I don't see the point in pre-converting to sRGB, you just get a smaller color space to begin with and less leeway in editing. The output can always be sRGB, so not sure why one wouldn't edit in a wider color space.

Most of my works rely on image manipulations. There are many times I need to do strong adjustments and use multiple layers with different blending modes.

Color conversion is never perfect. And those small imperfections can accumulate and visibly shift the final result. Some set of adjustments can cause banding in a color space but not in another. A combinations of blending modes can look very different between color spaces.

I've decided that it's useless to edit my aRGB images under sRGB preview (Photoshop's soft proofing) in order to make it look good in sRGB but may not look as good in aRGB. And if I want to have the both versions look good in their own color spaces, I will have twice the work to do. So I decided to work in 16-bit sRGB.

Of course, this issue is rarely a problem in natural shots. I agree there are advantages in editing in a wide gamut space for this kind of image.

Editing in a very wide gamut space (such as ProPhoto RGB) needs to be done in 16-bit unless the image will be prone to banding.
Wide gamut space doesn't help prevent banding but editing in 16-bit does.

You upload in aRGB... Which agency do you upload to? If it is SS, they clearly say every image will end up in sRGB there. I'm not sure what they do with non sRGB images (convert or assign). If it's assign then your images won't look right. Hope they're smart enough to convert them.

BTW, I edit in 16bit sRGB with a standard gamut display. But yeah I would love to have a wide gamut display.

Josephine, I see your point on dismissing some complaints but the two petitions being raised are addressing issues that affect ALL contributors, including you, no matter how amazing your works are.

Quote from: flywing on November 02, 2016, 09:11

Quote from: ShadySue on November 02, 2016, 07:44

Quote from: spacedrone808 on November 02, 2016, 07:38

Delete your profiles. You can't do this?
There is another solution: delete your profiles.
Or another one: delete your profiles.

Use the correct terminology: I presume you are urging 'delete your portfolios'.

Though terminating your contract would be the best way to go to get all the money you're due.

That's true. It's better to contact their support to close your account. This way you will receive the money in your balance even though it's not yet $100.

So that's possible?  I'm at $ 99.51, and I definitely want my money.  What's the best way to go about closing my account and deleting my portfolio.

Yes, I've contacted their support.

Quote from: Dumc on October 29, 2016, 07:12

They should just implement some kind of report system, when users could report spammers, and then they should delete those scumbags' accounts...

I think that would be the eassiest way, after all, sometimes you have two or three same keywords in description and it's not neceseraly spam...

And why they don't do anything about it is beyond me, I'm pretty sure, customers are sick of seeing pages and pages of almost identical files on the first page of search...

was thinking the same, but this won't be good as the report system will get full with so many links (correct / incorrect) that they will start counting it as spam.

And spammers can change them back. They are editable.

Maybe they don't want to reduce the number of their available images which is a selling point against competitors, especially Adobe? And they don't want to modify their search engine, at least until they're certain about the behavior of the modified algorithm (if there is one)? I'm just trying to guess....