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.

thanks for the replies, guess nothing will happen at FT can't see them reconsidering their watermarking policy, any attempt to bring this subject up in their forums gets the thread locked, checking around a bit,
havn't found a stock library that gives away comp images without a watermark unless you are registered, makes sense to them to make an effort to protect their contributors images but not to FT.

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.

have experienced the same , rejection of perfectly good stock images that have passed review at all the big microstock sites. wrote an email to get my rejected images re-evaluated by a senior reviewer and suggested they  check all their screens for calibration. i take rejection like the next microstock image supplier who takes pride in their uploads. sure you get a few, fair enough thats the game but whole batches that have passed scrutiny by far more successful stock libraries with tough reviewers, thats a different story and only means one thing for me, crestock has a big problem with the quality of their reviewers either not knowing what they are doing or not caring what they are doing. i have been with crestock for a long time and deserve to be treated better than this. i wont be uploading images or recommending crestock to anyone until they get there act together. out of courtesy i hope they will re-evaluate my rejected images. will keep you posted 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

i don't like being treated like a second class citizen, istock have sold  their soul to getty, i don't recommend istock to buyers anymore preferring to recommend  micros that are growing the microstock industry, not trying to take it over and who care a little bit about their contributors.
in a small way being a non exclusive independent will help the industry to grow, it takes power away from the big corporate bullies that care about nothing except their bottom line.
getty is the Borg microtrekies beware!

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.

rest in peace the miz gonna miss your humour and help

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.

thanks for all your input, think i am going to go with smugmug for this year and see how it goes, am impressed by their customer service , feedback and customization of galleries.
something else i considered.
when choosing print sizes for customers smugmug allows for 3x2 format which my camera is native (canon 20D) so am able to offer 12 x 8 prints rather than the usual 10 x 8 this means no cropping of images so when working quickly composing and taking pictures i do not have to worry about having to crop images.
smugmug allows for independent customization API, and someone has written a plug-in for adobe lightroom am hoping this will speedup time spent on my computer.
many thanks

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

my first post here,
hi all and wishing you all a successful  and prosperous 2008,
have opted out of subscription on StockXpert, not sure it does my StockXpert portfolio any favours, all images i upload are 3000 x2000px to all the microsites personally i think this is a big enough image size for microstock at present.
think the micro industry is maturing and i am sure has shown handsome profits and growth  for all the premier microstock companies, a large part of that success is due to the goodwill dedication, talent and hard work of their image contributors , for the industry to grow and mature further these companies are going to have to recognize this indispensable contribution with higher payments for contributors and better pricing models for customers,
we should not be forgetting that this is a global industry and when the dollar falls so does our profits maybe its time that images are sold in euros, every one will be better off.
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy