Seems to be about a week for mine.

Give it time.  There's generally at least a couple of minutes' delay before files move from FTP to the editing area.  And sometimes things get bogged down; last week I had to wait a few hours before they showed up.  The admins there assured me that it was just a lot of stuff in the queue and not a breakage at their end.

Quote from: sharpshot on November 23, 2009, 11:33

some people have been removed from sites in the past because they made comments they probably shouldn't of.

Famous american democracy! 

You do understand that it's only the various levels of governments that are democracies, right?  Neither democracy nor absolute (okay, near absolute) freedom of speech apply to corporations.  Which is as it must be if they are to succeed according to their own sets of goals. 

A corporation, heck, most every non-governmental body, has to operate in the interests of those it serves: customers, suppliers, employees, stockholders.  And it can't let one group entirely supersede all the others.  It certainly can't let one vocal malcontent damage its operations or its reputation. 

If your actions toward Zymm were anything like your comments here, I can see why they'd consider you too high a cost of doing business for too little gain.  I might also suggest that the more you talk, the more of us you convince that we wouldn't want to deal with you either.

On a tangent (I didn't want to start a new thread for this), does the witness on a Model Release need to be a third person, not the Model or Photographer? Its a simple question, but I would like to clarify.

Yes.  And if it's a release for a minor, it needs to be a fourth person (not the model, the signing parent or guardian or the photographer).

Does this mean we will gett a whopping 12.5 cents per DL?

Better than not getting paid at all.  And with Crestock's recent record regarding both reviews and payments, and Albumo's recent departure from this mortal realm, I'd say that's a real possibility. 

(And how long does it take to reject a whole pile of images?  Do they actually look at them before they reject them?  But I digress.)

Quote from: ErickN on November 04, 2009, 08:06

Not only cars it seems. I had a few of mine removed in october from a series of Manhattan cityscapes :

And yes, all potential trademarks, ad signs or whatever had been edited out from the picture. Maybe it's because I tell in the caption that it has been shot from the top of the Rockefeller Center ? Is the RFC considered a trademark or copyrighted ?

It might be because of the location from where you took the shot i.e. from private property.

And the agreement on the ticket precludes use of photos taken there from being used commercially.  Of six images SS removed from my port ages ago, five were taken from Rockefeller Center.  The other was of various coins, and violated UK copyright on images of their queen.

Its a Powershot A590 IS - I agre with your comments, except not sure what you mean about the large lens opening - on a compact camera with a 1/2.5 sensor that has a "crop factor" of about 6 -  f5.5 will be equivalent of about f33 on a a 35mm... you can't really stop it down!

I was surprised to discover that the A590 doesn't stop down any further than that; its aperture only goes from F/2.6 to F/5.5.  That puts the maximum F-stop at F/16 on a 35mm.  Not much room for creative DOF.

There are two issues here.  One is getting a release for every shoot, which I always do.  The second is having to scan, doctor (inserting information iStock demands but no one else requires, and which make the release less usable for other agencies), manage and upload all those releases.  Other agencies accept and store one release per model, which reduces the work for the photographer but in no way reduces the requirement to fill out a new release for each shoot and keep it on file.

It's a pain to have to upload a copy of a release for every model photo, a demand no other site I know of puts on photographers.  Now having to deal with multiple releases per model just adds to the pain.  Just as well that iStock's piddling upload quotas keep me from submitting most of my model photos.

The last one of these we saw was the Faces of Coal campaign, which was another bunch of iStock images.  (Story on the iStock forum.)  Which suggests a new slogan: iStockphoto: When Real Customers Just Won't Do!

It's a plain and simple violation of your contract with iStock.  I don't like their rules on exclusivity, so I remain independent.  For someone to accept a set of rules and then violate them is reprehensible.  I hope they find your friend and nail him to a wall.  Not literally, mind.  Well, probably not literally.

The good news is that they just reviewed the 150 pictures I submitted this month, ten for every sale.  The bad but not surprising news is that they rejected every last one of them.

I can't say exactly why SX rejected these particular images, but I have some ideas.  Most microstock images are used for illustration, and the reviewer may have looked at your images and not seen how they could be used.  I can see a few problems with the engine: first, it still has the railroad logo and engine number, which are verboten; second, the framing is so tight that it limits the ways it could be used; and third, it's overly bright.  Both the sky and the front of the engine are blown out, which most micros don't like, at least in my experience.

The other two may just be stuff they don't care about.  Flowers and plants, and by extension corn and grasses, are not big sellers unless they're absolutely outstanding.  Some agencies won't give them the server space, I suspect because so many people have access to them as subjects and submit them by the boxcar load.

Of course I could be wrong about all this.