Plus, I'm not going to lose a sale because of something so trivial.  If a magazine approaches me and says "we want the picture in RGB" it's quicker and easier to already have it sitting there in RGB.  It takes me a few seconds to convert it to sRBG if they want that, but it could potentially take an awful lot longer to go back to the RAW file (if I can find it) and process it again.

This is why you shoot in RAW and submit in sRGB - You can always go back and re-develop with another flavour.

No, because many buyers from agencies buy for print use.  If you convert sRGB to RGB you don't get such a good colour gamut.  So I ALWAYS sell in RGB where possible, because buyers can always discard information they don't need.

Aha, thanks!

I guess RPD is the average royalty per download?

I wanted file maker pro,but it's so expensive.  Which is why I'm looking at Bento instead.  Has anyone tried both?

If you don't know that case, an elderly woman ordered coffee at a McDonald's here in the USA somewhere. Spilled her coffee on her lap and caused 3rd degree burns on her privates as the coffee was something like 190F. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides... don't order coffee and try to drive and drink it at the same time and then also don't make coffee so hot that it's near the boiling point for people to pick up at a drive through widow at a fast food restaurant...

Or just don't put hot coffee between your legs while you try to drive...  seems pretty simple.

I've been there, had third degree burns on my upper thighs, but that time a colleague tipped hot drink into my lap straight out the kettle.  It just didn't even cross my mind to sue my colleague or my workplace (who supplied the drink).

Anyway, I guess the point is that just because America has idiotic magistrates or whatever they're called that allow ridiculous cases to go through, iStock should see sense and realize that they're not in the wrong.  I'd happily be a test case, because I believe I could argue my case in court.  I just think that they're being blinkered when they ban some pictures and not others.  A designer of a designer sofa could just as easily sue iStock as a car manufacturer.

What's even worse is that they're only banning "luxury" cars.  I mean, that's like saying that designers that are paid more have more rights!  Although they did could a Volvo as a luxury car, I'm not sure where that came from!

I put a sheet of white posterboard on the table, and one propped up behind if I'm shooting something from a low angle, or something like flowers.  I the flash on a tripod next to the object, obviously out of shot, and aim it at the ceiling.  Full power.  The white ceiling bounces the flash around the room into a really nice diffused light.  Shoot at around ISO200/160 on f9 or so and you're onto a winner with images like this:






Both images taken as explained, with very little post processing.  I'm a fan of light shadows, but they could fairly easily be removed.  Some subjects would be easier than others of course!  You can always bounce extra lights in with silver foil around the base if you feel I need it.  But this way it takes me about a minute to shoot each object, and about another minute to process them!

I do have a pair of Elinchrom 400W stobes that I use on occasion for larger objects, but I just can't be bothered to set them up for small stuff.

limited stuff that is possible with a single off camera flash (I figured out some great ways to fake a fancy studio with PS with multiple exposures and an off camera flash, but several hours of PP work per shot is way too inefficient to be reasonable). 

Like I've said before, almost all my "studio" / isolated shots in my portfolio have been taken with a single flashgun and a 350D with a 50mm lens.  If you put your mind to it, you can do it.  Sure, you can't shoot full shots of people with that set up, (although I managed a few head shots easily) but you can easily build a good isolated portfolio of smallish objects with a single flashgun.  Beats wandering around town hoping to get a shot, and a far more efficient use of my time!  My isolated shots barely need any processing, so I'm not sure what you're doing to need to spend hours in post processing!

That's weird, I've been "accepted" but I never got an email, and the pictures didn't go into my portfolio.

I have checked my lenses with the inverted meterstick test, they focus perfect, though my 50mm plainly has absolutely awful corner sharpness at less than f/5.6.  (SNIPPED BABBLE)

I had a 350D with a kit lens, and then I upgraded to the 50mm prime.  I don't think I ever got an image rejected anywhere for softness (a few for out of focus, but yea, they really were out of focus!).

Forget the technical metering tests or whatever they are.  You could shoot a whole portfolio of images with a second hand 350D and kit lens what would make you thousands a month.  That combination is sharp enough for stock.  In fact, I think the first half of my portfolio was shot soley on that combo!  Learn to USE your equipment before you moan about it.  The edge sharpness on the 50mm prime is more than adequate, I use it almost exclusively at f1.8 for my stock stuff.  It's the reason I bought it!

As for the colour / sensor issues, I've never seen them myself.  Perhaps you're doing something in post processing that's causing problems.  Could you post a 100% crop of the problem?

I had that problem once at istock with some stuff, like tiny little christmas angels and trees from a 99 cent store. They considered it "artwork" I explained that to support and asked what to do. They told me to mention it in the description, like "item is a cheap mass-product from a 99-cent-store, not considered to be artwork" So I did that and so far I never had problems again.

I find this a bit of a joke with iStock.  I mean, they're bothered about protecting the rights of a multi million pound company such as Ford Cars, but they're not bothered about protecting the rights of a designer of christmas ornaments, or a cutlery designer, or a clothes designer or a furniture designer...

That's what got me suspended from the iStock forums though, stating that point of view!

10mp image at alamy = $330 I believe this to be a full extended licence (the biggest from any site, except for buyout) so the equivalent at istock is 100 credits or about $130 to buy the same thing.

still a fair bit of difference

I have over 1000 images taken with 6mp camera on alamy its been over 2 years since I had a rejection for quality.

Firstly, Alamy don't accept "10MP" images without up-sizing, secondly the price depends on what they're using it for.  They've had sales for thousands, they had sales for not much more than microstock.

How can a photographer assume they have a property release?

They either had it or they don't.  The photographer would have had to get it signed, so s/he would know if they had one or not!

Oh I've found plenty of recipes online, but how do I know if they're good ones?  Most of them involve a packet mix anyway.  I want to taste them like they're meant to taste, but can't afford an airfare just for one meal!

I'm an absolute food fanatic, and for some reason I have a burning ambition to eat really good sloppy joes!

I get the impression they're a bit like a burger, but I've also heard of tins of tomato soup being used in them - distinctly non burger like.  So how do I know what recipe to follow?