Thanks. and no I don't review for SS.

Thank God for that __ you'd really have to be on your uppers to be doing that for 5c a pop or whatever they pay nowadays!

If you slip on your very best pair of Grovelling Pants (the ones with the knees completely worn out) you might, just this once, get a reprieve. Good luck!

His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.

Yes, this is true. They may have just suspended his account whilst they investigate; I hope so anyway. If Laurin and his accomplice grovel hard and tug their forelocks enough then they will probably be let off with a warning. Somehow I don't think that Laurin will play ball though!

Come to think of it didn't LR also state that he is (as in currently) a reviewer for SS too? If so that is an automatic account suspension/deletion anyway. You're not allowed to be an 'employee' of a competing agency.

^^^ Thanks very much for that Anyka. Your Finnish is definitely improving!

^^^ Save your time and your breath for more important things.

Sergey is just a troll from the Alamy forums (as Screwgle & Screwgle2) who has been kicked out and so now comes here. They've deleted most of his posts too, some of them since yesterday, but a few of his witterings still exist on this link (supplied by one of our senior members who has excellent troll-hunting skills);

http://www.google.com/search?q=screwgle+site%3Aalamy.com

According to his posts on Alamy he "... knew nothing about stock until a few months ago ..." which is self-evident from what he writes here in the guise of 'expert old-timer'.

i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.

and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...

what ?

You obviously know precious little about stock photography if you think that the majority of buyers want 'normal' colours and saturation! It doesn't work like that, never has, never will. Stock images need to have maximum visual impact and you don't get that with everything looking 'normal'. Same with Getty, Corbis, etc.

^^^ That's true __ AF servo is meant to lock-on and then follow the same object (at least the Canon does).

Great image! But I am curious, which camera focuses after you pressed the timer??

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I must get one of those _ photographing yourself would be so much easier!

I can't help thinking that the comp with our furry friend is surprisingly perfect too with the couple's faces not obscured and just nicely out of focus. If I'd been setting that shot up with a stuffed animal I don't think I could have done much better. Take out the squirrel though and the comp is lousy. Hmm.

Gostwyck, you insulted me once already (if you remember), and I guess you don't remember because obviously you like to insult people very often. I am very lucky I don't have to say some bad word for you because your own words speak for them selves. I only have to sit and watch people laughing at you.

The "Friend" who bought images from me is a person who is closing his account on BigStock, and he had $15 there. He asked me if I'd like to buy few images from him on DT in return because he needed few more dollars to be paid on DT. I helped that person to be accepted at SS, and we are still in touch. He didn't need my images for some project. He is not a designer, so I could send him every image I have in full size, and that would mean nothing to him.
Next time you make some conclusion about anything or anybody get out of that tiny little box of yours. Stop making a fool of your self.
I don't have nothing more to say to you.

Sorry if you felt insulted __ that wasn't actually my intention. Being as the topic of BigStock's paltry 20% commission has been discussed endlessly here, and you are an extremely regular contributor, I assumed you must have been more than aware of the issue. How on earth could you not be?

Not only that but if you were in any genuine doubt about the rates then I would have credited you with the intelligence to simply click on BigStock's faq's where all is revealed;

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/faq.html#3

That would have been so much quicker for you to do than posting your question here but hey, never mind. Anyway, because of that I took it that you were simply using the old "my friend has this problem ..." ploy as a means of dredging this issue back into the limelight __ and quite rightly so.

Btw, in case you haven't noticed, you've actually changed your original story from your 'friend' buying your images to now you buying his. Make your mind up before you get back on your high horse.

^^^ Exactly, good example Adeptris.

In my case one is a buddy who sometimes needs images of local landmarks for his catalogue/website; another is the owner of a local business who gives me plenty of custom-shoot work but occasionally needs the odd local image; another is CEO of a manufacturing business (who also gives me access to it) ... etc, etc, etc. I wouldn't dream of just directing them to my agency portfolios or trying to nail them for a few quid direct.

This bears repeating anyway.  It's good to see a real world example of this.  

Any story that starts "My friend ..." or "I've got a friend who has this problem ..." is not necessarily a 'real world example'!

'Friends' don't buy their buddy's images from an agency.

PayPal are providing a service, a pretty good one too and considerably cheaper and faster than most other providers.

If I want send money by bank transfer to another country my bank charges me a flat fee of �25 (about $40 US) irrespective of the amount. If I want to deposit a cheque in another currency again the charges are huge and it takes ages before the money is cleared. If I ever use a credit card then I know that the retailer (and/or me directly) are being charged 1-2% for doing so __ especially for on-line flights. If I buy tickets for a concert of other event I am usually charged a 'handling charge' supplement too.

I think the charges in this case may be optional for the agency themselves to pay. I always used to have a similar charge deducted whenever I received a payment from CanStockPhoto (I dropped them some time ago) and I also have charges deducted from Rodeo.fi too.

In comparison to the traditional options of transferring funds, like banks and Western Union for example, IMHO PayPal are much cheaper and better.

There has been such a catastrophic explosion in both the supply and the demand for images (the latter being primarily fueled by low prices) over the last few years that the market has yet to find it's level.

As Ron Chappel (Iophoto) observed a while back, in the future there won't be 'micro' and 'macro' stock __ just 'stock'. It is pretty obvious when you think about it.

With the market in such disarray I'm not sure that there's that much value in comparing the minutiae of licencing models unless you happen to be a buyer right now with a specific need.

Micro prices are rising and macro prices are dropping. Give it another 5-10 years at most and the terms micro and macro will probably become largely meaningless other than for very high-end or specialist agencies.

Nothing like a good bar brawl every once in a while to clear the anal passages.

Oh God __ don't you start down the 'anal' road with those two weirdo's!