I uploaded my port to Panthermedia, but due to the slow submitting process, I was finishing 10-20 files a day. Now a lot of unfinished files has disappeared.
My wife's port was uploaded earlier, the whole bunch of unfinished files were deleted. In that time I contacted support, they said, they delete unfinished files after 6 months. But our files were uploaded max. 2 month ago. I said, maybe a server failure or something like this.
But now my files and a friend of mine also is in the same situation...
It's ridiculous... When I uploaded the files I selected them carefully, now everything is messed up... Which one was selected and which one was in unfinished section?
Is there something I don't know?

The DMCA is US law. Other countries may treat copyright infringements in the web differently.
What happened if someone  has a domain name registered in the US but has his own server elsewhere. Is the company in the US liable in any way?
[/quote]

If an agency has the watermark on an image, it's best to contact them. They loose royalties as you do (ok... some of them loose more if the contributor's royalty is just 15%). There it's still a lot of people who think, images found on internet are like money found on the street...

No.
You may want to contact DT support...

At the bottom of the submit page there is a switch:

Commission
( ) 50% - Image is only offered via PantherMedia (and equally/more expensive stock agencies)
( ) 30% - Image is also offered in cheaper stock agencies

It is unclear, which one should I choose?
Which agencies consider cheaper, equal and more expensive?

It's an another stupid figure-out game @ iStock. Anyway this problem comes from the programmer side of the development.
You have 900 frames (30sec x 30fps), in the reality this means 899 frames because they count from 0. But that's still 899 frames, isn't?

Anybody knows something about http://www.footagefirm.com?
I was looking for a contributor back-end or a register link but there isn't.
They also have a free footage site http://www.stockfootageforfree.com/ (at least says provided by ~)

Crestock looses where they want to earn. They pre-select the images, stating they are a long time ago in the industry and they know what and how.
Very sad, my online images are selling well, but I'm unable to upload anything new because they reject everything.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 21, 2010, 22:38

Quote from: icefront on November 21, 2010, 21:08
I'm using also for video, handhold IS is ok, but on tripod it's a disaster, with IS on, the image starts so shift away in random directions, so for video purposes turn off the IS.

To be fair, the extensive brochure which comes with the lens says that you must switch IS off when using the camera on a tripod. I keep forgetting that it has an IS mode 2 when panning moving subjects.

Yes, I know the IS-tripod fact, but there are situations when IS may be needed on tripod, especially when shooting HD video. The biggest problem of 5dmkII is that video is started with the set button, there is no other way. Pressing the button will shake the camera, no matter how gentle you do it. I consider saying this when the lens is at 400mm and there is also a little wind that shakes the lens. Another frequent situation is when I need to move the view (panning). No matter how gentle I touch the tripod handle, the result is a hard shake in the movie. (I need to mention, I had good results making the pan with a rubber band)
In the above situations the IS really helps, the problem comes when I release everything, there is no touch- or wind-caused vibration, the image starts to shift very slowly into a direction until the IS reaches it's limit, then stops shifting.
Using the live view and the 10x magnification I discovered a continuous, very fast IS vibration that practically will blur the image. This can be seen handhold and also from tripod.
I have to add, my 100-400 it's one of the oldest, according to the code printed on the back. Regardless of the fact that Canon didn't released the II version, they may upgraded the electronics, glasses or mechanics of the lens during the years, so others may see better results using their newer 100-400.

The flexibility of the zoom has no question.
Also the quality at 400mm depends on your habit, how do you hold the lens and what subjects do you shot. A slightly moved image appears to be blurry, unfortunately the IS can blur the image at certain shutter speeds, this is a fact confirmed by many.
According to the tests at the-digital-picture, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113, the lens should be better at 400mm (with increased CA) than at 100mm.
I studied the 300mm f/4 also the 300mm f/2.8, by using them. My opinion is that 300mm is too long for walk-around and too short for occasional wildlife. The 1.4 extender adds a little blur and CA. The most important question, when carrying the 300mm f/2.8, was, can I take with me an another lens today? Carrying this big and heavy lens isn't always the best idea to achieve the best result.
Please don't understand wrong the above opinions, I said what I think about the 100-400, but regardless of this, I love the lens and I think it's the best piece that perfectly covers the tele area. Saying this, I consider you have the 100mm macro, 17-40 or 16-35, and something between wide angle and 100mm. There is no question about, for the best results you need primes, to cover the 100-400's range, 100mm macro, 180mm macro, 300mm and the 1.4extender.

I have a 100-400 also, it can be used for stock photography, but you can be sure in the range of 100-300, at 400mm I consider soft. Of course, reducing the image size sharpens the image, also some super-bright, super high shutter speed photos pass the iStock's standard.
I'm saying the above because I bought mine for hobby purposes. I didn't intended to shot stock, only nature and wild animals. The problem with 100-400 is that the image stabilizer is quite old, at the most usable shutter speeds of 1/160...1/300 it's soft at higher focal lengths. However, I can shot very acceptable images at 1/30 at shorter focal lengths. This is my opinion, please consider your style of shooting as a different kind.
I'm using also for video, handhold IS is ok, but on tripod it's a disaster, with IS on, the image starts so shift away in random directions, so for video purposes turn off the IS.
The general parameters, sharpness, contrast are very ok, except the CA's, but with today's ACR this isn't a problem anymore.
Also a big drawback is the dust-suction "feature" of the lens, zooming a whole day makes full of dust your camera, since there isn't weather sealing in the lens. Videographers end up with a lot of dust on sensor.
My advice is to buy a cheap, used 100-400 and use it until the replacement arrives. Anyway a half year passes from the announce until you can have it in the bag.

Quote from: donding on September 11, 2010, 19:41
I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company.

Other than microstock will die in years. With today equipment and technology, the contributors along the world will contribute with images never seen before. I see a transition from all kinds of stock to a single one that will collect simply the good images instead of the huge garbage that flickr-like sites do collect. At affordable prices.
You can see this comparing stores or the car industry. I don't think, one store offers better goods than others only because they have higher prices. Also I don't think, a kind of car it's better 3x like the other, only because the price it's 3x.
Those at mid- and macrostock wants to save what can be saved today in terms of money.

OK, I saw many times this behavior, but this isn't really an option unless it's done massively by all.
The example in history: When StockXpert was closed I felt really bad since I saw 1 out of 5 of really working agencies will be missing, but after months, my statistics show no drop in the global income from microstock. This means automatically that buyers at StockXpert were spread along the remaining microstock agencies. I don't think, buyers are stupid in searches and choosing the agency, instead they are clever than we (contributors) think. Also they saw the prices and the same images at agencies.
At StockXpert all our portfolios vanished into the cyberspace, regardless of we wanted or not, so everybody of us needed to live on the remaining options. Now, removing our ports from IS can bring us the support of the independent agencies (who are our future), true, not in one month (when StockXpert buyers were helped to migrate to other agencies), but our independent future is based on independent agencies.
Note that i'm not a sticked/paid member of any agency, I simply talk about facts. 20% is a shameless low payout.
If we disable our portfolios at IS, a lot of content will be available only at competitors. I don't count the exclusives and those who aren't interested, or doesn't read the forums, but in theory this move can help us a lot. Another problem is the timing when everybody of us does the same move to achieve maximum impact on both sides.
Opinions wanted.

My buyers were spreading over the agencies but they didn't took the StockXpert's best match with them. These days I deleted my port @ StockXpert and I was just shocked about which images of mine had the most sales. At the other agencies (probably where StockXpert buyers landed), some of my best sellers at StockXpert, are not downloaded even once.
This is my loss, although my income wasn't altered in the last months.

Quote from: melastmohican on March 24, 2010, 17:14
This discussion is pointless. You cannot argue with facts:
1. Agencies already got enough images so they do not really need new supply

Well said, considering some subjects, BUT apart from the popular and obvious, there are a lot of uncovered themes. A lot.

Quote from: melastmohican on March 24, 2010, 17:14
...
5. You need to improve your skills rather than spent time ranting :-)

Yes.
As said, microstock is not a school so don't expect detailed rejections.
Microstock is a school, please learn from the bunch of rejections, sacrifice your images to learn, what an agency likes/dislikes. Anyway, ONE agency rejects the image, not all of them. OK, if all of them, that image really sucks.

Who benefits? iStockphoto. For them StockXpert became self-competition. Anyway, it's their business, what is the most important thing, regardless of the fact that StockXpert is gone, the same amount of stock photos are sold every day in the world. Those buyers who were @ StockXpert, they are dissolved between the remaining top agencies. It's normal, somebody will not stop buying images because an agency closes. The key is to be present at many agencies (as photographer) so you won't feel the hole.

This flagging system is in wrong hands when given to the public. Some people has no vision how the keywording works. Most of the flaggers do look at a single point and doesn't understand the whole. Others has no idea what is indirectly related to the image and what is really off subject.
Annoying examples:
- my car wheel image was flagged because of 'car' and 'black' words. 80% of the buyers searched for 'car wheel'. The poor flagger searched after 'black car' and voila, there is a wheel, nowhere the needed black car! He/she saw only one point, doesn't imagine that the system splits apart the words and actually the car is related to wheel, this is how the system works, since DT doesn't have controlled vocabulary.
- stupid example of a flagging of a beach illustration flagged on word 'beach'. I don't believe anymore in tales 'somebody accidentally flagged' because of the countless examples of this.

I had some images with wrong keywords, thanks for flagging, I removed the bad words, but it's very annoying that 90% of flaggings are wrong, steals extra time to reply why is the flagging incorrect and contact support to ignore the flagging state. I think, now support @DT is flooded with these stupid messages, also stealing precious time from them.

I think, this keywording stuff must be made by people who really understands the system, not by the public.

Quote from: stockastic on February 19, 2010, 00:23
Imagine trying to run a big store without actually knowing what products you have on the shelves:  which ones are good, which are junk, which are actually mislabelled and in the wrong boxes... 

Incredible, how precisely hit the nail on the head...
Actually, images has keywords but, all of them are equal (has the same importance). This way no software -analyzing the keywords - can distinguish an image with a yellow umbrella (main subject) from an image where somebody carries an almost invisible yellow umbrella. Without analyzing the actual image, the search engine will produce more and more erroneous results.

This can be a stock photo agency's problem in the future, because a simple search can return hundreds of junk and 1-2 actual results.

There is a simple solution - analyzing the image with an artificial intelligence software. Sounds futuristic? Yes, 10-20% of the images will be never recognized by this software but the remaining 80-90% will be 100% accurate result.
Simple examples:
- today the keywords describe directly or indirectly the image, but without seeing the image, you cannot distinguish the actual meaning from the imaginary meaning: vitamin keyword on image containing banana vs. vitamin pills; milk keyword on images containing cow, chocolate and a glass of milk.
- the color analyzer @DT shows that fixed algorithms decide very erroneously the major colors on the image. An AI software analyzes the colors based on the content of the image

A well written AI module can be trained and can become extremely sharp-eyed if correctlry trained by the editors.

Why AI? Well, the MS business made millionaires over night so every of them can afford such an expensive development, who will realize firs will be the next era's winner.

Quote from: lisafx on February 09, 2010, 22:50
I can't imagine what Canon could possibly offer at this point to persuade me to upgrade from my 5DII.  It's everything I want, not to mention need, in a camera

Actually, there is a lot... Some exaples below...
- 16/18-bit sensor (means automatically HDR)
- lossless image (the old days are gone when we needed hard compression to save memory space)
- dng
- skew-free movie when fast panning left/right
- high fps, like 600 or 1000 (at the cost of reduced frame size, but 60-100 fps can't be a problem @ HD resolution)
- in-camera (also in raw) chromatic aberration and peripheral illumination correction for known lenses
- camera as mass storage device
- wireless LAN connection
- gps data in EXIF
- ... etc. currently available but missing from Canon

Did I mention something impossible today??

100% support from my side!

Of course, I have a model release. You may imagine, at the time of shooting I made many other images containing the model's face. This just isn't the case of a sexy hotel worker...

It's the nth case when my image is on hold and waiting for me to upload a model release, but in the reality the image doesn't require mr. I'm unable to create a scout ticket since the image isn't rejected. I created a normal support ticket.
My last image:

The following note was supplied by an administrator:
After serious consideration, we would require model release(s) for accepting this submission into the iStockphoto collection. In the context of this image, we feel that the people are recognizable. Thanks for your understanding.

Quote from: disorderly on December 23, 2009, 23:01
I tend to get pretty cranky when I read the perceived wisdom of a new microstocker, full of pronouncements based on a couple of months' sales of a couple of hundred images.  Part of that reaction is general crankiness; I've reached that age, after all, and enjoy the privileges it confers.  But part of it is my own experience after doing this for a while, and my own understanding of the proper use and limitations of statistical methods. 

It's generally a bad idea to extrapolate from small data sets. ...
...

Very true... It's called clear seeing... Before we draw quick results from monthly results, more large time periods must be analyzed and even some months foreseen. Also variations of the surrounding world has to be considered.
Also the drawn conclusion is true for a kind of set of images. Persons who have different content in their portfolios, have very different results.

DT system is better.
Regardless how much good photos has somebody, the bad shoots hasn't to be emphasized. The best shoots do characterize themselves.
The other system (photographer level) is automatically included in this since more best photos means more exposure.

In the chart SS and Veer has the same color. Is that, Veer, the biggest? 

I vote for MSP and YM. But there are other players not listed here, Featurepics and Stockphotomedia. I'm not bad or pessimist. Simply if the business doesn't show results than it isn't viable.

Although sad on this fact, because few agencies aren't good. The power is much more concentrated and the contributors are less respected due to the high number of them. I'm a little bit afraid because this is how the bank, food, car, etc. industry started and voila today each industry is a superpower and tomorrow they will not care about nothing. Divide and conquer.

Before Ahh... Ohh..'s.

This video it's standard. Also I don't see why it's balck and white? BW is so old school, an movies like this are old school too.

This movie has no absolute relation with a new camera - here the 1D mark IV. It doesn't show the real pros and cons. Bokeh? Comes from the lens. Cutting and the style shows the personality of the creator.

What about the camera? I miss here a few things (options tested) that 5d mkII really hasn't:
- Dynamic range: it's the worse in movie mode. Also heavy banding appears when speeding up the movie what means 8-bit processing of the frames. But about the dynamic range... Even small lights blow out the image (check out the metro/bus scene here)
- Fast horizontal panning causes skewed image. Yes, the effect seen in soap box cameras/mobile phones is present in 5d mkII. I'm curious, this Mark IV has?
- Painfully slow focusing based on contrast and total lack of autofocus during recording. The predictive AF can be welcome here. For those who give the example of movie cameras... AF is about technology an it's time to have a good one.
- A color movie at ISO 3200, shoot in bulb light. Yes, this setting produces a lot of noise, even on 5d mkII. Note that shooting a photo at 21mpx, filtering and reducing to 2mpx (1920x1080) produces much less noise, I guess there isn't time to do this filtering and resize at the speed of 30fps... But I hope it will be available soon in cameras.