I uploaded two photos the other night and it didn't seem any slower than usual. Other aspects of the site seem slow but not the actual uploading.

I have about 100 images there and just 3 sales, but the earnings were good: US$4.90.

I have about the same but only 1 sale with a $7 net. I don't know if their accept everything policy is good in the long run. Plus the really low minimum size seems less conducive to designers. I know I'd be annoyed if I found the perfect image and it was only available at 800px.

Just saw IRCrockett is their featured photographer at the moment.

Aww man, I always miss my moment of glory. Would never have known if you didn't mention it. Nice on your new wireless remote though. Hopefully you have a camera that can get some use out of.

I usually wait a good long time to upgrade at home. Didn't get XP until a couple games I wanted to play required XP. If it weren't for those games I'd still be running 2000.

I appear to be the only one of the opposite opinion. I don't want the feedback from Joe Photog. I don't want Joe Photog approving or denying my photos. I don't want Joe Photog adding or removing keywords, altering "weight", or talking amongst themselves about my photos. I don't consider it any of Joe Photog's business. It's between me and Totally Photos and I would hope they would drop it and hire the necessary staff to do the job properly. It just makes them seem cheap and amateurish.

Really?  Even with no photos uploaded it should be on the right hand side under "View Portfolio".

I don't understand these levels. Doesn't it seem backwards? I mean the more it's downloaded I would think it would become cheaper not more expensive. I would think it would be more valuable as a novel image rather than an oft seen one.

I have CS2 but from what I understand the information is entered in the Properties Palette and applied via File > Write Tag Info to Files in PSE3.

I just got my first Extended License sale!

Never would have guessed that the image that got the sale would have. Makes me wonder more than ever what it will be used for.

Quote from: IRCrockett on July 24, 2006, 11:57

So Lucky Oliver is down now for the second day. Wonder what's going on with them.

I have been accessing them daily without many problems.  Only a few times when I uploaded 5 images in the form I got an error and not all are uploaded, but this was eventual.

It's working now but all yesterday and most of today I would just get an error page which I believe said Application Error (Rails) or something to that effect. Looks like it was just me because I have two more sales, the right people were able to get through anyway.

I agree and I would go so far as to say vastly cheaper for digital.

Photoshop, got it years before I started doing photography because I used it for digital art. Not a direct expense as I'd still have it and use it for other things but I'll give you that the last upgrade I paid for was a direct result of photography. On the other hand even if you use film most people would still scan and edit their photos digitally so the cost is the same for both film and digital.

Computer, just like Photoshop, not a direct cost of photography for me and I've never upgraded it because of photography. Photography just adds another use for it. Again though, it really is a wash because it would be used for both film and digital.

Camera, yes, a digital can be (and for me is) much more expensive than film. At least $1000 more.

Film, processing, and all the other stuff madelaide mentioned. That's where my savings is coming from. Completely overwhelms any savings on the body. Less than a year's worth of expense to cover the cost of the more expensive body.

The one savings not mentioned was time. I don't spend time doing things I don't want to do like dropping off and picking up film/slides/prints. I'm not printing and sorting a bunch of stuff I'll never look at. I'm not examining slides nor am I spending the time and money to get my negatives/slides scanned. And to top it all off there is the immediacy of digital. If I have an idea at midnight for a simple studio type shot it can be done and uploaded by 2 am and I still manage to get a reasonable amount of sleep. Can't put a dollar figure on the time aspect but it weighs the argument heavily toward digital.

So, especially in the long term, the digital side is way cheaper for me. Now if I did a different type of digital photography, say with a digital back for medium format or something like that where the back costs $20-30K on up I could start to buy the film is cheaper argument. But with digital SLRs and P&S, no, digital is vastly cheaper.

What I meant was, it was my comment that set him off on his rampage against macro stock. If I would have refrained from pointing out the similarity of arguments then we could have avoided this issue at least for the time being.