So Envato is the other example of a mindless support who responds to your e-mails kindly but without any sense.

I'm asking a thing about uploading via ftp, the support answers twice they can't figure out what is the problem uploading via http. (?)

Also the new phenomenon along web services, of answering support tickets, the original (my) message isn't included. So support answers something and after the 2nd answer I don't know what was the thread of our conversation...
Adobe added to this group, I hardly feel, today the fresh software isn't tested... If it works at the first glance, it's OK.

The original topic was the archaic and figure-out ftp upload of Envato. It's a piece of cake to code a decent upload system. With 2 photos they may subscribe to any agency to see, what's the industry standard of uploading...

Hi all!
I would know your experience @SS regarding the uploads vs. sales based on the upload style as follows. Which is better nowadays?
1. Uploading and submitting 2 or 3 times a week, uploading as many as possible and wait until all batches have been reviewed (Example: upload 300 files in 10 batches)
2. Uploading each day a certain amount of files and submitting these, providing a more constant upload flow (Example: upload 300 files in 30 batches)
Regarding the content, let's say, 300 files covering 10 topics, so 30 files per topic.

Thank you!

No, now it's not DT...

I'm thinking, when will these agencies close their uploads due to the fact that everything has been uploaded and they no longer want to accept new submissions of the existing topics...

I'm experiencing these rejection reasons on (seamless) textures and backgrounds. I have no problems selling these at other agencies.

Examples include:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-152405483/stock-photo-seamless-green-grass-and-clovers-texture.html?src=BBaRKvNWwfl6vJTzp89E1g-1-16
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-152405477/stock-photo-seamless-concrete-brick-wall-texture.html?src=BBaRKvNWwfl6vJTzp89E1g-1-21
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-152405480/stock-photo-seamless-grey-rough-wall-texture.html?src=BBaRKvNWwfl6vJTzp89E1g-1-22
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-152405489/stock-photo-wooden-wall-texture-fir-wood-background.html?src=BBaRKvNWwfl6vJTzp89E1g-1-20
etc.

Something's wrong with the licenses...

http://help.mostphotos.com/customer/portal/articles/967687-licences

"Royalty free Standard" would be the license for FREE images... With MP's Royalty-Free, there's no need for any kind of Extended License!
I think, there's a problem with the expression "...infinitely larger formats and also enjoy unlimited use in your future projects."

Where can I see the tax withholding amount???

As I was looking at my support tickets, I saw a message from 2009 I forgot about, they said my tax withholding amount is 30%. However Romania has a 10% tax treaty with US. FL says in the ticket response, I need an ITIN number. But as far as I know, ITIN numbers are given only to US residents... True?

... very sad if they withheld from me 30% instead of 10%...

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

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...

All the renderings form the last batch were rejected with "We found the overall quality of this rendering could be improved." But weeks ago all was accepted, my problem is that many files are from the same series, what suddenly happened with the quality... Last week everything was good (all accepted), this week everything is rejected.

Was there and announcement about rendering quality or IS doesn't accept renderings from non-exclusive contributors anymore?

I'm sorry about the time spent with their archaic upload system. For the 15% I can earn, it's better to sell my files with other agencies. They simply don't deserve quality images for the percent they give. And they still have the highest needs...

Anybody had mass rejection lately, related to the rendering quality?

I made my own property release, see the attachment. I'm using it since the beginning of the year, every agency was accepting, even iStock, when suddenly an editor at IS "discovered" that the "witness" section has no "date signed" field and therefore rejected the PR. (Note that other ~50 images were accepted by IS before the "discovery").

I started to download the property releases from agencies and saw that they all have "Date signed" field for "witness".

For me is completely illogical to use this field (even in model release forms).
When a witness "witnesses" the completion and signing of a model/property release, he/she must be there and watching, at the end he/she also signs the document, so the whole witnessing procedure MUST happen on the same day/hour and place.

What's the logic behind "Date signed"?

At the bottom of the submit page there is a switch:

Commission
( ) 50% - Image is only offered via PantherMedia (and equally/more expensive stock agencies)
( ) 30% - Image is also offered in cheaper stock agencies

It is unclear, which one should I choose?
Which agencies consider cheaper, equal and more expensive?

OK, I saw many times this behavior, but this isn't really an option unless it's done massively by all.
The example in history: When StockXpert was closed I felt really bad since I saw 1 out of 5 of really working agencies will be missing, but after months, my statistics show no drop in the global income from microstock. This means automatically that buyers at StockXpert were spread along the remaining microstock agencies. I don't think, buyers are stupid in searches and choosing the agency, instead they are clever than we (contributors) think. Also they saw the prices and the same images at agencies.
At StockXpert all our portfolios vanished into the cyberspace, regardless of we wanted or not, so everybody of us needed to live on the remaining options. Now, removing our ports from IS can bring us the support of the independent agencies (who are our future), true, not in one month (when StockXpert buyers were helped to migrate to other agencies), but our independent future is based on independent agencies.
Note that i'm not a sticked/paid member of any agency, I simply talk about facts. 20% is a shameless low payout.
If we disable our portfolios at IS, a lot of content will be available only at competitors. I don't count the exclusives and those who aren't interested, or doesn't read the forums, but in theory this move can help us a lot. Another problem is the timing when everybody of us does the same move to achieve maximum impact on both sides.
Opinions wanted.

I'm wondering, for how many people is useful the topicseen#new in the address since this causes a jump to the end of the topic and it's still annoying to me. Except frequently visited threads, the jump is always followed with a navigation to the first page and first post to see what they talk about. Also the jump is made incorrectly (somewhere in the middle of the page) when page elements are downloading but not fully downloaded.
A switch "Don't jump to the end of the topic" would be very useful at the options.