During the night or early morning my balance jumped by 30 dollars or so ... there were not enough normal downloads to account for this so I checked for ELs.  The "stats" page shows that an EL of about that much was downloaded over 1 week ago (as an orange bar on the daily chart for the month) but the "extended license" page shows nothing except the old ELs that I got - though it's hard to tell because there is no date associated with any EL, only a dollar amount.

It's been a little while since I got my last EL but I don't remember anything like this kind of confusion in trying to find out which file sold, on which date and for how much $$$.  Is this the norm, or does it sound like a bug, or is it the "new normal" i.e. "whoops it's broke we'll fix it when we fix it".

I noticed that these two figures on the user_view.php page do not go up in sync, but when there is a sale the "account balance" is incremented first, and "total earnings" goes up some time later.  Sometimes it seems to be shortly afterward, sometimes it takes a day or more.

Does anyone know (or care) what the algorithm is for this?  I wouldn't mind but I haven't had a sale for a while (the "account balance" hasn't budged since yesterday morning) and neither has the "total earnings" moved, not even to reflect the sales from yesterday morning.

When web site updates appear to be so irregular and mysterious it makes me wonder what the heck is going on - if it's really a computer program (which you would expect to perform updates on a highly regular schedule, if not immediately) or if it's just some person randomly deciding when to click on a "compute totals" button.  Or is it a computer program which happens to crash frequently and must be manually restarted?

I noticed the account balance dropped by a couple of dollars or so, then I saw that I had an email.  Evidently a customer asked for a refund on a file they decided not to use.  No problem with that, but I am surprised that anyone would go to the effort of sending in a "signed and witnessed Certificate of Destruction" for a $20 refund.  My impression has been that the cost of microstock is a tiny fraction of the other costs of graphic art design (such as the artists' time).  Things must be getting pretty tough out there   

So I got one of these cameras after all, and I'm extremely happy with it.  My acceptance rate went to 100% except for a couple of random quibbles about "overall composition could be improved".  Whatever.

Everything about the camera works great (still photos, not trying videos yet) but one problem has been happening consistently.  Shooting about 15-20 feet (5-6 meters) away from from a standing subject with a 50mm lens (around 85mm effective with APS sensor) at f/8 I find it almost impossible to get the camera to focus on the subject's face in full-length shots - especially if they are holding anything in front of them like a camera, football etc.

There are 9 autofocus points.  I use the menu/buttons to switch from "camera decides which zone to autofocus" to manually select the autofocus point, picking the point nearest the subject's face.  I tilt the camera slightly to place the point over the face, hold down the button halfway and it locks.  Then I quickly recompose and shoot, before the subject moves.  But the focus is virtually never on the face, but always somewhat forward, in the region of the object they are holding (maybe 6 inches in front).

Do you think that the camera is basically overriding my selection of the focus point and trying to compromise between the area of the image under the selected point, but still taking data from some of the other points?  I can see how in amateur shooting this might help save someone's vacation shots, but when I absolutely must have the eyes and teeth "tack sharp" at 100% it's very annoying.

I'm sure that better cameras have more sophisticated focusing, but for now I would like to get my $1000 worth of photos out of this baby if at all possible.

If there isn't a way to configure or trick the camera's computer then I guess I'll have to switch to manual focus on a tripod or monopod and try to discourage the model from moving too much.  Or is that how most people shoot standing models in the studio anyways?

Or maybe switching to f/11 and cranking up the lights would be sufficient ...

Question for buyers or for experienced photogs - does it actually help to put in an image title that the image is XL, XXL, etc. or are multi-megapixel cameras so common that this is of relatively little worth?  And shurely most buyers are aware of how to use image size in their search criteria?

Many of you (I suspect) started out selling stock at IS.  Then at some point, if you're like me, you shoot enough to run into the 15 per week upload limit.  Maybe some of you decide to stick with IS, nurture it, play along with their limits, to eventually go exclusive according to their schedule.

But this question is for the rest of you, who upload to several sites.  When is a good time to stop cutting your teeth on your first micro agency and start applying to the rest of the top tier of sites - when you have a big library (1000+), as soon as you have a modest portfolio (100 or so), or sometime in the middle?  Do you pound as many images as possible into the pipeline as quickly as possible, or do you stalk the agencies patiently, one by one, uploading only a few of your best images in order to get your feet wet?

I haven't been able to find a detailed, hands-on review yet at the usual sites (dpreview.com, imaging-resource.com, photozone.de).  A typical question in the pre-reviews seems to be, "Can the kit lens produce decent 18 mp resolution?"  I would like to see some RAW images produced with the kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) and also with a decent fixed-focal lens (e.g. 50mm f/1.4 USM).

The 18 mp resolution handily fits the istock XXL size limit with some room to spare for leveling, cropping and even moderate downsizing.  If it produces images (with decent lighting and a decent lens) which are high enough quality then I don't think that any budget-conscious still stock photographer with significant sales at istock can ignore this camera (given the limitations and compromises of a "consumer" or "prosumer" body).  Not to mention the potential for stock video 

This quote popped up in another thread.  Apparently a "client" posted this
at a warez site where content is shared illegally.

"good share, shame the kids look so dated. why do they dress
these american kids up in such old and bad fashions...I know
most Americans get clothes from Walmart, but these fake stock
kids would be a last resort for any client job....thanks for upload
....but I need REAL pictures of REAL people.not just badly dressed
models....I see a gap in the market!!!Stock Photographers - any
balls, ??!!??"

Aside from the absurdity of complaining to content providers about
the quality of the stolen content which s/he is enjoying, does this
person have a legitimate complaint?

I rather think that stock, royalty-free images will always tend to contain
bland, Walmart-ish no-name apparel, for reasons of not violating trademarks
or copyrights.

Or maybe what the "client" was complaining about really was 5- or
10-year-old content, and it's just whinging because the latest and most
trendy stock images have not yet been ripped off and shared.

In any case, would anyone care to share some tips about dressing models
for microstock?  Is it Walmart or bust?  Or do you aim for trendy, but
understated fashions from more hip outlets?  I.e. with small or non-existent
logos/labels and without truly distinctive patterns or prints. 

I assume that someone actually plugged into the retail clothing industry
would be able to recognize practically anyone's products in a second based
on color, cut, etc., but the question is, where is the happy medium between
trendy/bland?