is SS so important that you would put up with waiting for 30 days?
i'm not even sure i 'd consider that an option.
i'd rather go elsewhere. like who 's dying to get into SS???

not me?
as if the others are not just as good, if not better.

we all heard of numero uno getting too big for their shoes.
the only way from numero uno is down.
for that reason, i prefer to stay with the other of the big 6
BECAUSE they seem to want your photos.

it takes two to do business.

'Cept that if you like making money in this buisiness, especially with a less established portfolio, SS is your friend.  I can see, given a while to mature, my port on IS and DT will probably overtake SS in total monthly earnings.  But until I've got several hundred files approved at each and have been around for several months or years for some files to get up there in the download rakings, SS is kicking their butt in earnings, hands down.  I'll have reached at least 2 or 3 payouts at SS before I get my first elsewhere.

One thing, kinda minor, that link at the top that shows the thread currently being looked at, would be very cool at the bottom of the page as well.  That way, after reading a thread, you can link out of it instead of scrolling back to the top.  I like the new layout.

My shots have been flying off the shelves this week, relatively speaking.

If I've noticed a slowdown anywhere since the announcement it has been at SS, sales have tanked there lately despite constant uploading.

I just got the same rejection--over abundance.  But it wasn't for an isolation.  I'm wondering if a) new reviewer, or b) new reason for reviewers to select from.

I've had this one in the past.  Not too long ago they rejected one of mine (a ripe cotton field) for that when there were less than 100 shots using the primary keyword search (no exacts), and every relevant one but 2 had sold at least once (hint if you can get past the type or overabundant rejection, cotton sells), whereas my next shot was approved, an isolated apple. 

I submit a lot with skies and do nothing special to reduce the noise.  I've got an XT and the 17-40L.  I always shoot at ISO 100 and overexpose by a stop and recover with the RAW editor.  The only NR that I use is to bump up the Lum smoothing in ACR to 25 for skies, or the Chro NR to 25 if the shot has heavy shadows/black areas.  I haven't had a noise rejection anywhere since I started shooting like this.  Since ACR corrections are recorded in the EXIF, I go no higher than 25 to avoid overfiltered rejections at IS, above 50 they tend to reject a lot more.

However I always correct fringing with my 17-40.  I do it in PS with the lens correction filter.  Generally I bump up the red/cyan slider 3-5 steps to the right, that almost always is enough to correct the problem.

In this shot the fringing appears much more noticeable than the sky noise, though the sky noise does seem high for the setup.

God needs to show those good folks over at Canon how to make a small, easy to hold, EF 15-400mm f/1.4L IS USM with the sharpness of a great prime, 2:1 magnification, minimum floor of f/40 with no diffraction below f/22, zero CA's and distortion, with the saturation and color of a 17-40 L, with nearly instant and perfect focusing, that also cost less than $500. 

Maybe some day my prayers will be answered.

I think that everybody has the possibility to do anything in them.  Creativity is inherent in everybody.  Talent however IMO refers to the ability, partially technically, partially by feel, to transfer what is found in the mind into what something that can be communicated to others.

Whether via spoken words, written words, visual art, photography, film, musical composition, musical performance, architectural/engineering design, scientific discovery, all of this is nothing more than various forms of communication, something that humans have mastered relative to other creatures on the planet, yet still humans communicate very rudimentary.  The ability does not exist to communicate to others what exists in our heads exactly.  We can get close, especially in some areas, other areas are very lacking.

I think that musical performance gets the closest, musicians exist that can communicate the sounds in their heads to others almost exactly as they hear it in their minds eye (I saw a fantastic Santana show with Prince as a guest musician, both literally seemed to be taking to one another via their instruments, both clearly had the ability to play back exactly what the other had just played and expand apon it, it was really amazing to hear).

Spoken language, as rudimentary as it is, works, though the eloquence of a thought is often lost in the translation into language, and thoughts and ideas exist that there is no way of expressing verbally.

Wheras mundane concepts that are easily described by language and musical notes are fairly easy for humans to communicate, visual ideas are much more difficult, and non-mundane concepts are the most difficult of all. 

Everybody has the ability to visualize things somewhat, they inherently recognize the aspects that make a good photo/painting, etc..., but to transfer that from recognition to creation is a big step (even communicating why it is good is a difficult task to master, it is not something that language is good at describing inherently), not only requiring technical proficiency to use the medium but also the ability to communicate via the medium, which is often referred to as talent, but the ultimate teacher could teach the "talent" to anybody, the problem is the ultimate teacher does not exist, not even close, due in large part to the limitations of verbal communication.  Words do not exist to properly describe the mental process of artistic communication, it is something that you have to kind of figure out on your own, some people can, others that need help to see the way are considered to be lacking talent, they could do it if their mind could be shown the way.

The one place that I think that our teaching is most advanced is in the field of engineering and architecture.  Everybody has the ability to visualize something that doesn't exist.  Though education engineers are taught via endless practice to hold and refine a model in their head, ascribe forces, materials, money, and feasibility to it, and learn the technical proficiency to communicate this to others via agreed upon standards for communication of the design via plans.  Anybody can be taught to be an engineer or architect, the ones that make it however are the ones that can be taught to be effective in a reasonable amount of time.

I really feel for theoretical physicists, their creativity is on fronts where there is no effective language to communicate, and no predetermined system to describe their ideas to others.  Numerical equations exist, but they are but a small part of the understanding of the concept.  Einsteins special theory of relativity is a prime example.  It is a very simple concept mentally, yet there is no equation that can describe it, and it is very difficult to put into words.  Einstein's explanation with trains and clocks is very bulky and difficult to understand, others have described it better, but it still is always a very bulky and difficult to understand explanation, but the concept at the core is so very simple.  Scientific explanation as seen by outsiders is so very far behind the true forefront of understanding, at the very edge there is absolutely no means developed yet to communicate that understanding to others, it only exists in the mind and nowhere else.

Sorry for my spiel and back to photography.  I firmly believe that everybody has the ability of a master photographer in them.  But they need to develop it (there are no savants that can pick up a camera and be Ansel Adams from day 1), both by learning to describe what a great picture is using the boundaries of language (Flickr is fantastic training for this), which also codifies it for ones self so it doesn't require extra thought at each execution attempt, and learning the technical aspects of using the medium.  Over time and practice the visualizing of a great picture comes easier and easier, to the point where it becomes possible to "see" prior to clicking the shutter.  All of the aspects; lighting, composition, color, framing, become visible with honed practice, and findings one voice reflects a comfort level with regard to subject where the previsualiztion of the shot and subsequent execution of it comes with the most ease of all to the photographer, almost natural compared to other subjects and styles.  I am one person that feels strongly that your first 10,000 clicks are crap, that any great successes are more the result of an accident gone right than a meaningful success compared to later more refined photography that comes through experience, where understanding all of the variables involved and the having the ability to have complete control over them has been learned.  Even then this just makes a good photographer, a great photographer has complete and total mastery of every aspect of the image, from previsualization and subject, to execution and delivery in a finished form.

Thursday night I had one reviewed in a half hour, I just put it in the que.  At the same time an image that had been there a day was reviewed.  A submission from later that night hasn't been reviewed yet.  They have been a real consistent 24 hours or less since easter for me (almost always beat FT, 123RF is sometimes quicker), for this file to go through 2 pms is very unusual as of late.

Sometimes it holds true, other times not so much.  My #1 image at SS has sold 4x as many times as the next closest, yet it has barely sold elsewhere, whereas my #2 image at SS has earned more elsewhere than at SS (both at FT and IS), but it is still a top earner at SS so the trend hold true there.

You have HOW MANY at Fotolia?  I can't imagine - mine get reviewed within 2 hrs there.  TOPS.

Short queue/fast review:
123RF (less than half a day)
Dreamstime (less than a day)
Fotolia (hours)
FotoMind (less than half a day)
Shutterstock (less than 2 days)

Long queue/slow review:
Bigstock
Crestock
Featurepics
Istock
StockXpert

Nonexistent image processing:
Canstock

What?  They have been consistently a week for me since Easter, before that they were consistently 4-5 days.  I once had one reviewed in 3 days.

I've never gotten this rejection either, didn't even know that it existed.  I would think that an issue with poor flashing would be addressed with a lighting rejection, which I have had (from natural light, though not in a very long time, pay attention to the shadows and minimize their impact on the photo and the rejection goes away, even used creatively, heavy shadows are tough to get through).

EXIF concerns is one reason that I started doing things to hide what I was doing editing.  I think that a lot of reviewers look there first, as it can quickly tell you a number of different things to inspect more closely (heck I imagine that a lot are rejected on exif data alone), including ISO (look for noise), deg K and Tint (WB check), Shutter Speed/Focal length (look for blur), aperture (look at DOF), noise reduction, and sharpening.

Because all RAW file adjustments are recorded in the EXIF, I make sure to make my EXIF look perfect.  If I am manipulating WB to my advantage, I do it in PS and not ACR.  If I am exaggerating the saturation I do it in PS and not ACR.  I never use more than 25% NR in ACR (below that is pretty benign).  If I am radically adjusting contrast I do so with the curves and not contrast so it is recorded as "custom."  I always drop the exposure in .5 stop increments and at least drop every file by .5 stop (usually needed because of the way I shoot, if not, fix with curves (custom again)).  This way every shot of mine, based of exif inspection is shot at 100 ISO (it is anyways), shot to the right, has spot on WB, and if they want to reject for noise filtering, too much contrast or saturation, they've got to find it with their eyes and not in the exif.