I have a strong feeling that "out of focus" is the first item in the dropdown list...

So I had a problem, I didn't hesitate, I contacted support because I had further questions. That was in 2011, month 10, day 20. Today I received the long awaited response. That's more than 7 months. Wow! I thought, I had the longest response time from PantherMedia, (6 months).
I have further questions. Should I hesitate to contact again? (I'm far away from retirement so I have time)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_response

Yes... Please, Photodune, upgrade your upload system.

As it works now, I made years ago a similar upload system, based on tutorials, when I was learning php.

Multiple files upload at once and a separate MR management and -attach system is a minimum today. Why is so difficult to understand this?

Since PD was announced I've been waiting to upgrade the upload system. I don't want to select, rename and arrange my photos and mr's all day long only to adapt to current upload system. Computer software should work as needed, not humans must adapt to a (basic) system.
It was promised in one thread that you will upgrade... Since then 6 months has passed...

Yet another unfinished site.
Also, the right hand doesn't know what the left does. Bored and st**d inspectors can really damage the image of an agency.
Compared to others I've found them always too austere.

That's another unfinished site. PM thinks we read their mind...
Don't waste your nerves. If you consider good the photo, upload it again, maybe some other inspector will like it. If not, forget the whole thing, since their upload system is unnecessarily complicated...

Time will solve the IS problem...

Rejection reasons of big agencies become a puzzle to solve. Since they have several reasons to use, the editor simply picks the most appropriate.
In the majority of the cases, poor lighting is translated as: "I don't like this image" or "The overall look of the image is too poor". They simply can't write this there, because sounds ugly.

Looking at your example, I found too cropped. Also the filter part of the cigarettes looks extremely short. Regardless of the fact that the filter continues in white, it simply gives the whole image an unpleasant look.

The best answer to this would be like this: please take a fresh look at your image after a weekend/holiday/another-non-photographic-activity and you may see the real image, not the image you wanted to make.
Looking back in my portfolio, well, I have a LOT of images that look different compared to what I wanted... Those images had a lot of rejections at different agencies.

If you upload your images months after it was submitted to the first agency and it was also sold several times, you may be angry on stupid rejections. Somehow, some editors have a very good sense to reject exactly those images that sell best. Of course, in the same batch they accept all the crap. Generally speaking...

Quote from: CreatingDrew on November 09, 2011, 23:27
G'day everyone 

Thanks for all of your thoughts and feedback, I'm browsing the forums and making a note of all of them. I've just checked with the devs and we believe we're at the tail end of the bulk FTP submission issues, we're still processing some backlogged files, so I really do appreciate your patience and appreciate those of you interested in giving us a chance. We really do care about your feedback and as I've said I'm making a note of all of it

Thanks so much, hope you're all enjoying your day 

Please, some folks from the development, search your camera backup and find 2-3 nice photos. Doesn't matter what. Please subscribe to several well-known agencies and submit your photos. You may upload model releases also.
Please focus on the upload system, how easy, simple and clear it is everything. Don't mind if your photos get rejected, this isn't part of the test.
I must say, even the IS's archaic upload system is far better than at PD.

You may also introduce some levels for photographers, let's say, if someone reaches x downloads, he will receive more than 25%.

I started to fight against this heroturko-like sites years ago.
The whole thing is based on the file sharing sites offer. Thus, if you upload a file, it's online some time, then it's deleted. But if downloaded, remains on the server more time. The most important part is that these sites (rapidshare, hotfile, etc.) are asking money to use their service (to download files). So who uploads the files receives a few amount of money. To maintain the downloads, the content of the files are advertised on this heroturko-like sites.
To remove the content, you must complain to rapidshare, hotfile, etc. They don't say anything, they simply remove the files (archives).
To solve the problem, the one who shares the files uploads again the archive(s), in the comments posts the new links and that's it.

The problem is that file sharing sites doesn't care what's inside a shared file. They don't terminate accounts if something illegal is shared.

I don't upload anything due to commissions.
But I know personally a lot of photographers/illustrators in my town who don't read regularly (or at all) this forum, but they also don't want to upload anything to PD. Due to the percent.

Things at agencies can only go worse as history shows. For example, when I joined FL, the revenue was 37% (!) Other agencies also cut where they can.

If PD thinks that compared to IS is better, then it's very wrong. I'm not in hurry to upload anything to IS, many others are asking me, it worth the effort and nerves to wait for free slots, and see the stupid rejects due to superhigh needs of IS? For 15-16% the answer is no. So many of us don't upload there.

PD is (or will be) in the same situation... Less photos, less buyers, small library for subscribers.

If you have experience, please share, how are agencies accepting these character sets made of leaves, flowers, colorful beads, etc...
I know only about SS and DT. As I saw, SS accepts standalone characters, and DT likes only groups (based on some forum discussion, years ago), however, I browsed the newest images @DT and I saw standalone characters.
How complex must be one letter to go standalone?
It is better to group 2-3 characters together?
What are the rules at the agencies (= how they accept characters? (Standalone, in 3-6pcs/image or whole set)

Thank you!

OK
To clear the things, we are talking about a 32x32px image, especially about the mouse cursor arrow. Enlarging by several pixels the body or the tail of the arrow results in a totally new look.
We don't  talk about 10mpx photos.
When I say "image", in this context it's an image of an arrow-shaped mouse cursor.

Quote from: Perry on October 27, 2011, 08:37

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 27, 2011, 07:26
Wow really? I can copy anyone's work, change it one pixel in any direction, and now it's my derivative? Sounds a little risky to me and kind of unethical?

But in this case, if you are going to draw a small arrow with pixels and it needs to look like a computer arrow, there isn't an endless amount of ways doing it.

@Perry:
I'm guessing only what you want to do with the final cursor artwork.
I think, it will be something similar to these:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-73071388/stock-photo-internet-concept-blue.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-14500978/stock-vector-mousepointer-arrow.html

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 27, 2011, 07:26
Wow really? I can copy anyone's work, change it one pixel in any direction, and now it's my derivative? Sounds a little risky to me and kind of unethical?

In this case you shouldn't use any 16x16 or 32x32px cursors or other icons. Anybody can find easily any similarity, even if you had completely redrawn the image.

Quote from: gejam on October 20, 2011, 08:23
Any ideas?

ACDSEE
I stopped using ACDSee, since their TIFF browsing is dead slow, but what you want is built in the software. When viewing the images, select list and select some custom columns that fit your needs. Then sort by the choice, by pressing the column header.

Interesting question. To short the things, you may want to shorten/enlarge the graphic by 1 pixel in any direction. The result will be automatically something else.
Comparing pixel-by-pixel an image and finding similar, means, by default, derivative work. Regardless who owns the copyright of the original image (except author died 70 years ago (in several countries 80 or 90)).
For those, vectorized and enlarged images of pixels, it depends. If Bill Gates is complaining, you've lost. If me, you may win... (But don't wait too much!)

In the reality I prefer to derivate work from something free/open source and forget the commercial resources...

It's a little bit off-topic this B&W stock-art thing...
I must say, I was wondering where the heck my files were gone. Did you developed a newsletter system? I didn't received anything about the changes. Anyway...
I'm sorry about the time selecting "artsy" images, managing and uploading them. Now I see my 5 most unusable files in the gallery.

Nowadays it's a big challenge to sell the stock images with the most potential, not narrowing down the collection to art-like stock... In top of that, the B&W thing narrows down the collection beyond any usability(?) Please tell me, I'm wrong...

It's amazing with 200x200px resolution. I'm really excited to see what produces with 20mpx images. I hope, after de-blur, if I downsize the 20mpx image to 6-8, it will be completely usable...

Generally I agree with you. If X agencies are happy with the same EPS10, there's no doubt about some glitch in the review process at SF.

But I still consider, feedback is important, this is how SF will figure out how the heck are there so many EPS's with incorrect preview files... 
I've sent an e-mail to the given address with comments and theories, let's see what's the answer.
I will post here the results...

Thank you for the input! I really appreciate. I think, many people will do also...
I've understood the most important part, so I will not consider uploading the same images as I do for microstock.

@RacePhoto:

I was always wondering about uploading to Alamy. As I see you are working with them from a long time... How is compared to microstock?
I mean the value of a photo. A given shot, uploaded to many cheap/mid-priced agencies can be uploade to alamy? (As RF of course). It is fair play?
I uploaded some shots as RM (exclusive by nature), I was afraid to upload the shots I offer @ microstock...
I'm not interested on what is possible. I'm interested only on the true idea, what is the best way to offer photos to this kind of agencies. For example, upload RF photos but regardless of the RF license, keep them exclusively for Alamy? To me , RM is interesting only when there's a logo/recognizable, possible copyrighted element visible on the image. What about this?

When everything seems to be going well, @ SF there is a problem with the illustrations, especially with objects that has "Screen" blending mode: Preview file is not the same as in EPS which may mislead a client. (...)
To figure out what does this mean, I contacted the given e-mail and the response (I will not copy paste here because it isn't nice) told me that temporarily I should switch the document color mode into CMYK to check the document how it's looking. I was screaming and running up-down for 5 minutes then sitting down to figure out the proper response to this.
Intro: if you are familiar with the RGB-CMYK thing... Switching from RGB there is an another parameter coming in the game, so it's only a "figure-out" game, given by an icc profile. If the illustration contains complex blend modes, this is supposed to be rendered in the color space wit was designed. When switching the color space, the entire color set must be reworked. Sorry.
I was making this 6 years when preparing graphics for screen printing. No ICC profile on the world can handle RGB-CMYK conversion as the given technology wants (Screen, Flexo, Offset, etc.)

First at all, we are talking about this illustration:
ttp://www.dreamstime.com/sun-and-moon-in-yin-yang-symbol-image21532090
The moon is made of 3 objects that has "Screen" blend, 2 of them is going from pure black to a gray so this way the glow is made. When somebody converts the illustration into CMYK, the pure black is rendered as a dark gray (because in real printing there is no pure black so the ICC profile that converts the colors simulates this) so our "Screen" blend is rendered very ugly.
At SF, it's a part of the reviewing process to convert the document into CMYK and check what happens... (I'm running up-down again and screaming)
In short...
RGB illustrations should be verified in RGB mode, CMYK illustrations in CMYK mode!!!!! Any RGB-CMYK or CMYK-RGB conversion is LOSSY, there is a distortion of color data. Don't confuse photos with illustrations! Illustrations contain layers with specific blending modes. Converting the colors before FLATTENING the illustration results in a total mess...
I guess, this reviewing method was well going with EPS v8, where blending modes weren't working.

I prepared an answer but I'm afraid it's too long. Somebody pls. help me to answer in 2-3 phrases... It's just too much theory involved...

I just started to do some more illustrations and I'm facing this banding problem...
See this image: http://www.canstockphoto.com/social-network-members-with-text-clouds-7533900.html (You can magnify but don't see the banding because I removed)

When I simply turn the illustration into raster, due to the 256-step gradient approximation, there is a heavy banding in the background. (in fact there is everywhere but in the darkest shades it's more visible to the human eye). I was scared in the first moment, the artifact is almost unacceptable. To handle this problem I'm converting to raster the bkg separately, apply a slight amount of noise (to simulate dither), then put the other stuff over the bkg.
Illustrators, how do you make the jpg previews for your illustrations? If I export from AI or import the eps into PS, banding is unacceptable. Regardless of 8 or 16 bits.
Do agencies reject jpg previews because of banding? I didn't tried this, eg. DT also sells raster, so I didn't wanted to provide images with banding for those who buy jpg...

Today I got a reject from SF, "jpg preview it's not the same as in eps". The file in question was one of those with background banding removed. Probably this is the problem.

I'm supporting SF from the first time and I will continue to do so. StockXpert was one of my favorite agency. Simple, clean and well-going.
I know that we can't expect much sales at this time. But if more of us would support the site with images, sales would come much earlier.
I know, SF isn't like SS, upload today and earn tomorrow. But consider uploading because it offers 50% and the owner has experience in industry.

Those who aren't contributing:
Pros:
- 50% revenue
- the fastest upload speed in the industry (up to 1Mbps)
- fastest submitting process
- fastest and consistent reviews

Cons:
- slow sales for now
- 20mb limit of eps file size
- keywords not editable after approval

BTW congratulations for the 1M milestone!

They (almost) always reply to "Contact us" e-mails. Sometimes it takes more, even days.

Quote from: jamirae on October 11, 2011, 16:30
hate to be harsh but are you wanting a critique or not?  it sounds more like you are venting and if you don't like the percentage you are getting at IS then why are you even bothering?  I understand the frustration but when you add "it doesn't worth the time" then I question why are bothering with them?  There are plenty of other agencies to to sell your work.  If IS has you upset then simply stop contributing to them and concentrate on the agencies that accept your work and you make more money. 

I understand your point but I'm not just black&white. Little money (percent) is infinitely more than nothing. Since I'm a full time contributor, everything counts. Of course, there's a line under what I can't contribute anymore. Yes the percent is the lowest, but there's a strong point I'm still contributing to IS: the amount of sales. Even if they pay the lowest percent, the total sum at the end of the month is greater that at some given agencies that offer ~30...50%. When this income will drop under a certain amount, sure I will not contribute anymore.