The site crashed three times today while trying to upload, first tried 10, then 5, then one at a time.  Probably clogged with all new uploads.

Karimala, I agree, but that's not the gripe.  The gripe is that with every post of the same photo, the goal post is changed.  If they think the photo sucks.  Say it "sucks" and "we don't want that kind of crap on our site".  I can handle that.  But to say it's because of one problem, and then a different problem, and then.... well you know the rest.  I'm led to believe that they really don't know what they're looking at.

a.k.a. Tom, right now, somewhere in the Pacific is Catalina.  I'm hanging out here then down to San Diego for some retro fit,  and sit out the hurricane season, then off to Baja, Guatemala, and Costa Rica.  I'm sitting in the cove where Natalie Wood drowned, which leads to the question, "Do you know what kind of wood doesn't float?"  Well, you know the answer to that one.

I've noticed differences, but thought it was varying power levels from my generator.   But now you mention it, I think I  like Featurepics colors and definition best.

A little late getting on, for me the picture is too flat, meaning depth and movement.  Shooting from a different bunch of angles, and shooting close-in may add some drama and make the photo more interesting.  For example the fingers on the game pieces, etc. 

I'm all for limits on key words, and have been ranting against spamming for a long time.  If you're searching for a "leaf" you won't search "green" and the word green can always be included in the description.  Right now, searches on most of the sites turn up about 50% irrelevant on each page.  Pretty frustrating.  A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a thousand words doesn't make a picture.

Well, YY, I don't know if he's a good old boy or not, I don't know him  I just know that some people take offense where no offense is intended or directed.  If the basketball team can forgive Imus, why can't other bleeding heart ready to be offended PC sycophants?

I like FT, and I find their support service better than any on the net.  In addition, while SS is bragging about adding .05 to your downloads, FT has always given .33 or above.

Don't worry about the ranking.  Ranking is based on gross sales.  One week 700 next week 8800, doesn't mean a whole lot.  It's like base ball, you're only as good as your last time at bat.

I've been experimenting with various lights after reading the construction light thread.  Due to the limited area to work in I've been using 7" clamp-on reflectors, with the Ritz camera photo lights.  The problem has been the high wattage (I run off batteries and solar), heat, cost, and short life (3.5hrs).

I've gone through all the commercial brands, from 100-200 watt with ratings up to 1750 lumins.  All incandescent.

At Home Depot the other day, I ran across one of these new curley tube things, florescent type, and was suprised to see that for a 100 watt bulb the output was 1300 lumens.  What was even more interesting was that it was 100 watt equivalent and actually drew only 25 watts.  Thats approximately 2 amps which is really nothing.  The brand is n:vision daylight.  Never heard of them.

Taking a couple quick and dirty shots of the first thing that came into my hand, I was very pleased with how the color was captured, it was more vivid and true to the actual subject:    Better yet, life is 10,000 hrs.

Top photo with the n:vision,   bottom with Ritz photo bulbs

Well, as long as we're beating our hearts and trying to politely stifle frank discussion for the sake of political correctness, I'll be one who apologizes for every remark or rant I've made, and hope anyone to which this was intended either directly or indirectly will forgive me, I lay prostate at your feet and beg forgiveness.

Now, let's get serious.  

There's a lot of people who are new to the arts, or who grew up in an atmosphere of mutual acceptance of mediocre effort.  You see these guys all the time, they have the bumper stickers that say "My child was . . . ..  . .. . " whatever at such and such school.  

They hand out hundreds of these a month and parents proudly paste them to their cars to celebrate their mediocracy.

In the arts, the criticism isn't so polite.  You bare your soul to the world, with all expectations of acclaim and you find that the world doesn't feel the same as you do.  And it's usually not in the form of "Oh, it's nice." but usually something like "it's crap, where in the blackness of your mind did you dredge up that vision?"  When you can handle that sort of criticism, or frank speach, then you're on your way to  be able to call yourself an artist.

Heretofore, it has only been in the arts where frank speach has been acceptable.  Once the arts become politically correct, will be the death of the arts.  We'll be doing pictures of our "heroic leaders" and struggling masses overcoming obstacles of the social system.

Look at Imus, although not a fan, I heard him say a couple words which he obviously learned from the rap vernacular.  Wrong?  Absolutely.  But, we have heard these words thousands of times on the news following the incident.  All top ten songs by rap artists have one or all of these words.  The difference is, he has sponsors that will feel the heat.  Al Sharpton has a constituency that needs to hear that he's doing something, and Jesse Jackson, well, Jesse Jackson, he needs the donations, voluntary or extorted.

The point, at last.  Yes, there does need to be civility on the forums, but this form of civility should never stifle frank, and sometimes provocative discussion of our chosen avocation.  Yes, the sites do not belong to the contributors, but without the contributors there won't be a site........much like Imus.

PS.  To imply that this site is out of control or running on autopilot is ridiculus.  The moderator has done an excellent of modifying or deleting some of my posts he knew I would be ashamed of in the morning.

GeoPappas:   It's me that's not from around here, you're right, approx 3 images per minute. Forgive my outburst.

Point being, why not pay them .25 an image?  I think you'd get better service to the contributors and to the clients. 

Let's face it, what's the finished work worth from the designer or client standpoint?  I would, if I had my preferences, higher download cost to compensate reviewers properly so they can afford to get experience and make a living.

When I was a kid, I stacked #10 cans of tomato paste on pallets, 12 wide, 8 high, the cans came right off the line and were hot as he_l.  Usually wore out two pair of fireproof gloves a shift.  8 hours with a break every 2 hours and 1/2 hour for lunch.  A few years later, they got automatic pallet loaders after I bought the company.

That's just about the same job as a reviewer without the burnt hands.  Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your view, the process of reviewing cannot be automated.  It's being tried due to the volume of input into the sites, and the reviewers are being burned just the same as I was when I was 15, not their hands, but their objectivity and creativity: to see something in nothing.

Lets try this again:

K:  No offense, and please don't take this personally, but isn't that a conflict of interest? I would think it would be.

Let's face it, in order to make $7.50 an hour (min wage) you would have to review 189 images a minute, or 3 images a second.

I think what's happening is uploads are being rejected or approved on maybe 1 sample per batch.  Upload 50, 50 rejected or approved.

And we don't have to get into the turn-over rate for reviewers.  That's why many micro-stockers are looking for other outlets for their work.  Let's face it, with 1 million plus images on most sites, how many pages will a designer or consumer of these images look through? 

Particularly when most of the keywords don't match the image.   (that's a pet peeve with me, instead say 50 keywords, it should be limited to 7) In microstock, an image isn't worth a thousand words, rather, a single word may be worth a thousand images.

Leaf: "you might have to make yourself look a little older for the 'senior' category"   THANK YOU!!

Robert, I try not to look mean, but if I smile, I look "evil"

Thanks everyone for the input, I'll keep trying.

Old Fart, well excuse me, baby boomer.  Are these selling?  Maybe concept or aging, or. . . . .     and yes, self portrait, cheapest model I can find.