I used a polarizer in the photos shot for the other lake, I'm sure. I have noticed in my manual stitched workflow that this can be an extra problem, because even with the same exposure, tones may vary in the overlapping areas.

You definitely shouldn't use a polariser for any stitched panorama.

You do see that variance in blue luminance across the sky on wide angle panos anyway but a polariser will make it much worse.

Quote from: steheap on February 13, 2013, 17:29

My mistake, I humbly apologize for not seeing the irony in the previous posts. Sorry!

Steve

And how would anyone know from an anonymous name on a forum? Although I did guess it was sarcasm even without a smiley.

For the other question:

If you ask for "standard" panorama size, it can be anything, but conventional is 4 x 12 (or 6 x 18, or 3 x 9...) one tall by three wide But there's no restriction, you can do what you want. The idea is that in the days of film, that was about what someone would find in frames and prints.

I have some on the wall, they are 12 x 36 because that's the poster size frame that I find at church sales.

Some people consider 360 to be a panorama, so have at it.

1:3 ratio is the old standard.

Sorry. I have amended my signature accordingly.

Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2013, 11:08

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on February 09, 2013, 09:53

You can set up a separate account in another name and legally remain exclusive with IS while you move over to another exclusive arrangement (from now on) with newly created images.  IS has agreed to this when asked. 

If this was correct at any point in the past, I would not expect it now, in the current environment.

It was asked and approved 3 months ago by a big fish

Please share this very valuable information.

The line "own real equity in the company" suggests to me that you will pay to play.

That'd be my guess too. It'd give the organisation capital up front for marketing and attracting customers, a stumbling block for all new entrants.

Paying per upload would force people to be selective but would also give further fuel to the current photographer abusers to justify their crummy royalties.

I see Rob Sylvan's on board from the Facebook admin group.

iStock exclusive, 9000+ images.

This January compared to:

Jan 12: $ -39% DL -43%

Jan 11: $ -43% DL -67%

Jan 10: $ -37% DL -76%

Here's a positive review posted today by Lee Torrens:

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/pond5.html

If my sales at IS over the last few days are anything to go by it might already be happening. This week my sales have fallen off a cliff, to literally about one third of what they were during the same week in January 2012. Probably just the normal ebb and flow but I wonder how others are doing?

Terrible. As usual.

I'm going to opt out of the PP on Feb 2nd.

It's not much, but every little helps.

Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

That may well be true for the time being, but the continuous bad publicity from their greedy behaviour will effect them in the long term.

Recently I was talking to a friend in Salt Lake City who's a keen amateur and I was telling him who sells my images and the first thing he said to me, unprompted, since I prefer not to slag off my agent in public, was 'I hear iStock treats their photographers really badly'.

So the message seeps out and has a corrosive effect. They must realise that they have to do something to stop the rot or their billion dollar investment is going to be worthless.

This is really, really bad news for Exclusive contributors. I'm amazed there's not more outrage over this than the Google and MS deals. This will be the thing that finally kills exclusivity for many since sales will be so badly effected.