I'm impressed Miz, I hope I'll reach that level once! 

Two questions pop up immediately while I checked out the site-page : how much is photo, and how much is photoshop?  (like the globes and the banknotes :  do you start with a photo of a globe/banknote, or are even the basic images purely photoshop?). 

As for the photos with reflections, I have a second question : I know that many reflections are made in photoshop, but the roses on the red background are a real reflection?  If yes, then I would LOVE to know what material they were lying on.
You see, everytime I use glass, I get double reflections.  I have shiny, non-transparent plexiglass, but only in black and white (buying all colors is way to expensive), so how to avoid those nasty double reflections in real photos?

I know Istock's keyword system has its pros and cons, but what can I do against them twisting my keywords?

I submitted a photo with a burning computer hard disk (it was broken anyway) and used the usual keywords, including :  drive (like in hard drive), digital, crash, magnetic, data, deleted, memory, save.
Istock rejected the photo due to incorrect keywording, and lists the "guilty" keywords (in the same order) :

Drive(Sports Activity)
Digital Display(Text)
Crash(Transportation Event)
Magnet(Man Made Object)
Document(Printed Media)
Delete Key(Computer Key)
Nostalgia
Savings(Financial Item)

I did not tick these meanings, in fact if the exact meaning is not mentioned in Istock's list, I don't tick a meaning, but leave the keyword in my list. 

Of course it's easy to resubmit the photo without the above keywords, but that would mean that it will not appear in searches for "computer crash" or similar.

Any one here who knows the tricks how to play Istock's keywording system?

This week I learned something interesting about copyright, that I thought I 'd share with you.

We all see photography as art, and it definitely is art, just like painting, sculpture and architecture.  We also know there are severe restrictions when we take photos of art.  However, there are forms of art that are less obvious, like flower arranging, ice sculptures or ... food art. 
 
This is what happened : I had been playing with food on a rainy day with my little nephews, and the results were quite fun.  So afterwards I took a few photos of fruit and vegetables with faces carved in them.  The pictures were really fun and probably saleable. 
Meanwhile I came across a book "Food Play" by Saxton Freymann, who made food carving a true art form and published lots of books about it.  The second page talked about copyright, not only for the pictures in the book, but also for the food designs itself. 
To avoid copyright problems, I wrote an e-mail to Freymann's company, and the answer was loud and clear (but very friendly) : I can create food art as much as I want, but whenever I try to sell something that resembles his designs (even slightly) I will meet his lawyers in court.
Well, I can hardly buy all of his books to check if my radish-guy or pepper-face resembles one or more in his books!
That's bad luck of course, so the microstock sites will have to do without my funny fruit & vegs, but it makes you think, doesn't it?

What if I make a nice flower arrangement, take photos of it and sell them on Shutterstock.  Couldn't there be somewhere in the world a person who specializes in the exact style I used for the flower arrangement, published twenty books about it (unknown to me), who challenges me in court for copying his style?

Suppose I find a "niche" subject of my own, like "flowers with carved faces" - who says there isn't someone who has been doing that for years and is truly famous for it? 
In short :  even if we create artwork ourselves as photography subjects, we are not 100% safe and can still be accused of copyright infringement ? 
Wow, scary idea!

Thanks Stokfoto.  I followed your advice and went looking for the user agreements of these plug-ins.  That was easier said than done!

As for Alien Skin (Xenofex), there wouldn't be a problem.  I found the agreement and it was only about warranty and software copyright (not about the images created with it).

Mystical lighting goes much farther :  quote :
�The software contains copyrighted material, trade secrets, proprietary material and unique visual imagery that is generated from the software algorithms that is proprietary to the Licensor and is not
for resale by the Licensee. You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce the software to a human-perceivable form. You may not modify, network, rent, loan, distribute or create derivative works based upon the software in whole or in part including the creation of effects products or content for resale. �

I suppose that means :  no selling of pictures with their effects in it?  (sorry, English is not my mother language, but I do my best).

And for the other plug-ins :   I simply cannot find their user agreements anywhere!

Thanks for the tips, I'll go and google surf a few days on Honfleur and Southern Italy.  Honfleur can be reached in just a few hours from my home, which is a plus of course.  I'll keep Ireland as a back-up, cause I've never been there and it always sounded tempting (but never found some one to join me because of the rain).

I have this great dilemma : in july, I will be going on holidays for a week or max 10 days.  I usually know right away which country I like to go to.  The last three years I went to Wales, Scotland and France (Aquitaine). 
This year I haven't a clue.  So my question is :  with regard to stock photography, what would the best place, country or city be for a visit? 
Just to limit things : it should be in Europe (read : affordable for me), and please don't say Belgium, as I live there.
I'm not asking for the nicest places in Europe.  I'm just curious what would be the best selling subject / city / region, as I love photography where ever I go.  And what would be wiser : country side, coastal regions or cities?

Great idea!  I'll try that in future!

Have you ever had the request for an ID ?