Some macro stock agencies (alamy definately, and some others) specifically state that images are not to be sharpened before submission.

If you use USM or another tool you're distorting the original photo, which might reduce the options for the designer to retouch/sharpen/scale the pic.

And... having said that, my stock work is probably the last place to look for post-processing tips, as I don't edit my microstock pics before I upload them...  Cloning of trademarks, cropping and rotation is about my lot really! :-)

chellyar:

What camera do you have?  And how are your in-camera settings set for sharpening?

I use a Canon 30D and I can't imagine taking a picture straight out of the camera without sharpening!  High end cameras require some sharpening to look "normal".  I set my camera to the lowest sharpening setting in-camera (0) and then sharpen post-camera (usually with USM).

I have read a lot of threads where posters say that they don't use USM for sharpening.

Why not?  What is so bad about USM?

Since this hasn't been done in a few weeks (and I believe fintastique is away on business), I have decided to try my hand at this and give the latest figures.

Fintastique: I hope that you don't mind.

Rank	Agency	Current Count	Previous Count	Increase
1	Fotolia	1,195,751	1,085,190	110,561
2	iStockphoto	1,036,911	988,501	48,410
3	Shutterstock	1,006,608	958,473	48,135
4	Dreamstime	596,762	550,000	~46,762
5	BigStockPhoto	474,000	446,000	~28,000
6	123RF	400,000+	300,000+
7	CanStockPhoto	258,815	248,429	10,386
8	Stockxpert	211,893	200,000+	~11,893
9	Stockphotomedia	72,746	70,452	2,294
10	Featurepics	61,726	52,037	9,689
11	Gimmestock	47,375	46,784	591

Some thoughts:

Fotolia is still on a tear.
FeaturePics is gaining ground on Stockphotomedia

I would like to place a low-res version of it on my site accessible to a few selected customers so that if they like the image from my postcard, they can download it for use as a screensaver for the fall season. It will only be available for a couple of months. If you would like I can credit you and/or add a link to you.

Without the specifics, it is hard to say what I would do.  How "low" is low resolution?  How big is the company?  What would the exact timeframe be?

My inclinations are that I wouldn't allow it for a few reasons:

1. Anyone that would download the image, would not be agreeing to an EULA.  Therefore, they would not be subject to any sort of limitations.  They could essentially download the image and then resell it if they wanted.

2. It would be hard to enforce the copyright.  Anyone that downloaded the image for free might end up using it on their own website.  As a matter of fact, Google might get a hold of it and it might end up in their cache for anyone to download freely.

But if they were willing to purchase an extended license and agree to an EULA, then I would probably be alright with it (since they could do this from one of the microstock sites anyhow).

...do you know how people download an extended license.  i don't see anywhere to click on an image to do that.

I believe that you will only see extended licenses if you have credits.

Also, I wonder if that person who wants the post card and tshirts has to buy 2 extended licenses, one for each use, or just one license that covers both.

I would think that they would need to purchase 2 extended licenses, since they are two separate items.  Otherwise, they could buy 1 license and create postcards, stationery, stickers, posters, calendars, mugs, mousepads, t-shirts, games, toys, and framed artwork.  Not bad for $50.

Any idea of prices?

$799 w/o lens
$899 w/ kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II)

I found this on one of the DPReview.com threads today and thought it was hilarious:

This has been done before, but I figured that it is time to see if things have changed any since the last time.

What is Your Top Producing Microstock Site? (see poll at left)

Please explain if you choose "Other" or if you have any extenuating circumstances.  For example, if you are Exclusive at a site, then you should disclose that.  Or if you are only on two sites, it would be nice to share...

- Edited to make poll more obvious

I think each of us have different experiences at each site (ok, come sites are a bad experience to everyone!), so I think the best way to put such experiences in the forum is "for me..." "in my case..." "I haven't..." instead of more absolute remarks as "The site is ____" (bad, slow, awful, etc). 

But isn't that already implied?

When I say "Sushi tastes great...", doesn't it already mean "Sushi tastes great to me..."  Don't we already know that some people hate sushi?

Does every sentence have to include the fact that it is already the perspective of the poster?

I'm sure that is what some of the smaller players are hoping for...

Besides they just announced the new Digic III processing chip so they suggests it will be even faster.

Where did you read this?

Or am i missing someting here?

You're definitely missing more than "something".

I don't see the problem.

Whether you see the "problem" is not the question.  The ad breaks the iStock TOS in more than one way, and iStock did nothing about it.

What makes you think its a strip bar anyways? It looks like a nightclub to me.

Call it whatever you want.  Some people will even call it a "gentlemen's club".

Here is a direct quote from the site.  Please note that I had to clean it up slightly by adding asterisks (*) for the family audience:

"Electric Disco. Electro mashup music for wankers and prancers once a month. Hot girls. Hot guys. Sex on the dancefloor. Party pashing. Getting loose. Get it out. Get it on. Get with it. Drink. Drink. Drink. Vomit. Drink more. Come and listen. Come dance. Come get naked on the dancefloor, but only if you’re hot. Come have a drink or two. Come and get your freak on. Come heckle the DJ’s. Come get your flirt on and maybe even leave early. With someone else. Or even two people. Drink. Dance. Smoke. Flirt. F**k. Cough. Spew. Bump. Grind. Laugh. Cry. Gargle. Go home satisfied. Come back next month!"

...one crucial point that came out of this debacle is that we should use professional models, rather than family and friends.

Yes, but microstock does not fit will with this financial model (no pun intended).  Hiring professional models for microstock doesn't make much sense, unless you are one of the big hitters, since it requires that you pay them.  With 20 cents royalty on an image, that doesn't make financial sense.  You would have to literally sell thousands of images just to break even with the payment for the model.

One of the reasons that family and friends are used is because of the fact that you don't (usually) have to pay them.

Also, at least one or two of the buyers on that thread voiced their opinions on this matter as well.  They said that the microstocks had "real" looking people in their images (as opposed to professional models in professional poses) and that was something that helped the microstocks stand out.  If this "realness" is lost, then a great disservice will be done to the microstock industry and buyers will return back to the macrostocks from whence they came.