most images of models and actors used in mags are so retouched they look like characterless artificial 3d models. i think the retouchers and editor are actually trying to emulate the CGI plastic look  .
being realistic, not sure you can do much about the problems Yuri has got with his models, maybe let them know exactly about the torpedo tube they are getting into before you shoot them.
maybe the real issue is that his model images should be sold via RM with geographic restrictions limited to USA , Europe, Canada, Australia etc where they have a descent legal system and the agencies will pursue licensing offenders in court. may be a hit on the microstock earnings front but maybe he will earn more with an RM agency and they will deal with the licensing headaches.
if anyone can change international laws then Yuri is the man with the energy and drive but i think the photography might suffer.

recently found a website called snaparazzi.eu that is a long time partner of fotolia and offer the 4.8m fotolia images for sending to mobile phones with a small payment. i am all for this as its another income generator for fotolia and its submitters. what i am concerned about is that when you click on the send to mobile phone button a 512 pixel unwatermark image comping image appears this is very easily saved to your hard drive by right clicking the unwatermarked image and saving the background image.
i posted my concerns about this in the fotolia forum and to cut a long story short the post was locked by the moderator.
my question to you guys, is a 512 pixel image usable for web use and should i be concerned that these comping images are so easy to download and use without needing to sign up for an account at either snaparazzi or fotolia and have no right click protection.
do other stock libraries add watermarks to comping images?
is there any sort of industry standard size for unwatermarked images or why cant fotolia just add a small watermark to comping images?
would really appreciate any advice on this.

hi, really like cutcaster, they are new and seem to a fair way of selling images, John the guy who runs it seams a really nice guy, when i had some questions he answered them strait away. have only been there for a short time but have had one sale for $7. personally i am getting unhappy with the way the microstock industry is getting taken over by the big corporations, who seem to be hell bent on trying to get contributors to become exclusive to them, well thats good for some people but for me its not, i like my independence and firmly believe that helping the new companies that are trying to promote a business model that is fair to the contributors is better for the industry and better for freelancers.
it really is not that much effort to upload via ftp and add a new site to your list and in time that small investment will start earning. the microstock market is growing very fast and there is lots of room for new companies with new ideas to flourish, the last thing independents like me want is to be cornered into going exclusive and when all the competition is gone these companies start cutting your commissions, deleting your forum posts and closing your account when you complain, rejecting images because these companies have got so big that they don't need that type any more.
the list goes on... cutcaster is rocks

Ive canned canstock.
have closed my account here tonight, reviewers suck, i can take rejection as good as the next microstocker, but when  they rejected every photo i submitted and these are images that have been
through the review process at is, ss, ft, dt, StockXpert, 123, cs, fp, StockXpert and cc, then i know the problem is not with my photos, its with a reviewer that does not no his job. good riddance scamstock, they are not worth the time and effort.

I to feel like a second class citizen on istock as well , they have forgotten where they came from, i am a customer and non exclusive contributor.and feel like i am being treated like dirt.
from a buyers point of view, their collection of images and graphics have slipped way behind in variety and depth of the likes of SS, StockXpert, FT, and DT and they have got greedy with their pricing, i guess we should not think anything better now they are owned by the Getty Borg empire (search for "Borg" on Wikipedia for explanation) .
As a contributor i can see why this is happening, it can take 3 weeks to get photos or vectors to get reviewed and their reviewers are bland, lack imagination and to critical , Is istock that stingy now they are owned by Getty that they cant pay another reviewer. while you wait 168 hours you can only upload 20 images oh please, getting your portfolio short changed in the searches because your not exclusive..and not to mention if you said any of this in the istock forums it will be censored and deleted. do you really expect to keep your reputation on the designers and photographers grape vine with that sort of attitude. no one likes being treated  like a second class citizen it stinks. i wont be spending one more dollar with istock preferring to spend it with libraries that care about the people who create the images and give them fair treatment. as for contributing to istock well the revenue is going down for all the reasons above, and its a lot of hassle to upload images and vectors to a company that does not give a S*** for its second class citizens.

hi, was wondering if anyone has any experience using smugmug pro galleries for selling prints and for event photography , the reason i am asking is that i will be based in France for several months this year shooting groups canoing and climbing and will be selling prints, i have been looking for a UK printer with automated upload to galleries, sales and dispatch of prints.
the problem is i can only find one company that will do this, they are called photobox and only offer a very basic pro service preferring to sub contract their pro service to another company called thirdlight which offers a very extensive service.
the problem with thirdlight is that they are very expensive $1500+.
came across smugmug  USA site while looking for gallery and printing company and they seam to offer all the services that i will be needing at a very reasonable cost $159.
i am very temped to sign up but would like to here what other peoples experiences with smugmug have been, in particular if anyone has had experience with dispatching prints to Europe with smugmug as most of my clients will be from Europe.
 many thanks and many downloads to all