or 5 photo sales. Wow - that is a record. I reached those numbers with only 9 pictures in my portfolio within the first 4 days on Shutterstock.
Steve Gibson's picture

Quick Update

Steve Gibson on Mon, 2009-08-17 23:45

Thanks for the data, it mirrors what I see, I've had at least 5 months with 99 accepted images and earned nothing. (Edit Oct 09 - Had a couple of direct sales in the past few months, but still nothing significant)

Steve, Microstockinsider.com Editor

Vlczak's picture


Vlczak (not verified) on Mon, 2010-12-06 13:39

Add new comment

Popular content