I understand there's certain things they need, but they now have had everything they need from me for a long time.   Just today when they replied to my last email they again said they needed my user name and the date of the original request - even though I've sent this to them TWICE already and told them so, and even also left it on their voice mail!   

They're driving me mad - it's like listening to a broken record over and over.   If it were five or ten dollars I'd just tell these people to shove it and close my account, but when you get to $50 - hey, that's my phone bill for a month. LOL.  I need that during the Xmas season.  ARGH   I can honestly say I've never dealt with such an incompetent company in my 42 years of life. And hey - I've even been to Alabama!

Thanks for the additional info, hali.

Quote from: lagereek on November 12, 2008, 07:20
Go to picture-size in PS and just change the 100% to 110% ( Bicubic soft) and then in steps increase by 110% until you reach a size of around 50m TIF.

Thanks to both of you for your help.

One thing, though.  In your example lagereek, it sounds like "stepping" when you upsize the image. 

Here is a blurb I found on Alamy's site under their submissions area:

"We advise that you do not use "step" or incremental interpolation. Check your software's default settings to ensure that all sharpening is turned off."

Also, I was once reading in a forum (not specifically about Alamy though) where someone who claimed to be a Photoshop tester said that the resizing algorithms had been redone as of CS3.  He claimed at least, that if you actually used "bicubic sharper" (what you normally use when reducing size), that this produces BETTER results when *upsizing* now, due to the way the last programmers tweaked it.  It was something not advertised by them but supposedly tested and found to be true.  I'm assuming if it IS true, it carried over to CS4 (which I recently got).  Heard anything about this?

I was reading the guidelines for submitting to Alamy, but perhaps I'm just "duh" - a couple of things confuse me, so if I may ask for clarification from contributors please?

1)  Let's say I'm submitting using images from a Canon 40D (10MP).  It's my understanding that it's now ok to submit in JPG format online and you do not have to convert to TIFF, correct?

2)  It's saying the image file has to be 48mb in size?  So, I should upsize the 40D image until it reaches that size?   If I'm using CS4, what pixel dimensions should then give me around that file size?    Gee, even with a speedy DSL connection, a 48mg upload might take a while!  I guess I'm reading this right.  I can't just upload the 10MP 40D image as-is in it's native size then, huh?

Thanks ahead for clarification.

Well, I've been selling (non-exclusive) on istock for years, and in the last two years I've just had a super gnawing feeling in my gut that their ultimate goal is to have a completely "exclusive" site.  That is, they WANT to one day be able to advertise to clients - "All of our contributors are exclusive to istock only!".   The problem is, they're still loading up on money made from nonexc sales to completely igore them (yet).  It still wouldn't shock me if within a year they do tell contributors though to, "Go exclusive, or leave".   Of course, they'll find that many won't put up with it and they WILL leave, but by then they'll have so many exclusives signed up they won't care.   It's just one of those "not if but when" type of scenerios.

I would have gone exclusive with them long ago had it not been for that one tiny little fine print item in their contract that says that even if they reject an image, you can't sell that rejected image elsewhere.  I have no problem selling a set of images through them and only through them.  But if they reject an image, it should be a free agent and I should then be able to sell that one via other outlets to make revenue off of it if I deem fit to do so.  Since I can't - then they will never get my stuff as an exclusive seller.  I'd rather have the ability to sell what I want anywhere than have someone tell me I'm not even allowed to use my rejects the way I want.

I was beginning to think they're going out of business or something (sorry - my first post here is doom and gloom sounding).

I finally hit my first $50 mark there, and put in a Paypal payment request. A week goes by, and they tell me I have to resubmit my photo ID to my profile, which I do. Then they tell me it doesn't have all the info they need? (It's a U.S. driver's licence). They have my SSN on file, anyway. So I email them again, and they say it's "processing and can take up to two weeks". So, 20 days goes by with no word. I email again. No reply other than to say it's processing. Then I call them during regular business hours... their phone rings 22 times before it answers, and it sounds like a very basic voice mail machine (!) I send yet another email, and now they ask me for my user name, and all info about the request (wouldn't they HAVE this as I submitted the request when I was logged in??). I give them that, and so far - no answer.

I'm sorry - this seems very fishy to me. This is the type of behavior a company does when it's about to shut down or is being taken over by someone, and they're avoiding everyone - either that or we're talking about complete incompetence on the part of the staff there.

Has anyone else had this problem out of them before? I guess so from reading posts, but it just seems so odd.  With iStock, Shutterstock, and Dreamstime I've never had any delays or problems at all getting payments. I'm still waiting for Fotolia to tell me they still need a DNA and urine sample from me next!