Lightning fast is right - literally minutes if not seconds for me, first of the batch is getting reviwed while I categorize second.

Now, if buyers hit with same vengeance when they return to my portfolio, I'll be one happy camper...

I upload with the "normal form" and don't have problems other than description being caught as title - an issue that I'm not sure is not happening in all types of uploads.

Regards,
Adelaide

Same with flash Adelaide, and sometimes causes a problem as description is too long (title field allows no more than 64 characters), so have to trim off the fat

LOL, so do I. Until we do, let's take a pictures of them

There is so much involved in HDR, it's impossible to answer in a framework of a post or two. Basically, there are two main ways to create it, manually, or using specialized software. Manual HDR involves layers and masks from multiple  images (or multiple exposures taken from single RAW file), it was described in great details recently by one of dpreview posters, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=23564289. With software-created HDR you usually are going to have to work with it manually anyway to make it more or less believeable. These two links describe it well as far as CS is concerned:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm

And then, there is whole Photomatix world where images have quite surreal look which some aim for but most hate Second link out of those two above shows some of it too.

Depending on which way you use, you may have different reasons for what you descibe. Hope those links help you locate it.

This one was done using CS3+manual tuning up. Not the best of my images I guess, but it was quite inetresting to overcome technical challenges of this lighting:


 

E510 here holgs. Amazing machnie, feature-packed, light, great image quality. And yes, dust is not an issue

Karimala,

yes, I see that. What I meant was, there is no signs of encription on other sites as well. Maybe not as crucial for other sites though since as Whiz pointed out those do not contain SSN.

Well, my answer was in a context of the post I replied to, which concerned whole submitting/search/sales gamut of issues.

On security issue, I am really not sure what the status is. I certainly cannot see anyone's personal information being in plain view. Absence of a lock or "s" at the end of http is disconcerting but to say honestly I never noticed how it used to be on FT site before all this grand change. However, I glanced at My profile pages at other sites and I see no "s" there either. Am I looking in wrong place or otherwise missing something?

I spend a lot of time and effort on my images and I cannot bear the thought of giving them to a load of incompetent assholes.

I realize that FT gave a lot of valid reasons for frustration, but calling them assholes is uncalled for, IMO. If they end up hurting someone, it will be themselves more than anyone else.

Oh, and if we are making bets on how it's going to end, my bet would be they'll survive this. It takes more than that to bring down company of this scale - unless of course they won't be able to resolve all the technical issues in reasonable time.

Thank you!

yeah, interesting to see how it goes since SS seems to be a steady money maker for most. My images are not appearing in search yet, approved just several hours ago so can't judge the response yet.

I know it sounds weird but the actual model, in this case the original paper bag, is not art.

Photography (or painting) of the object IS art...

Claude

Why, it makes sense... crab is not food but crab meat is!

it was so unremarkable I can't even remember what it was... a red square or a green circle or something on canvas in a big frame... and he paid about 2 million for it. 

Ummmm... something like this?

http://www.csulb.edu/~karenk/20thcwebsite/438final/ah438fin-Info.00001.html

Cricket... I am not sure it's a sound advice, honestly. If as you say IS sales are incredible, then they maybe doing something right. If their standard is one of the highest in the industry, then making itwill ensure the quality of your images. Why would you want to settle on less and hope that buyers won't care. If anything, competition is going to increase.

IMO, don't take it personally. Don't let rejections get to you. When you submit right images with right level of quality, in most cases you get accepted. Rejection is either (most often) reflection of your errors -learn from those, or (less often) reflection of reviewer being only human and making mistakes - shrug about those, re-submit if you strongly believe in the image or just let it go.

Oh, and btw, this is not a theory, I know what I am talking about. I got rejected by IStock twice, realized that limitation of my camera made it incredibly difficult for me to match their quality requirements, waited till new one was in cards, submitted new batch when got it and was accepted right away. Now, here is a thing to think about: those images IStock rejected earlier were accepted at some other agencies... do you think they sell? Nope.

OK, under Preferences-Performance it says:

Available RAM 690 MB, Ideal Range 379-497 RAM, Let Photoshop Use: (user-dfinable number which by default was at 54% and which I set to 416 MB or 60%). Let me know if that helps or you want me to look/try something else