Yes, 10% at a time, and make sure you use "Bicubic  Smoother" in the drop down menus at the bottom.
I recommend Genuine Fractals, but making an action to increase the size 10% at a time, using "Bicubic  Smoother"
might be just the ticket as long as you don't upsize it too much ...maybe 2 times or 3.

"What is good about LO is they are trying to do things differently."

A concern of mine is what? What THINGS are they doing differently? Second question I would like to attempt is: ...and is it working?
I only ask that second question because you stated the are "trying" as opposed to doing. I mean I'm very curious. After all I do have an investment with them.

You're right....I'll have to go through the blog now to catch up. Thanks for the suggestion.

Well I said my peace already regarding the $100 payout.
Permit me now to comment on the attitude I have towards LO with regards to that which I have for other sites I contribute to.

LO is a well organized site.
It's ascetically pleasing to look at.
The reviewers are cheerful and kind. They  express a human approach in their comments to contributors.

Volume is low.
They rank very low in search engines.
I subscribe to several trade magazines, and NEVER see them advertise.
They have no forums. Users have no way of communicating. We have to do it on 3rd party forums such as here.
Communications between management and contributors is done "Off Site" like bryan_luckyoliver is doing in this thread.
There lack in a sense of "cummunity". I feel as though I'm the only one in the whole world uploading to LO. Where is everyone?

Motivation! What is motivating users to upload more images?
I want LO to succeed. I think it has potential.
 

"There's no correct answer."

Your correct, there is no right or wrong answer. However I never intended it to play out that way.

For my own edification, and curiosity, I wanted to find out where other's preferences lie.
For me, I know I can get away with a tripod with compromising features and still take some great pics. However, in my own opinion,
the head of the tripod has to feel comfortable to me, be precise, and of well manufactured quality to perform well.

So although you think it was pointless (and it may have well been) I had a reason to ask, just to see if my way
of thinking is on track. So according to you it''s a wash?  They are equal in importance....ok?

Thats the great thing about this hobby. We can all agree to disagree.

"ball heads tend to be really heavy; may be  because of their magnesium ball?"

One of the distinct advantages of magnesium over steel is it's weight advantage...magnesium is LIGHTER!

If God paid you a visit and said.....

"Hey you! Mr. Stock photographer - You can have only one. Choose:"

The best tripod on this Earth.....
....or the best head to put on a tripod.

Which one would you choose.

This may be a sensitive issue with some. Being a reformed and
recovered alcoholic, I just want to make the public aware of the dangers
of Operating a camera drunk!

I think in the USA in some states it's against the law to "Drink and shoot".
I don't know how many peoples portraits have have ruined by irresponsible
photographers who have no regard for way people look.

Getting behind the lens drunk is the #1 cause of rejections on all major stock sites.
It has ruined countless images, that would have otherwise had a chance to be downloaded.

I believe in some Arab countries the penalty for drinking and shooting is chopping off the forefinger,
so you can never click a shutter again.

I shutter to think of all the family photos I ruined of my kids because of my drinking
in the past. I would wake up the next day look at the photos and say "never again".
Now I have to live with these photos everyday of my life.

For me the answer was giving up the drink, but if you must drink, say at a party or a wedding,
give the camera to a friend, get a designated photographer.

Drink responsibly.

Although the sky was replaced, the luminance remains the same for the entire picture. Meaning
had I not exposed for the Sun, the building would had been so over exposed, that the entire
shot would have had to have been trashed.

Here is another example where the sky was NOT modified
Notice there is not one blown highlight in the entire image?

I also got one today, and of course....the biggest size DT offers. Why of course, who can refuse a free lunch?

"I'm not feeling too good about selling a RAW file for 60 cents."
ooooooooo, that's gotta hurt! RAW!? Your selling your RAW!? Oh dear Lord....Please save this man from the Devil

I joined

I always thought and imagined that "No clear center focal point" meant that the subject lacked at reference for the eyes of the viewer to focus on.
That it had nothing to do with the focus of the camera. As a new photographer, working out what exactly stock sites wanted, I took pics of
EVERYTHING in the beginning. And, like all new beginners, I tried to learn from my rejects.

One of the "canned" reject I sometimes received "No clear center focal point", baffled me, as the images was clearly (to me) in focus!
"How could the reviewer say this image was out of focus!?" "It's was clearly sharp as a tack!" So in my own mind, I resolved this by interpreting
the reviewers comments to mean: There is a lacking central focus point for the viewers eye.

I could be wrong, and if so I would like to hear your comments.

deleted