You also have to wonder which comes first, the RAW or the JPEG. Must be some "in camera" processing whatever?
I notice they don't disallow ALL manipulations, so why not do those manipulations in conversion?
 

But it's their game, and if you want to play you have to follow their rules.

My NVIDIA upgrades also say they're for gaming, but the thing I found on Adobe  (different resource to the one linked to above) when I looked for this problem said 'always make sure your graphics driver is up to date'.

As it happened, when I went to follow cuppacoffee's advice, I discovered I had an upgrade to CC2015 waiting, so I tried that first.

Of course, if I could consistently replicate the problems it would be easier, but it seems pretty random, except that whether I'm actually using PS at the time of the problem or something else, I get an Nvidia error and a Photoshop error, sometimes also a Bridge or ACR error too. The Adobe errors are usually just an 'error and had to stop' message. The Nvidia is something about a kernel exception, would I like to go to their help pages, but when I click on the link, it doesn't take me to their help pages.
Also randomly, either when I'm in PS or not (when 'not' it's probably usually when I'm playing  CandyCrush  which probably isn't the most resource hogging of games, but WDIK?) the whole screen just goes black, I get the DSub message, as though I'd switched off the computer but forgotten to switch the screen off. The only thing I can do from there is to switch the computer off from the 'big button'.

Anyway, like I said:
I can't replicate it.
I haven't been able to identify anything consistent I'm doing which seems to trigger it, and I don't work with massive hundred-layer files. Ever.
I'll see how it goes with the PS (etc) update, but not holding my breath.

The "always make sure your drivers are up to date" thing is a sort of "catch all" statement IMO. Unless they test PS with every new driver, how can they tell? Some games for instance work better with older drivers. Some older games will only work with older drivers. Lots of people downgrade drivers to earlier versions to get things to work.


One thing is that your problem may be caused by not completely removing all traces of the old drivers before installing the new. This is a bit of a fiddle, because simply doing an "uninstall" doesn't remove all the traces.


You need to use something like this
http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/display-driver-uninstaller-download.html


or follow the instruction here
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/faq/id-2284749/completely-uninstall-amd-nvidia-gpu-drivers.html


There are plenty of other tutorial online.


Once you have a working system stop it updating when it want to.

I reckon that whether a particular keyword gets searched for depends on what the object is and what the different search terms are.


A shot of a car might be keyworded, for instance: car, motor car, motor, vehicle, automobile. Those words might well be searched for without too much of a stretch.


While for instance "wheels" is often used in speech to refer to a car, no one is really going to use "wheels" to actually search for a shot of a car. It then means that anyone looking for "wheels" might see images of cars they don't want (although looking at one or two agencies that search isn't bad so my example isn't that good!)


Keywording a shot of a domestic cat as "p*ssy" is just too much of a stretch. I can't believe that anyone today is ever going to use that term when searching for an image of a cat.


This is part of the problem with keyword spam IMHO.   

How much trouble is it to list what's been done to an image?
Everything that's been done. Takes seconds.
It's a service to the buyer.

I like email because it means I have a complete record of all our correspondence. Phone calls often result in a client hearing whatever they want to and expecting stuff for free down the line.

I can tell you from experience to ask immediately for a contract and get all the terms up front and in writing. I let my guard down once and started working on a custom request only to find out that the "buyer" was just jumping from contributor to contributor pulling our chains. Having said that, one of the advantages of a good microstock port is that it gets you noticed by folks who regularly buy images. Rob Sylvan talks about getting custom work and assignments from stock in his book: "Taking Stock" It's inspiring.

I think this is good advice whatever work you are doing. Including work outside photography and graphics.
Exactly what will be done, and when it will be done.
Price, and whether a quote or an estimate. Cost of extra work or payment of expenses. [/size]Payment terms. Deposit payable, when full payment is due.
And as said put it all in writing. When I made furniture, if I spoke to a client about modifications either in person or on the phone, I would take notes, and either email, or in the old days write to them with the details.
It all saves any argument or confusion.

Very well put indeed Cobalt.


The only thing that I would add, is that you need to be your own strongest critic. Just because you have been accepted to contribute to "Agency X" and just because they are accepting the work that you upload, does not necessarily mean that you those images will sell. Most of us who have been doing this for some time have some idea of what will and won't sell, but even so "best sellers" often seem to be a matter of luck.
 

Have you tried "fetch ALL data" under "iStock" on the menu bar? Should refresh what's there. Otherwise is there anything showing on your upload page at iStock?

Deepmeta:
Main Window
Tabs beneath the menu bar select "releases" tab


Top right, "Add release"


Drop down options next to it for which type of release.


TO link it to a particular file open the "details" window by double clicking the file on the list.
Then check the uploaded file under the "releases" tab.

Thing is, as said above, it's for a mag that isn't free, and a writer that presumably doesn't work for nothing.


The argument about the images being sold cheap anyway is wrong to me. The sales add up, and it's what the images are put on whatever selling site for. Try going into a pound shop and asking for stuff for free, because they sell it so cheap. :-)

Personally, and legal position aside, I'd want the definitive permission of both the site I was buying from, and the site I was selling through,  in writing, before I'd sell anything that was outside the normal rules.
In other words not just "Refer to the licensing terms" but something like "Yes it is OK to sell content you have not produced provided you have been assigned the copyright."


AS far as the likely quality of any "bought outright" content. I think Jo Ann sums it up with "Ho-hum"
Is anyone going to sell content they are sure they can make money from, for someone else to do so?
Selling to a client for their own exclusive use is as already said a different thing to selling for resale.



 

There is a Mac version of Deepmeta, There is something about Linux in the faq on the Deepmeta site.


If you are using other third party software to upload to iStock, then that may well be your problem.

Relevance is the only thing that matters, not quantity.

These words should be on a banner across the top of every site's keywording pages! 

I'm disappointed! I'm only saving �6.98 a month now by not using the software, instead of the  �8.57 I was saving previously!