I uploaded my port to Panthermedia, but due to the slow submitting process, I was finishing 10-20 files a day. Now a lot of unfinished files has disappeared.
My wife's port was uploaded earlier, the whole bunch of unfinished files were deleted. In that time I contacted support, they said, they delete unfinished files after 6 months. But our files were uploaded max. 2 month ago. I said, maybe a server failure or something like this.
But now my files and a friend of mine also is in the same situation...
It's ridiculous... When I uploaded the files I selected them carefully, now everything is messed up... Which one was selected and which one was in unfinished section?
Is there something I don't know?

No.
You may want to contact DT support...

It's an another stupid figure-out game @ iStock. Anyway this problem comes from the programmer side of the development.
You have 900 frames (30sec x 30fps), in the reality this means 899 frames because they count from 0. But that's still 899 frames, isn't?

Crestock looses where they want to earn. They pre-select the images, stating they are a long time ago in the industry and they know what and how.
Very sad, my online images are selling well, but I'm unable to upload anything new because they reject everything.

The flexibility of the zoom has no question.
Also the quality at 400mm depends on your habit, how do you hold the lens and what subjects do you shot. A slightly moved image appears to be blurry, unfortunately the IS can blur the image at certain shutter speeds, this is a fact confirmed by many.
According to the tests at the-digital-picture, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113, the lens should be better at 400mm (with increased CA) than at 100mm.
I studied the 300mm f/4 also the 300mm f/2.8, by using them. My opinion is that 300mm is too long for walk-around and too short for occasional wildlife. The 1.4 extender adds a little blur and CA. The most important question, when carrying the 300mm f/2.8, was, can I take with me an another lens today? Carrying this big and heavy lens isn't always the best idea to achieve the best result.
Please don't understand wrong the above opinions, I said what I think about the 100-400, but regardless of this, I love the lens and I think it's the best piece that perfectly covers the tele area. Saying this, I consider you have the 100mm macro, 17-40 or 16-35, and something between wide angle and 100mm. There is no question about, for the best results you need primes, to cover the 100-400's range, 100mm macro, 180mm macro, 300mm and the 1.4extender.

I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company.

Other than microstock will die in years. With today equipment and technology, the contributors along the world will contribute with images never seen before. I see a transition from all kinds of stock to a single one that will collect simply the good images instead of the huge garbage that flickr-like sites do collect. At affordable prices.
You can see this comparing stores or the car industry. I don't think, one store offers better goods than others only because they have higher prices. Also I don't think, a kind of car it's better 3x like the other, only because the price it's 3x.
Those at mid- and macrostock wants to save what can be saved today in terms of money.

My buyers were spreading over the agencies but they didn't took the StockXpert's best match with them. These days I deleted my port @ StockXpert and I was just shocked about which images of mine had the most sales. At the other agencies (probably where StockXpert buyers landed), some of my best sellers at StockXpert, are not downloaded even once.
This is my loss, although my income wasn't altered in the last months.

Who benefits? iStockphoto. For them StockXpert became self-competition. Anyway, it's their business, what is the most important thing, regardless of the fact that StockXpert is gone, the same amount of stock photos are sold every day in the world. Those buyers who were @ StockXpert, they are dissolved between the remaining top agencies. It's normal, somebody will not stop buying images because an agency closes. The key is to be present at many agencies (as photographer) so you won't feel the hole.

Imagine trying to run a big store without actually knowing what products you have on the shelves:  which ones are good, which are junk, which are actually mislabelled and in the wrong boxes... 

Incredible, how precisely hit the nail on the head...
Actually, images has keywords but, all of them are equal (has the same importance). This way no software -analyzing the keywords - can distinguish an image with a yellow umbrella (main subject) from an image where somebody carries an almost invisible yellow umbrella. Without analyzing the actual image, the search engine will produce more and more erroneous results.

This can be a stock photo agency's problem in the future, because a simple search can return hundreds of junk and 1-2 actual results.

There is a simple solution - analyzing the image with an artificial intelligence software. Sounds futuristic? Yes, 10-20% of the images will be never recognized by this software but the remaining 80-90% will be 100% accurate result.
Simple examples:
- today the keywords describe directly or indirectly the image, but without seeing the image, you cannot distinguish the actual meaning from the imaginary meaning: vitamin keyword on image containing banana vs. vitamin pills; milk keyword on images containing cow, chocolate and a glass of milk.
- the color analyzer @DT shows that fixed algorithms decide very erroneously the major colors on the image. An AI software analyzes the colors based on the content of the image

A well written AI module can be trained and can become extremely sharp-eyed if correctlry trained by the editors.

Why AI? Well, the MS business made millionaires over night so every of them can afford such an expensive development, who will realize firs will be the next era's winner.

100% support from my side!

It's the nth case when my image is on hold and waiting for me to upload a model release, but in the reality the image doesn't require mr. I'm unable to create a scout ticket since the image isn't rejected. I created a normal support ticket.
My last image:

The following note was supplied by an administrator:
After serious consideration, we would require model release(s) for accepting this submission into the iStockphoto collection. In the context of this image, we feel that the people are recognizable. Thanks for your understanding.

DT system is better.
Regardless how much good photos has somebody, the bad shoots hasn't to be emphasized. The best shoots do characterize themselves.
The other system (photographer level) is automatically included in this since more best photos means more exposure.

Before Ahh... Ohh..'s.

This video it's standard. Also I don't see why it's balck and white? BW is so old school, an movies like this are old school too.

This movie has no absolute relation with a new camera - here the 1D mark IV. It doesn't show the real pros and cons. Bokeh? Comes from the lens. Cutting and the style shows the personality of the creator.

What about the camera? I miss here a few things (options tested) that 5d mkII really hasn't:
- Dynamic range: it's the worse in movie mode. Also heavy banding appears when speeding up the movie what means 8-bit processing of the frames. But about the dynamic range... Even small lights blow out the image (check out the metro/bus scene here)
- Fast horizontal panning causes skewed image. Yes, the effect seen in soap box cameras/mobile phones is present in 5d mkII. I'm curious, this Mark IV has?
- Painfully slow focusing based on contrast and total lack of autofocus during recording. The predictive AF can be welcome here. For those who give the example of movie cameras... AF is about technology an it's time to have a good one.
- A color movie at ISO 3200, shoot in bulb light. Yes, this setting produces a lot of noise, even on 5d mkII. Note that shooting a photo at 21mpx, filtering and reducing to 2mpx (1920x1080) produces much less noise, I guess there isn't time to do this filtering and resize at the speed of 30fps... But I hope it will be available soon in cameras.