Amen to the above 

I have a batch sitting on StockXpert for two weeks now. ( Their system is confusing - all newly updated images have "Pending" status. Of course after upload I edit the pics (categories etc.) and press the "Submit" button   - but there is no actual confirmation that anything has changed - the image is still "Pending".  )  Previous batches have been approved much faster - but now they really slowed down. Anyone ?

"I have read a few times that istock seem to reject images that sell very well  on other sites."

Could be. Different images sell differently on different sites. This is afct (although based exclusively on my personal observations - so I could be wrong).

Thanks 

It seems that indeed there is a lot of confusion going on.

To start with - very few monitors can actually reproduce AdobeRGB colors (some expensive Eizos can and maybe top of the line NEC Spectravision, there may be some more). Most monitors do well if they come close to reproducing sRGB.

When working in AdobeRGB, you do not see AdobeRGB colors - if they are out of the monitor gamut (but still within gamut for AdobeRGB).
Even when they are within sRGB gamut, the situation is the same, because the same (r,g,b) values in AdobeRGB and sRGB basically mean different colors - to the eye, or to a spectrophotometer.

At this point calibration and profiling of the monitor enters. Calibration being the proper setup of R,G and B guns , setting black and white points and color temperature. Profiling being setting up a LUT table to provide corrections between measured and expected colors on the screen. So - calibration and profiling are not the same thing, and are frequently mixed up. Let's assume at this point that our hardware is calibrated and profiled - in short, that it can reproduce sRGB space (or is close to it).

Now - assume that we work in AdobeRGB color space, in COLOR MANAGED application. The application still can't display full AdobeRGB gamut on the monitor - but it will make some intelligent (non-linear) mapping of colors into sRGB - because it KNOWS that the working color space is AdobeRGB. And these colors are displayed properly by our (calibrated and profiled) monitor. And all is good with the world.

Now - you post the file (AdobeRGB color space) on the net. The software which displays the file usually does not care about color space and assumes sRGB - which means that it treats the (r,g,b) numbers literally. No information is actually lost - just is interpreted in a simple way. You may end up with washed out colors and color shifts.

When, however, the file is CONVERTED from AdobeRGB to sRGB prior to uploading - the "intelligent" treatment of the AdobeRGB colors by the color aware application is preserved - because in the process of converting, the (r,g,b) numbers are actually changed -  as compared to the original AdobeRGB file.  At this point one only hopes that the monitor used for display, somewhere in the world, is actually calibrated and profiled. In which case someone will see an image pretty similiar to what you intended him to see.

In essence - work in AdobeRGB, and CONVERT to sRGB before uploading. Uploading AdobeRGB file is usually a recipe for misinterpretation. If sRGB file is uploaded - all the user needs is to have his monitor calibrated and (hopefully) profiled.


I hope that by posting this lengthy explanation I haven't added to the confusion 

More of 16 bit processing and if I am not mistaken - inclusion of new RAW conversion (I think it came from RAWShooter engine - pity it is only a partial implementation - although with some enhancements too).

I know - I need to keep uploading. No big problem here - for now I have plenty of ideas and got two more batches accepted w/o rejections (OK, there was one). But couple of pics are doing very well - and one is on the front search page. Just look for "waterfall". At any case it makes for a nice change - compared to some other sites.

"About every micro site now knows that the Brussels' atomium is copyrighted."

If it is copyrighted - why don't they remove it from public view ? I understand that copying the design for the purpose of building something that looks very similiar could get someone in trouble (although the concept of Atomium is hardly original as such).  But - why all of a sudden people claim the ownership of light reflected from an object ?

In such case I should copyright my eyes - and claim damages from the owner(s) of every copyrighted building or object - since I have no duty to view what they cared to put in public view.

Some may say this is idiotic - but no more idiotic than copyrighting the reflected light.

Copying a car design for the purpose of building a car - yes, a clear cut court case.
Taling a picture of a car - c'mon...

I have no argument with the need to obtain a release for a picture of a person or interior of a private property. But the exterior of any building, public or private, as long as it is visible to general public - should be a fair game.

So - after 12 days with only 23 images online - the first miserly target is reached 
Hopefully it will continue (?) - since I uploaded (and got approved) more images.

Madelaide - this is fine with me. But then - a quality inspection has to be introduced. The buyer does not have a duty to put up with images which may not meet some basic requirements. I am not a big fan of pixel peeping in order to determine whether or not there are "artifacts" present - but I honestly believe that some acceptance criteria must be at work - or the site will vanish very quickly.

Me says: wait and see. What Mostphotos does is certainly different - and a smart alghrithm can probebly gauge the PEOPLE's response to a photo better than one reviewer (although it can't guarantee quality). Wait and see...

For the last couple of days the site was getting slower and slower - and now dropped off the net altogether. in the beginning - it was operating OK. Then it started loading slowly, but once there - it was OK. Then - getting into member's profile started taking a lot of time.  A day or two later - the images started loading slowly and/or not displaying all. Today - I can't even connect.  At the same time - no problem whatsoever with any of the other sites. What is going on ?

Edit: BTW, I have noticed that ScandinavianStockPhoto.com is address is showing up at the bottom of the screen when I click on Mostphoto shortcut: again - strange, but maybe someone knows what is going on ?

I am not talking about sales in general, but specifically about recorded sales.
Recently I had one case on 123RF and one on SS: a sale was listed for an image - and couple of hours later it disappeared from the list, with the sales total figure going back.  Anyone can shed some light on this ? Some server/cache refreshing issues with my comp (at least with SS, where the numbers went back up) ?

But on 123RF the sale just disappeared, which I can't explain.